1) Why is prostitution illegal? I can see how actual human trafficking is wrong, because it's like slavery and all that, but what on earth is wrong with a formal company offering personal services in exchange for money? If it was legalized and had laws surrounding it, prostitution would be much safer for all involved. Legal standards for age and cleanliness would do a world of good, not to mention the ability to sue in times of fraud. And why, in the year 2010 and in the 1st-world USA, are there still laws dictating what you can and can't do with your own body? The issue of immorality is largely subjective when it comes to paid prostitution. It may be immoral to one person to lease the body to many different clients, but it may be a good and easy use of natural resources for income to another person.
1. Combination of attitudes towards sex and its exploitative history. If exploitation can be regulated away it should be legal.
2. This is by far the most ridiculous illegality, to the point that I doubt anybody can come up with a remotely coherent argument for it unless they also argue that many other types of legal substances should be illegal. I did see some history shows that explained the prohibition of both marijuana and cocaine as racism. That is, they were associated with particular races. I remember there were supposedly fears of cocaine making blacks aggressive. This is just a show I didn't even see much of, so [citation needed], but it sounds plausible.
The whole drug war exists only because of fearmongers, busybodies, and law and order quasifascists, but most politicians are irrationally afraid to question it in public.
Not just marijuana, but any drug, no, anything, that doesn't risk the rights & safety of others should be legal.
3. Obviously the only reason is homophobia. There are usually just 2 explanations (actually, rationalizations) opponents can come up with. Some say that it is a defense of a 'traditional meaning' of an institution. That's absurd because enforcing the traditional meaning of an institution is practically the thing that is most over the bounds of what a government should be able to do, and is essentially fascism. The other is the slippery slope fallacy, where they claim it would lead to legalized polygamy, beastiality, etc. Besides being implicit admission that there is no argument against it, this also doesn't bother to explain why polygamy should be illegal either, while the more ridiculous fears are not cases that involve consent.
I say that marriage should be totally deregulated as something the government has no business with, and its legal form should be replaced by platonic partnerships that let you receive the legal benefits with no requirement of a sexual relationship.
Note that the positions of the social conservatives make it obvious that any claims of small government philosophy are ridiculous. Social conservatism LOVES intrusive government as long as its role is to limit the freedoms and choices of citizens and enforce conformity. The only government it doesn't like is that which provides voluntary benefits and services. This is because the only real philosophy is to use government as a weapon of cultural war, artificially elevating cultures similar to its members and oppressing those different.
I always figured that weed was illegal because the government could not make profit from it. Alcohol & cigarettes are very addictive and more deadly than marijuana yet are still being sold as the taxes on both items bring big money to the government. With weed it's relay a plant that a number of people smoke for whatever reason. Yet since the same government made it a drug would make them seen as blatant hypocrites if they changed their minds.
Not to say that I am pro marijuana isn't dangerous at all, only because with constant abuse to anything can cause serious harm to one and another.
As for the first and third question. STD's and Homophobia?
I'm really tired and should go to bed, but that's just my take on it (Not proven by Doctor Associates and participating SUBWAY restaurants).
Blatant homophobia. Often using religion as an excuse. I'd imagine this is exaggerated in the US because you're a very religious country.
You hear a lot here in the UK (where it's perfectly legal to be gay, and you're even allowed to adopt a child) of gay couples going to bed and breakfasts only to be turned away by the strict [insert religion here] owners who believe it infringes on their religious rights to have them stay. Get a life, you don't need to agree with it or even like it, but it's illegal to discriminate against someone due to their sexual orientation and it's better to be tolerant anyway. Pretty sure [insert god figure here] isn't going to smite you cause you let a gay couple stay in your house. Or that by letting them stay it means you MUST agree with it. Isn't it his job to judge people anyway? Leave it to him. In the end money's money, right?
As far as STDs... it won't be a problem if sex education extended to homosexual relationships as well. Educating everyone to be safe regardless of sexual orientation. There doesn't need to be like a module or term on it, just a single lesson covering homosexuality should do it. After all, if you're gay and have "done it" then you've got a lifetime ban from such things as giving blood or organ donation anyway if I remember right. Even if you're clear. Don't need to worry about it spreading like that.
I have an interest in this I must admit because my best friend is gay and if someone discriminates against him or tells him he's evil or unnatural I'll kick their arse into next week. He's the loveliest person I've ever met.
On a less ranty note, I think prostitution should be legal cause as it's very real, not going to stop anytime soon and extremely dangerous to the prostitute. It was only a few years ago when we had a mass murderer who targeted prostitutes here. I think he killed 5 in the end? I'm not sure. If it was legal then they probably could have got the police in to protect them after the first one was killed.
As long as going into the "profession" is her (or his) choice then that's a-ok. Maybe a certificate for being clean?
