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

[chris62]

It’s not only legal in Australia, some main daily newspapers let them advertise.
Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph in Sydney, for example, allows prostitutes to advertise in the “personals”.
When I realised this, I stopped buying it.
I can’t believe other families still buy it or allow that garbage in their homes.
After all, no-one gets the “news” from newspapers anymore.

 

[inocente]

Pay attention to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. It is ALL about that.

Drop one moral code about sexuality, then drop another,and another and another…

The sex-worshippers won’t stop until all sexual crimes are no longer crimes.

Being gay isn’t a crime. The homosexual act isn’t a crime.

Do any of the anti-gay marriage folk want them to be crimes? If not then what has gay marriage got to do with prostitution and sex crimes? I mean, which of you got married for sex, and if you didn’t, why on earth do you think gays would?

 

[tgrath]

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 the connection, except that in a truly libertarian society, just about anything would be allowed. But we are not in such a society. Many republicans seem to idealize such a society, until they think through all the issues the idea raises.

I did talk with someone recently who proposed that the State get out of the business of trying to regulate sexual behavior between people altogether, including marriage. We may be going in tat direction.

 

[Sair]

I don’t see the connection, except that in a truly libertarian society, just about anything would be allowed. But we are not in such a society. Many republicans seem to idealize such a society, until they think through all the issues the idea raises.

I did talk with someone recently who proposed that the State get out of the business of trying to regulate sexual behavior between people altogether, including marriage. We may be going in tat direction.

A completely libertarian society is unlikely to be achievable - some “liberties” necessarily impinge upon the other liberties, such as the freedom of a murderer or a rapist to carry out their intentions - this negates the liberty of their victims. The “liberty” of some wealthy moguls to accumulate ever more wealth necessarily impinges upon the liberty of other members of society to obtain an equitable share of said wealth. From what limited exposure I’ve had to US Republican policies, they seem to focus upon preserving the liberties of the wealthy few rather than increasing those of the needy many.

Instituting an optimally libertarian society depends upon reaching a majority consensus upon which liberties are to be valued, and which are to be denied. Another good example is the relatively recent case of the publication of satirical cartoons of Muhammad - to which the response of some Muslims was very violent, and that response led to a fearful retreat by the Western press. People do have a right to feel offended, of course - but to what extent does this imply an obligation, on the part of others, to care about such offence? Certainly it would be difficult to put the case - at least, in Western society - that merely feeling offended is somehow a justification for threatening the lives of those perceived to have caused offence.

Be that as it may, it’s fair to say that prostitution may or may not be a situation that compromises the liberties of those involved. Is the liberty to pay for sexual intercourse a liberty that ought to be valued by society? It’s undoubtedly true that many women are coerced into prostitution through straitened circumstances - often brought about by the very same unequal distribution that results from the preservation of the “liberty” of some to accumulate obscene levels of personal wealth. But it’s also the case that there are some individuals who enjoy sex work and appreciate the ability to make their living doing something they are demonstrably good at. Should this latter group, whether it be a minority or not (and it almost certainly is) be denied this opportunity to pursue paid employment, and thus pay their taxes, pay for education, accommodation, or the support of any dependants they may have?

As far as gay marriage is concerned, it seems unlikely that allowing homosexual couples to contract legally binding and socially sanctioned unions will in any way impinge upon the liberties of those who dislike homosexuality on principle - such people are quite free to ignore something that is not their business anyway.

 

[tgrath]

A completely libertarian society is unlikely to be achievable - some “liberties” necessarily impinge upon the other liberties, such as the freedom of a murderer or a rapist to carry out their intentions - this negates the liberty of their victims. The “liberty” of some wealthy moguls to accumulate ever more wealth necessarily impinges upon the liberty of other members of society to obtain an equitable share of said wealth. From what limited exposure I’ve had to US Republican policies, they seem to focus upon preserving the liberties of the wealthy few rather than increasing those of the needy many.

Instituting an optimally libertarian society depends upon reaching a majority consensus upon which liberties are to be valued, and which are to be denied. Another good example is the relatively recent case of the publication of satirical cartoons of Muhammad - to which the response of some Muslims was very violent, and that response led to a fearful retreat by the Western press. People do have a right to feel offended, of course - but to what extent does this imply an obligation, on the part of others, to care about such offence? Certainly it would be difficult to put the case - at least, in Western society - that merely feeling offended is somehow a justification for threatening the lives of those perceived to have caused offence.

Be that as it may, it’s fair to say that prostitution may or may not be a situation that compromises the liberties of those involved. Is the liberty to pay for sexual intercourse a liberty that ought to be valued by society? It’s undoubtedly true that many women are coerced into prostitution through straitened circumstances - often brought about by the very same unequal distribution that results from the preservation of the “liberty” of some to accumulate obscene levels of personal wealth. But it’s also the case that there are some individuals who enjoy sex work and appreciate the ability to make their living doing something they are demonstrably good at. Should this latter group, whether it be a minority or not (and it almost certainly is) be denied this opportunity to pursue paid employment, and thus pay their taxes, pay for education, accommodation, or the support of any dependants they may have?

As far as gay marriage is concerned, it seems unlikely that allowing homosexual couples to contract legally binding and socially sanctioned unions will in any way impinge upon the liberties of those who dislike homosexuality on principle - such people are quite free to ignore something that is not their business anyway.

In a truly libertarian society, physicians would not even be licensed, etc… Those who profess libertarianism rarely actually want it.

Your assessment of the republican party is correct.

Your opinion on gay marriage seems to coincide with Canada’s experience. I don’t follow the issue very closely though. Has anyone heard of any legitimate negative consequences which have affected others in countries or states which allow gay marriage?

 

[BobCatholic]

The homosexual act isn’t a crime.

It used to be. It was called sodomy.
But now the sex-worshippers will drop every law against sexual activity. One by one.

Do any of the anti-gay marriage folk want them to be crimes? If not then what has gay marriage got to do with prostitution and sex crimes? I mean, which of you got married for sex, and if you didn’t, why on earth do you think gays would?

5,000 years of homosexual history and they didn’t want to get married before. In fact, they were proud of that. NOW they want to get married?

This is not part of what they are about. It is all about cultural Maxism.

 

[tomarin]

I was under the impression that Aquinas, without in any way questioning the mortal sinfulness of fornication, etc., had already advocated the legal toleration of prostitution in the 13th c. on the grounds that such legislation was beyond the purpose of the state, and, in fact, that legislation against prostitution and other forms of fornication might actually be counter to the good of the state. He even argues that the income that women make in this fashion should be protected by the state.

I believe there’s also something in the Catholic Catechism to the effect that prostitutes who do what they do to earn money in situations of extreme hardship should be regarded with some compassion.

 

[wynnejj]

Listen, Sister Mary. I know you mean well, but don’t tell me what I can do or not do as a summer job. My mom was a legal prostitute, my mom’s mom was a legal prostitute, and my uncle was a certified Manager of Women’s Affairs. My mom used the money she earned to pay her way through Catholic College where she earned a Ph.D. in Women’s Suicide Prevention counselling and is now on staff at the St Joseph’s Women’s Mental Hospital. Besides, my sister said she met her husband at work, so why can’t I?

 

[davidv]

Listen, Sister Mary. I know you mean well, but don’t tell me what I can do or not do as a summer job. My mom was a legal prostitute, my mom’s mom was a legal prostitute, and my uncle was a certified Manager of Women’s Affairs. My mom used the money she earned to pay her way through Catholic College where she earned a Ph.D. in Women’s Suicide Prevention counselling and is now on staff at the St Joseph’s Women’s Mental Hospital. Besides, my sister said she met her husband at work, so why can’t I?

Thus proving that education has very little to do with living a moral life.

 

[wynnejj]

Thus proving that education has very little to do with living a moral life.

When the State is not informed by Church (proper) values, the Church (people) tend to be informed primarily by State values.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It used to be. It was called sodomy.
But now the sex-worshippers will drop every law against sexual activity. One by one.

Inter-racial marriage was illegal in many parts of the USA until 1967. That it used to be illegal doesn’t tell us much when trying to evaluate the implications of it now.

 

[stewstew03]

Listen, Sister Mary. I know you mean well, but don’t tell me what I can do or not do as a summer job. My mom was a legal prostitute, my mom’s mom was a legal prostitute, and my uncle was a certified Manager of Women’s Affairs. My mom used the money she earned to pay her way through Catholic College where she earned a Ph.D. in Women’s Suicide Prevention counselling and is now on staff at the St Joseph’s Women’s Mental Hospital. Besides, my sister said she met her husband at work, so why can’t I?

I think I saw this movie on LifeTime.

 

[stewstew03]

Inter-racial marriage was illegal in many parts of the USA until 1967. That it used to be illegal doesn’t tell us much when trying to evaluate the implications of it now.

Likewise, inter-racial marriage laws do little to inform an analysis of same-sex marriage. Race is a suspect classification and so laws that impact someone based on his or her race are subject to the highest level of scrutiny. A lower level of scrutiny would apply to cases involving sexual orientation.

 

[BobCatholic]

Inter-racial marriage was illegal in many parts of the USA until 1967. That it used to be illegal doesn’t tell us much when trying to evaluate the implications of it now.

You are comparing apples and roast beef. (worse than comparing apples and oranges)

Inter-racial marriage had no moral implications.
“Gay marriage” has negative moral implications.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

It’s scary to think about but who knows what will happen in the next 50 years. As for me and my family, we will follow the lord.

50 years! Boy are you an optimist.

How about in the next 5 years or less. Look at Europe and some Central American countries.

The rate of deterioration of morals & ethics and the suppression of religious views is exponential.

We’ll be fortunate if we can still wear a crucifix in public after the next elections. That is of course if we re-elect you know who…then this country will deserve everything he has planned for us.

Oh…sorry. What was the question.

 

[LemonAndLime]

50 years! Boy are you an optimist.

How about in the next 5 years or less. Look at Europe and some Central American countries.

The rate of deterioration of morals & ethics and the suppression of religious views is exponential.

We’ll be fortunate if we can still wear a crucifix in public after the next elections. That is of course if we re-elect you know who…then this country will deserve everything he has planned for us.

Oh…sorry. What was the question.

I’m sorry, what about Europe?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m sorry, what about Europe?

Depending on where you are in Europe it is progressing to be more secular or more muslim. I’m pretty sure the secular change is the one being emphasized.

Example:

No more official religion for Norway

torontosun.com/2012/05/15/no-more-official-religion-for-norway
“Norway is distancing itself from its Christian past. The Storting – the country’s Parliament – will amend the constitution so that the state no longer has an official religion, ending the 1,000-year tradition of the Church of Norway…
The government will no longer have a minister of churches, and the state will no longer be responsible for the appointment of bishops and deans.
Instead, Norway will treat all religions and philosophies equally.”

 

[inocente]

5,000 years of homosexual history and they didn’t want to get married before. In fact, they were proud of that. NOW they want to get married?

I think you’ll find that gays in history didn’t have the same view about much at all. It seems very wrong to assign people a label based on a single characteristic and then behave as if makes for a them and us. Imho Christ is about finding reasons to unify, not divide.

 

[inocente]

I’m sorry, what about Europe?

I wander if it includes or excludes the Catholic countries - France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City.

 

[inocente]

5,000 years of homosexual history and they didn’t want to get married before. In fact, they were proud of that. NOW they want to get married?

I think you may find that gays never had a single view. It seems very wrong to assign people to sides based on a single characteristic - there is no “they”. Imho Christ is about finding reasons to unify, not divide.