[Kjorteo]

Teikiatsu wrote:

I don't believe health care is a right, but otherwise yes I believe there could be some reform of the health care insurance industry. I'm sure my idea of reform differs significantly from yours.

Huh. Well, I'll be. Never mind, then.

Teikiatsu wrote:

Because laws are never broken...

Wait, you don't trust people to not break laws, so you'd rather have an entire industry be illegal?

Teikiatsu wrote:

and government is the epitome of efficiency...

Oh, there's a thing or two they get right here and there. The FDA has had its share of missteps and I wouldn't call it perfect, but I'd much rather have my food and drugs be regulated than... not.

It really saddens me how the Tea Party movement has so successfully framed the debate on basically everything with their own excessively libertarian definitions--the premise is just taken for granted, so things like health care reform debate are phrased in the form of "well, everyone knows that the government absolutely sucks at everything, ever, but given that, this bill is/is not different because...." Phrases like "the government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do, rar rar" is taken as a standard rallying cry on one side that is just completely not mentioned on the other, even though I would argue that sometimes they actually do.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

That looks like the best amusement park ever. I want to go there.

I suggest you stay away from the Abort-o-Coaster. It seems sexist, in a way.

I can't imagine the contents of the "The Gayest Weddings in Town" tent in any way that is not hilarious. I'm adding it to my list of things that make Liberace step back and say, "Woah, that's just too over-the-top."

Kjorteo wrote:

Someone explain to me why turning tricks for money is so much more harmful to society that it's worth jail time and such than the otherwise-okay doing it for free?

I think the reasoning is that removing the monetary motivation will reduce the overall rate of loveless and abusive sex. If I had to summarize the overall conservative principle of sex regulation in a nutshell, that's how I'd put it: sex should always improve love, health, and order.

Kjorteo wrote:

It really saddens me how the Tea Party movement has so successfully framed the debate on basically everything with their own excessively libertarian definitions

The use of libertarianism as the universal standard upon which all debates should be framed annoyed me long before "the Tea Party" referred to anything outside of Boston Harbor. I used to use prostitution as an example of that. "Pure libertarianism would legalize prostitution; is that truly beneficial to society?" would be my argument. It is an increasingly useless argument, as people increasingly boggle my mind with their "yes" responses.

[Zipperfish]

Here in Vancouver, it's all but legal anyway. It doesn't really bother me if they were take the final step and just out-and-out legalize it.

What does bother me is men preying on prostitutes, particularly child prostitutes. I'm referring not just to the sexual predators and the sadists, but also the pimps.

My other concern is that the government, having legalized it, moves to regulate it as they will feel they have to. They will probably over-regulate as they are wont to do up here, an dmove the government from allowing prostituion to actively participating in the sex industry.

[dodobird]

I personally do not see the moral issue with people paying money to have sex. It should be up to the person to determine if there is value in sexual gratification or a particular method of sexual gratification. If both people are both consenting willing partners in this arrangement they should be allowed to do with themselves as they please. If health codes and and proper business practices are outlined and enforced it helps to remove the harm to both. If we push it into certain areas such as the infamous "red light district" in the Netherlands it will push it away from our main streets and into easily identifiable and regulated areas making it easier to avoid as it will be easier to enter removing scenes of prostitutes down major streets. Having stringent health codes will also help to stem the flow of STD's that currently comes from that unregulated industry, STD's that can then be spread beyond those who use the prostitutes. This causes strain on our healthcare system as well as creates a threat to all sexually active people, which lets be fair makes up a very large chunk of people.

Prostitution is out there and lots of it, its been out there for a long time and its not going away. Its not going to stop until people decide that they no longer wish to do it. It parallels the issue with pot laws i think in this manner. It has become so socially acceptable that people do it and talk about it casually without regard for the law. I'm sure many people have had the conversation about the "massage parlor" here or that woman thats always walking the street over there or this person or that person is doing this. When something like this happens we have to sit down and think how effective is this law? what are we attempting to achieve by it? who is it really hurting? Is there a better way of doing it? who gains from the law? Not just the knee jerk reaction of "its wrong and we should punish everyone". Stop making people criminals when they do not harm and just wish to live there life the way they choose too.

[Benn]

JJ wrote:

The proviso banning communicating for the purpose of buying or selling sex was also struck down.

Thanks. CTV didn't mention that part, which had me confused. Although I can see the Charter Rights (safety of person) issue with the Whore house law but what was the justification for knocking down the communicating for the purposes of law?

[bootlegga]

Gunnair wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I'm all for legalizing it personally.

It would make it safer and healthier for all involved and increase tax revenues at the same time.

The girl I was sending over to your house will be a little bit late tonight OK. The goat you requested got into the supply of adult diapers you wanted and chewed them up so she has to pick up some new ones. To compensate she'll through in the anal beads for free.

