Legalisation of prostitution?

pH

catholicireland wrote:

Care? Why should we care for people who break the law? Prostitutes are not dumb, they know its illegal, they know its wrong and filthy but they do it because they are hooked on herion or crack cocaine.

So if you don't care about these people (therefore any harm they do to themselves is irrelevent) please explain why a person offering sex for money should be illegal.

You could say the same about illegal drugs which destroy peoples lives.

Ahhh, so we should throw drug addicts in jail to stop them destroying their lives. A stay in a sh*thole like the joy and a prison record is exactly what they need to straighten themselves out.

You seem not to have fully thought this through, do you care about these people or not?

Many things (like extreme sports) destroy people's lives. People should be protected and educated away from self harm, not criminalised for it,

I dont see why people would want this legalised anyway.? Some people on here are speaking about it so passionatley as if they have something to gain by it being legal!

Therefore by your own argument you have something to gain by it remaining illegal? Perhaps you run a small pornography distribution company and are worried at the effect that legalising prostitution might have on your business.

Prostitution has been around longer than our current drug problems. If you are of a certain sex and age prostitution is a viable alternative to poverty. Now a society that no one needed to resort to prostitution to escape poverty would be a wonderful place, and probably one with very little prostitution (but there would still be some!).

murphaph

Interesting that every reference to prostitutes has been in the female. Men can be prostitutes too ya know.

<philip waits for tirade of religious outrage>

CatholicIreland-your reference to rapists is pathetic. If anything, prostitutes provide a way for certain individuals to have sex without raping people. Think about it.

I wonder how much tax revenue is lost because it is not legal.

Germany had a dilemna recently when legislation was passed that forced companies with more than a certain number of employees to take on a certain number of apprentices each year. Technically, prostitution is a trade in german law apparently and they had to jig the legislation so large brothel owners would be exempt from the new law.

Just for fun, a friend of mine lives in an apartment block right across from a 7 storey brothel called 'Pascha' in Cologne. It's pretty famous in Germany cos it's huge!

Here's a good story

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

Here's a good story

I like the line that 'Stefan, Pascha's very own midget, kept the tally chart'!

Victor

murphaph wrote:

Here's a good story

Yore ma is so ugly she had to pay people to have sex with her!

AARRRGH

Tomlowe wrote:

whadaya reckon, would it bring all the pervs into ireland or would it free us from the shackles of 1950s catholicism?

IMO there is absolutely no reason why prostitution should be illegal. What's wrong with paying for sex? Nothing.

And it doesn't degrade/whatever women. I know two prostitutes and they do it completely by choice. And they do not find it horrible.

Victor

pH wrote:

Wheras the actual sex act and money changing hands may be technically legal, any attempts to offer or procure sex for money is illegal http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993_20.html making prostitution effectively illegal in Ireland. So random people who bump into each other in private property can have sex for money as long as neither one of them asks or offers. Seems like only psychics can be legal johns or prostitues.

Can you point to the specific piece that makes it illegal on private property?

dublindude

dublindude wrote:

I know two prostitutes

Now all you need is to meet a major figure in the Dublin underworld and an open minded priest, and you have all you need to become a Sunday World journo...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

black_jack

catholicireland wrote:

Care? Why should we care for people who break the law? Prostitutes are not dumb, they know its illegal, they know its wrong and filthy but they do it because they are hooked on herion or crack cocaine.

Prostitution is called the worlds old profession for a reason. Theres murals advertising brothels in the ruins of Pompei, I suspect prostitution has been around since we developed barter.

The suggestion that prostitution is directly and only directly based in response to the existance of two drugs which respectively have been roaming Ireland for 200 years and 10 years, is just laughable. The Monty was our red light disctrict when Joyce was a boy.

You could say the same about illegal drugs which destroy peoples lives.

You could say more about the legal drug alcohol which destroys more lives than all the illegal drugs combined. Should we ban that?

I dont see why people would want this legalised anyway.? Some people on here are speaking about it so passionatley as if they have something to gain by it being legal!

So tell me Catholic Ireland why do you oppose prostitution?

Is it,

A) that it locks women into a cycle of drugs, and exposes them to criminals, who get fat on the "back" of their labour

that it spreads STDs?

C) That prostitution is morally and ethically wrong

If it's

A) Well legalising it will allow regulation, women working in licenced tax paying brothels where they choose to work, and aren't forced and drug abuse isn't tolerated.

Licenced brothels would have health and safety standards, prostitutes could insist on condoms and would have the law to back up their right

C) Well maybe. Never having been or not feeling inclinded to sleep with a woman who I have to pay for the pleasure of doing so I am not a supporter of prostitution. However I am a pragamatist. Prostitute pre dates heroin and crack and your precious catholicism, and I suspect it will be around after all three die out, and therefore theres no point trying to outlaw what we've been doing since we figured out if we pay enough we get what we want.

Do you find prostitutes offensive? Didn't Jesus allow his feet to be washed by a prostitute and not judge her? But love her?

Don't you find a modicum of self loathing for a self righteous attitude of someone publically esposing a religion whose major tenant includes, "Let he is without sin cast the first stone"

You remind me of those "Christians" who really need to be thumped incessantly over the head with a St James bible while I shout;


HAVE. YOU. READ. THE. DAMN. THING!!!!!

Ajnag

Speaking from experiance(not literally of course ), The continintal experiance has its positives in terms of regulation and safety not to mention the tax generated. Although there are some things id tend to worry about.

First up, sex districts are sleazy ****holes, so any moves to legalise should have discreationary measures. Second would be regulation to prevent exposure of the industry to under 18's. Third would be to introduce drug testing such that any woman suspected to be working to feed a drug addiction would be offered treatment or refused a licence.

Also, there should be a mandatory certification system for anyone who wish's to be a manager within the industry as well as regulations to set rules for the relationship between employee's and employers.

defiantshrimp

Ajnag wrote:

Speaking from experiance(not literally of course ), The continintal experiance has its positives in terms of regulation and safety not to mention the tax generated. Although there are some things id tend to worry about.

