Decriminalizing indoor prostitution leads to fewer rapes and STDs

[resurrected]

Only a sick mind would want to make the children lose a parent, traumatize them, and traumatize the innocent spouse, and also lose out on future support payments in the case of a divorce. Talk about really victimizing others. Please leave your dark age barbaric "morality" locked away in that sadistic part of your mind where it belongs.

this is the problem of the liberal mind (not saying you're a lib, tin) - focusing on the individual instead of on the individuals

i agree that it would be a hardship for the first adulterer to be put to death and for their family

but if it was known that adultery swiftly and surely led to the death penalty, how many spouses would freely enter into the practice?




it was hard on my son when i spanked him for being disobedient

but through that discipline and correction, he learned the right ways


we've lost that as a society

 

[Christian Liberty]

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?

Because the issue isn't about feelings.

Let me turn the question around: if you got married and your wife committed adultery on you, would you want her to be executed?

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

Well, yes, that would be theft. Once you give something away it becomes the other person's, and to take it back would be theft.

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.

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/LawOfLiberty/Harlotry.php

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.

If you would than fair enough. Its certainly not a likely situation anyways. My biggest issue with a lot of people is they are very quick to say "There ought to be a law" regarding an activity they would never personally use violence to prevent. The political system allows them to deny responsibility and leads to an incredibly violent society based around control.

1) I never said it shouldn't be prosecuted.

2) Your disdain for law enforcement is just another one of your lame, teenaged outlooks on life.

You say government is too big, could it continue to be so if nobody agreed to be a cop?

this is the problem of the liberal mind (not saying you're a lib, tin) - focusing on the individual instead of on the individuals

i agree that it would be a hardship for the first adulterer to be put to death and for their family

but if it was known that adultery swiftly and surely led to the death penalty, how many spouses would freely enter into the practice?




it was hard on my son when i spanked him for being disobedient

but through that discipline and correction, he learned the right ways


we've lost that as a society

Liberals typically focus on the collective rather than the individual.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

No, I'm not saying they support rapes. They just don't support reducing them..........

A rose by any other name..........

No, I'm not saying they support rapes. They just don't support reducing them because they view the additional prostitution that results from legalizing it as worse I guess.

You have no proof that legalizing it would reduce rapes. All you have is some lame-brained report probably put together by some leftwing government employee hacks.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The reason why modern men are not getting enough lawful sex is because of the rebellious state of the western feminist woman. Criminalizing prostitution has nothing to do with it. You are trying to deflect to avoid blame.

So are you. A man who knows His place before God and how to treat his wife has no trouble getting enough "lawful sex".

 

[Christian Liberty]

So are you. A man who knows His place before God and how to treat his wife has no trouble getting enough "lawful sex".

What if the man is single?

 

[Angel4Truth]

What if the man is single?

Are you a christian?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Are you a christian?

Yes. My question was a joke though.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because the issue isn't about feelings.

Let me turn the question around: if you got married and your wife committed adultery on you, would you want her to be executed?

Seeing as how I stand today and proclaim that I believe adultery deserves execution why would I be a hypocrite if it were my wife?

Well, yes, that would be theft. Once you give something away it becomes the other person's, and to take it back would be theft.

So in the case of a person giving themselves to their spouse and then turning around and giving themselves to someone else it is what?

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/LawOfLiberty/Harlotry.php

No. We're not doing that. Make your case or stifle.

If you would than fair enough. Its certainly not a likely situation anyways. My biggest issue with a lot of people is they are very quick to say "There ought to be a law" regarding an activity they would never personally use violence to prevent. The political system allows them to deny responsibility and leads to an incredibly violent society based around control.

Have you ever explained why you think God made said law in the first place?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Are you a christian?

He's a kid.

.....Make your case or stifle.........

 

[Christian Liberty]

Seeing as how I stand today and proclaim that I believe adultery deserves execution why would I be a hypocrite if it were my wife?

