• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Prostitution

Should prostitution be illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 52.3%
  • No

    Votes: 24 36.9%
  • Only under certain circumstances [Please post]

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • Total voters
    65
Contrarian said:
Ponder this: What is the difference between a patron and a prostitute having sex for pay in a brothel, as compared to two actors getting paid to have sex in a porn flick? Why is one a felony and the other "art"?

Actually that's not entirely true. The issue as to why porn actors aren't arrested for prostitution came up one time in a monthly meeting I used to attend with county and state law enforcement officers, the DA and two Judges. As it turns out, and this surprised me, legally it's not prostitution. Prostitution by legal definition is when one person pays another person to preform a sexual act for the sexual gratification of either person. Since both porn actors are paid for the sex they can simply claim they're not doing it for the gratification, rather solely for the money. No gratification, no prostitution. That's why the prostitution charge won't hold up in court.
 
So you're only doing something illegal if you like doing it! :(

That makes sense.... :roll:
 
So think about this.............

If a businessman on convention in Las Vegas, hires 2 "ladies" to have sex with each other, without his physical participation... IT IS LEGAL!!??

Pac you have unearthed one of the great LEGAL LOOPHOLES of all time!! I bet thousands of cases could be over turned, simply by stating they were a VOYEUR!!

Maybe if the "John" pays the "lady" with a $200 bracelet from a local jewelry store and she returns it because she didn't like it.... in the eyes of the law, it was just a DATE!!

It is ridiculous and absurd. Prostitution is a part of everyday life and the prudes of the religious right can't stand the fact that SOMEONE is getting more then they are. And if there were no prostitutes, where would all the tele-evangalists go??? The priests have the young boys all locked up!! Did you ever wonder why there are so many "Gentlemen's Clubs" in the God fearing state of Texas??

I'll give you some interesting comments from a book I've just read: "The End of Faith - Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason", by Sam Harris (Brilliant Book!) -

"In the United States, and in much of the rest of the world, it is currently illegal to seek certain experiences of pleasure. Seek pleasure by forbidden means, even in the privacy of your own home, and men with guns may kick in the door and carry you away to prison... why would anyone want to punish people for engaging in behavior that brings no significant risk of harm to anyone?

The idea of victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin.

It is no accident that people of faith often eant to curtail the private freedoms of others. The impulse has less to do with the history of religion and more to do with its logic, because the very idea of privacy is incompatible with the existence of God. (Remember.. he sees everything.. right??)

To avoid angering God, we need only consider that oral or anal sex between consenting adults remains a criminal offense in thirteen states. Four of these states (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri) prohibit these acts between same sex couples and therefore, effectively prohibiting homosexuality. The other nine ban consentual "sodomy" for everyone (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Missiissippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia)

Pleasure and piety have always had an uneasy relationship."[/I]
 
Contrarian said:
The idea of victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin.
That's quite true in some cases. But in other cases it's just regular people trying to control the lives of everyone else.

Think about "The War on Drugs". Surely there are more than just Christians that support this, even though doing drugs is a victimless crime as of now.
 
I can't believe some idiots actually think prostitution should be legalized. I thought that at least with an issue this blatantly harmfull to society one wouldn't have to go out of ones way to defend their position. Prostitution should be illegal.
 
ConservativeShane said:
I can't believe some idiots actually think prostitution should be legalized. I thought that at least with an issue this blatantly harmfull to society one wouldn't have to go out of ones way to defend their position. Prostitution should be illegal.

I take it since people disagree with your position that, in your mind, makes it OK to call them idiots. Nice.

Since you see prostitution as such an obvious no-brainer, what other moral ills do you think we could solve by making them illegal? How about divorce? Broken homes in this country lead to all kinds of social problems, mainly with the children that emerge from them. We could just make it illegal for couples to divorce, problem solved. Alcohol causes so many problems in this country it's almost amazing. So, why not go back to Prohibition? Another problem solved.
 
Pacridge said:
I take it since people disagree with your position that, in your mind, makes it OK to call them idiots. Nice.

Since you see prostitution as such an obvious no-brainer, what other moral ills do you think we could solve by making them illegal? How about divorce? Broken homes in this country lead to all kinds of social problems, mainly with the children that emerge from them. We could just make it illegal for couples to divorce, problem solved. Alcohol causes so many problems in this country it's almost amazing. So, why not go back to Prohibition? Another problem solved.
You're correct, I shouldn't have said idiots, I guess I was blinded by my bemusement.

Gay marriage is one "moral ill" that comes to mind, however, since gay marriage is already illegal I suppose I can't use that as an example. Keeping gay marriage illegal will at least help keep the number of broken homes down, since gay marriage's legalization in the netherlands has been directly linked to an increase in the number of divorces, out of wed-lock births and cohabitant parents (also known as broken homes).

While on the topic of broken homes, how about the elimination of poverty incentive programs such as welfare? Many so called "welfare queens" have learned to work the system by having government-subsidized out of wed-lock births.

All though statistics show that (contrary to common belief) prohibition worked in it's time, I don't think that criminalization is necessary. There are many adults who are capable of responsibly using alcohol, where as "responsable" and "use of prostitution" are two polar opposites.
 
Contrarian said:
So think about this.............

I don't understand why the element of religion must be introduced into the discussion. Aren't there sufficient secular reasons to 'outlaw' prostitution?

Just another victimless crime, like narcotics. Right?
 
Shane, how do you rationalize your opinions?


America was created as a nation that allowed diversity, freedom to choose for yourself, and the concept of responsibility.

America was created specifically to get away from government control, which England favored and used so much.


You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do. Saying you do is saying you have a higher claim on their life than they do.

Nobody is supposed to own anyone else, nor any part about them.



Stop trying to control things that do not concern you. What you do with your life is your own decision, and you must respect the right of everyone else to live their lives as they see fit.
 
Gabo said:
Shane, how do you rationalize your opinions?


America was created as a nation that allowed diversity, freedom to choose for yourself, and the concept of responsibility.

America was created specifically to get away from government control, which England favored and used so much.


You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do. Saying you do is saying you have a higher claim on their life than they do.

Nobody is supposed to own anyone else, nor any part about them.



Stop trying to control things that do not concern you. What you do with your life is your own decision, and you must respect the right of everyone else to live their lives as they see fit.
American was created as a nation for people to have freedom of religion (not freedom from religion). America was not created to get away from the wide umbrella of "government control", but more specificall to get away from taxation (specifically taxation without representation). Liberals have brought around "freedom from religion" and continually fight for increased taxation, two ideals which our nation was most definetly not founded on.

Oh, and "You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do.", wrong. What about murder, should murder be legal? Of course not, because the government has every right to ban anything and everything that would harm society. Prostitution harms society, and therefore does concern me and the government.

Now I can tell your a libertarian, and therefore will never be taken seriously in politics, but between you and me, between a small government conservative and an anarchist libertarian, I should tell you that the world needs government. Yes, big government is dangerous, but the only thing more dangerous than big government is no government.

"I'll take big business over big government any day" -Mark W. Smith

“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” - President Ronald Reagan
 
Gabo said:
even though doing drugs is a victimless crime as of now.
Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?
 
ConservativeShane said:
Oh, and "You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do.", wrong. What about murder, should murder be legal? Of course not, because the government has every right to ban anything and everything that would harm society. Prostitution harms society, and therefore does concern me and the government.
Murder is an act that violates someone else's rights.

That violation of rights is what isn't allowed.

You somehow believe it is wrong for a regular person to violate rights, yet you find nothing wrong if the government violates our rights... That is illogical.


ConservativeShane said:
Now I can tell your a libertarian, and therefore will never be taken seriously in politics,
That is such a lie. People who disregard others deserve no say in politics.

The libertarian party happens to be the biggest 3rd party, and grows larger all the time. Not only that, but we are able to use our ability of deterring votes from the big parties to get them to act more on our terms.


ConservativeShane said:
but between you and me, between a small government conservative and an anarchist libertarian, I should tell you that the world needs government. Yes, big government is dangerous, but the only thing more dangerous than big government is no government.
Libertarianism is NOT anarchy, and it is NOT no government.

