How are you DIRECTLY negatively impacted by two men having sex?
Two men having sex (and hetrosexual anal sex) spreads disease. Since medical problems, and their costs have been socialized, it affects me directly in the pocketbook.
Prostitution should remain illegal for similar reasons - it causes societal and medical problems.
But this ruling can easily be used to cover "comercial" sex - why not?
I'm willing to bet that non-commercial sex between men and women spreads far more disease than prostitution or gay sex.
In fact, I'd guarantee it.
Also, in localities with legal prostitution(provided there are basic health checks) the disease rate is almost nil. Contrast that with runaway disease rates in places where prostitution is illegal.
Did you know that prostitution was even legal in Singapore, that authoritarian paradise?
BTW, what you are essentially doing is deciding that because a person MIGHT be involved in a societally detrimental result, they are essentially guilty of it prior to commission.
Guess you feel the same way about guns too eh?
posted on 06/26/2003 8:58:47 PM PDT
"Two men having sex (and hetrosexual anal sex) spreads disease."
Handshakes spread disease, too. Should the government outlaw handshaking, in the interest of public health?
Oh, and prostitution? Let's see. You can have sex with all the women you want, so long as you don't pay for it. Giving them one penny in return for their services would suddenly introduce a public health threat, right?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson