Legalisation of prostitution?

murphaph

Earthman wrote:

Andy Warhol-take a weeks ban for calling someone a heretic

That's fcuking hilarious! I've seen a few people banned but that's a classic.

AndyWarhol

murphaph wrote:

That's fcuking hilarious! I've seen a few people banned but that's a classic.

AndyWarhol gets a one week ban for calling 'HairyHeretic' a heretic. Ridiculous.

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

AndyWarhol gets a one week ban for calling 'HairyHeretic' a heretic. Ridiculous.

For what its worth, I agree with you. I took no offense at it, and PMed the mod to say as much.

Besides, since I'm not a christian, I don't think my views of christianity can be considered heretical.

billy the squid

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.

This belief is flawed in that in that unlike killing, both parties are concenting to their role in the act. It is rare to find someone who will agree to be murdered.

The church should not be allowed to get involved in issues of state. If the state should decide to legalise prostitution, and the church objects, the church should be told to bog off and concentrate on compensating its own victims of sexual abuse. There were no prostitutes in the priesthood. The absence of the trade did not steer those peodaphile priests in the direction of morality, did it.

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.

Not everything that is outlawed is bad. Condoms were illegal in this country up until recently. now they are helping to fight the spread of AIDS.

One more thing to remember, The majority of the people in this country do not make the laws in this country, it is the 84 or more people who are in power who make the laws. Let us not forget things like the US army stopping over in shannon.

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

The church learned nothing from its experience of sexual abuse within its ranks. Pope Bennedict XVI is preparing to ban homosexuals from entering the priesthood in an attempt to curb peodephelia. What he fails to understand is that most peodaphiles are hetrosexuals. he sure as hell learned his lesson didnt he?

The church has no right to interfiere with the laws of the state. I didnt vote for the local bishop, or the pope for that matter. therefore he has no right to tell my government how to run my country.

The legalisation of prostitution would not affect anyone who did not want to take part in the act. So to say that it would is a blatant lie.

AndyWarhol

billy the squid wrote:

This belief is flawed in that in that unlike killing, both parties are concenting to their role in the act. It is rare to find someone who will agree to be murdered.

Murder is at the extreme end of the right/wrong scale. Prostition is inherently wrong and you are saying that as long as both parties agree, then all is well and without consequence. There are consequences both psychological and physical and what if a child were born in the process of legalised prostitute. Should they be introduced into the world as a daughter/son of a most-likely pagan drug addict with absolutely no idea who their father is? This is not an acceptable 'collateral damage' scenario.

billy the squid wrote:

The church should not be allowed to get involved in issues of state. If the state should decide to legalise prostitution, and the church objects, the church should be told to bog off and concentrate on compensating its own victims of sexual abuse. There were no prostitutes in the priesthood. The absence of the trade did not steer those peodaphile priests in the direction of morality, did it.

The Church influences its members and prays for all men including sceptics. The state is also made up of many members of the Catholic church. And why should Catholic people hide their faith just to suit the left-wing politically correct agenda? As I said previously in this thread: 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.

The peculiarly modern determination to identify freedom with radical personal autonomy, the 'my way' attitude, has bred a moral sense out of certain sections of the population, like the wings that have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat on them.

The horror of the modern world is that, if nothing is really of ultimate consequence, then the wickedness isn't really wicked, the good isn't good, and we're back, once again, to all those pathetic wingless chickens.

As Pope Benedict put it at a recent synod of Roman Catholic bishops. "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule."

billy the squid wrote:

Not everything that is outlawed is bad. Condoms were illegal in this country up until recently. now they are helping to fight the spread of AIDS.

Oh so the normalisation of sexual promiscuity, the 'sex in the city'/'desperate housewives' culture in society is a good thing? Do realise the amount of children that are born into single-parent families and the sexually transmitted diseases that are rampant in the population since such sexual promiscuity was normalised by the liberal 'progressives'? I don't accept for one minute that we should just pass off this culture as being a 'sign of the times'. If anything we are going backwards.

billy the squid wrote:

One more thing to remember, The majority of the people in this country do not make the laws in this country, it is the 84 or more people who are in power who make the laws. Let us not forget things like the US army stopping over in shannon.