And I don't know enough about marijuana to make a comment on it.
1) There are various reasons given, most of which seem to revolve around either "guilt by association" (ie. "look at the conditions prostitutes face, you want to make this legal?" when at least legalizing it could at least regulate it and improve the conditions, like in the Nevada brothel Penn and Teller visited) or arbitrary moot points. (ie. "What about the STD risk for having sex with a prostitute?" when sex in general has an STD risk, and non-paid promiscuous sex wouldn't necessarily have a lower STD risk than paid promiscuous sex)
2) I can't help but think it's mostly about misinformation and/or willfull ignorance. Sometimes on Gamespot I'd point out to opponents of legalization that often, some of the same things said about potheads are said about gamers. They'd say "oh and are gamers beating each other up to get their fix?" and I'd point to the PS3 launch riots, they'd say that's just irresponsible people doing irresponsible things. I think this kind of reasoning is quite telling about the extent of selective reasoning in this debate.
This isn't to say there aren't absurd arguments for legalization either ("cannabis is natural" comes to mind) but the pro-legalization case doesn't seem as dependent on these arguments as the anti-legalization case depends on the absurd anti-legalization arguments.
As for the comparison to alcohol, it may be worth considering that the propaganda against cannabis often comes from the same sources that give propaganda against alcohol too; middle school health classes, for example. The difference argued by opponents of legalization is that "we couldn't enforce a ban on alcohol" which begs the question as to how effective they think the enforcement of the ban on cannabis has been. But if the apparent nature of the legalization debate is anything to go by the opponents don't generally seem to be basing their views on fact or on consistency of logic anyway...
3) It's not so much that gay marriage is outlawed as that governments aren't officially recognizing same sex marriage. The problem here is that it's discrimination, since they recognize opposite sex marriage. Having government recognize neither same sex nor opposite sex marriage could also solve said discrimination.
The whole "where does it end" argument, while apparently slippery-slope, might not necessarily be as irrational as it seems. For example, the last paragraph of this article argues that if it's not procreation, it loses its logical basis. (And its response to the mention of infertile couples is given in the third paragraph; the apparent claim is that if they could refuse to recognize infertile couple marriages they would.) I can't help but wonder if this was how the argument was intended to be made, but that Internet trolls pretending to use this argument might have misrepresented it for the lulz.
Not that I even agree with the article itself; treating anecdotes like they're evidence (like they did for their mention of "life without father") is obviously ridiculous, and it doesn't seem to specify why there'd be a "state interest in procreation" to begin with. But I do think the mainstream of both sides of the gay marriage debate are reacting a little too passionately to it.
Prostitution was actually legal in my state (Rhode Island) until November of last year, as long as it occurred behind closed doors and did not involve solicitation in public. Now it's illegal again, but there are groups pushing to bring it back. In my opinion it should obviously be legal because it's going to happen anyway and if it's not legal then there's no way to protect the rights of prostitutes who are assaulted and whatnot. Plus, imagine the money the government would save for no longer having to crack down on a victimless crime, and how much it would gain by being able to tax prostitution.
Don't really have much else to add to this topic, though, because IMO the arguments for legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage are so obvious that I don't need to restate them.
We can argue "where does it end; next thing will be humans marrying dogs and then computers", but the main difference between pets and humans is sentience and ability to sign a contract.
My problem is with the habit of assuming ridiculous=bad/surprising=bad/unexpected=bad/untraditional=bad/etc=etc/etc
In fact, the argument that tradition supports quality is only the same as saying it preserves quality which is the same as saying is hinders increased quality. Good qualities. Like love. <3 Computers should be marrying dogs by now.
1. The bible even though it even says its okay to sell your daughter...... but whatever. Basically I don't think it would be an easy thing to regulate at all, not saying it shouldn't be. If someone wants to do it, let them. Its their body, as long as they aren't hurting others, go crazy.
2. Taxes. That's the ONLY reason.
3. The only prerequisite to marriage should be that you love each other and are in good mental health. Other than that, social conservatives can **** off. Oh yeah, to answer the question, the bible. Even though as I recall the only mention of homosexuality is not to have sex with another dude, I don't think anything about marriage was specified.
1. The bible even though it even says its okay to sell your daughter...... but whatever. Basically I don't think it would be an easy thing to regulate at all, not saying it shouldn't be. If someone wants to do it, let them. Its their body, as long as they aren't hurting others, go crazy.
2. Taxes. That's the ONLY reason.
3. The only prerequisite to marriage should be that you love each other and are in good mental health. Other than that, social conservatives can **** off. Oh yeah, to answer the question, the bible. Even though as I recall the only mention of homosexuality is not to have sex with another dude, I don't think anything about marriage was specified.