Libertarianism simply gets rid of all the unnecessary parts of government, only leaving in the justice system having to do with all our natural rights.



ConservativeShane said:
"I'll take big business over big government any day" -Mark W. Smith

“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” - President Ronald Reagan
Just like to add that both quotes are quite libertarian.




Fantasea said:
Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?
First of all, if drugs were legal a husband could afford them while still supporting his family.

Second, the wife shouldn't have married the husband if she disagreed with his drug habits, nor should she have had a baby with a drug user if she was afraid of the consequences.
 
I just been watching with total amusement how uncomfortable Fant and his new clone CShane become at the thought of individuals doing what they want with their own bodies. I don't think you guys will be satisfied until you regulate the moral behavior of everyone in the U.S. As you say Fant... twisted your knickers?

You said earlier: I don't understand why the element of religion must be introduced into the discussion. Aren't there sufficient secular reasons to 'outlaw' prostitution?

Just another victimless crime, like narcotics. Right?


The citing of religiousity and its influence on American Juris Prudence depicts the genesis of some of our outdated laws. These laws evolved as a direct response to religious dogma. While there may be secular reasons for curtailing prostitution or narcotics (ie. public health issues or related crime), they are not sufficient on a secular basis to directly outlaw regulated forms of these "vices". Our governments and laws have time and again permitted previously forbidden activities in return for profit participation by the government. I think there is selective enforcement at work here. Pick the vice that pays the most and condemn the rest.

Shall I point out one of the favorite activities of one of your "moral", family values gurus.... Bill Bennett. The man is a compulsive gambler (and probabily doodles and occassional hooker as a high roller in casinos too!!). Do you think that more people are impacted by the negative effects of gambling in America that prostitution? Do you think it possible that more Daddy's piss away their paychecks in LEGAL casinos, leaving Mom and the kids out on the street? Is that different than a drug addict? Well, they decided to allow that vice because it brings millions of dollars to the tax rolls.

The second highest source of taxes for many states comes from the sale of alcohol. Do you think it possible (oh my!) that people under the influence of booze might do bad things like.... murder, robbery, DWI manslaughter, wife beating, assault etc etc... or that they cost the taxpayer millions from slow death in de-tox, blowing up from cirrosis of the liver, diabetes and what ever else crawls out of a bottle. But it's LEGAL because there is too much money in it.

Why don't we just bust all the fat people for causing a major threat to public health... afterall, they are walking death traps that will cause undue strain on the health system and ultimately leave their families abandoned when they keel over clutching their chests from a massive heart attack?

Blue Laws prevent some retail stores in certain states / cities from operation (purely motivated by religion), where others decided the sales tax revenue was too much to pass up.

If you are going to apply the standard at least make it uniform. Then we can all live in Fantasea land with you Squire Shane as the guard dog of moral values and have Sunday dinner with Ozzie and Harriet!!

By the way young Shane, it is nice that you joined the forum, and I certainly appreciate intellectual banter, whether I agree with you or not. You are obviously very intelligent and seemingly raised by a nice conservative family with high moral values. But, didn't your Mother teach you to respect your elders and not to call other people idiots?

You should be ashamed of yourself... now go to your room. Hey Fant, let's bring back the old conservative rule...Children should be seen and not heard!!
 
Shhh Contrarain!!!



You'll give them more ideas on what they can control next!!! :eek:
 
Gabo said:
First of all, if drugs were legal a husband could afford them while still supporting his family.

Second, the wife shouldn't have married the husband if she disagreed with his drug habits, nor should she have had a baby with a drug user if she was afraid of the consequences.
You used fifty words to avoid answering the question. Let me repeat it and ask for a simple, direct answer. One word will do.

Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?
 
Contrarian said:
I just been watching with total amusement how uncomfortable Fant and his new clone CShane become at the thought of individuals doing what they want with their own bodies. I don't think you guys will be satisfied until you regulate the moral behavior of everyone in the U.S. As you say Fant... twisted your knickers?