Rubbish. Who puts them there?

billy the squid wrote:

The church learned nothing from its experience of sexual abuse within its ranks. Pope Bennedict XVI is preparing to ban homosexuals from entering the priesthood in an attempt to curb peodephelia. What he fails to understand is that most peodaphiles are hetrosexuals. he sure as hell learned his lesson didnt he?

The church has no right to interfiere with the laws of the state. I didnt vote for the local bishop, or the pope for that matter. therefore he has no right to tell my government how to run my country.

The legalisation of prostitution would not affect anyone who did not want to take part in the act. So to say that it would is a blatant lie.

Your statement that 'would not affect anyone who did not want to take part in the act' from your point of view seems entirely reasonable, but you fail to things collectively and that if people were going about having random sex whenever they so chose, this kind of activity within society is deeply harmful and destroying.

You talk about the Pope preparing to ban homosexual persons from entering the priesthood and accuse him of failing to realise that most paedophiles are non homosexual. More than 80 per cent of the 11,000 alleged victims of abuse by Catholic priests in the US were young males. (source: Daily Telegraph, 23rd Sept. 2005 ) so as far as he's concerned, desire to penetrate another man's anal passage is a severe sexual/mental dysfunction that has no place in a priest's mind.

Hydroquinone

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think the Boards offer a genuine cross-section of the community.

I agree with that, because it is true of any messageboard. Because it automatically precludes people who aren't computer literate, those who have no access to a computer or who have no interest in the internet. Even among people who do use the internet, I reckon it's only a tiny fraction who join in a messageboard community.
I have a big circle of messageboard buddies from a number of different international boards, yet not one of my real life (for want of a better word!!) friends is a messageboarder. I'd imagine that's an age thing, and I don't think we've got too many on here in their fifties or over.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm in favour of legalising prostitution. Not because I want to avail of the services or become a prostitute, before anyone asks. But just because I don't want to become a prostitute or a prostitute's client, it doesn't mean I think I personally have the right to say what everyone else can or should do on the matter of sexual morality, when it's adults we're discussing. Legalising it would make it safer for all concerned, both from a sexual health point of view and from a violence point of view.

black_jack

AndyWarhol wrote:

Murder is at the extreme end of the right/wrong scale. Prostition is inherently wrong and you are saying that as long as both parties agree, then all is well and without consequence. There are consequences both psychological and physical and what if a child were born in the process of legalised prostitute.

And if adequate protection was taken would it still be wrong? Just because a child is concieved and theres a highly remote chance if the pill and condoms are used it should be banned.

Should they be introduced into the world as a daughter/son of a most-likely pagan drug addict with absolutely no idea who their father is? This is not an acceptable 'collateral damage' scenario.

And tell why is your morality superior to a pagans?

The Church influences its members and prays for all men including sceptics. The state is also made up of many members of the Catholic church. And why should Catholic people hide their faith just to suit the left-wing politically correct agenda? As I said previously in this thread: 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.

Why the implication being that then a public servant should let the tennants of his faith guide him above his duty as a public servant the rights of otheres even the rights his religion objects to. You're essentially defending the equvilant of Sharia law.

The peculiarly modern determination to identify freedom with radical personal autonomy, the 'my way' attitude, has bred a moral sense out of certain sections of the population, like the wings that have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat on them.

Whut and a who now, man we're at an metaphor to far now. So essentially my freedoms, my rights to do as I see fit, providing I do not harm myself and society as a whole must be subverant to your religious beliefs. How arrogant are you?

The horror of the modern world is that, if nothing is really of ultimate consequence, then the wickedness isn't really wicked, the good isn't good, and we're back, once again, to all those pathetic wingless chickens.