I take it you're saying it's because alcohol and tobacco are easier to tax? If so, I don't think that alone explains it. The cannabis plant can also be used for hemp oil, hemp paper, hemp rope, etc... various industrial uses. This presents potential competition to groups like the wood paper industry, and I've heard such groups had a major role in creating the kind of propaganda that got it outlawed in the first place. It sounds plausible, though I'm not sure if it's been proven...
Also, I think the bible mentions girl-girl relationships as well, I've heard of verses like Romans 1:26-27 talking about how women left the "natural" relations for "unnatural" ones, and how males "likewise" abandoned "natural" relations with women instead turning to each other... supposedly the implication is that by "likewise" they mean that women with women and men with men were both described by the bible as "unnatural" relations. Whatever, in real life the very idea of "natural" is questionable to begin with (as if artificial things weren't also natural in a less direct way?) and society shouldn't revolve around religious beliefs in the first place. Though for what it's worth, I don't think such opposition should necessarily be assumed to be all about religion either...
I'm pleasantly surprised at the unanimous responses for legalization of all three of these issues.
We all know the arguments against homosexual marriage, and I can understand why prostitution is illegal, but I'm still curious as to why marijuana is hated so much by the law. The racial issue stated earlier is interesting. What exactly is preventing the law from doing the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" thing and legalizing and taxing weed? Can someone speak from the other side of the fence?
I went and found this website: http://www.justthinktwice.com/stumbleweed/home.html
It tries and tries to say why marijuana's bad, but all I see is drawing weak correlations between weed and cutting class (delinquents who already cut class are more open-minded to "bad" things like drugs), and listing the exact effects of the high as "bad" effects. People smoke it because it makes their minds slow!
I'm pleasantly surprised at the unanimous responses for legalization of all three of these issues.
We all know the arguments against homosexual marriage, and I can understand why prostitution is illegal, but I'm still curious as to why marijuana is hated so much by the law. The racial issue stated earlier is interesting. What exactly is preventing the law from doing the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" thing and legalizing and taxing weed? Can someone speak from the other side of the fence?
I went and found this website: http://www.justthinktwice.com/stumbleweed/home.html
It tries and tries to say why marijuana's bad, but all I see is drawing weak correlations between weed and cutting class (delinquents who already cut class are more open-minded to "bad" things like drugs), and listing the exact effects of the high as "bad" effects. People smoke it because it makes their minds slow!
I didn't particularily bother with the link (saw the front image and text and figured it'd just be a bunch of cliched pothead stereotypes) but again, of course they're going to revert to faulty logic; real logic isn't on their side.
You point out that some people smoke it to make their minds slow, I'll bet a lot of prohibitionists are too convinced, that people who smoke pot are just trying to be cool, to even consider your perspective. So often they'll focus on the rappers who smoke it, as if they're the only supporters of it, without even addressing the Harvard professors who defend it (start at 18 minutes in) or the astrophysicists who smoke it.
It's like how if you even defend the legalization of the drug, let alone the drug itself, they'll accuse you of smoking it, because supposedly you'd have to be "under the influence" to think the drug could even possibly be a good thing. Well, considering the nature of the logic from their side of the debate, I'd say it's the people who oppose legalization who are under the influence... the influence of propaganda.
In my opinion, it's a forward evolution of mankind that allows us to look past the physical gender to the person inside, which is who we should be in love with in the first place.
I find it interesting that this is used so much as a pro-gay marriage argument, because I think it kind of undervalues the point of people being gay (or straight) in the first place. If we all looked past the physical gender there'd be no sexual attraction, which while it's not the most important factor, it is an intensely important part of a relationship... and if that were such the case we'd have a lot of straight people marrying the same gender just because they're good friends.
In my opinion, it's a forward evolution of mankind that allows us to look past the physical gender to the person inside, which is who we should be in love with in the first place.
I find it interesting that this is used so much as a pro-gay marriage argument, because I think it kind of undervalues the point of people being gay (or straight) in the first place. If we all looked past the physical gender there'd be no sexual attraction, which while it's not the most important factor, it is an intensely important part of a relationship... and if that were such the case we'd have a lot of straight people marrying the same gender just because they're good friends.
I don't get where this whole "look past the physical gender" thing is coming from anyway; those who are homosexual (IIRC from intro psychology it's genetic) would be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite; that wouldn't really be attraction independent of gender. I'm not really sure what you or Shoe are trying to say...
That's what I'm saying Matt, the whole argument that 'gay marriage should be legalized because love looks past the physical gender' is silly, because while people of any sexuality can certainly love a person of any gender, you need that element of physical attraction. I'm into guys because I'm sexually attracted to them, not because I'm somehow enlightened enough to be blind to a person's sex.
Right, but maybe on a more specific level, if (in your case) you do meet a girl that you would be sexually attracted to.... ok, maybe that isn't how to put it. Like, (ive seen this a number of times) lets say you're really good friends with some girl and you start to develop a deeper relationship with them?
