Should Prostitution Be Legalized? (compared, Montana, versus, Chicago)

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by NCN

I was looking for a nice way to say it and you said it very well. Legalizing any vice is not the answer. Things that are sinful and wrong for people to do will always cost more for the government than their taxes benefit. That also includes drugs and alcohol and tobacco products. When I was in school we had a very wise teacher show us the statistics about this.

So if I can find enough people who feel that religion is a vice, then I should feel free to push for laws against it as well? I've known many people who were addicted to something who substituted that addiction with one for church. Much of their time and money were spent on church at the expense of their friends and family... so it must be a vice.

The thought that you have the right to tell two private individuals what they may do in private, or what an individual may do to their own body, is absolutely frightening. It opens the door for people to oppress you in the future under the guise of what someone else deems a sin.

Telling a lie is a sin... should we prosecute someone for each of those sins?

Not obeying your parents is a sin... what type of criminal punishment should we attach to that?

Envy is a sin... surely that one should be good for at least 5 years in the can if someone found you to be envious.

To consume blood is a sin... oh wait... but if you're Catholic this is what you do at communion... but if you're a Jehovah's Witness it's a sin... which do we choose to follow in determining if there's a law that is being broken?

[60-minutes-II]

Prostitution will never be legalized. We have too many people in this country who believe it is wrong for a man/women to pay for sex. But luckily our politicians share their opinion as well. I mean when was the last time any one knew of any politician using prostitutes? none. they do not do it because they it is illegal and they know they can go to jail just like any other regular joe.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

You talk like these women's bodies are as much of a purchase as a loaf of bread.

You're doing exactly what it is that keeps me so vehemently opposed to prostitution.

Women and their genitalia are objects, rather than people.

Tell me, I'm assuming the pretty women will bring a higher price than the less attractive, right?

Ugh.

It hurts me that their are people out there that would call themselves men and yet agree to legally exploiting women.

That might be 'male', but it ain't no man.

You're confused... what is up for debate really isn't if prostitution is moral, if it is a good thing, but if it's the role of the government to criminalize behavior between two consenting adults.

I won't step inside of a stripclub because I think it's gross... nevermind be with a prostitute. But that doesn't change my view on liberty. Adults should be free to make decisions which do not harm one another, even if they are poor decisions. Liberty is directly associated with being able to make bad choices, even if those choices aren't condoned.

Furthermore, the criminalization of such activities has proven to have little effect on them other than benefiting organized crime.

[60-minutes-II]

Do not forget that prostitution when legalized. Is the female being the one in charge of the male client not the other way around. But to many feminists are close-minded.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

You're confused... what is up for debate really isn't if prostitution is moral, if it is a good thing, but if it's the role of the government to criminalize behavior between two consenting adults.

I'm not confused. You haven't really read the OP. What's up for debate is clearly spelled out in the OP. You just side-stepped getting crap on your shoes. Sorry, support something like this and you're wading in (sh)it.

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

I won't step inside of a stripclub because I think it's gross... nevermind be with a prostitute. But that doesn't change my view on liberty. Adults should be free to make decisions which do not harm one another, even if they are poor decisions. Liberty is directly associated with being able to make bad choices, even if those choices aren't condoned.

In the real world, people realize most women don't become prostitutes due to aspiration and most probably aren't adults when they start either. So nice side-step again. I believe we should do everything possible to help women who feel the only thing they've got left to offer society is sex with a stranger.

Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn

Furthermore, the criminalization of such activities has proven to have little effect on them other than benefiting organized crime.

See, I told you I wasn't the one confused.

We're not talking about criminalizing a single thing.

We're talking about DEcriminalizing.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

You talk like these women's bodies are as much of a purchase as a loaf of bread.

You're doing exactly what it is that keeps me so vehemently opposed to prostitution.

Women and their genitalia are objects, rather than people.

Tell me, I'm assuming the pretty women will bring a higher price than the less attractive, right?

Ugh.