And that warped metaphor. Hey did you know chickens can't fly. Society for milleninium have been breeding chickens so they don't and can't fly. I'd suggest your metaphor could be used aganist you, the development of society over the past hundred years has been an acceleration away from the dogmatic fascist brutal religious junatas that have oppressed mankind, and that we're able to explore ourselves our humanity our morality without the stigma of the rules of a hierarchy of corrupt, rich, hyprocrites, who have populated the catholic hierarchy for millenium preaching tolerance with one hand and hatred with the other.

As Pope Benedict put it at a recent synod of Roman Catholic bishops. "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule."

So instead we make the pope our master. Tell us is this pope the infallible word of god or the fallible, they keep changing that arbitrary rule.

Oh so the normalisation of sexual promiscuity, the 'sex in the city'/'desperate housewives' culture in society is a good thing? Do realise the amount of children that are born into single-parent families and the sexually transmitted diseases that are rampant in the population since such sexual promiscuity was normalised by the liberal 'progressives'? I don't accept for one minute that we should just pass off this culture as being a 'sign of the times'. If anything we are going backwards.

Are you aware of how many people were cured of "insanity" when pencillen was made freely available they weren't insane they had VD. Sexual promisicuty has been around for centuries, millenium. And tell me the amount of single mothers who were shipping off to slave labour in Magdeline Laundries, and their children in orphanages, was acceptable?

Rubbish. Who puts them there?

Your suggestion that our moral framework is based on Catholicism and Christianity in it's entirity is rubbish. Just finished reading an excellent book about Voltaire, an athest whom were are indebted for the modern principles of justice.

Your statement that 'would not affect anyone who did not want to take part in the act' from your point of view seems entirely reasonable, but you fail to things collectively and that if people were going about having random sex whenever they so chose, this kind of activity within society is deeply harmful and destroying.

How exactly. You use generalisation like this. I want to know how random sex has destroyed society?

You talk about the Pope preparing to ban homosexual persons from entering the priesthood and accuse him of failing to realise that most paedophiles are non homosexual. More than 80 per cent of the 11,000 alleged victims of abuse by Catholic priests in the US were young males. (source: Daily Telegraph, 23rd Sept. 2005 ) so as far as he's concerned, desire to penetrate another man's anal passage is a severe sexual/mental dysfunction that has no place in a priest's mind.

And the number of priests having hetrosexual affairs is okay.

Andy Andy Andy did you not read the plethoria of links on that other thread where I debunk the claim about homosexuality and paedophilia, paedophilia is an entirely different sexual orientation to homosexuality. Homosexuals find the concept of sleeping with a young boy as abhorant as hetrosexuals find the idea of sleeping with a young girl.

billy the squid

AndyWarhol wrote:

Murder is at the extreme end of the right/wrong scale. Prostition is inherently wrong...

In your opinion.

...and you are saying that as long as both parties agree, then all is well and without consequence.

Yeah, and what is whong with that. if a bunch of christians want to pile into a building on a sunday and praise some supposed non-corporial entity, then who am I to stop them. Likewise with prostitution if someone wants to shell out cash to get his leg-over, and someone is willing to provide said leg-over, who am I to stop them.

Prostitutes collect money to make people feel better about them selves. so does the church.

There are consequences both psychological and physical and what if a child were born in the process of legalised prostitute.

iif if if if if....

Should they be introduced into the world as a daughter/son of a most-likely pagan drug addict with absolutely no idea who their father is? This is not an acceptable 'collateral damage' scenario.

You havent been reading this thread have you? In a regulated industry there would be the opportunity to eliminate drug abuse from prostitution. I suggest that you go back and read the thread and the suggestions put forward and stop repeating your sell with regard to points which have been addressed over and over and over again.

And why do you believe that most prostitutes are pagans? Are you seriously biggoted enough to lump various other faiths in with something you consider to be evil. Do you believe all Jews are greedy, all muslims are terrorists?