Right, but maybe on a more specific level, if (in your case) you do meet a girl that you would be sexually attracted to.... ok, maybe that isn't how to put it. Like, (ive seen this a number of times) lets say you're really good friends with some girl and you start to develop a deeper relationship with them?
Deeper in what sense? I'm no psychology expert, but I'd think attraction would be key in whether or not they'd fall "in love" in the romantic sense in the first place. I doubt straight people of the same sex would fall in love with each other just because they're good friends, and I assume it'd be about the same for gay people not falling in love with the opposite sex.
By the way, I may be derailing the thread a bit, but I also noticed that my remarks about ignorance didn't get met with accusations of hypocrisy this time around. I'm not complaining, of course, I'm just curious as to what the relevant differences were between this and threads where I was. (Aside from it being years ago; not much involving me happened on this site since then...)
@Epi: Basically what Matt said. I'd never discount the fact that one day I might meet a girl that hits exactly all the right notes for me, but attraction has to be there otherwise it's nothing but a very deep friendship. I've had friends who are girls that I've had incredibly close friendships with, but there's no physical attraction there so that's all there could be. It'd be the same as a straight guy pursuing a relationship with his male best friend. Obviously there are cases where stuff like this does happen, crossing all sexes and orientations (at university I knew a gay guy and a lesbian who dated for a while and they were both happy, so more power to them) but it's very much the exception rather than the rule. Homosexuals might be slightly more culpable to dating someone of the opposite gender under such circumstances, but I'd only really chalk that increased culpability up to subconscious desire to stick to social expectations (eg. man/woman).
Oops, I did accidentally overlook sexual attraction in my statement... Sexual compatibility is extremely important as well as emotional compatibility.
What I was going for is that we've evolved past conforming to m/f-only relationships. I'm sure you guys know what I mean. ^^;;
Oops, I did accidentally overlook sexual attraction in my statement... Sexual compatibility is extremely important as well as emotional compatibility.
What I was going for is that we've evolved past conforming to m/f-only relationships. I'm sure you guys know what I mean. ^^;;
I didn't. Well, at least not quite. o.o
Anyway, we humans aren't the only ones who've "evolved past" just m/f relationships... have you heard of homosexuality in animals?
Ok, ok, you ARE right, MH and MM. Sorry for my incorrect statement 🙂
Ok, ok, you ARE right, MH and MM. Sorry for my incorrect statement 🙂
No need to apologize. At least when it's expressed it can be rebutalled. o.o
RAAAAAH, I know animals in the wild have homosexual tendencies, too! You guys keep poking holes in what I'm saying. XDDD
The difference is that human civilization realizes that there's a "normal" pairing of the genders and it has convinced itself it's "the only natural way", which is pretty backwards, considering that wild animals are sexual with both genders just because it's a part of their natural drive. I guess humanity has come full circle, first being sexually free as primates, then conforming to m/f, and then breaking out of it again once we realized that nature doesn't care what gender you shag.
RAAAAAH, I know animals in the wild have homosexual tendencies, too! You guys keep poking holes in what I'm saying. XDDD
Then what exactly is it you're saying? I'm not quite sure what you meant in calling homosexuality a "forward evolution of mankind" or whatever. What you seem to be talking about in explaining it isn't homosexuality itself but changing attitudes towards it.
We have socially evolved past heterosexuality. That's all I mean. @_@
Okay....what the hell....we "evolved" past being straight? So Homosexuality is the next logical step in evolution?
Evolution doesn't work that way. o_~
She simply means it changed, not that it's "taken a step" to a "higher level".
Yep - remember, Sociologial evolution =/= Phsyical species evolution, it merely represents the changing attitudes of the Human Species in synch with surroundings and new 'popular' memes so far as actual inter-personal habits and ideas are concerned!
Ugh...I'm stupid, I knew that I just wasn't thinking, sorry Cosmos just ignore that.
Teehee, it's okay.
Springheart, you're much better at explaining than I am. =P
😛 It's a talent, but I'm not really into debating...I just kinda got sucked in here to see what was going on, and figured you needed help with that explanation, even if somebody DID try to beforehand.
Ok, ok, you ARE right, MH and MM. Sorry for my incorrect statement 🙂
No need to apologize. At least when it's expressed it can be rebutalled. o.o
I dont know why, and still dont, but for some reason I always feel it would be better to admit defeat when beaten in an argument, then to lose and ignore it, risking looking like you're not man enough to admit defeat.
Also, I have come to a recent discovery that I have a fetish for handicap bathroom stalls.
Also, I have come to a recent discovery that I have a fetish for handicap bathroom stalls.
I think you meant to say this in the next thread over~ =3
Oh shoot, I did. Silly me. I think I overdosed.