It hurts me that their are people out there that would call themselves men and yet agree to legally exploiting women.

I forgot what movie it was, but I saw it refently on cable. A kid asks a guy if he has a girl-friend. "No, I use hookers. They're cheaper".

That might be 'male', but it ain't no man.

Sure. If a woman wants to perform a service, and request payment for it, that's her business. If a woman is a good laundress, she can get paid for doing laundry. If a woman wants to be an airline stewardess or a news anchor on TV, she'll bring a higher price if she is pretty. Where are you from?

I am not here to defend men who use hookers, or get tattoos, or put custom rims on their car, or buy designer sunglasses. If a woman is down and out, and has to sell her heirloom jewelry on E-Bay, and a man buys it, is he "exploiting women"? At lest if she sells him her body, she can sell it again tomorrow.

I forgot what movie it was, but I saw this line recenlty. A kid asks a guy if he has a girl-friend. "No, I use hookers. They're cheaper". Who is exploiting whom?

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by 60-minutes-II

Prostitution will never be legalized. We have too many people in this country who believe it is wrong for a man/women to pay for sex. But luckily our politicians share their opinion as well. I mean when was the last time any one knew of any politician using prostitutes? none. they do not do it because they it is illegal and they know they can go to jail just like any other regular joe.

I'm not sure there are no politicians that have used prostitutes. Fred Richmond, Allan Howe, Dick Morris, Barney Frank and Eliot Spitzer are all politicians that have used prostitutes.
Criminalizing the action so that people will go to jail if they do it, doesn't stop someone from committing the action, it just means they'll do it where they won't get caught.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Sure. If a woman wants to perform a service, and request payment for it, that's her business. If a woman is a good laundress, she can get paid for doing laundry. If a woman wants to be an airline stewardess or a news anchor on TV, she'll bring a higher price if she is pretty. Where are you from?

Yet another wonderful example. 10-1 says you're a male. You just compared every woman's body to have the same value as her laundry and job. I bet you're a heckofa catch for some lucky lady.

Originally Posted by jtur88

I am not here to defend men who use hookers, or get tattoos, or put custom rims on their car, or buy designer sunglasses. If a woman is down and out, and has to sell her heirloom jewelry on E-Bay, and a man buys it, is he "exploiting women"? At lest if she sells him her body, she can sell it again tomorrow.

Of course you're not here to defend men who use hookers. You're here to waltz that same side-step that the previous poster did. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where every reference to not being gay was followed with a 'not that there's anything wrong with that'. So, you'll champion the cause for legalized prostitution but of course you'd never stoop to 'that' level right? Well, if it's all good and there's no exploitation, why not?

Originally Posted by jtur88

I forgot what movie it was, but I saw this line recenlty. A kid asks a guy if he has a girl-friend. "No, I use hookers. They're cheaper". Who is exploiting whom?

Were you really trying to make my point for me or do you just not realize you did?

Not needing a g/f because hookers are cheaper basically says women are only good for one thing--sex.

Tell the Mrs. I said I was praying for her.

[60-minutes-II]

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier

I'm not sure there are no politicians that have used prostitutes. Fred Richmond, Allan Howe, Dick Morris, Barney Frank and Eliot Spitzer are all politicians that have used prostitutes.
Criminalizing the action so that people will go to jail if they do it, doesn't stop someone from committing the action, it just means they'll do it where they won't get caught.

I was being sarcastic. Of course many politicians have slept with prostitutes. The fact that it still remains illegal is astounding considering how many politicians sleep with prostitutes. Who cares about the voice of a minority. If by legalizing it helps the majority than all the more reason why it should be legalized.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by 60-minutes-II

Who cares about the voice of a minority.

Spoken like a true red-blooded American.

Care to extend that line of thought to other arguments as well? (prayer in school, abortion, homosexual marriage)

Sorry, in this country ALL people have representation. Gays, women, pro-this, con-that.

You have to deal with minorities just like the rest of us.