The Church influences its members and prays for all men including sceptics. The state is also made up of many members of the Catholic church. And why should Catholic people hide their faith just to suit the left-wing politically correct agenda?

If God wants to run this country then let him come down here and run for election.

As I said previously in this thread: 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.

Critisising sexual promiscuity while at the same time making deals to reduce the cost of compensation to victims of clerical sex abuse is hypocracy.

The peculiarly modern determination to identify freedom with radical personal autonomy, the 'my way' attitude, has bred a moral sense out of certain sections of the population, like the wings that have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat on them.

The only one saying "my way" or no way, regardles of if, buts or ands is you. you are claiming that "prostitution is wrong and that is the end of it" and you are ignoring the debate choosing to repeat yourself without taking note of what is being said here.

The horror of the modern world is that, if nothing is really of ultimate consequence, then the wickedness isn't really wicked, the good isn't good, and we're back, once again, to all those pathetic wingless chickens.

If something done does not hurt anyone else then it is not wicked

As Pope Benedict put it at a recent synod of Roman Catholic bishops. "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule."

and the bible thumpers are not an interest group? why should they have more right to rule than anyone else?

Oh so the normalisation of sexual promiscuity, the 'sex in the city'/'desperate housewives' culture in society is a good thing? Do realise the amount of children that are born into single-parent families and the sexually transmitted diseases that are rampant in the population since such sexual promiscuity was normalised by the liberal 'progressives'? I don't accept for one minute that we should just pass off this culture as being a 'sign of the times'. If anything we are going backwards.

There have been sexually transmitted deseases long before Sex and The City. Venerial Deseases, Syphilis, etc etc. Allowing people to protect themselves from these deseases should not be considered normalisation as sex outside of marriage has been going on for millennia.

As for children of single parent families, what is the difference between a lone parent who can support one child, and two parents of 15 children who cannot afford to support them. The introduction of things like contreception and the morning after pill have reduced the instances of massive unsupportable families.

Rubbish. Who puts them there?

The Government allowed the US troops to use shannon as a toilet break on their way to Iraq. against the wishes of a sizeable group of the population. So to say that the government speaks for everyone is incorrect. The people of this country did not give the US permission to use Shannon, the government did.

Your statement that 'would not affect anyone who did not want to take part in the act' from your point of view seems entirely reasonable, but you fail to things collectively and that if people were going about having random sex whenever they so chose, this kind of activity within society is deeply harmful and destroying.

In your opinion.

You talk about the Pope preparing to ban homosexual persons from entering the priesthood and accuse him of failing to realise that most paedophiles are non homosexual. More than 80 per cent of the 11,000 alleged victims of abuse by Catholic priests in the US were young males. (source: Daily Telegraph, 23rd Sept. 2005 ) so as far as he's concerned, desire to penetrate another man's anal passage is a severe sexual/mental dysfunction that has no place in a priest's mind.

How many (percentage wise) of those priests actually worked with girls?

Sleepy

AndyWarhol wrote:

Should they be introduced into the world as a daughter/son of a most-likely pagan drug addict with absolutely no idea who their father is?

Better that than to be raised as an arrogant, bible-bashing Christian imho.

The Church influences its members and prays for all men including sceptics.

Your religion has no business influencing anyone who is not part of it. You have no right to enforce your beliefs on anyone else.

The state is also made up of many members of the Catholic church.
And why should Catholic people hide their faith just to suit the left-wing politically correct agenda?

The state is also made up of many homosexuals, adulterers, atheists and members of other non-christian religions. Should these people allow themselves to be ruled by an organisation that believes them to be evil despite the fact they've done no wrong?

As I said previously in this thread: 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.

For the love of the black kettle :rolleyes: Religion and state have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. One is a belief system, the other is a democratic body charged with improving society. Would you be prepared to be circumcised if you lived in a state with a majority Jewish population? I doubt it. So how can you expect someone of a different, or no, faith to accept your religious beliefs?

The peculiarly modern determination to identify freedom with radical personal autonomy, the 'my way' attitude, has bred a moral sense out of certain sections of the population, like the wings that have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat on them.

The horror of the modern world is that, if nothing is really of ultimate consequence, then the wickedness isn't really wicked, the good isn't good, and we're back, once again, to all those pathetic wingless chickens.

So freedom is a lack of personal autonomy?

Morals are by definition a personal thing. Your morals can only determine how YOU behave and how YOU vote in an election, nothing else.

It really seems to me that it's another section of the community that is breeding logical sense out of it's members tbh.

As Pope Benedict put it at a recent synod of Roman Catholic bishops. "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule."

Pope Benedict can go shove a broken bottle up his backside. He has no business in the rule of any state other than Vatican City and frankly, it shows an awful cheek for a Catholic pope to opine on power and interests ruling the world. Has the man never heard of the Borgia's?

Oh so the normalisation of sexual promiscuity, the 'sex in the city'/'desperate housewives' culture in society is a good thing? Do realise the amount of children that are born into single-parent families and the sexually transmitted diseases that are rampant in the population since such sexual promiscuity was normalised by the liberal 'progressives'? I don't accept for one minute that we should just pass off this culture as being a 'sign of the times'. If anything we are going backwards.

I've looked for figures on the historical levels of STD's but can't find anything that goes back before the sixties (presumably no figures were kept on what a backwards society considered such a tabboo issue) though it would certainly seem logical that in the sexually liberalised western culture, the incidence of STD's have been on a downturn since contraception became acceptable and widely available. This would contrast quite starkly against the rampant spread of AIDS in a backwards society like Africa where contraception is still considered evil by your lot.

Rubbish. Who puts them there?

So you do understand the concept of democracy then? :eek:

Your statement that 'would not affect anyone who did not want to take part in the act' from your point of view seems entirely reasonable, but you fail to things collectively and that if people were going about having random sex whenever they so chose, this kind of activity within society is deeply harmful and destroying.

What's harmful or destroying about the sexual act being performed by two consenting adults?

Personally, I'd see religious beliefs as being far more harmful to society than promiscuity. I can't recall any instances in history of a promisuous society causing death on the scale that the various religions have. Just look at the crusades, the inquisition, the pogroms, the current situation in the middle east, 16th Century France, the Reconquista, modern day Iraq etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc........

You talk about the Pope preparing to ban homosexual persons from entering the priesthood and accuse him of failing to realise that most paedophiles are non homosexual. More than 80 per cent of the 11,000 alleged victims of abuse by Catholic priests in the US were young males. (source: Daily Telegraph, 23rd Sept. 2005 ) so as far as he's concerned, desire to penetrate another man's anal passage is a severe sexual/mental dysfunction that has no place in a priest's mind.

Since when is a desire to have anal sex with another man the same thing as the desire to rape a child? Though to be honest, I can't imagine any homosexual person would want anything to do with an organisation that so openly spreads hatred of their nature. Then again, I still can't understand why ANY person of intelligence would want anything to do with any religion...

Dades

Can we just say there are two basic schools of thought:

1. Prostitution is inherantly wrong (as prescribed by the church), and society has a moral obligation to keep it unlawful.

2. Prostitution is simply a service that has been provided for millenia, and an industry whose workers would benefit enormously from regulation.

Everyone has there right to choose what side they are on.

It does not matter how people form their view on the issue. Whether it's gained from the churches teachings or from first hand experience of the industry is irrelevant. Just because one person offer a viewpoint echoing the stance of the church doesn't mean religion is interfering with society. Only with that persons vote.

And we all only get one vote - then the government decides.
[Naturally after mass rallys, vigils, petitions etc. of people trying to voice their views]

Vangelis

I'm finding it hard to participate in this debate even if I want to.
The hostility and all the "**** you I won't do what you tell me"-attitude
scares me.