First up, sex districts are sleazy ****holes, so any moves to legalise should have discreationary measures. Second would be regulation to prevent exposure of the industry to under 18's. Third would be to introduce drug testing such that any woman suspected to be working to feed a drug addiction would be offered treatment or refused a licence.

Also, there should be a mandatory certification system for anyone who wish's to be a manager within the industry as well as regulations to set rules for the relationship between employee's and employers.

A great idea. This would be a huge improvement over what we have today!

AndyWarhol

black_jack wrote:

Prostitution is called the worlds old profession for a reason. Theres murals advertising brothels in the ruins of Pompei, I suspect prostitution has been around since we developed barter.

The suggestion that prostitution is directly and only directly based in response to the existance of two drugs which respectively have been roaming Ireland for 200 years and 10 years, is just laughable. The Monty was our red light disctrict when Joyce was a boy.

Just because prostitution is the "world's oldest profession" doesn't mean it's right. You could equally argue that man has killed since they inhabited the earth, but one would struggle to find someone who thought killing another human was right. There is something in this country called morals, a status-quo on which our laws are based on.

Most people in this country would not be practising christians and therefore one might ask where they get their sense of what is right and what is wrong? Inherently people know that christian (indeed islamic etc.) no-no's such as killing, stealing, adultery, violence etc. are wrong. Why is this? We might deny christian values, but really most law-abiding citizens are anonymous christians who look to the government to dictate what is right and what is wrong through the legal system.

So I ask, from the point of view of morals, should it be permitted to allow women to go out and prostitute themselves for the pleasure of others? The psychological effect on the woman (indeed the marriages that would be destroyed from having such an anonymous outlet for men in society) is far greater than any percieved 'benefits' that you anticipate will come from prostitution.

Now I think were we to put the question of whether we should legalise prostitution out for referendum, I'd say you would get a resounding no to such an idea.
[/QUOTE]

black_jack wrote:

You could say more about the legal drug alcohol which destroys more lives than all the illegal drugs combined. Should we ban that?

Well one can drink themselves to death and smoke themselves to death, but it is self-inflicted. Prostitution leaves emotional and psychological scars not just on the user but also on the victim. This is the key difference. Smoking used to inflict discomfort on others by means of passive smoking, this has now been addressed through our laws and is no longer the case thanks to the smoking ban.

black_jack wrote:

So tell me Catholic Ireland why do you oppose prostitution?

That question comes across in a rather patronising tone. Catholic Ireland obviously has a strong moral base that completely opposes the proposition in question.

black_jack wrote:

Is it,

A) that it locks women into a cycle of drugs, and exposes them to criminals, who get fat on the "back" of their labour

that it spreads STDs?

C) That prostitution is morally and ethically wrong

If it's

A) Well legalising it will allow regulation, women working in licenced tax paying brothels where they choose to work, and aren't forced and drug abuse isn't tolerated.

Licenced brothels would have health and safety standards, prostitutes could insist on condoms and would have the law to back up their right

C) Well maybe. Never having been or not feeling inclinded to sleep with a woman who I have to pay for the pleasure of doing so I am not a supporter of prostitution. However I am a pragamatist. Prostitute pre dates heroin and crack and your precious catholicism, and I suspect it will be around after all three die out, and therefore theres no point trying to outlaw what we've been doing since we figured out if we pay enough we get what we want.

Do you find prostitutes offensive? Didn't Jesus allow his feet to be washed by a prostitute and not judge her? But love her?

Don't you find a modicum of self loathing for a self righteous attitude of someone publically esposing a religion whose major tenant includes, "Let he is without sin cast the first stone"

You remind me of those "Christians" who really need to be thumped incessantly over the head with a St James bible while I shout;

HAVE. YOU. READ. THE. DAMN. THING!!!!!

Well you obviously know it all and answer your own questions for yourself.

Jesus allowed his feet to be washed by a prostitute, yes. Jesus welcomes all sinners before him. No matter what you have done, Jesus will always forgive.

So what if somebody wants to make known his religous views? A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy.

That comment about thumping someone over the head with a Bible is rather insulting. And even if he weren't to have read the Bible makes him no less a Catholic. You've probably got life all sussed for yourself.

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

Just because prostitution is the "world's oldest profession" doesn't mean it's right. You could equally argue that man has killed since they inhabited the earth, but one would struggle to find someone who thought killing another human was right.

If such were the case we wouldn't see any killing done. No murder, no war, no capital punishment. Given that we do see all of those, it doesn't seem like its that hard to find someone who thinks killing another human is right (or at least necessary).

AndyWarhol wrote:

There is something in this country called morals, a status-quo on which our laws are based on.

I think that the law has just a little bit more behind it that a supposed set of morals.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Most people in this country would not be practising christians and therefore one might ask where they get their sense of what is right and what is wrong?

Perhaps through realising that actions that do harm to others aren't good things? After all, if you do nasty things to someone else, what is to prevent them doing the same back to you?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Inherently people know that christian (indeed islamic etc.) no-no's such as killing, stealing, adultery, violence etc. are wrong. Why is this?

Why are they equally considered wrong in other parts of the world where those religions are not historically fundamental to the development of the society?

AndyWarhol wrote:

We might deny christian values, but really most law-abiding citizens are anonymous christians who look to the government to dictate what is right and what is wrong through the legal system.

I don't think so. Laws develop over time, based at least in part on older laws. Go back before christianity arrived here, and there are laws. Those are what formed the basis (however many times removed) for the laws of today. Whoever originated the first laws, however many millenia ago, wasn't using christianity as their basis for it.

AndyWarhol wrote:

So I ask, from the point of view of morals, should it be permitted to allow women to go out and prostitute themselves for the pleasure of others?

If they are willing to do it, what gives you the right to prevent them? What gives you the right to impose your moral oppinion on anyone for anything?

