If someone wants to check out -- LET THEM!

Same with other legislated morality. Drugs, abortion, alchohol, sodomy, prostitution, etc. Anything that is a "moral" crime. Usually referred to as "victimless" crimes.


Yes, they're referred to as victimless crimes, which isn't to say that they don't have social consequances.
Some people apparently yearn for a "hands off" approach to the kind of shape future society takes -- yet they're ever certain that such a society would be "better" -- whilst others, like me, think that in many ways we have a good thing going and would like to take steps to "preserve" (loosely) some of it and have an active hand in shaping the changes that are to (surely) come.



Same with drugs, same with suicide, same with prostitution and sodomy. None of which I want anything to do with , but none of which affect me if someone else is involved in these acts. I see these things as not being criminal acts.

Answer? In most cases organized religion. Plain and simple.


Well, it's never really so "plain and simple", but let's look at it from a purely secular point of view; no "god" legislated morality, humans invented it.
Ok, so then why invent it?
Think about it.

Because the previously permissable behaviours were causing problems. So what better way to ensure that everyone toes the line than to give your "rules" divine authority?

It still doesn't change a damn thing as to whether the behaviour in question is socially desirable or not.

Look at it, you say you'd like prostitution "decriminalized". Okay, so what to expect then? Well, probably nothing for the first generation or two, but, in time, don't you think it's likely that such attitudes towards sex that are likely to be the result are going to have an effect on the kind of society people will live in?
If the message -- eventually -- is going to be, "sure, go ahead and screw around to your heart's content. geez, why wouldn't you, it's THE BEST!", you don't think is going to have an effect, for example, on attitudes towards marriage and to family? I sure as hell do, and, to be perfectly frank, I think the implications would be disastrous.*

Sorry rs7, I know guys like you must wretch every time someone brings up "family values", but I just happen to think they're damn important and I'd rather have a say in what goes into shaping them, rather than just sitting back and allowing "nature to take its course".

*As a side note, those attitudes are already present, and people certainly already do act that way. But there's also still something of a "stigma" attached to such "naughty" behaviour that probably does go a long way to keeping our social fabric intact.

All of this means what? That religions dictate our laws? Obviously they do. Which means our separation of church and state is not a concept that has held up very well. And worse more recently as the nation drifts to the right.

Well, obviously an atheist would say something like that, especially a Democrat. Still, facts are facts, and I challenge you present to me any evidence that this "separation of church and state" was EVER intended to be anything more than a prevention on government establishing a state religion. You live in a country where the people are religious. That is something that is truly, as you put it, "plain and simple". So, unless they're formulating laws directly off some holy writ, then they are quite FREE to have their value systems, no matter how inspired by religion such value systems may be, influence their legislative decisions.



OK, he puts his personal beliefs into his work, which while not in the spirit of the Constitution is fine with most people.

Prove it.


But when he has the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with Justices who will do the same, (and he will if given the chance), then we will be in for a serious and essentially permanent problem. We will be stuck with any new appointments for a very very long time.


Oh, but a Democratic president would never dream of appoint justices that share his socio-political views, no sir. Lol. What, are you "Bizarro" AAA? (if you've seen the Seinfeld episode you'll get it)

 

Actually Gordon Gekko, take a minute to read the following article get an idea of the kind of outrageous hypocrisy uber-liberals in the democrat ranks can pull.


'Become a Muslim warrior'

by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post


"Become a Muslim warrior during the crusades or during an ancient jihad." Thus read the instructions for seventh graders in Islam: A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture, 610-1100, a three-week curriculum produced by Interaction Publishers, Inc. In classrooms across the United States, students who follow its directions find themselves fighting mock battles of jihad against "Christian crusaders" and other assorted "infidels." Upon gaining victory, our mock-Muslim warriors "Praise Allah."

Is this a legal activity in American public schools? Interaction says it merely urges students to "respect Islamic culture" through identification with Islam. But the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Michigan, disagrees and last week filed a federal lawsuit to prohibit one school district, in Byron, California, from further using the Interaction materials on Islam.