Because when its your wife there's a real person involved and real emotions involved.

What do you propose doing if the aggrieved spouse wants to forgive the other spouse and rebuild their marriage?

So in the case of a person giving themselves to their spouse and then turning around and giving themselves to someone else it is what?

Potentially a contract violation. I guess the question is whether you can in a legal sense truly give yourself away. Even still, thieves aren't put to death.

No. We're not doing that. Make your case or stifle.

I'm actually not totally sure that the position taken in the article is correct, so I can't really defend it. I don't know enough about OT law. That said, effectively the argument made in the article is that the law that says prostitutes should be burned with fire deals specifically with the daughter of a priest, and that the OT doesn't directly say anything about other prostitutes.

Have you ever explained why you think God made said law in the first place?

For all the political issues I debate on a near-daily basis, this one is pretty much confined to this forum, so I don't really think about it much. You're like the only person I actually talk to (I don't have serious conversations with Nick or Res) who takes the position that you take. I think its clear from John 8 that Jesus didn't approve of the adulterous woman being put to death, although I know we've hashed that one out before and still disagree on it. 1 Corinthians 5 doesn't seem to allow for executing sexual degenerates either.

I think the reason was at least in part to keep the covenental people of God pure, something that wouldn't really apply to the US. I think those laws were specifically for the Holy Land.

Now, I could see how you could make an argument that adultery could be a form of theft and a breech of contract, but even then, it wouldn't be punishable by death.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because when its your wife there's a real person involved and real emotions involved.

So?

What do you propose doing if the aggrieved spouse wants to forgive the other spouse and rebuild their marriage?

Do you think God's law allowed for reconciliation rather than execution of the adulterous couple?

Potentially a contract violation. I guess the question is whether you can in a legal sense truly give yourself away. Even still, thieves aren't put to death.

So marriage is just a contract to you?

God seemed to think you could give yourself away, seeing as how it is He who referred to marriage as two becoming one flesh.

Adultery is much more than theft.

I'm actually not totally sure that the position taken in the article is correct, so I can't really defend it. I don't know enough about OT law. That said, effectively the argument made in the article is that the law that says prostitutes should be burned with fire deals specifically with the daughter of a priest, and that the OT doesn't directly say anything about other prostitutes.

The law does discuss adultery and fornication, and what is to be done with those caught in the act.

For all the political issues I debate on a near-daily basis, this one is pretty much confined to this forum, so I don't really think about it much. You're like the only person I actually talk to (I don't have serious conversations with Nick or Res) who takes the position that you take. I think its clear from John 8 that Jesus didn't approve of the adulterous woman being put to death, although I know we've hashed that one out before and still disagree on it. 1 Corinthians 5 doesn't seem to allow for executing sexual degenerates either.

1 Corinthians 5 isn't dealing with the law. It has no relevance in this discussion. And as I've shown you before, Jesus followed the law to the letter with the adulteress.

I think the reason was at least in part to keep the covenental people of God pure, something that wouldn't really apply to the US. I think those laws were specifically for the Holy Land.

Is that all you've got?

Maybe you should take some time to study this and think it through before taking a stance on it.

Now, I could see how you could make an argument that adultery could be a form of theft and a breech of contract, but even then, it wouldn't be punishable by death.

Marriage is much more than a contract and adultery much deeper than a breach of contract or theft.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So?

I don't know. I can't imagine wanting to see someone I cared that deeply about die, no matter what they did to me. Then again, I haven't been in the position, and neither have you, so I guess there's that.

Do you think God's law allowed for reconciliation rather than execution of the adulterous couple?

Not to my knowledge, although it was pretty much unenforceable anyway (2 witnesses required, which wouldn't happen that often.) More importantly, we aren't in the Old Testament.

So marriage is just a contract to you?

Of course not, but I'm thinking in legalistic terms here. As a LEGAL principle, marriage is a contract. Now, to God, of course it is not just a contract.

God seemed to think you could give yourself away, seeing as how it is He who referred to marriage as two becoming one flesh.