Isn't this post for Shep? Or wat it a Shep/Boot/goat three way?

No, he's projecting his own sexual proclivities onto me again...

[bootlegga]

Kjorteo wrote:

Teikiatsu wrote:

Because the legal status of alcohol and cigarettes has made them incredibly safe...

Compared to the days when they were synonymous with Al Capone and the like? Yes, it has. Taxable, too.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

Kjorteo wrote:

Someone explain to me why turning tricks for money is so much more harmful to society that it's worth jail time and such than the otherwise-okay doing it for free?

I think the reasoning is that removing the monetary motivation will reduce the overall rate of loveless and abusive sex. If I had to summarize the overall conservative principle of sex regulation in a nutshell, that's how I'd put it: sex should always improve love, health, and order.

That's an interesting conservative standpoint on sex, but probably not very applicable to much of western culture (especially on most university campuses). Casual sex is quite prevalent thank-you-very-much, especially with the social lubricant of alcohol added in. It's not clear to me what benefit there is in the government intervening in transactions between consenting adults. I'm sure there are plenty of grey-area counter examples, but for the most part I think this is a reasonable starting point.

The moral argument against prostitution doesn't hold any water for me -- when did the government become the moral arbiter of all things?

Kjorteo wrote:

taken for granted, so things like health care reform debate are phrased in the form of "well, everyone knows that the government absolutely sucks at everything, ever, but given that, this bill is/is not different because...." Phrases like "the government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do, rar rar" is taken as a standard rallying cry on one side that is just completely not mentioned on the other, even though I would argue that sometimes they actually do.

Agreed - public transit comes to mind initially. It's unlikely that a private individual will front the money for public transit - the return on the investment will likely take decades, if it ever occurs. There's much better ways to make money. However, I think we can all agree that generally speaking transit benefits cities and those that inhabit them, and has benefits beyond financial implications.

[Pseudonym]

CKASlacker wrote:

The moral argument against prostitution doesn't hold any water for me -- when did the government become the moral arbiter of all things?

If I may address this argument as an aside to the current discussion, I would like to indicate that the vast majority of government deals with moral issues. It is certainly not the moral arbiter of all things, but questions regarding the value of life, the importance of social safety nets, the balance between justice and mercy, and the like can be essentially boiled down to moral questions. Be careful when arguing against governmental involvement in moral issues unless you don't mind some inconsistency.

[Psudo]

dodobird wrote:

If both people are both consenting willing partners in this arrangement they should be allowed to do with themselves as they please. If health codes and and proper business practices are outlined and enforced it helps to remove the harm to both.

These two sentences defy each other. If consenting adults are free to do what they please, what right does government have to enforce health codes and business practices on them? If they both join in a contract agreement (written or verbal), the libertarian ideal of your first sentence says the government only has the authority to rule on compliance with or violation of the contract; anything else defies individual consent. On the other hand, any government capable of regulating sex on the grounds of health and business practices can also regulate it into some form of legal impracticality indistinguishable in practice from an outright ban.

Arguing for some compromise or balance between the two leads back to this same debate: where should the balance be? On what grounds can the proper balance be determined? Morality, perhaps? And we're back to square one.

Murray_Smith wrote:

Psudo wrote:

If I had to summarize the overall conservative principle of sex regulation in a nutshell, that's how I'd put it: sex should always improve love, health, and order.

That's an interesting conservative standpoint on sex, but probably not very applicable to much of western culture (especially on most university campuses). Casual sex is quite prevalent

I think the principle accurately states what conservative moralists want, but I don't think it can be achieved in any practical way. Specific individuals can have sex lives that obey that principle, but societies will never be uniformly that way (or any single way, when human choice is involved) without oppressive government or strictly enforced isolationism.

As far as unachievable, Utopian ideals go, it's a pretty nice one: no sexual violence, human-caused heartbreak, custody suits, unwanted pregnancies, disputed paternity, etc, etc.

[CKASlacker]

Pseudonym wrote:

If I may address this argument as an aside to the current discussion, I would like to indicate that the vast majority of government deals with moral issues. It is certainly not the moral arbiter of all things, but questions regarding the value of life, the importance of social safety nets, the balance between justice and mercy, and the like can be essentially boiled down to moral questions. Be careful when arguing against governmental involvement in moral issues unless you don't mind some inconsistency.

I should have been more clear -- you're right in the sense that the state often deals with moral issues. What I meant was that I don't like that idea of the state telling me what is "moral", by making what it considers immoral = illegal. I may believe prostitution to be wrong *for me*, but I don't ascribe to the idea that it should thus be wrong for all, especially given the idea of a mutally consensual transaction between adults.