The Interaction unit contains many other controversial elements. It has students adopt a Muslim name ("Abdallah," "Karima," etc.). It has them wear Islamic clothing: For girls this means a long-sleeved dress and the head covered by a scarf. Students unwilling to wear Islamic clothes must sit mutely in the back of the class, seemingly punished for remaining Westerners.
Interaction calls for many Islamic activities: taking off shoes, washing hands, sitting on prayer rugs, and practicing Arabic calligraphy.

Students study the Koran, recite from it, design a title page for it, and write verses of it on a banner. They act out Islam's Five Pillars of Faith, including giving zakat (Islamic alms) and going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. They also build a replica of the "sacred Kaaba" in Mecca or another holy building.

It goes on. Seventh graders adopt the speech of pious believers, greeting each other with "assalam aleikoom, fellow Muslims" and using phrases such as "God willing" and "Allah has power over all things."

They pronounce the militant Islamic war-cry, Allahu akbar ("God is great.") They must even adopt Muslim mannerisms: "Try a typical Muslim gesture where the right hand moves solemnly... across the heart to express sincerity."

In the same pious spirit, the curriculum presents matters of Islamic faith as historical fact. The Kaaba, "originally built by Adam," it announces, "was later rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ismail." Really? That is Islamic belief, not verifiable history. In the year 610, Interaction goes on, "while Prophet Muhammad meditated in a cave ... the angel Gabriel visited him" and revealed to him God's Message" (yes, that's Message with a capital "M.") The curriculum sometimes lapses into referring to "we" Muslims and even prompts students to ask if they should "worship Prophet Muhammad, God, or both."


........

The educational establishment permits this infraction due to an impulse to privilege non-Western cultures over Western ones. It never, for example, would permit Christianity to be promoted in like fashion ("Become a Christian warrior during the crusades," for example.)





Lol. It's almost unbelievable isn't it!
I wonder, how long before some bright spark comes up with the idea of having Gay Simulations, where the male children have to come to school wearing dresses? Lol, I can just imagine some faggot named Emile saying, "yeth, yeth! GREAT idea, oh I just LOVE it!" (hell, I shouldn't speak too soon, it's probably already happening somewhere)

Lesson? Beware of Greeks and Liberals bearing "gifts".

 

rs7, it's almost hard to believe you're old as you say you are!
Such a move is called, I believe, "political suicide".

 

Yup, it's hard for me to believe I am as old as I am. Truly amazing. Wish it were otherwise, believe me

As far as Bush's "political suicide" you are correct. And in most cases, it is avoidable. But this guy has just been so wrong so consistently that he really needs to 'fess up.

Remember, Bush is in an extraordinary position. He SHOULD hold himself more accountable than other Presidents. He was "elected" without the popular vote. He failed in his promises to "get" UBL "dead or alive". He put us to war (unnecessarily IMO) really to get one guy, and failed at that (while American troops and the Iraqi people suffered many deaths and injuries).

OK, I readily admit I can't be as rational about this guy as I should be, so I will stop right here. I confess...I don't like Dubya.

Then again, when we have our next Presidential election, the electorate will (and here we get back to the topic of this thread) help him with "assisted suicide". So if he can't commit "political suicide" as you say, he will have help "checking out".

Peace,
RS

 

This is an insult to me.

Family values and morals are just as important to me as they are to you. I assure you. Maybe more so, but I am not going to be so quick to judge you as you are to judge me.

I just don’t think that it is possible to press my personal beliefs on the next guy. And even if it were, I would not choose to do it.

I did NOT say I wanted prostitution legalized. You said I did, but can you show me where? What I said was that I did not see the laws against this and other crimes as effective or enforceable laws. My opinion on the matter is that even trying to enforce some (most) of these victimless crimes is a waste of law enforcement money, effort, and human resources.

