Decriminalizing indoor prostitution leads to fewer rapes and STDs

[resurrected]

fining them wouldn't be necessary if they were executed

 

[Rusha]

I don't understand how you think the mechanism of fining people for infidelity would work, or why it's even necessary.

Because in the case of divorce, the spouse who was cheated on should not have to suffer financially because his/her partner did the wrong thing. This should never be considered a "no fault divorce".

 

[Granite]

Because in the case of divorce, the spouse who was cheated on should not have to suffer financially because his/her partner did the wrong thing. This should never be considered a "no fault divorce".

Well, there's not always financial hardship on the part of the person who was cheated on...so, again, not sure why you think we should reduce infidelity to cutting a check. How about letting these people handle their own very personal business without involving the government hopping in? I don't understand that mentality at all.

 

[Rusha]

Well, there's not always financial hardship on the part of the person who was cheated on...so, again, not sure why you think we should reduce infidelity to cutting a check. How about letting these people handle their own very personal business without involving the government hopping in? I don't understand that mentality at all.

It is handled exactly that way which is why it isn't equitable.

 

[Granite]

It is handled exactly that way which is why it isn't equitable.

Well again, why don't you consider it fair? If there's no financial hardship involved and two folks go their separate ways, would you say that's fair enough and just leave it at that? I'm honestly real surprised to see you favoring something that's frankly more along the lines of the other side's thinking.

 

[Balerion the Black]

You are entitled to your opinion even though you are wrong. ANYONE who knowingly has a disease and spreads it to their spouse without their consent deserves time behind bars and even a possible death sentence. Causing intentional harm to another human being should always be a criminal act. Marriage shouldn't make a difference.

That's a different issue than one spouse being unfaithful to the other. Although by sleeping around, if they are not exceptionally careful, they do risk such things as bring STD's home. I would say that marriage implies monogamy unless both parties agree otherwise, so I would certainly consider someone infecting their partner with an STD that they acquired through extramarital sexual relations behind their partner's back to be deserving of criminal prosecution.

 

[Balerion the Black]

Well, there's not always financial hardship on the part of the person who was cheated on...so, again, not sure why you think we should reduce infidelity to cutting a check. How about letting these people handle their own very personal business without involving the government hopping in? I don't understand that mentality at all.

Should depend on the couple in question. If they want to work things out by themselves without the government getting involved then certainly they should be able to do so.

The government would be for when they have unresolved issues between them that they can't work out themselves.

 

[Granite]

Should depend on the couple in question. If they want to work things out by themselves without the government getting involved then certainly they should be able to do so.

The government would be for when they have unresolved issues between them that they can't work out themselves.

We have courts and lawyers for that already--what Rusha seems to be suggesting goes well above and beyond the current system.

 

[Rusha]

We have courts and lawyers for that already--what Rusha seems to be suggesting goes well above and beyond the current system.

Nah, as far as the criminal prosecution, BTB pretty much summed up my position.

That's a different issue than one spouse being unfaithful to the other. Although by sleeping around, if they are not exceptionally careful, they do risk such things as bring STD's home. I would say that marriage implies monogamy unless both parties agree otherwise, so I would certainly consider someone infecting their partner with an STD that they acquired through extramarital sexual relations behind their partner's back to be deserving of criminal prosecution.

I am not speaking of a couple that has agreed to have an open marriage. I am speaking of one spouse bringing something into the marriage that the other spouse did not agree to. A deadly STD. Just like when you marry someone, neither partner needs to say "I thought it was fine to sprinkle arsenic on your toast without mentioning it to you ... because, we are a couple."

 

[Granite]

At that point I'd wonder if there are already laws in place for this situation. Again, it's not exactly what I'm speaking to.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Women don't want to be prostitutes,
Men don't want to be seen with a prostitute,
Yet people want it legalized.
Errr.. ...what's wrong with this picture folks.

Actions have consequences. If someone is stupid enough to sell there actual body to the kind of slime that would pay for a body, then they can't be surprised at what might happen to them.

Its like this: Nobody deserves to get robbed or have their money stolen. But if you are dumb enough to walk in a really bad neighborhood with wads of cash hanging out of your pocket, then guess what: You're getting robbed man, and you have your own stupidity to blame for it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

then i challenge you to make an argument for any role for the state regarding marriage

I can't speak for Granite, but I don't think there should be any such role.

Everyone doing what they want with no reference to any other authority than themselves.

That's what I mean when I use the word "anarchy." If I use it with some other meaning, I'll indicate that I am.

OK, fair enough.

