If gays can marry -then shouldn't prostitution be legal?

[jmcrae]

Exactly

The quote proved that while people at the time may denounce something, history proves it isn’t such a bad thing. There were people who condemned inter-racial marriage, there were people who did not want slavery abolished. They all presented themselves as ordinary people, like you and me, who just didn’t agree with those things for “reasonable” reasons. The same way many people disagree with the government allowing gay people to have a legal marriage.

How is “gay” people having “homosexual marriage” in any way analogous to abolishing slavery?

Homosexuals have neither the need nor the capacity to contract marriages; it’s like giving out free bicycles to fish - they aren’t going to become physically capable to create families no matter what legal spin we put on their relationships.

And if it’s true that normalizing homosexuality by legalizing “gay marriage” will lead to the normalization of paedophilia, then that’s a major health issue for our children, don’t you think?

 

[mark_a]

Better for it to be legal, in a controlled environment, in the open - with the appropriate checks of the wellbeing of the women than for it to be ran underground, controlled by pimps and difficult to monitor.

The Women’s Institute in the UK are campaigning for it to become legal. It’s never, ever, going to go away. Besides, in a controlled environment, these women will be easier to reach, and punters are far more likely to go to a brothel then pick someone off the street who could be more in need of help than money.

Also, regarding the topic of the thread - sorry to tell you this, but there are a lot of these posts on CAF which seem to be titled “if gays can marry then [insert catastrophe] will happen to!” It’s worth mentioning here that the same was said about inter-racial marriage and the ending of slavery.

Legalization implies an endorsement by the government. Should we be handing out free condoms and meth at the elementary school?

 

[mark_a]

there were people who did not want slavery abolished. They all presented themselves as ordinary people, like you and me,

No matter how slave owners presented themselves, they were not “ordinary people, like you and me”. Most went to great lengths to show just how extraordinary, privileged, and righteous they were.

 

[Havard]

Of course, Republicans are, as always, opposed to any and all regulations. Let the free market place decide!

Don’t you mean Libertarians? Republicans often advocate restrictions on existing commerce when there’s a decency element involved (sex shops, strip clubs, etc.)

 

[uther]

Keeping prostitution illegal is an infringement on ones “individual freedoms”. If we are truly secular, and laws are based solely on “rights”, then there should only be laws regarding the use of safe-sex practices in regards to legalized prostitution, right…?

Is this what we can expect in the name of progress?

I don’t see how one follows from the other.

If you were to pose the question “If gays can marry, -then shouldn’t incestuous marriages be legal, or shouldn’t polygomy be legal, etc. etc.”

All of those relate to the definition of marriage, which in the case of “gay marriage” is what must be changed in order to make any sense of the idea.

Prostitution is another whole category.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No matter how slave owners presented themselves, they were not “ordinary people, like you and me”. Most went to great lengths to show just how extraordinary, privileged, and righteous they were.

You missed the word “presented” in my sentence there. They presented themselves like ordinary people.

 

[LemonAndLime]

How is “gay” people having “homosexual marriage” in any way analogous to abolishing slavery?

Not everyone saw aboloshing slavery as a good thing. Same thing here.

Homosexuals have neither the need nor the capacity to contract marriages; it’s like giving out free bicycles to fish - they aren’t going to become physically capable to create families no matter what legal spin we put on their relationships.

Maybe they don’t want to create families? Also, “need” and “capacity” are subjective. For example, my aunt’s friend wants to marry her lesbian partner here in the UK so she will have all the rights of a spouse regarding inheritance, etc. I would say that is a need. My aunt’s friend, well, I have only met her once but she seemed to be a sane individual so I would say she had the capacity to dedicate herself to one person.

And if it’s true that normalizing homosexuality by legalizing “gay marriage” will lead to the normalization of paedophilia, then that’s a major health issue for our children, don’t you think?

Hasn’t happened here in the UK yet, so I think you’re safe.

Never really understood the whole “if they’ll let gay people marry, paedophiles will be able to as well” thinking. Just sorta seems like scare tactics to me. But what do I know, I only live in a country which has had “gay marriage” for several years now and I haven’t heard anyone proposing what you’re suggesting. Just throwing that out there.

 

[mark_a]

You missed the word “presented” in my sentence there. They presented themselves like ordinary people.

I don’t think so. Presented is even in your quote of my quote.

 

[jmcrae]

Not everyone saw aboloshing slavery as a good thing. Same thing here.

In this case, it is, in fact, actually a bad idea.

Maybe they don’t want to create families? Also, “need” and “capacity” are subjective. For example, my aunt’s friend wants to marry her lesbian partner here in the UK so she will have all the rights of a spouse regarding inheritance, etc.

The point of a spouse having inheritance rights is so that, in the case of there not being a will, the spouse can continue to use the family assets to raise the children.

Anybody can name anybody they want in their will, though. There is nothing preventing her from being her girlfriend’s heir, if her girlfriend wants her to be - they don’t need a sham “marriage” for that.

 

[mark_a]

But what do I know, I only live in a country which has had “gay marriage” for several years now and I haven’t heard anyone proposing what you’re suggesting. Just throwing that out there.

Just like there was no huge movement for gay marriage when oral contraceptives became legal.

It takes time. But it happens.

 

[meltzerboy]

It takes away people’s human dignity, and makes human beings into experiences that one can purchase. For that reason alone, it needs to be illegal - and then there is the spread of disease, and the destruction of marriages and family life, which I would argue is just as destructive to society as murder and theft, since it leaves children without the foundations they need to grow and prosper and take their places as productive citizens.

Extra-marital affairs take away human dignity, destroy families, and spread disease at least as much as prostitution. Should they be illegal too? Some things may be viewed as immoral but not illegal. What you state is precisely why prostitution should be regulated to minimize the spread of disease and eliminate the pimps who abuse the prostitutes. The Madam at the Bunny Ranch Nevada brothel says as much. It may not be the best or most moral solution, but it’s more practical compared to the way things are now in most of the United States. As I stated at the end of my prior post, if you’re talking morality and unwilling to compromise on that basis, I understand you.

 

[meltzerboy]

Just like there was no huge movement for gay marriage when oral contraceptives became legal.

It takes time. But it happens.

If so much time elapses between these events, how can you be sure that one follows from the other?

 

[TEPO]

I’ve never been to the Netherlands, but doesnt it seem like Amsterdam would be the ideal goal for the progressive agenda…? Would it stop there though…? In other words, how progressive can a society get before the people say: ‘okay, this is enough, we’ve reached perfection’…?

 

[stewstew03]

Extra-marital affairs take away human dignity, destroy families, and spread disease at least as much as prostitution. Should they be illegal too?

Though it’s probably rarely prosecuted, adultery IS a crime in many jurisdictions…

 

[jmcrae]

Extra-marital affairs take away human dignity, destroy families, and spread disease at least as much as prostitution. Should they be illegal too?

They probably should - or at least, a spouse or child should be able to sue their spouse’s or parent’s lover for damages.

Some things may be viewed as immoral but not illegal. What you state is precisely why prostitution should be regulated to minimize the spread of disease and eliminate the pimps who abuse the prostitutes. The Madam at the Bunny Ranch Nevada brothel says as much.

But she is still selling human beings as “experiences” for other people to have, and reducing them to salable commodities. How is this not a form of slavery?

It may not be the best or most moral solution, but it’s more practical compared to the way things are now in most of the United States. As I stated at the end of my prior post, if you’re talking morality and unwilling to compromise on that basis, I understand you.

It’s about the intrinsic worth of every human being, created in the image, likeness, and goodness of God - which I think is the basis of Christian morality.

 

[jmcrae]

If so much time elapses between these events, how can you be sure that one follows from the other?

Because the rationale for homosexual relationships is that, since heterosexual couples deliberately enter into non-fertile sexual relationships by using birth control, that there is therefore no reason to forbid homosexuals from doing so, also.

 

[edwest2]

Exactly

The quote proved that while people at the time may denounce something, history proves it isn’t such a bad thing. There were people who condemned inter-racial marriage, there were people who did not want slavery abolished. They all presented themselves as ordinary people, like you and me, who just didn’t agree with those things for “reasonable” reasons. The same way many people disagree with the government allowing gay people to have a legal marriage.

The Church teaches that marriage has certain inalienable rights. It’s easy to say “people disagree” as if another answer or opinion is regarded as equal to this.

Gay marriage was voted down every time it was put on the ballot, and twice in California. Only judges and politicians have caused legalization. Prior to this, gay couples could and did whatever they wanted. Now, gay couples are forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close and exerting force in other ways.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09021808

As a Catholic, I’m totally, 100% uninterested in the sex lives of my neighbors. Why was this put on the ballot? Why? If people want to do whatever they want they certainly don’t need my approval. And for over 30 years, no one has called my “Ed’s Approval Hotline” to get my OK to do anything

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hypatia]

Because the rationale for homosexual relationships is that, since heterosexual couples deliberately enter into non-fertile sexual relationships by using birth control, that there is therefore no reason to forbid homosexuals from doing so, also.

Couples that were incapable of getting pregnant were getting married long before there was birth control.

 

[Hypatia]

Extra-marital affairs take away human dignity, destroy families, and spread disease at least as much as prostitution. Should they be illegal too? Some things may be viewed as immoral but not illegal. What you state is precisely why prostitution should be regulated to minimize the spread of disease and eliminate the pimps who abuse the prostitutes.

As I pointed out earlier, this is almost exactly the argument one finds from the unimpeachably Catholic Thomas Aquinas (he also argues that it provides an outlet for lust, and its criminalization would involve the state overstepping its bounds).

Moreover, brothels were legal in the Papal States when it still existed.

This is not an argument in favor of universally legalizing prostitution, necessarily, but this is certainly a very odd and ironic way for Catholics to attack the legalization of equality in marriage. The “bad consequence” (legality of prostitution) is actually not really seen as all that bad on very traditional Catholic grounds.

 

[BobCatholic]

No, but I would bet my life savings the numbers would go down.

You would lose.

Legalizing something means the supply of it goes up. In this case, more prostitutes would get into the “market”