You said earlier: I don't understand why the element of religion must be introduced into the discussion. Aren't there sufficient secular reasons to 'outlaw' prostitution?

Just another victimless crime, like narcotics. Right?


The citing of religiousity and its influence on American Juris Prudence depicts the genesis of some of our outdated laws. These laws evolved as a direct response to religious dogma. While there may be secular reasons for curtailing prostitution or narcotics (ie. public health issues or related crime), they are not sufficient on a secular basis to directly outlaw regulated forms of these "vices".
Tell me which of our laws is not based on one of the Ten Commandments’. Is it possible to construct legislation that can be construed as not being rooted in therein?

Our governments and laws have time and again permitted previously forbidden activities in return for profit participation by the government. I think there is selective enforcement at work here. Pick the vice that pays the most and condemn the rest.
The problem with legislatures, at every level, is that they are populated by individuals who are a little short on, among other things, honesty, integrity, intelligence, independence, and courage. As a group, they see their primary responsibility as their re-election. To this end, they pander to any and all constituencies from which they solicit support in the form of contributions and votes. They tow the party line.

Shall I point out one of the favorite activities of one of your "moral", family values gurus.... Bill Bennett. The man is a compulsive gambler (and probabily doodles and occassional hooker as a high roller in casinos too!!).
No need to. The media did an excellent job of doing that. Speculation on things not knowable is SOP for the socialist-lib-Dems smear machine operators. Are you one of those?

Is there anyone of intelligence who does not understand that gambling, per se, is harmless for the masses much the same as alcohol? These same persons also understand that gambling, like alcohol, clutches some by the throat in the form of a horribly destructive addiction that can ruin their lives and the lives of their family members.

Do you think that more people are impacted by the negative effects of gambling in America that prostitution? Do you think it possible that more Daddy's piss away their paychecks in LEGAL casinos, leaving Mom and the kids out on the street? Is that different than a drug addict?
No. Both are economically unproductive in that they suck money out of people and give them misery in return.

Case in point. It is interesting that in the Bahamas, language printed in bold letters on every casino entrance door specifically prohibits anyone residing there from even entering. Locals refer to those large, beautiful buildings as temples. Why? Because that is where the tourists go to make their donations.

Well, they decided to allow that vice because it brings millions of dollars to the tax rolls.
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.

The second highest source of taxes for many states comes from the sale of alcohol. Do you think it possible (oh my!) that people under the influence of booze might do bad things like.... murder, robbery, DWI manslaughter, wife beating, assault etc etc... or that they cost the taxpayer millions from slow death in de-tox, blowing up from cirrosis of the liver, diabetes and what ever else crawls out of a bottle. But it's LEGAL because there is too much money in it.
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.

Why don't we just bust all the fat people for causing a major threat to public health... afterall, they are walking death traps that will cause undue strain on the health system and ultimately leave their families abandoned when they keel over clutching their chests from a massive heart attack?
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.

Blue Laws prevent some retail stores in certain states / cities from operation (purely motivated by religion), where others decided the sales tax revenue was too much to pass up.
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.

If you are going to apply the standard at least make it uniform. Then we can all live in Fantasea land with you Squire Shane as the guard dog of moral values and have Sunday dinner with Ozzie and Harriet!!

By the way young Shane, it is nice that you joined the forum, and I certainly appreciate intellectual banter, whether I agree with you or not. You are obviously very intelligent and seemingly raised by a nice conservative family with high moral values. But, didn't your Mother teach you to respect your elders and not to call other people idiots?

You should be ashamed of yourself... now go to your room. Hey Fant, let's bring back the old conservative rule...Children should be seen and not heard!!
While I agree with you that one should keep the discussion moving along in a totally civil and respectful manner, I must add that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so. It requires strong self-control to resist responding in kind to some of the disagreeable posts that show up in this forum.

In the matter of , “Children …”, children still learn much more about becoming successful, interesting adults when, in the presence of their elders, the listen politely, speak when spoken to, and, in general, while keeping their place, observe the social intercourse of persons more sophisticated they.

Parents who permit their children to ‘hog the show’ usually get what they deserve, dolts who are unwelcome outside the immediate family.

