Aren't laws made according to someone's morals?

The thread (OP) is about prostitution, not politicians. I directed my responses accordingly.

A moral is a "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong".

These are not my personal morals, but rather, I believe, reasonable assumptions. I don't know of any parent who would want their child to aspire to become a prostitute, hence my question. Does that mean they're not out there? I'm not impying that, only that I don't know of any. I think it's reasonable to think that parents have their childrens' best interest in mind and I also believe that this includes not wanting their children to grow up and become prostitutes.

The issue regarding "drinking age" should have been clearly seen as strictly addressing "making something illegal in order to discourage children" to which I even included Tchocky's specific comment.
What's up wit dat?:o

That was kind of new to me. Have always learned that the laws in USA was build on the bible. Not literally of course

The bible is for many a book of morale in how to live your life etc

Markus

Only to a point. Most laws are based on the concept of protecting ourselves from each other. We make a law against murder not on the general assumption that it's wrong, but to try to protect our own lives. Laws against theft are based on the concept of protecting our own property. Laws against prostitution are based on the idea that someone thinks it's wrong, or "immoral". That is a bad reason to create laws.

You asked me if I wanted my children to be prostitutes. I replied with a specific case, but my point (which you apparently missed entirely) was that there are a lot of things I wouldn't want my children to be, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make laws against them.

Exactly. It's something you try to teach your children. It's proper behavior. It's respect for the other person. It's how you try to live your life. It's not something you dictate that others must do through law.

Good, but again, reasonable assumptions are not the basis of lawmaking.

I've already agreed with that. A part of my reaction, though, is that you said making it illegal would let your children know that you thought it was wrong. That's a bad reason to make laws.

You keep coming back to that. I think we're agreed on that point. That is still not a reason to make something illegal.

You asked a question in a public forum. That means anyone is free to answer it. You asked specifically "So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?", which attempts to put him on a moral hot seat, because if he says "yes" then he's agreeing with you after he said he disagreed, and if he says "no" then he's admitting to a moral basis that's inferior to yours. it was a loaded question from the start.

So do you believe that 21 should be the legal drinking age, because anything younger is "encouraging children"? Are countries (or states) with lower legal drinking ages morally inferior? I understand the point of "discouraging children", but you named a specific age and I question the point of that.

To your actual point: Do we set a legal minimum drinking age because we believe it's morally wrong for children to drink, or because there are serious physical dangers to still-developing bodies and brains that need to be avoided if possible?

Oh, you also didn't answer my question. In the very same post you told me we weren't talking about politicians you brought up this whole drinking thing out of the blue. Why keep telling me that I've changed the subject and then do it yourself in the very same breath?

Everyone pays for sex in one way or another. :yep: :D

But when it involves legal tender, all of a sudden it's a problem?

Just look at jewelry ads :D

I always think to myself, what they are really saying, in these ads, is

Give her a diamond
For she would be upset if you just gave her cash
and called her a whore. :haha:

I want a companion...
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...accarinhot.jpg

:yeah::yeah::yeah:

Ohhh, I see. Murder and theft aren't wrong, they're just illegal.
Prostitution stands alone in that the laws against it are based solely on someone's perspective of right .vs wrong. The laws against it are not enacted to protect anyone from being viewed as a slave, object or other commodity instead of a human being. They're not enacted because a female (or male) might be underaged or get beaten, harmed by her supervisor if he/she doesn't perform to any standard. They're not enacted to protect prostitutes/johns from theft, being drugged, getting involved with illegal drugs or contracting HIV, AIDS or any other STD. Regulation of the "profession" would certainly eliminate these concerns, well, at least to an "acceptable" degree. If one or two fall through the cracks, no biggie?:hmm2:

No, I don't think I missed your point. I just think I didn't see any comparative relevance between a child that says:
"When I grow up, I want to be the president of the United States."
AND
"When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute."


I agree to a point. Laws do exactly that. They dictate to others what they can and cannot do, and in this capacity they can aid in serving as a catalyst to the "proper behavior" you mention.

I never said laws should be enacted via reasonable assumptions. It should've been clear that I was referring strictly to the parent-child relationship regarding a child's aspirations.

I also said that I would tell my child that I did not approve and that it would be beneath their true capabilities to sell their body for personal gain. The law (as I stated above) can be an aid in pointing a child in the right direction.

I reiterate, I never said that this was/is the reason to make something illegal. It should've been clear that I was speaking about the parent/child relationship regarding a child's aspirations. Nevertheless, it remains a reasonable assumption in the context in which I intended it.

There you go again, bringing the word "moral" into the fray. You're the one that first injected this word into our discussion. Do you have a predisposition about me? I was clearly illustrating that laws can help aid in keeping children from becoming involved with dangerous activities. I wasn't attempting to put anyone on a perceived "moral hot-seat". Maybe I should've used laws preventing children from buying cigarettes as an example. Would that have been more politically correct?

Lets face it, I don't know of anyone who is a child at 20 years old. Did you really miss my meaning? I don't believe you did; you even said "I understand the point of discouraging children." It was an example of laws helping to curb dangerous or unhealthy activities and behavior.