However, I think you are wrong about the effects that a legalization of prostitution would have. Prostitution has always been around (the world’s oldest profession), and except in a minority of instances, it has been tolerated in virtually every society. Frowned upon, yes. Contained, yes. Prosecuted fully? No. In the cases where the laws were strictly enforced, it just served to make the prices go up. Supply and demand.

You say that if prostitution were legalized, it would ultimately contribute to the decline of our moral structure. Hasn’t happened yet. The legalization of heroin in England has not created more drug addicts. But it has cut down on the crimes committed to get money to buy illegal drugs. The repeal of prohibition did not cause more people to drink. It just stopped those who did from being criminals. It was clearly a bad law.

Playing poker with your friends at your kitchen table is a crime in some states. Another bad law. Outlawing sodomy is a bad law because it is unenforceable. Unless you were to take away civil liberties to find out about it. And on and on about laws that are on the books to control morality.

You make a lot of assumptions about me. I am surprised. I always thought you were more open minded and reasonable. As a matter of fact, your posts, along with AAA’s and Hapaboy’s (others too, but these come to mind) are posts from the right I read and consider. I think about what you say. I think about your perspectives, and I consider my own opinions. And I think about the possibility that maybe I am wrong and you are right on an issue by issue basis. In this respect, I guess it is true that I am “liberal”….I do consider change. I do not “CONSERVE” my beliefs no matter what the circumstances or reason may say. So certainly "conservative" does not describe me. And as I have said numerous times here on ET, I vote a split ticket almost always. I don't paint myself with one broad political brushstroke. Kymer says this makes me "middle of the road" and "indecisive". I say it just means I keep an open mind.

Now to address a few other points. I stated an OPINION about President Bush’s thought process. You said: “PROVE IT!”

What’s that about? Are you now turning into Max401? Do I have to “prove” an opinion?

You say that Democrat Presidents (or all Presidents) chose Supreme Court nominees that agree with their politics. Not true at all. Not even close! Look at the record. You don’t have to go back far.

Politics should have nothing to do with the interpretation of the Constitution. And (with the current glaring exception of Clarence Thomas), this has worked pretty well. Thomas had a rough confirmation hearing. Very harsh. And he apparently has not recovered and has it in for those who he thinks put him through it. (Everyone who is not a conservative Republican). As the joke goes, Bush got 100% of the black vote - that counted - in the 2000 election. He got Thomas’s vote.

But in reality, look at not only the appointments, but look at how the politics have changed among the justices. They sit for a lifetime appointment. Maybe you know about the politics of Earl Warren and William O. Douglas. Maybe you don’t. I believe you live in South America, so I expect that it is unlikely you would be that familiar with American Supreme Court Justices and their politics. But to make it short, their politics changed to the extreme during their tenures. And they are only two that I know about since they served while I was old enough to be aware of them and what their decisions and positions were. I know there were others who also made dramatic changes in their general outlook. They were just before my time. But even today, look at the current decisions handed down. You cannot predict with certainty how any of the Court's members will vote on different issues (except for Thomas if there is ANY political aspect to the decision). So Presidents know this if you don’t. What matters is competence and credentials. Not politics. UNLESS we are talking about religion. If a nominee is likely to let his or her religion affect decisions, then that is a danger to the process. And with Bush, and the way he seems to do things, this is a concern. Look at who he made Attorney General.

You think I have no family values? What is this based on? Obviously you must have read some of what I wrote. Did you read it all? Or did only the parts you disagreed with register?

Obviously my family and my country (the freedoms we stand for) are everything to me. How you can say what you said is astounding to me. Did you not read what I said about how proud I was of my son? And his decision to serve in our country’s defense forces? (I like that term better than “the military”…thank you Israel for letting me plagiarize).

You called me an atheist. Yet yesterday I spent 4 hours at my synagogue. So again you describe me based on what? Have I ever called myself an atheist here on ET? I believe that maybe I did use those words. But if you read what I wrote IN CONTEXT you would know better. However, I do not want or expect you or anyone to convert to my beliefs. Evangelicalism is what I object to no matter where or what it is proselytizing. Or who is doing it. No exceptions. Read what I have written about religion. The only thing I was passionate about was being strongly opposed to what Thunderbolt said. Because he condemned everyone who did not agree with his specific beliefs. To me, this is "sacrilegious" no matter what your beliefs. Just hateful and bigoted.

