Prostitutes and Politics Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?

Reason Online ^ | May 7, 2007 | Cathy Young

[Lusis]

The resignation of Randall Tobias, the chief of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, for "personal reasons" following the revelation that he had engaged the services of two escort-service workers has provided rich grist for amusement on the punditry circuit. There was indeed plenty of material for humor in the situation, from Tobias's strong stand in favor of abstinence teaching in AIDS prevention programs to his "I didn't inhale"-style assertion that he never had sex with the women. But the predictable laughs have obscured a much larger issue than hypocrisy in the ranks of social conservatives. The reason Tobias's call-girl adventures became public is that the owner of the Washington, DC-based service, Pamela Martin, is facing prosecution and has turned her records over to news organizations to help pay for her legal defense.

Even those who feel a certain schadenfreude at Tobias's downfall should be asking the question: should there have been a criminal case in the first place?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Prostitution is sin. And thus, as sin, it deprives one of life (the judgement of God for sin is death). It deprives of liberty, as one is then cast into the lake of fire. It deprives of property, as one has nothing since all that all that God gives is given to those who are in Christ, while everything else is taken away from those who have sinned and not accepted Christ.

Nothing personal, but I sincerly doubt you could make the "argument" you made without using such a heavy dose of metaphysics. Go ahead and try, limiting your argument to the "Earthly" realm . . .

[sentis1]

Yes the most important one “Washington DC” and I said I would give more evidence if you would cite a few places where it was actually illegal before the 20th century. You didn’t cite anything but your uninformed opinion. Remember I said just saying “No it wasn’t” isn’t a rebuttal more along the lines of a cop out.

[TheKidster]

Excellent post!

I’d only add that another part of the problem is that people, and the Church were seduced into using the force of government to enforce morality, which produced an unfortunate side effect of dependance on this force rather than individual accountability. If govt. is sought after as the ultimate power to protect or hold accountable then there is no need for the individual to exercise this and therefore no expectation that one’s neighbor exercise personal accountability either. We have lost this capacity recently along with the effectiveness of social stigma and shame.

[wideawake]

Yes the most important one “Washington DC”

Very few people would argue that the laws prevailing in the city of Washington DC are a good indicator of the rest of the country's laws.

Shall we compare firearm laws?

I said I would give more evidence

Then feel free to. I'm not stopping you.

[TheKidster]

I was going to but then decided that isn’t proper or fair to you, I did a bad job of editing. It seems you tend toward being a nanny statist but that’s just my perception based on one post, hardly a fact and not a good basis to label you with that disgusting label.

[TheKidster]

Common sense is, especially when one cites a statistical percentage isn’t common sense. It’s emotional fantasy expressed through a number made up in the hope that it will eleicit a similar emotional response from the audience. Those who are not niaive enought to fall for this see it as ridiculous.

[psychoknk]

Very simple - if what you are doing does not infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or property of another individual. GOD made us all free to do anything we want but when our actions deprive another of life, liberty, or thier property then we have govt. to stop us, punish us or give the victim redress to recoup losses.

If you read my other posts, you would see that I agree with this assessment.

Only someone who fears freedom, distrusts liberty, and does not recognize personal accountability believes our rights come from a government created list, and would ask such a silly question.

Or someone who doesn't want to put words in people's mouths. The whole reason I asked that question was to get people to admit that they want laws in place as a form a social engineering. See this post.

[JamesP81]

That's a wonderful sentiment, but again, I ask "which Church?"

Granted, there have been some egregious actions on the part of some church leaders who, clearly, shouldn't have been church leaders. Nevertheless, it is a simple fact that the christian church consists of all believers, and the forefathers, wanted local Christians to be the moral conscience of government and society (whether or not they liked certain denominations or not is irrelevant to the design of our government, even if it is a personal flaw on some of their parts). In fact, they considered it to be necessary to the functioning of our republic.

You are not your brother's keeper---such a notion is entirely incongruent with religious tolerance.

Cain tried that. Didn't work so well. The function of the Church (or churches if you prefer it) is to be the moral conscience of society. Our government does not work otherwise. Now, if I didn't give a crap about this republic or about the people in it, I'd keep my mouth shut and not moralize. Seeing how I do, however, there's not going to be any of this meek moral acceptance of what goes on simply because it's legal.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

[JamesP81]

I’d only add that another part of the problem is that people, and the Church were seduced into using the force of government to enforce morality, which produced an unfortunate side effect of dependance on this force rather than individual accountability. If govt. is sought after as the ultimate power to protect or hold accountable then there is no need for the individual to exercise this and therefore no expectation that one’s neighbor exercise personal accountability either. We have lost this capacity recently along with the effectiveness of social stigma and shame.

You've hit the nail on its head, my FRiend. I'd also add that government, by its nature, wants people to be dependent on that force. The reason a government ruled by leftists dislikes Christians is because we don't owe our highest allegiance to them. We owe our ultimate allegiance to a different power; we already have Someone who is our master and the left hates that.

The sphere of government is to prevent the infringement of individual liberties; the sphere of the Church is to condemn all immorality and preach the Truth. The two overlap to some extent, but not in their entirety. Contrary to what the leftists want, a person can belong in both spheres. I know what is moral and immoral, but I also know what it is appropriate for govt to legislate or not legislate. The reason the lefties hate this is because it's a system that gives us freedom to say what we wish about anything, and that puts us beyond their control. They can't stand that.

[TheKidster]

Government is legitimately allowed to use force to prevent people from being defrauded - you are correct and i should have specified that. It does not apply here though, unless the John refuses to pay or the whore rolls the John.

Sin begins well before an actual act is performed, anyone familiar with the bible knows this, especially if they have accepted the gospel and Jesus’ sacrifice on thier behalf. Sin begins in the heart so if you really want to use the force of Government to save souls we need to outlaw lustfully looking at a woman. That’s all it takes to condemn one to hell because Jesus clearly told us that is a commission of adultery in one’s heart and James tells us that to break one point of the Law is to break the whole Law. Remember GOD is perfectly Holy and will not countenance sin - there are no degrees with HIM. He is perfectly holy and just. GOD holds us accountable for our thoughts, words and deeds and sin’s development follows this pattern. Sinful heart produces sinful words and finally when opportunity finally knocks sin is realized by action.
That is why religion will not grant salvation, religious acts and religious abstinance will not sanctify - remember Jesus’ reference to the pharisees and saducees as white washed tombs?

I say all this to point out that legislating morality does nothing to make a society moral. At best it white washes things on the surface, at worst it creates secret perversions and a pride of the outward appearance that hardens society’s heart agains the conviction of the HOLY SPIRIT within a society’s heart.

While those who support a nanny state kneel before the alter and pray to God a prayer of thanks that they are so moral and upstanding and better than thier fellows, The LORD will be listening to the hookers and pot smokers who beat thier breasts before the alter crying in humility for true relief from the sin in thier hearts.

The more you legislate moral issues that don’t deprive others of tangible life, liberty and property through force or fraud the less relevant you make the church and set people up as idols who feel they can do a better job of convicting society of it’s immorality than GOD’s Holy Spirit and His Word.

Remember what happened to the last guy who thought he could and should take GOD’s place? Unfortunately there is no forgiveness for him and he prowls around us like a lion searching for whom he may devour.

[TheKidster]

If you don’t respond with actual documentation, everyone on this board will know that you are wrong, have no facts and have just responded out of emotion, prejudice, and a need for another doobie.

Go troll someone else I’m challenging an assumption somebody made. You’re just being a goofy and ignorant.

[TheKidster]

You’re right, I’m guilty of responding to your post before reading the entire string, and I offer my apology for that
I’m sorry.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The function of the Church (or churches if you prefer it) is to be the moral conscience of society.

I'm sorry, but that's where I believe you to be wrong. The function of a church is to direct the religious life and spiritual life of the members of that church. Despite what you may want, the moral dictates of a church are simply not binding on those who do not belong to that church.

Our government does not work otherwise.

Sure it would, because it more-or-less "codifies" the grand, sweeping generalities of the Judeo-Christian ethic which underpines Western civilization. Those notions with which we all, more or less, agree.

The Devil, of course, is in the details, and when you, and others, try to tease the details of your religious beliefs into law---that's where you run into problems. Because good people from all walks of life can disagree, passionately, about "morality"---especially when you get down in the weeds.

[TheKidster]

They also hate it because it gives us a perspective to call them on the evil in an “ends justify the means” situation which seems to come up all too often in government solutions to social problems. Athiests & moral reletivists have no such luxury.

[Scotswife]

“More specficially, it has always been legal to pay for sex. It is only illegal to do so in SOME circumstances.”

yes.
And that it was why pornography is legal, and prostitution is not.

[Scotswife]

A victimless crime?

Hmmm, I wonder how many betrayed wives and children of divorce feel that way.

[Constantine XIII]

“Perhaps because trafficking in human flesh is bad policy as well as immoral.”

Quoted for truth!

[JamesP81]

That post was awesome. You said what I’ve been trying to say, but couldn’t quite find the wording.

[JamesP81]

I'm sorry, but that's where I believe you to be wrong.

The Forefathers disagree with you. You are, of course, allowed to think anything you like.

You are also wrong, at least in part, about the function of the Church. My point about the church's function being the moral voice in society's mind is only part of its job; the part that relates to society and the civil authority. It's main purpose is to spread the good news of Christ's sacrifice. Though it may not matter to you, that's another function of the church that many inside the church seem to have forgotten.

[Constantine XIII]