AndyWarhol wrote:

The psychological effect on the woman (indeed the marriages that would be destroyed from having such an anonymous outlet for men in society) is far greater than any percieved 'benefits' that you anticipate will come from prostitution.

Is that an oppinion, or do you have facts to back it up?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Now I think were we to put the question of whether we should legalise prostitution out for referendum, I'd say you would get a resounding no to such an idea.

Given the debate that is ongoing here, with what I would assume would be a cross section of society, perhaps that resounding no is nowhere near as loud as you believe it to be.

AndyWarhol wrote:

So what if somebody wants to make known his religous views? A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy.

No, it isn't. Your faith should be a personal thing, between you and whatever you choose to believe it. Inflicting it on others, who do not share it, and attempting to force them to follow your beliefs is wrong.

But this probably isn't the right forum for a debate on religion and morality.

black_jack

AndyWarhol wrote:

Just because prostitution is the "world's oldest profession" doesn't mean it's right.

And I'm not saying is right it just means theres little point in trying to outlaw what has been standard practice in society since y'know, before society existed.

You could equally argue that man has killed since they inhabited the earth, but one would struggle to find someone who thought killing another human was right. There is something in this country called morals, a status-quo on which our laws are based on.

Yeah and er, prostitute isn't murder. Your logic isn't, the suggest you're making is paedohilia is justified, however concentiual sex between adults even if a financial transaction occurs to create this relationship doesn't equal murder. Your argument is like saying "people double parked in Medivial dublin doesn't that make it ok?"

Most people in this country would not be practising christians and therefore one might ask where they get their sense of what is right and what is wrong? Inherently people know that christian (indeed islamic etc.)

What does this wittering mean? What does there system of moral got to do with anything. We've had this conversation earlier when you couldn't defend your point about basic morality coming from christianity despite these societies having morality and systems of government similiar to christinaity but predating christian infulences.

no-no's such as killing, stealing, adultery, violence etc. are wrong. Why is this? We might deny christian values, but really most law-abiding citizens are anonymous christians who look to the government to dictate what is right and what is wrong through the legal system.

So if Abortion was legalised that'd be okay with you? Or Divorice is divorce okay.

And How does killiing and violence equal prostitution?

So I ask, from the point of view of morals, should it be permitted to allow women to go out and prostitute themselves for the pleasure of others? The psychological effect on the woman (indeed the marriages that would be destroyed from having such an anonymous outlet for men in society) is far greater than any percieved 'benefits' that you anticipate will come from prostitution.

Okay the above is an opinion which states opinion as fact so I'll sure you'll using your proven track record you'll be able to support them.

And My point is not celebrate or support prostitution but I've asked you to address the arguments, so are you opposed to better control of the trafficking of women, better health and safety standards for prostitutes, or taxation of income, or what?

Now I think were we to put the question of whether we should legalise prostitution out for referendum, I'd say you would get a resounding no to such an idea.

Uh huh and if you got a poll about whether we like puppies or not you'd get a resounding "NO". Suggesting the public at large will be opposed to prostitute makes a mockery of the simpsons burlsque house episode.

Well one can drink themselves to death and smoke themselves to death, but it is self-inflicted. Prostitution leaves emotional and psychological scars not just on the user but also on the victim. This is the key difference.

And the families of smokers and drunks? Those beaten by drunks and drunken violence. Are not the children and wives of drunkes also victims? Also, er isn't a single man meeting a prostitute, who isnt a drug addict, not under the thrall of a pimp, a harmless crime?

Whats the difference?

Smoking used to inflict discomfort on others by means of passive smoking, this has now been addressed through our laws and is no longer the case thanks to the smoking ban.

And the family members and childrens living with smokers?

That question comes across in a rather patronising tone.

Just "rather"?. Note to self, must try harder.

Catholic Ireland obviously has a strong moral base that completely opposes the proposition in question.

Strong moral base=lack of coherant argument or logic.

Hey you say potato, I say, you can't make a point.

Well you obviously know it all and answer your own questions for yourself.

Jesus allowed his feet to be washed by a prostitute, yes. Jesus welcomes all sinners before him. No matter what you have done, Jesus will always forgive.

So the irony about holding people in contempt is just what? Look what are you? The last member of the cast of lost?

Jesus allowed his feet to be washed by a prostitute, QED it's wrong to hold prostitutes in contempt.


So what if somebody wants to make known his religous views? A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy.

How about parading his status a catholic while stating beliefs that run contray with the philosophy of the new testmenant.

That comment about thumping someone over the head with a Bible is rather insulting.

Gosh, no!

And even if he weren't to have read the Bible makes him no less a Catholic. You've probably got life all sussed for yourself.

So lets me get this clear if he'd not read the word of god and understood it that'd not make him less of a catholic, one of the most absurdly dogmatic religions on this planet?!?

I may not got life sorted but I can suss a paradox when I sees one.

AndyWarhol

black_jack wrote:

And I'm not saying is right it just means theres little point in trying to outlaw what has been standard practice in society since y'know, before society existed.

The fact is prostitution is outlawed. Why do you think that is? Because the majority of people say so. Why is this? Because something inside them tells them it is wrong. Why is this? Because people have fundamental morals; that is, to do what is right and good.

black_jack wrote:

Yeah and er, prostitute isn't murder. Your logic isn't, the suggest you're making is paedohilia is justified, however concentiual sex between adults even if a financial transaction occurs to create this relationship doesn't equal murder. Your argument is like saying "people double parked in Medivial dublin doesn't that make it ok?"

Ok so here we introduce consent into the cauldron. Say the child were consenting to a paedophile? Say nobody on earth ever found out about the act? Now is it right? I would say no, the law says it is no because most people say no. Why is this? Because people have inherent morals that sex with children is wrong, murder is wrong, etc., etc.

black_jack wrote:

What does this wittering mean? What does there system of moral got to do with anything. We've had this conversation earlier when you couldn't defend your point about basic morality coming from christianity despite these societies having morality and systems of government similiar to christinaity but predating christian infulences.