You want to have a “hand in shaping” the morals of our world. Where do you propose to draw the line? We have seen what happens when religious fundamentalists get a foot in the door. When will enough people have died on behalf of “beliefs” to bring an end to combining religion with law??

By the way, I knew about “Bizarro” and “Bizarro World” long before Seinfeld was ever on television. Just curious, did you? (Off topic, just curious, that’s all....it means nothing).

Peace,
RS

 

just the idea of "victimless crimes" should make people realize it is a total bunch of bs.

as i said before, i can't buy beer on sunday where i live. what total bunch of crap. since it's a law where i live, i WOULD break this law if i could. if i worked selling beer, and someone wanted to buy on sunday, i would break that law and sell it.

if i was a police officer and i saw a man drive off with a prostitute, i'd let them go do their thing.

i am not going to obey any law based on what some guys believed in 1302 after they read the bible and believed their was a "god" in the sky telling them how to live. it's obvious crap and i know it.

i am announcing to the world, ANY LAW BASED ON THAT BS, I AM WILLING TO BREAK. POLICE DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY, COME ARREST ME.

 

Yeah, well like you, they have little interest in these laws and better things to do than to enforce them. So while the statutes stand, the laws are usually not enforced. Of course, drug laws are enforced strongly at certain levels (selling hard drugs) and not at others depending on the place (possession of marijuana).

Prostitution is not tolerated in most places but is in others. But other than streetwalkers, unless there is political motivation, the crime is generally ignored. Sort of like jaywalking. When was the last time you heard about a jaywalking arrest?

Sodomy is obviously hard to know about, and no one really cares except for religious zealots (and it is amazing how such a disproportionate number of offenders of sex crimes are members of the clergy).

But GG, you are not likely to be arrested. The arrests for these crimes are generally reserved for high profile individuals to embarrass them. You are a celebrity here, no doubt about that, but ET celebrity doesn't go all that far in the outside world.

Peace,
RS

 

YOU are a WILD man!!!!!....give me a break.....prostitution should be banned if for no toher reason then to stop the spread of AIDS.....fortunately, I have never been that desperate,but to anyone who ever frequents NYC....Just remember that they estimate 80% of the prostitutes have HIV.....And if you think that condom is going to protect you,,,keep dreaming....but just in case use one when you go back to your wife and kid so you don;t infect them

 

AIDS was not always around. Prostitution was. AIDS is (hopefully) not here to stay. Prostitution probably is.

Your point on being desperate to go to a prostitute is well taken. I agree. Also, with the threat of HIV now, the men who go to prostitutes not only have to be desperate, but somewhat suicidal.

I don't know where you got the 80% number. But no matter what the number is, it's too high for anyone to take the chance.
However, obviously if they are still in business, then there are enough desperate and somewhat suicidal men around to keep them in business. A very sad state of affairs.

I want to believe our friend GG is not one of these desperate guys. I don't think this is one of the crimes he is so eager to commit.

I also don't think he has a wife and kids to be concerned about, but that shouldn't make a bit of difference. Going to a prostitute is insanity. But if something is insanely dangerous, does that mean it should automatically be made illegal on that basis?

Lot's of dangerous ways to pass time. Bungee jumping, back country skiing, taking a canoe down heavy rapids, all kinds of high risk extreme sports. Dangerous, yes, illegal, only sometimes (depending on where). But there are no laws that can be written that will effectively prevent people from risking their lives. You have a better chance of getting away clean even after having sex with an HIV infected whore than you do trying to surf a 40 foot wave. Can't legislate risk any more than morality.

Peace,
RS

 

no, i don't pick up prostitutes. lol i'm just saying that the activity should not be illegal--risky or not. as you pointed out, a lot of things people do are risky. people should decide for themselves which risks they want to take; it should not be decided by a government.