Legalisation of prostitution?

robinph · 04-10-2005 9:38pm

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 · 04-10-2005 9:58pm

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 · 04-10-2005 10:22pm

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 · 04-10-2005 11:03pm

: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 · 04-10-2005 11:06pm

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 · 04-10-2005 11:27pm

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 · 04-10-2005 11:42pm

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 · 05-10-2005 8:04am

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

05-10-2005 8:23am

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 · 05-10-2005 9:30am

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.

murphaph · 05-10-2005 12:30pm

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 · 05-10-2005 1:21pm

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 · 05-10-2005 1:36pm

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 · 05-10-2005 2:41pm

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 · 05-10-2005 5:12pm

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 · 05-10-2005 5:20pm

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 · 05-10-2005 8:14pm

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 · 05-10-2005 11:32pm

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 · 06-10-2005 10:20am

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 · 06-10-2005 11:09am

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 · 06-10-2005 2:44pm

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.

Legalisation of prostitution?

Comments