What do you mean morals have nothing got to do with anything. Yes they do, for without a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, what do we base our laws on? Western society is dominated by a legal system founded in christianity and there's no denying this fact. There may have been prior ruling systems, but these have been overcome. Even as recently as WW2 when Pope Pious XII spoke out against sterilization and racist marriage regulations in Nazi Germany.

black_jack wrote:

So if Abortion was legalised that'd be okay with you? Or Divorice is divorce okay.

No it certainly would not be ok. The santuary of marriage is a most sacred one, and I don't understand why people even bother getting 'married' into churches these days when in fact they have no intention of going to Mass or educating their children under the guidance of God.

black_jack wrote:

And How does killiing and violence equal prostitution?

Killing and violence are both wrong, that's what I said, you must agree though?

black_jack wrote:

Okay the above is an opinion which states opinion as fact so I'll sure you'll using your proven track record you'll be able to support them.

And My point is not celebrate or support prostitution but I've asked you to address the arguments, so are you opposed to better control of the trafficking of women, better health and safety standards for prostitutes, or taxation of income, or what?

Oh so what is your point then? You see none of these decisions would arise in the first place if people realised that engaging in such activities is not only illegal, but inherently wrong. There are other ways to live one's life without having to go down that road.

black_jack wrote:

Uh huh and if you got a poll about whether we like puppies or not you'd get a resounding "NO". Suggesting the public at large will be opposed to prostitute makes a mockery of the simpsons burlsque house episode.

I'd say most people would vote no. And besides, I don't think any government would even consider holding such a referendum; why do you think that is?

black_jack wrote:

And the families of smokers and drunks? Those beaten by drunks and drunken violence. Are not the children and wives of drunkes also victims? Also, er isn't a single man meeting a prostitute, who isnt a drug addict, not under the thrall of a pimp, a harmless crime?

Whats the difference?

A single man meeting a prostitute to engage in sexual perversion is dispicable. Sure if people like you with your liberal agenda had their way we'd be living in Huxley's Brave New World before we knew it.

black_jack wrote:

And the family members and childrens living with smokers?

Quite irresponsible if you ask me. Some people say we should make laws to cover this kind of scenario. I say, if you had any respect for yourself as a family man, you wouldn't expose your family in such a way; you'd abide by your responsibilities and follow what is right.

black_jack wrote:

Strong moral base=lack of coherant argument or logic.

Hey you say potato, I say, you can't make a point.

Someone who lives their lives by a strong moral base as you call it lives a richer life for it and does not have to constantly justify what they see around them for themselves. You cling on to all your worldly possesions that is your little boat in an infinite See, but I've got my eye fixed firmly on God who'll lead me from my boat and walk with me across the water.

black_jack wrote:

So the irony about holding people in contempt is just what? Look what are you? The last member of the cast of lost?

I'm not claiming to have all the answers although I have confidence in 2000 years of truth whereas you fail to realise that your debonair nihilism is really just a cosmic joke. In your case nothing is really of consequence, for me everything is of consequence, because everything has been redeemed by Christ.

black_jack wrote:

How about parading his status a catholic while stating beliefs that run contray with the philosophy of the new testmenant.

Who's to say he may have said so out of ignorance? He can answer for himself surely?

black_jack wrote:

So lets me get this clear if he'd not read the word of god and understood it that'd not make him less of a catholic, one of the most absurdly dogmatic religions on this planet?!?

I may not got life sorted but I can suss a paradox when I sees one.

You can joke about how 'absurdly dogmatic' the Catholic Church is. Remember you're just a little man of 6 billion on a small planet, why don't you open your mind just a little and see that the Catholic Church is not there to opress and supress, but to reach out to everyone and guide them.
And I don't know the bible inside out, upside down like perhaps the Pope and his Cardinals do. No earthly being is a guru of infinite knowlege, but we all have our role in the world.

bonkey

AndyWarhol wrote:

that the Catholic Church is not there to opress and supress, but to reach out to everyone and guide them.

Including gays and lesbians who acknowledge the wrongness of their condition, those who've had abortions or divorces, as long as they seek forgiveness for their sinful actions...and so on and so forth.

There is a very, very fine line between guidance and oppression. The catholic church moved from the oppressive side to the guidance side when it lost the power to remain oppressive.

A single man meeting a prostitute to engage in sexual perversion is dispicable.

This is your idea of guidance? No discussion? No if, buts, or maybes? Its just plain out despicable?

What if money doesn't change hands? What if I wine and dine a girl, and at the end of the night end up in the sack with her? I've effectively traded money for sex there. Also despicable?

Is it ultimately just sex outside marriage that you (or the Catholic Church) find despicable?

jc

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

The fact is prostitution is outlawed. Why do you think that is? Because the majority of people say so.

No, because the law says so.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Why is this? Because something inside them tells them it is wrong. Why is this? Because people have fundamental morals; that is, to do what is right and good.

But everyone has different ideas as to what is right and wrong.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Ok so here we introduce consent into the cauldron. Say the child were consenting to a paedophile? Say nobody on earth ever found out about the act? Now is it right? I would say no, the law says it is no because most people say no. Why is this? Because people have inherent morals that sex with children is wrong, murder is wrong, etc., etc.

Because a child is not physically or emotionally / mentally capable of dealing with the consequences of sex before a certain age.

Look back through history, and you'll find the ages of marriage and consent have varied a fair bit.

AndyWarhol wrote:

What do you mean morals have nothing got to do with anything. Yes they do, for without a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, what do we base our laws on? Western society is dominated by a legal system founded in christianity and there's no denying this fact.

Odd, I thought I had denied that fact of yours. I would say that the ancient Greece and Rome have contributed just as much to the foundation of western society.

AndyWarhol wrote:

There may have been prior ruling systems, but these have been overcome.