, in the eyes of God sure.
See above, I have legality in mind here.

Adultery is much more than theft.

Again, the legal rights violation that occurs would be breech of contract, that doesn't mean that that's all it is from a moral or emotional context.

The law does discuss adultery and fornication, and what is to be done with those caught in the act.

Sure, but that was Old Testament law.

1 Corinthians 5 isn't dealing with the law. It has no relevance in this discussion. And as I've shown you before, Jesus followed the law to the letter with the adulteress.

1 Corinthians 5 is dealing with what Christians should do when sexual sin occurs. That includes Christians in government.

Is that all you've got?

Maybe you should take some time to study this and think it through before taking a stance on it.

I haven't studied it in detail, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest that OT penal law is in effect today.

Marriage is much more than a contract and adultery much deeper than a breach of contract or theft.

True from a non-legalistic sense.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't know. I can't imagine wanting to see someone I cared that deeply about die, no matter what they did to me. Then again, I haven't been in the position, and neither have you, so I guess there's that.

It's not about what we want, but rather what is right.

Not to my knowledge, although it was pretty much unenforceable anyway (2 witnesses required, which wouldn't happen that often.) More importantly, we aren't in the Old Testament.

You're right about the two witnesses, which has a lot to do with the woman in John 8.

I doesn't matter when we are.

Of course not, but I'm thinking in legalistic terms here. As a LEGAL principle, marriage is a contract. Now, to God, of course it is not just a contract.

So you think the law, the government, should see it as nothing more than contract?

, in the eyes of God sure.
See above, I have legality in mind here.

why do you think the law should not have more in mind wrt marriage?

Again, the legal rights violation that occurs would be breech of contract, that doesn't mean that that's all it is from a moral or emotional context.

Why should it not be more from a legal standpoint?

Sure, but that was Old Testament law.

What difference does that make?

1 Corinthians 5 is dealing with what Christians should do when sexual sin occurs. That includes Christians in government.

1. Yes it does.
2. No it doesn't. Not in the way you mean, anyway.

I haven't studied it in detail, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest that OT penal law is in effect today.

"Is"? Do you mean "should be"?

True from a non-legalistic sense.

Why is it so diminished in a legal sense?

 

[moparguy]

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



OK, fair enough.

By that definition, I don't think there's any such thing as an anarchist.

Why you think this?

Is it because we aren't all-controlling and thus can't control what choices we're presented with?

We always choose, from the choices available, the the option we want the most, even if the choices are otherwise horrible.

When people make those choices with zero reference to any outside authority, they're being anarchistic - they're only making the choice on the basis of their desire.

Which obviously comes in degrees; thus the consequences come in degrees.

Or at least, people who actually call themselves anarchists are not.

Which is not uncommon at all.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why you think this?

Is it because we aren't all-controlling and thus can't control what choices we're presented with?

We always choose, from the choices available, the the option we want the most, even if the choices are otherwise horrible.

When people make those choices with zero reference to any outside authority, they're being anarchistic - they're only making the choice on the basis of their desire.

Which obviously comes in degrees; thus the consequences come in degrees.



Which is not uncommon at all.

There were a couple of things I said in the post you are asking about. Are you asking why government should have no role in marriage? Or are you asking why there's no such thing as an anarchist?

In the former case, its really simple, letting government interfere with marriage takes a divine institution (Genesis 2:24) and allows a human authority to define and redefine it. The purpose of this originally was to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.

In the latter case, I guess I shouldn't say "nobody." THere may be some silly person somewhere who really wants no rules so he can steal and kill whenever he wants. But the actual anarcho-capitalist theorists, guys like Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods, and so forth do not believe anything like that. Privatizing governmental services doesn't mean no authorities at all. Just no monopoly authority.

 

[resurrected]

In the former case, its really simple, letting government interfere with marriage takes a divine institution (Genesis 2:24) and allows a human authority to define and redefine it. The purpose of this originally was to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.

