Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question is incomplete. Since we do not have a separation of sex and state, and libs are unlikely to permit such a separation anytime soon, the question is:
Should states have the power to ban oral and anal sex, or should it be left to the federal government.
The reality is that most Americans, liberals most of all, support government regulation of sex. I live near uber-liberal Seattle, where sex enforcement is a major activity for police. Just over a year ago, Seattle police actually took over a a massage parlor for a day and ran stings out of it. Sex enforcement is a top priority for SPD. And right now the Seattle mayor is leading a crusade against backpage.com sex ads. The Blotter | Cops take over massage parlor, arrest six customers | Seattle Times Newspaper
If we're going to have regulation of sex by state, I would much prefer that it be left at the state or local level, so that I can get away from it by picking up and moving if need be. The threat of taxpayers moving alone would serve as a deterrent to unpopular bans.
I tolerated the Nevada policy allowing prostitution. That is until their advertisements started landing on billboards and in newspaper type vending machines on the streets of neighboring out of state cities. That is until it became a ripe climate for human trafficking of illegal immigrants abducted or sold into servitude abroad. That is until it overrode an entire states aspirations for other industries in a balanced fiscal portfolio. Turns out prostitution costs far more than anyone counted on. The one good thing Mayor Guiliani did for NYC was clean up Times Square. Schools and Churches have zoning laws on their side now to prevent kids on their way to school being visually or verbally assaulted by 'aggressive marketing' tactics. Adult freedoms have no business running roughshod over children.
85% of prostitutes in Sweden prefer that it never be legalized. They've indicated loudly they'd rather be doing other work would it not be for the crime of poverty & lack of viable job skills hastening exploitation. Comparing the two (thread OP and legalized prostitution) is wrong. One involves mutual consent, the other coercion through fiscal desperation. One involves actual freedom of individuals that has no negative impact on others, the other the 'freedom' to avoid accountability for consequences to all others. It might become more obvious to you if the punishment for pimping or being a John were to dress you up and make you service animals in a prison. Talk sweet to me, honey, or I'll hurt you. Walk a mile in my shoes before you make policies affecting my daughters.
I strongly disagree with conservatives, particularly my fellow Catholics, who've all but abandoned their true strength by putting themselves in the business of avoiding leading by example and overriding freewill that is God given. They exhibit little to no discipline over themselves, and yet demand government control all others to accommodate their own lack. This is dysfunctional and can only be solved by education from within Christian communities radiating outward, not through ham handed external legislation. I attribute this to a failure to teach, but heaven forbid women pick up the neglected chore. St Paul said thou shalt shut up, therefore, half the congregation biting their tongue as leadership walks off a cliff is official policy. Defying all logic, they persist blaming women in the flock for what is self inflicted willful ignorance.
I strongly disagree with drive by libertarians changing the meaning of 'rights' as a means of avoiding accountability at every turn. I strongly agree with Sweden reworking an age old problem by rounding up the unusual suspects instead of the 2+ millennia worth of usual ones. Prostitution is not illegal in Sweden. Being a John or a pimp is. Amsterdam is seriously reconsidering it's policy. Self abuse and exploitation cannot be remedied by the state joining in on the persecution as it plays in Russia and USA. Sex workers have a job far more dangerous (emotionally and physically) than handling nuclear waste or mining coal and libertarian philosophy is all too happy to sell them crack to numb out further. I side with liberals on this one, and with what was formerly conservative having it's cloak abused by knaves.
Rick Santorum: "We need to police ourselves and not allow....(insert scapegoat du jour) "
Rick, if only you could remove thy head from thy own behind. Put the accountability where it ever belonged and police yourself. Doing anything less is an empty suit. A self indulgent juvenile delinquent Napoleonic fantasy plaguing the conservative mind and undermining the integrity of Christianity.
History shows that when the power is put in the hands of the federal government, the most likely outcome is uniform lack of freedom. When the power is left at the state level, there is a chance for planting the seed of freedom in one state and having it spread from there.
Oh really? Virginia used to have laws on the books banning marriage of persons of different races. It was the federal case Loving v Virginia (1967) that overthrew that law.
I would ask the now 8 people who want this law how we would enforce it?
Well, I suppose these laws would be enforced the same way they were enforced before they were ruled unconstitutional, which is that they simply weren't the vast majority of the time.
It would be up to each state; I don't think these people are supporting a nationwide ban.
Santorum doesn't even have an economic or foreign policy. Just seems to be the anti gay guy. The irony of this is that he looks quite affeminate himself.
It's pretty well known that a lot of fiercy anti-gay activists are closeted homos themselves.
I would ask the now 8 people who want this law how we would enforce it?
Well, it would work like this. Since a lot of these State's rights people believe the Bill of Rights only (or should only) apply to Congress, and not to the States, each state could create a new "Department of Sexual Morality" and a new police force would be tasked with wiretapping and using video surveillance to monitor bedroom habits of citizens. When they see illegal acts taking place, they can storm the house SWAT style and arrest the offending party.
Since the 4th Amendment does not apply to the States under their system, no need to worry about those pesky warrants and invasion of privacy issues.
Think of all the jobs it will create, and how much more moral society will be with such a system!
Santorum obviously doesn't understand the meaning of freedom.
Do you guys even read your own liks?
Quote:
Santorum said he also opposes the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a ban on sodomy in Texas and 13 other states. Even though he would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right.
"I thought that law was an improper law ... but that doesn't mean the state doesn’t have a right to do that," he said.
Take note of the highlighted text. He didn't neccessarily agree with the law itself, just the right of the state to vote one in!
This is once again, a horrible lie of the left. No where has Santorum said he wanted to ban birth control or sodomy. He said he thought the states have the right, if the PEOPLE agree (by voting), to impose whatever statutes the PEOPLE decide to! And he is correct!!
What exactly is so hard to understand about that? That is the way our government was set up to run... as individual states, much like individual countries, so that the people could "vote with their feet" on issues like gay marraige and birth control. It's much easier to move to another state, but moving to a completely different country is not so easy to do. That's why our votes matter about all of these various issues. If you don't like a law or bill your state has placed, you can try to change it or move!
Reagan was a fool for saying that. If voting were to put the power in the hands of individuals, for their freedoms, there would be no need for attempts in the US Constitution to ensure protections against the government.
ROFL! Ya, cuz the government doesn't LOVE trampling all over individual rights. LOL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