By that definition, I don't think there's any such thing as an anarchist. Or at least, people who actually call themselves anarchists are not. So, by your definition, somebody like Larken Rose would actually not be an anarchist but actually something else.

I'm willing to use the same definitions as you, I just wanted to make sure I knew what you were saying.

With that said, I am not an anarchist, but I am an anti-statist. And I do not believe the elimination of the State would result in anarchy.

Which is why I stated in the case where no physical harm is caused, the adulterous spouse should be penalized by paying a large amount of compensation to the spouse who was cheated on due to the financial hardship of the victimized spouse (not alimony or child support).

And ... it should be enforced.

I disagree, but I'm not really sure how to argue it beyond that.

i have to laugh at you foolish God-rejecting retards trying to improve on what God has given us :chuckle:

Hold on, are you saying that in order to be a Christian you must not only believe in Jesus Christ as the perfect sacrifice for your sins, but also support the institution of Old Testament Law?

Really?

I don't understand how you think the mechanism of fining people for infidelity would work, or why it's even necessary.

Well, if the other partner reports it, its certainly possible. And frankly, I think enforcing drug laws is harder, since in those cases there often is nobody with incentive to report (although, of course, I think those are bad laws to.)

Note that that doesn't mean I actually support such laws, but we already have laws that are harder to enforce than that.

fining them wouldn't be necessary if they were executed

Because in the case of divorce, the spouse who was cheated on should not have to suffer financially because his/her partner did the wrong thing. This should never be considered a "no fault divorce".

OK, there are a couple of presuppositions I disagree with here.

First of all, I don't think the government should be regulating marriage. The only role government should have is the same as any other contract.

I don't know exactly how civil courts are going to handle child custody situations, and splitting of money that was formerly shared in common. Short of a prior agreement, I don't necessarily know what the best way is. If you want to say that one partner breaking the agreement and sleeping with someone else should be taken into account, I don't disagree. That doesn't mean adultery should be a crime.

Well again, why don't you consider it fair? If there's no financial hardship involved and two folks go their separate ways, would you say that's fair enough and just leave it at that? I'm honestly real surprised to see you favoring something that's frankly more along the lines of the other side's thinking.

What other side?

Nah, as far as the criminal prosecution, BTB pretty much summed up my position.



I am not speaking of a couple that has agreed to have an open marriage. I am speaking of one spouse bringing something into the marriage that the other spouse did not agree to. A deadly STD. Just like when you marry someone, neither partner needs to say "I thought it was fine to sprinkle arsenic on your toast without mentioning it to you ... because, we are a couple."

Yeah, murder is murder an that's never OK.

Women don't want to be prostitutes,
Men don't want to be seen with a prostitute,
Yet people want it legalized.
Errr.. ...what's wrong with this picture folks.

Just because we wouldn't make a certain choice ourselves doesn't mean we want to threaten people with government violence if they make that choice.

Actions have consequences. If someone is stupid enough to sell there actual body to the kind of slime that would pay for a body, then they can't be surprised at what might happen to them.

Its like this: Nobody deserves to get robbed or have their money stolen. But if you are dumb enough to walk in a really bad neighborhood with wads of cash hanging out of your pocket, then guess what: You're getting robbed man, and you have your own stupidity to blame for it.

That doesn't mean the robbery shouldn't be prosecuted. Of course, police would look for any excuse not to do something that's actually worthwhile

 

[Granite]

I can't speak for Granite, but I don't think there should be any such role.

I tend to agree.

Well, if the other partner reports it, its certainly possible. And frankly, I think enforcing drug laws is harder, since in those cases there often is nobody with incentive to report (although, of course, I think those are bad laws to.)

Reporting's one thing, proof is another. This is an extra layer of bureaucracy and trouble we don't need, and that remains unnecessary. I mean, really--we're supposed to cut checks on top of the messiness of getting divorced in the first place? And all because someone stepped out? Foolish.

What other side?

Yours, although you happen to be more reasonable than most.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I tend to agree.



Reporting's one thing, proof is another. This is an extra layer of bureaucracy and trouble we don't need, and that remains unnecessary. I mean, really--we're supposed to cut checks on top of the messiness of getting divorced in the first place? And all because someone stepped out? Foolish.

Yeah, true, it would be almost impossible to prove. And yes, I think its a foolish idea. What I was arguing (which admittedly may be wrong, I'm not sure) is that it could theoretically be enforced, not that I agree with it.

Yours, although you happen to be more reasonable than most.

I still don't know what side I'm supposedly on. You think I'm on the same side as the people here who want to criminalize adultery? That doesn't really make sense unless the divide you are making is Biblical vs Secular backed ethical systems, which would be an odd place to draw the line.

Just for curiosity, is Ron Paul on my side or yours? Because I agree with him probably somewhere around 95% of the time.

 

[Lighthouse]

Adultery is grounds for divorce, if the cuckolded spouse wishes to terminate the marriage over it. Aside from that there is no reason for the state to get involved.

Irrelevant to the fact that there is still a victim.

I'll get into all the reasons it should be criminalized later.

I think the problem is that libertarians are using terms differently than you are.

"Victim" does not simply mean that an action somehow causes unpleasant consequences, it means that someone's rights were violated. Which means their right to self-ownership or the ownership of their property was breeched. Which isn't the case in adultery.

Now, I understand that you are a theonomist and so you think adultery should be criminal because it was in the Old Testament. But I'm operating on a different axiom here.

How are the rights of the spouse not violated?

P.S.
breached.

 

[Christian Liberty]

How are the rights of the spouse not violated?

Because the spouse was not attacked, nor was her property.

Now, does it take a scumbag to do that? Sure. Similar to how it takes a scumbag to see a starving child and just pass them by, but that isn't a crime.

Now, here's the interesting thing. Even in the Old Testament prostitution wasn't a crime per say. So, I find it interesting how theonomists are so quick to want to criminalize it.

P.S.
breached.

Fair enough, I'm not a spelling nazi

 

[Christian Liberty]

Here's something that should put things in perspective, Lighthouse.

You see someone about to shoot a child. You have a gun and have the ability, with a very high likelihood of success, to quickly pull it out and shoot the perpetrator before he can kill the child. Would you do it? I think you would.

The next day, you see a man who you know is married about to walk into a hotel room with a married woman who you know is not his spouse. The man told you the previous day that he was going to go into that hotel and have an adulterous relationship with that woman. You have a gun on hand and could kill one or both of the parties in order to prevent the adulterous affair from occurring. Do you do it? I don't think you do.

Why? Because again, the adultery is in the strictest sense victimless. Yes, its horrible and its going to very likely have a profound emotional impact on the spouses of the adulterers, but its not an aggressive act and thus rightly not a crime.

 

[resurrected]

i'd shoot the scumbag :idunno:


right where it don't grow back

 

[Christian Liberty]

i'd shoot the scumbag :idunno:


right where it don't grow back

No you wouldn't.

You're a statist pansy who whines to the State to use aggressive violence on your behalf.

You know better and you are subhuman. Repent.

I am genuinely curious of how Lighthouse will answer this. Since I'm fairly confident he wouldn't shoot the adulterer, and I'm also fairly certain he would shoot the murderer.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because the spouse was not attacked, nor was her property.

There was a violation. And being of one flesh with one's spouse means it was their person that was violated.

And how can you stand in judgment claiming there is no attack when you have no idea what it feels like to be a cuckold?

Now, does it take a scumbag to do that? Sure. Similar to how it takes a scumbag to see a starving child and just pass them by, but that isn't a crime.

Should it be a crime to give that child food and then take it away from them and eat it?

Now, here's the interesting thing. Even in the Old Testament prostitution wasn't a crime per say. So, I find it interesting how theonomists are so quick to want to criminalize it.

How was prostitution not a crime? Adultery was certainly a crime, so prostitutes were not allowed to be married or have sex with someone who was married. And if they were single and had sex with someone else who was single and they were caught in the act they were forced to get married to each other.

Fair enough, I'm not a spelling nazi

Speaking of which: "per se," and "Nazi." The latter is supposed to be capitalized.

Here's something that should put things in perspective, Lighthouse.

You see someone about to shoot a child. You have a gun and have the ability, with a very high likelihood of success, to quickly pull it out and shoot the perpetrator before he can kill the child. Would you do it? I think you would.

The next day, you see a man who you know is married about to walk into a hotel room with a married woman who you know is not his spouse. The man told you the previous day that he was going to go into that hotel and have an adulterous relationship with that woman. You have a gun on hand and could kill one or both of the parties in order to prevent the adulterous affair from occurring. Do you do it? I don't think you do.

Why? Because again, the adultery is in the strictest sense victimless. Yes, its horrible and its going to very likely have a profound emotional impact on the spouses of the adulterers, but its not an aggressive act and thus rightly not a crime.

Actually my reason is that it's not necessary to kill anyone to prevent the adultery from taking place. But in such a situation I could very well get a little physically violent.