:freak:


whatchoo talking about willis?

 

[moparguy]

There were a couple of things I said in the post you are asking about. Are you asking why government should have no role in marriage? Or are you asking why there's no such thing as an anarchist?

I was asking about the latter. Quote editing mishap!

In the latter case, I guess I shouldn't say "nobody." THere may be some silly person somewhere who really wants no rules so he can steal and kill whenever he wants. But the actual anarcho-capitalist theorists, guys like Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods, and so forth do not believe anything like that. Privatizing governmental services doesn't mean no authorities at all. Just no monopoly authority.

I wouldn't really class it as "no rules," rather as the ever so common, "I AM ... the rules." Witness pretty much every tyrant that has ever been... and every toddler, for that matter.

In the past, it was called the "divine right of kings" and other such things.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I was asking about the latter. Quote editing mishap!



I wouldn't really class it as "no rules," rather as the ever so common, "I AM ... the rules." Witness pretty much every tyrant that has ever been... and every toddler, for that matter.

In the past, it was called the "divine right of kings" and other such things.

I don't think you're using the definitions in any normal sense. Anarchism as a movement (really regardless of how you want to define it) is anti-authoritarian, individualist, and generally skeptical of authority (although this doesn't mean opposition to authority in all forms, which is the strawman.) Specifically, an anarchist believes that the State should not exist, although beyond that point anarchists can and do disagree with each other (for what its worth, I am an anarchist by that fairly broad definition.)

So really, "divine right of kings", and absolute rule by one man is the absolute opposite of anarchism.

Mind you, I think I understand what you are criticizing, but it isn't actually anarchy. You're criticizing government leaders who think they can do whatever they want without being bound by the law. But that isn't "anarchy." And really, if an anarchist chooses to politically involve himself in any sense (some don't on principle), he is going to support as many regulations on what government is allowed to do as possible. So, I think you really mean totalitarianism when you say "anarchy."

 

[Christian Liberty]

Moparguy, I want to give you a couple different scenarios:

Mr. A says "I am the rules. Nobody has the right to rule me, and I don't have the right to rule anyone else. I am going to buy an assault weapon, smoke some pot, and not pay taxes on my property, because its mine, and my home is my castle. Nobody is going to tell me otherwise."

Mr. B says "I am the rules. Nobody has the right to rule me. But, I'm the President of the United States. I am going to disarm everyone else, lock people up for smoking pot, and force people to pay taxes on their property, because really, I am the State and I truly own everything anyway. Nobody is going to tell me otherwise."

Mr. A is acting out his anarchist, or at least libertarian, convictions. But is Mr. B? No. Mr. B is not an anarchist or a libertarian. Because, even though Mr. B does not want to be ruled, Mr. B thinks he has the right to rule other people. Thus, he is a statist.

Does that distinction make sense? So, people who believe they have a divine right to rule over others are NOT anarchists, even though they don't bind themselves by the rules of other men. A true anarchist doesn't believe in the State. And that doesn't necessarily mean a lack of all rules either, just a lack of man-made rules. Anarcho-capitalists specifically believe that private security associations can and should enforce laws against aggressive acts.

 

[moparguy]

I don't think you're using the definitions in any normal sense. Anarchism as a movement (really regardless of how you want to define it) is anti-authoritarian, individualist, and generally skeptical of authority (although this doesn't mean opposition to authority in all forms, which is the strawman.) Specifically, an anarchist believes that the State should not exist, although beyond that point anarchists can and do disagree with each other (for what its worth, I am an anarchist by that fairly broad definition.)

So really, "divine right of kings", and absolute rule by one man is the absolute opposite of anarchism.

I didn't say nor mean that it was the rule of one man.

I've repeatedly said that it's when everyone does what they want with no reference to any outside authority.

I gave the example of the tyrants to point out that this not acknowledging any authority other than your own desires is not an uncommon thing.

Judges 17:6 and the like reference this state of things.