Generally at the point of a sword.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Even as recently as WW2 when Pope Pious XII spoke out against sterilization and racist marriage regulations in Nazi Germany.

But not against the holocaust itself. Why do you suppose that was?

AndyWarhol wrote:

No it certainly would not be ok. The santuary of marriage is a most sacred one, and I don't understand why people even bother getting 'married' into churches these days when in fact they have no intention of going to Mass or educating their children under the guidance of God.

My guess would be a certain ammount of societial pressure.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Killing and violence are both wrong, that's what I said, you must agree though?

Killing and violence are wrong, yes. There are times that they are necessary though.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Oh so what is your point then? You see none of these decisions would arise in the first place if people realised that engaging in such activities is not only illegal, but inherently wrong.

Only in your oppinion. Others do not share it.

AndyWarhol wrote:

There are other ways to live one's life without having to go down that road.

But you give the impression that yours is the only right way. Let me ask you this .. whose moral code do you live by? Your own, or someone elses? I will presume that it is your own, and that you do not wish to live by anyone elses. Why then should anyone else live by yours?

AndyWarhol wrote:

A single man meeting a prostitute to engage in sexual perversion is dispicable.

In your oppinion.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Sure if people like you with your liberal agenda had their way we'd be living in Huxley's Brave New World before we knew it.

And what would you prefer? The Handmaids Tale? A strict theocracy like in some of the arab states where anyone not going to mass on a sunday can be rounded up and stoned to death by the "good" people of the town?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Someone who lives their lives by a strong moral base as you call it lives a richer life for it and does not have to constantly justify what they see around them for themselves. You cling on to all your worldly possesions that is your little boat in an infinite See, but I've got my eye fixed firmly on God who'll lead me from my boat and walk with me across the water.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

"RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society."

You can read the rest of the article yourself.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm not claiming to have all the answers although I have confidence in 2000 years of truth whereas you fail to realise that your debonair nihilism is really just a cosmic joke. In your case nothing is really of consequence, for me everything is of consequence, because everything has been redeemed by Christ.

Whether they want to be or not?

AndyWarhol wrote:

You can joke about how 'absurdly dogmatic' the Catholic Church is. Remember you're just a little man of 6 billion on a small planet, why don't you open your mind just a little and see that the Catholic Church is not there to opress and supress, but to reach out to everyone and guide them.

Ok, now thats funny. Take a little look through history and check out just exactly how much oppressing and supressing the catholic church has been involved in, if not directly responsibly for.

Every hear the phrase "Kill them all, god will know his own." ? Guess which god was being referenced there?

We also have the destruction and forced conversion of the non christian european peoples, the crusades, religious persecution in medievil europe,the destruction and forced conversion of south america, the whole catholic / protestant thing thats been going on since the middle ages, and the list goes on and on.

If you want to take more recent example, the various sexual abuse scandals of not so many years past. When the priests activities were brought to light was he punished, stripped of his authority, given over for criminal proceedings? No, he was moved on elsewhere, and his accusors bribed or threatened into silence.

Now, would you like to open your mind a bit?

bonkey

AndyWarhol wrote:

I have confidence in 2000 years of truth

Two comments:

1) does this include the "truth" of the crusades, the Holy Inquisition, and other atrocities carried out in the name of your god and your church?

2) Catholicism is by no means the oldest religion. Judaeism, for example, is at least half as old again. Does that make it 1.5 times more truthful? What about Hinduism and Zoroastrianism - older again. When these older religions differ from yours in teaching, does their age not lend them more authority?

jc

pH

Why do people arguing against prostitution seem to believe that they are arguing against prostitution being made compulsory?

I'd be dead set against any attempt to make visiting prostitutes compulsory. If you feel it's morally repulsive to pay or get paid for sex then that is absolutely your right, and your right to abstain from such practices. You also have a right to try to persuade people away from prostitution and to express your views. To punish people with jail for having a different moral code to you is peverse.

Victor wrote:

Can you point to the specific piece that makes it illegal on private property?

My understanding is that private property used by even one prostitute on a regular basis falls under the 'brothel keeping' part of the act.

AndyWarhol

pH wrote:

Why do people arguing against prostitution seem to believe that they are arguing against prostitution being made compulsory?

I'd be dead set against any attempt to make visiting prostitutes compulsory. If you feel it's morally repulsive to pay or get paid for sex then that is absolutely your right, and your right to abstain from such practices. You also have a right to try to persuade people away from prostitution and to express your views. To punish people with jail for having a different moral code to you is peverse.

No it's not perverse. Some people have to have standards set upon them as they have no other guidance in their lives; selfness, 'me, me, me' and 'if it feels good for me it is right' attitudes left unleashed would reap havoc on the world. Of course visiting prositutes in not compulsory, that's not the issue. Legalising prostitution is sending out the message that it's ok to just meet up anonymously with some stranger, penetrate them and walk off as if nothing ever happened.
Is punishing serial murders with jail perverse? They also have a different moral code if they want to kill somebody. There are well thought-out moral boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil.

robinph

AndyWarhol wrote:

Legalising prostitution is sending out the message that it's ok to just meet up anonymously with some stranger, penetrate them and walk off as if nothing ever happened.

Theres going to be a lot of that going on every night of the week after drunken encounters in pubs and clubs, and actually the alcohol is probably making things a bit more dodgy once people are not fully aware of what they are getting up to.

AndyWarhol

hairyheretic wrote:

No, because the law says so.

"Why is this? Because something inside them tells them it is wrong. Why is this? Because people have fundamental morals; that is, to do what is right and good."
You see if you had of read the very next sentence after my quotation, you would have seen the answer.

hairyheretic wrote:

But everyone has different ideas as to what is right and wrong.

Not everyone has different ideas. Groups and individuals perhaps, but at least there are laws to set a minimum standard so as behaviour such as anonymous sex is not normalised.

hairyheretic wrote:

Because a child is not physically or emotionally / mentally capable of dealing with the consequences of sex before a certain age.