On the subject of legislatures, I think, more than anything else, it is the ‘career politician’ that is at the root of all of the ‘problems’ we lay at the feet of government. These guys, and now, gals, too, have to keep themselves busy creating new ways to inflict misery on the public.

Term limits make perfect sense to me.
 
Gabo, I won't quote that long winded entry because no one should have to read it again. The only point you seemed to try to make was : "Both quotes are quite libertarian". Well, both quotes were quite anti-big government (not anti-government), I was just trying to show you the similarities between your no government beliefs and my small government beliefs.
 
Fantasea said:
You used fifty words to avoid answering the question. Let me repeat it and ask for a simple, direct answer. One word will do.

Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?
No.



To elaborate:
Wasteful spending is not a crime. Like I said before, there need to be consequences for your actions. The mother consented to marrying and making a baby with a drug addict, so she is responsible for what happens as well.
 
ConservativeShane said:
Gabo, I won't quote that long winded entry because no one should have to read it again. The only point you seemed to try to make was : "Both quotes are quite libertarian". Well, both quotes were quite anti-big government (not anti-government), I was just trying to show you the similarities between your no government beliefs and my small government beliefs.
I'm completely for small government.
It is my entire mission for our society.


The difference between your view of small government and mine is that my view is not skewed based upon my own morals and beliefs. I favor no one in the government I desire. A truly fair society is one in which nobody has control over anyone else, but each individual is free and responsible for themselves.
 
I'm sorry Fant, I had things to attend to...

Your remark: "You used fifty words to avoid answering the question. Let me repeat it and ask for a simple, direct answer."

You seem to have addressed each point individually, but a simplified version would be:

1) All vices (drugs, liquor, gambling, porn, over-eating, gun ownership etc) carry with them the potential for disaster with a deep social impact. However in a free society, it is not the job of goverment to legislate morality. We are suppose to be free to make our own decisions.

2) Government, as you have so aptly pointed out, has only one concern. Re-election. Hence, they go the way of the wind and respond to popular ideas regardless of the hypocracy of that action. In particular, when a state or local goverment has the ability to profit in a big way, they jump on the band wagon and support the very same vice they had prosecuted not long ago.

3) Rather than being tagged with one label, which for some reason you seem to enjoy doing...I try to look at each issue on it's own merit. One does not need to spew the party line on every issue. Being an independent thinker, I distain hypocracy. That was my point with the nonsense moral platform of the less than honorable Mr. Bennett, and many like him. It is very simple - if your talk the talk, walk the walk.
 
Contrarian said:
1) All vices (drugs, liquor, gambling, porn, over-eating, gun ownership etc) carry with them the potential for disaster with a deep social impact. However in a free society, it is not the job of goverment to legislate morality. We are suppose to be free to make our own decisions.

Contrarian, Don't you find it ironic that the mantra of the "right" seems to be "less government regulations, smaller government" But that mantra only applies to businesses and large corporations. When it comes to the individual they want to control and dictate.
 
You are absolutely correct Pac. The "party" line is for small govt which isn't responsible for running people's lives.... except when it comes to their pet issues like morals. This is particularly true with corporate issues (Enron, Tyco etc) to the benefit of the corp execs and the detriment of the shareholders and workers. It is part of the hypocracy that those leaning to the right seem to ignore.
 
Pacridge said:
Contrarian, Don't you find it ironic that the mantra of the "right" seems to be "less government regulations, smaller government" But that mantra only applies to businesses and large corporations. When it comes to the individual they want to control and dictate.
The conservative right believe in smaller government, meaning economically. Low taxes, less government regulations, an end to the welfare state and less government waste, to name a few examples.

"I'll take big business over big government anyday." - Mark W Smith
 
ConservativeShane said:
The conservative right believe in smaller government, meaning economically. Low taxes, less government regulations, an end to the welfare state and less government waste, to name a few examples.
Going to the right does not mean smaller government all around.
Like Pacridge said, conservatives believe in economic freedom but not in personal freedom.


The party that believes in both is the Libertarian party. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom