Posted on 02/13/2006 7:53:18 AM PST by mlc9852
Correct, except for one thing, not criminalizing something is not the the same thing as accepting it.
To buy and sell it on the open market dishonors us as human beings made in the image of God.
Absolutely correct.
"So what do you call the men?
"
Hah! Good question. Let's see if you get an answer.
I'm not holding my breath. Although I could think of a few...
The first part is right. The second one is arguable. The third is incorrect.
"But to make this our reasoning for accepting prostitution is to intimate that sex is only a physical act. I maintain that it is much more than a mere physical transaction. To buy and sell it on the open market dishonors us as human beings made in the image of God."
Well, for you, perhaps, the sexual act is something more than a physical act. That belief, however, is not held by everyone, I'm afraid. And, sex is obtained by many under false pretenses, often taking in people who might believe as you do.
The bottom line is that we, as mammals, have a drive to reproduce. That drive is biological. All mammals have sex in essentially the same way. Only humans have the capacity to raise it to some other level, using their intellect. Still, the mammalian drive remains, and not everyone is willing to rationalize sex into some sort of holy act.
Thus, we have prostitution. We also have casual sex among adults. One is illegal. The other is commonplace.
Your question makes me think of the Cartoon frenzy.
Observant Jews don't eat pork -- but they do not riot to get bacon out of supermarkets.
Muslims do not make pictures of Mohammad -- and they do riot if non-Muslims make pictures of Mohammad.
If prostitution offends people -- should they simply stay away themselves (Jewish/Pork approach) or should they demand that everyone follow their personal rules (Muslim/Cartoon approach).
FWIW, I'm opposed to prostition. But I think laws on moral issues are never simple.
If the word "slut" has a female connotation, it shouldn't. I refer to them as sluts as well.
"The first part is right. The second one is arguable. The third is incorrect."
OK. You believe that taxation is wrong. Fine. What I meant, and didn't fully explain, is that the income from prostitution should be taxed in the same way any other income is taxed.
If, by some miracle, we find another taxation method than taxing income, then that would apply as well.
As for the regulation issue, monitoring prostitutes for STDs seems a basic public health issue, worthy of regulatory interest, just as we inspect restaurants.
Muleteam1
I think that is a very nasty word and have never, ever heard it applied to men.
If we passed forced based laws (all of them) against everything offensive or immoral the ultimate result would be something akin to the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
"I've always found it strange that some men who can demand huge salaries still have to pay for sex."
I'm not sure who decides which words are "nasty". I use it because it is descriptive.
have never, ever heard it applied to men.
Now you have.
"I think that is a very nasty word and have never, ever heard it applied to men."
Well, gay men use the term to apply to men.
Generally, the word "slut" simply means someone who is willing to have sex with only minimal or no inducements. It's sort of redundant when applied to a lot of men, some of whom would have sex with a knothole in a piece of wood.
That's why it's more often applied to women who are willing or eager to have casual sexual encounters.
Actually, I think there is still a huge double standard when it comes to women, men and sex.
Men who have sex with anything that moves are considered macho and women who have sex with these desperate men are sluts.
Wanna bet? :-)
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Ick,,that's a bad image.
BTW, government inspection of restaurants is probably one of the worst ways to insure safety of the food. Rife with corruption and incompetence, people still get sick regularly.
A private sector solution would do a far better, if not perfect, job of it. Government will not allow competition in this regard. (as in so many others)
Yes, well...that's your belief.
You might be running in the wrong company. People I usually associate with never thought that.
"A private sector solution would do a far better, if not perfect, job of it. Government will not allow competition in this regard. (as in so many others)"
OK. I'm not a Libertarian to that degree, so I disagree with you. Yes, health inspections of restaurants are not foolproof, but I maintain that private sector solutions would be no better. Anytime you have human interaction, there is risk of corruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.