Look back through history, and you'll find the ages of marriage and consent have varied a fair bit.

Oh so you have a moral floor too then? I'm glad to hear it. What are your morals based upon? Would you consider yourself an anonymous christian? So you agree that sex with children is not ok, but sex with a stranger is because they are emotionally capable of dealing with the consequences of sex? In both cases, the human body is being abused both physically and emotionally for the benefit of personal sexual pleasure.

hairyheretic wrote:

Odd, I thought I had denied that fact of yours. I would say that the ancient Greece and Rome have contributed just as much to the foundation of western society.

The ancient Greeks and Romans worshiped suns and planets and butchered slaves for entertainment. Whilst we adopted some aspects of their legacy, the theological framework for the western world is rooted in christianity.

hairyheretic wrote:

Generally at the point of a sword.

You admit yourself that there are times when violence is justified too.

hairyheretic wrote:

But not against the holocaust itself. Why do you suppose that was?

My guess would be a certain ammount of societial pressure.

Well you know, that is a simplistic cliched statement that has been bandied about by heretics such as yourself. An official article from the Vatican can be read here which hopefully will enlighten your popular misguided ideas about Pious XII's actions during the holocaust.

hairyheretic wrote:

Killing and violence are wrong, yes. There are times that they are necessary though.

mmm.

hairyheretic wrote:

Only in your oppinion. Others do not share it.

But you give the impression that yours is the only right way. Let me ask you this .. whose moral code do you live by? Your own, or someone elses? I will presume that it is your own, and that you do not wish to live by anyone elses. Why then should anyone else live by yours?

Well I believe that the son of God became flesh through Jesus. I live by the moral code of his teaching and that of his disciples through the Catholic Church.

hairyheretic wrote:

In your oppinion.

Faith is more than an opinion.

hairyheretic wrote:

And what would you prefer? The Handmaids Tale? A strict theocracy like in some of the arab states where anyone not going to mass on a sunday can be rounded up and stoned to death by the "good" people of the town?

Stoning someone to death is a mortal sin, such persons have a warped vision of reality and they will be answerable one day.

hairyheretic wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

"RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society."

You can read the rest of the article yourself.

The article is based on research largely from hybrid evalgelical christians, 'liberal christians' and such like. You know religion in the US is packaged and sold the way washing powder is sold in Walmart.
The article states “The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.” so I'm not surprised that they conclude that "Religous belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today."
Such evangelists have accepted a false religion in the name of ecumenism with their equivalent 'morals', so it's no wonder the damage that has been caused.
While you're here, I suggest you look into Daily Telegraph

hairyheretic wrote:

Whether they want to be or not?

The can choose to ignore God at their peril.

hairyheretic wrote:

Ok, now thats funny. Take a little look through history and check out just exactly how much oppressing and supressing the catholic church has been involved in, if not directly responsibly for.

You're confusing oppression with defence of what is right.

hairyheretic wrote:

Every hear the phrase "Kill them all, god will know his own." ? Guess which god was being referenced there?

We also have the destruction and forced conversion of the non christian european peoples, the crusades, religious persecution in medievil europe,the destruction and forced conversion of south america, the whole catholic / protestant thing thats been going on since the middle ages, and the list goes on and on.

To address this, I quote from Dr. Anthony Garrett, a converted Christian.
"As for God being good and ordering this slaughter, remember that the Amalekites had behaved atrociously for a long time by the time of their expunging; this was in an era when loyalty was to the tribe and tribal deity so that there was no chance of individual repentance. And God knew that any Amalekite who was good would be judged fairly at the end of time. The Hebrew invasion was judgement on them. Also, death is not the end -- any righteous Canaanites will be judged fairly at the final judgement; all other judgements are provisional."

hairyheretic wrote:

If you want to take more recent example, the various sexual abuse scandals of not so many years past. When the priests activities were brought to light was he punished, stripped of his authority, given over for criminal proceedings? No, he was moved on elsewhere, and his accusors bribed or threatened into silence.

Now, would you like to open your mind a bit?

Open my mind? To your way of thinking?!
The sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church demonstrate that weakness and failure have been part of the Catholic reality from the beginning. Weakness and failure too, are part of the grittiness of Catholicism; including weakness and failure, stupidity and cowardice among the Churche's ordained leaders. Catholics have learnt their lessons the hard way and the crisis that scandal causes when it is so badly handled by some bishops - the sucessors of the apostles. It forces us to come to grips with the fact that the people of the Church, including its ordained leadership, are earthen vessels carrying the treasure of faith in history (as St. Paul put it in 2 Corinthians 4:7). Only the naive would expect it to be otherwise.
Like St. Peter, all the peoople of the Church, including the Church's ordained leadership, must constantly be purified, by love, by a more complete and radical emptying of self.

pH

AndyWarhol wrote:

No it's not perverse. Some people have to have standards set upon them as they have no other guidance in their lives; selfness, 'me, me, me' and 'if it feels good for me it is right' attitudes left unleashed would reap havoc on the world.

That's fine as at least you're being honest, you know what is right, other people don't or are too weak or stupid to know what is right, and you subscribe to a system to punish people who cannot see the light according to your moral code. It's strange though that people like you always seem to know instrictively what is good for other people.

Though it's a bit of an exageration to say that a bit of sex for money would 'reap havoc on the world'

Of course visiting prositutes in not compulsory, that's not the issue. Legalising prostitution is sending out the message that it's ok to just meet up anonymously with some stranger, penetrate them and walk off as if nothing ever happened.

No it's not, it's just sending out the message you won't be punished for it. There is no law in Ireland banning cutting off your hand - Maybe the Sunday World should run the headline 'Ireland says self-mutilation is OK!'.

The Irish government advises strongly against smoking, yet allows its citizens to smoke as long as their actions harm no one but themselves.

Is punishing serial murders with jail perverse? They also have a different moral code if they want to kill somebody. There are well thought-out moral boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil.

When one's actions have a detrimental effect on other citizens in the state then we need laws and punishment to deter us from these actions. When crimes have victims we have laws that tell us what we are not allowed do to our fellow citizens, breaking these laws have consequences, one of which is jail.

Sleepy

:eek: Did you people crawl out from under the same rock as the Stormfront ones?! Attacking a point by spewing rhetoric and ignoring questions you can't answer is the equivalent of trying to put out a fire by dousing it in petrol.

Have a google of the words 'dublin escort', you'll find they return about 591,000 results. Prostitution is not a small industry in our nations capital (nor I doubt in other parts of the country). It is better that the industry be legalised, regulated and taxed than criminalised, unregulated and feeding the coffers of paramilitaries and criminal gangs. If properly regulated, it could be ensured that the women entering the profession were fully willing to do so and not being coerced by a threatening pimp, drug addiction or slave trader.

Personally I'd rather see a diminishing religious group's morals offended than well funded criminal gangs making a fortune out of their exploitation of vulnerable women, but as we all know, my opinion doesn't matter to you because I'm a "heretic" who needs "to have standards set upon [me] as have no other guidance in [my life]". :rolleyes:

dermo88

Ireland is a Catholic country, and its still coming to terms in many ways peoples sexuality. I have always found the southern European, Latino brand of Catholicism to be more human, celebrating life, tolerating sexual indiscretions. It tolerates them because I suspect that Latinos think "Heaven is too far away, live and let live, enjoy life today, eat well, get drunk, get laid, confess it tomorrow, get penance, and maybe do it all over again when I'm horny". Life goes on, and have fun.

Meanwhile in Ireland. Well......no sex please we're Irish!!!! If the British were perceived as prudish, then the Irish were certainly the pick of the bunch, and it caused incredible harm to people, but thats a long story in itself. I mean, even having a **** was punishable by eternal fire and damnation. Boy, did'nt those ****ers really know how to make us feel good. The whole idea makes me laugh. Its just so completely and utterly illogical. Whats the big idea, we're just having fun and relieving tension. What are we supposed to do, keep making more poverty stricken babies crammed 6 to a room, in one room, no shoes, struggle for food and work. Thats a mild exagerattion, but I knew of mothers who had 13 or 14 kids by the time they were 42, and they were utterly worn out. I mean this culture actually happened in my lifetime, and I am almost 30. Mind, by that stage we had a halfway decent social welfare system to cater for all that, even if the men were off pissing it down the boozer.

So when we finally became a modern European democracy sometime before we legalised gay sex in 1993, the whole edifice collapsed. Starting with a Bishop having a lovechild in the States, followed by the exposure of abuse in orphanages. We had our GULAGs, we had our Belsens where noone physically died, but their souls were murdered and confidence ruined. In true Irish style, we always knew it was happening, but never dared say anything. It was a third world country, where the state could not afford the bill, so it was left to the only institution capable of doing the job. If the East Germans had their Stasi, the Soviets, their KGB, the Romanians the Securitatea. We had the Catholic Church making the rules and neighbours gossiping as our secret police.

So where does prostitution kick in here. Well we have a laddish culture, and even admitting going near a whorehouse can lead to getting slagged off. In Spain, Italy or Latin America, big deal, you needed relief, and thats that. I mean compared to the Latinos, I think Irish men are'nt the best looking of the bunch, and I count myself there. Mind you, it was a different matter in Malaysia or Singapore, where I was regarded as exotic. I think there is a grave concern that if the whorehouses were around, we would relax a little more, and would'nt drink as much as we do.

Ireland is still in recovery from an excessively moralistic past. Its 20 years since a High Court Judge justified a queer bashers crime by giving a suspended sentence. We're moving on quite fast. Faster than I expected.

Do I want whorehouses. I don't need them, but plenty of men do. They would do less harm than anyone thinks. I mean Dublin functioned well enough with Montgomery Square until independence and the League of Decency stepped in with their brand of fundamentalism.

Sometimes I wish time travel was possible. I'd finance my way by backing the racing results and bring down the establishment as it screwed the country up, and not long after they were old grey, pleading insanity, senility and asking for clemency.

murphaph

Good post dermo, except kids did die at the hands of the brutal shower of c*nts in Artane. I hope all those evil c*nts are burning in hell for what they did down the years. Religious types coming on here banging on about how we should behave ought to look in the mirror.

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

"Why is this? Because something inside them tells them it is wrong. Why is this? Because people have fundamental morals; that is, to do what is right and good."
You see if you had of read the very next sentence after my quotation, you would have seen the answer.

I did read it. I just happened to disagree with it.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Not everyone has different ideas. Groups and individuals perhaps, but at least there are laws to set a minimum standard so as behaviour such as anonymous sex is not normalised.

But there are places where laws have ben passed so that anonymous sex is normalised. The U.S. , Germany, Australia, and others.

From that I can only conclude that there are varying oppinions.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Oh so you have a moral floor too then? I'm glad to hear it. What are your morals based upon?

I don't describe myself as having morals. I have my own code of honour. I expect it has been influenced by a variety of sources as I grew up.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Would you consider yourself an anonymous christian?

I'm not any kind of christian.

AndyWarhol wrote:

So you agree that sex with children is not ok,

Correct.

AndyWarhol wrote:

but sex with a stranger is because they are emotionally capable of dealing with the consequences of sex?

Yes. It happens all the time, whether money is exchanged or not. Take someone out, wine them and dine them with the intention of getting them into bed, and aren't you effectively trading money for sex, if indirectly?

AndyWarhol wrote:

In both cases, the human body is being abused both physically and emotionally for the benefit of personal sexual pleasure.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. What two consenting adults do together is no ones business but their own.

I'm curious how you believe that there is physical abuse occuring when two people have sex though.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The ancient Greeks and Romans worshiped suns and planets and butchered slaves for entertainment. Whilst we adopted some aspects of their legacy, the theological framework for the western world is rooted in christianity.

No, they worshiped their own gods and goddesses.

As for the circuses, if those were still runing when christianity became the state religion, wouldn't that mean that christians butchered slaves for their entertainment too?

Perhaps someone more familiar with ancient rome might know if this was the case or not.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You admit yourself that there are times when violence is justified too.

Yes, I do. Take Hitler as a perfect example. Do you think he would have been stopped by harsh language or diplomatic notes?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Well you know, that is a simplistic cliched statement that has been bandied about by heretics such as yourself. An official article from the Vatican can be read here which hopefully will enlighten your popular misguided ideas about Pious XII's actions during the holocaust.

From what I can see, individual priests did act against the nazi regime, but the church as a whole did not.

This however
" The Shoah was the work of a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime."
is an outright lie.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Well I believe that the son of God became flesh through Jesus. I live by the moral code of his teaching and that of his disciples through the Catholic Church.

Then you have taken that code as your own. You live by that, and not the code of anyone else.

Why then do you feel that everyone else should have to do the same?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Faith is more than an opinion.

Faith is a personal thing. You believe what you believe.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Stoning someone to death is a mortal sin, such persons have a warped vision of reality and they will be answerable one day.

But can you deny that there have been countless atrocities carried out in the name of your god?

AndyWarhol wrote:

The article is based on research largely from hybrid evalgelical christians, 'liberal christians' and such like. You know religion in the US is packaged and sold the way washing powder is sold in Walmart.

I've seen the way evangelicals carry on. I can't say I approve of any of it. From what I can see, liberal christians and evangelicals are very different kettles of fish though.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The article states “The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.” so I'm not surprised that they conclude that "Religous belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today."
Such evangelists have accepted a false religion in the name of ecumenism with their equivalent 'morals', so it's no wonder the damage that has been caused.

What false religion is this then? They claim to be christians and follow the teachings of the bible .. or at least the teachings they can make use of.

AndyWarhol wrote:

While you're here, I suggest you look into Daily Telegraph

The nazi regime did not limit its attention to just jews. There were plenty of others joined them in the concentration camps.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The can choose to ignore God at their peril.

You seem to be missing my point. Everyone who has chosen a belief has chosen it because they feel it is right for them. Christianity is just one amongst a multitude of beliefs. Everyone has a right to choose the belief they feel is the right one for them.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You're confusing oppression with defence of what is right.

Excuse me?

How is forced conversion, under threat of death, "right"? Please point out to me the section of Jesus's teachings that commands christians to go forth, demonise the religions of all others they come across, and kill any who hold true to their own beliefs.

AndyWarhol wrote:

To address this, I quote from Dr. Anthony Garrett, a converted Christian.
"As for God being good and ordering this slaughter, remember that the Amalekites had behaved atrociously for a long time by the time of their expunging; this was in an era when loyalty was to the tribe and tribal deity so that there was no chance of individual repentance. And God knew that any Amalekite who was good would be judged fairly at the end of time. The Hebrew invasion was judgement on them. Also, death is not the end -- any righteous Canaanites will be judged fairly at the final judgement; all other judgements are provisional."

I'm afraid I don't see the relevence of that. Were the Amalekites an early christian sect? Presumably not, since it talks about a Hebrew invasion of them.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Open my mind? To your way of thinking?!

To the fact that your religion does not provide the answers to everything. To the fact that there are others who believe differently to you, and that they have every right to do that. To the fact that those who do not share your beliefs should not be forced to do so.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church demonstrate that weakness and failure have been part of the Catholic reality from the beginning. Weakness and failure too, are part of the grittiness of Catholicism; including weakness and failure, stupidity and cowardice among the Churche's ordained leaders. Catholics have learnt their lessons the hard way and the crisis that scandal causes when it is so badly handled by some bishops - the sucessors of the apostles. It forces us to come to grips with the fact that the people of the Church, including its ordained leadership, are earthen vessels carrying the treasure of faith in history (as St. Paul put it in 2 Corinthians 4:7). Only the naive would expect it to be otherwise.
Like St. Peter, all the peoople of the Church, including the Church's ordained leadership, must constantly be purified, by love, by a more complete and radical emptying of self.

bonkey

AndyWarhol wrote:

the theological framework for the western world is rooted in christianity.

Again with this fiction.

Christianity is an offshoot of Judaeism, which is a far older and more established religion. It has also "borrowed" large chunks from other religions, in an "embrace, extend, extinguish" manner that makes Microsoft look like children beginning to learn the game.

Christianity is not a root. It is just another link in a chain.

And none of this religious fervour explains why prostitution should be illegal. If people were properly Christian (in the manner you claim), they would neither become prostitutes nor avail of the services of prostitutes. That does not mean that they should prevent non-Christians doing so, if their religion (or faith or moral code, should they - like me - be non-religious) permits them....unless you are once again suggesting that the oppression of non-Christians is somehow correct.

I would also go further and suggest that you are deliberately blurring - at your convenience - the distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. You slam the various American Christian movements, but sell Christianity and not Catholicism as your truth.

That would strike me as either a deliberately hypocritical argument or a disingenuous one. So much for 2000 years of truth.

jc

Moving this thread to Humanities where it is more suited.

Andy Warhol-take a weeks ban for calling someone a heretic in this thread (even if it's their username-it's personal abuse and not allowed)

Dades

Earthman wrote:

Moving this thread to Humanities where it is more suited.

Damn! Where was this thread!

I'd like to see prostitution legalised, but only in conjunction with the UK. I've seen what the tourist industry is like in Holland and I'd hate to see it happen here. A regulated industry to cater for Irish "needs" is one thing... but one to cater for thousands of horny neighbours is another.

Re the whole "moral" debate, frightening as it seems, I fear catholicireland and AndyWarhol may hold a majority view. I don't think the Boards offer a genuine cross-section of the community.

Then again there's nothing in the constitution regarding prostitution so if change was to occur it would be on the back of a (misguided) political campaign to change the law.