There you go again with the "M" word. Why do you keep injecting that? You do have a predisposition about me, don't you? The only time I mentioned it was to show the dictionary's definition, after you threw it into the works.

I think my explanation lies in my second entry in this post. Unless, of course, the president is excluded from politics now.

Laws aren't created to prevent anything. They are created as a means to punish those who commit an act that is regulated by codes and statutes or a moral high ground. In other words, to judge wrongdoers. I'd have to say that laws prohibiting prostitution were created with influence from a biblical source. We all know the consequences of the profession and the damage that can be done to you via STDs. This is where the major mistake comes to light and opens the door for the black market scum to profit from it. Nothing is taboo in the black market.

No, they're wrong. But they're not illegal because they're wrong, they're illegal because they take things from me. We make them illegal because they affect us directly, not because of someones moral judgement. Prostitution takes nothing from either party. It's a simple business contract.

Exactly, though you're trying to show the opposite. Sarcasm is rarely the best way to make an argument.

No. The whole current "pimp" system works precisely because prostitution is illegal. If it were legalized and regulated most of that would disappear. Sorry to change the subject again, but prostitution does not stand alone in this. The illegal drug situation is much the same.

No, that is not the reason laws against prostitution are enacted. Again, the prostitute faces your "supervisor" problems because when something like this is illegal it is controlled by the best criminals. If it were legal it would be possible to regulate the trade and protect the workers. Currently a prostitute can't take her concerns to any authority, because the authority sees her as a criminal and will just lock her up.

No, prostitution is not illegal because of drugs or STDs. It has been illegal for a very long time because a certain segment of society is offended by it. "Fall through the cracks"? That can be redressed through legal means, but only if the trade itself is legal. Currently the whole legal attitude is to sweep them all through the cracks. After all, they're only whores, right?

As I said (and you continue to ignore), I agree with you. "You shouldn't, because it's demeaning and it's wrong" is a valid answer. Of course that kind of answer can make the child want to do it, or at least find out more about it, and much discussion is required. However, "You shouldn't, because it's illegal" puts the cart before the horse. You made it illegal because "You shouldn't" in the first place. You didn't make it illegal because it can harm you or yours, you made it illegal because it offends your sense of what's right and wrong. That's why people like to say "You can't legislate morality."

Again you missed my point. Laws are not made to promote proper behavior. Laws are made to protect us from each other. You want to legislate your personal morals, and then say it's wrong because it's illegal.

That's not a reason for trying to justify its illegality, which you did.

So you do believe that you personal moral opinion is a good reason for making law.

But you just said it again in your previous sentence.

Okay, you want to make laws according to your personal value judgement, then; according to your personal opinion of what's right and wrong. How is that different?

No, I'm only taking exception to your insistence that a law is good because it agrees with your personal values.

You claimed that laws can aid in keeping children from becoming involved in dangerous activities. I don't believe you've actually illustrated anything. Can you show how those laws actually work? Child prostitution laws are aimed at protecting children from being kidnapped and forced into something they likely would never have chosen for themselves. Adult prostitution laws are aimed at forcing people into someone else's personal mold.

And I would have pointed out, as I did when you brought up underage drinking, that the cigarette laws are there because smoking is directly dangerous to one's health, but even more so to an undeveloped body. But, according to your own claim against me, we weren't talking about smoking. That's the third time you've done exactly what you accused me of doing earlier.

And "politically correct"? While it's true that there are many attempts today to force us to use what someone else thinks is "proper" terminology, can you show a justification for using that term on me? What have I said that could possibly lead to that? Actually it seems that you're the one intent on regulating our lives based on your sense of right and wrong. Which, buy the way, is the very definition of "morals". Maybe we should use the term "morally correct".

Discouraging children, yes. That is a parent's responsibility. But laws controlling adults have nothing to do with discouraging children. You also need to show how prostitution is "unhealthy activities and behavior". Unhealthy? Possibly, but so is smoking and drinking. Why aren't you advocating laws banning both of those? They are far more unhealthy than getting laid. Unhealthy behavior? Laws controlling behavior are indeed laws based on moral judgement.

Also, how well have laws against underage smoking and drinking actually worked? How many here went out and snuck a smoke at age ten? I didn't, but among my circle were quite a few who did. No, I'm not advocating getting rid of underage laws, but by your reasoning perhaps we should be making adult smoking and drinking illegal.

Do you equate "morality" with "religious belief"? The two are only indirectly related. The word is apt for this discussion. You are arguing that laws should be made based on your own personal opinion. Saying that you want laws based on morality is exactly the same thing. I have no disposition about you at all. I haven't actually called you a "moralist". I don't know what you believe. I don't know anything about you, and I haven't addressed you personally at all, only your arguments.

I addressed that earlier, but since you bring it up again I'll try to summarize: You think it's okay to pass laws making certain adult activities illegal, because if those activities are legal children might grow up wanting to engage in said activities. Do you really believe that some little girl might decide she wants to be a whore when she grows up, just because prostitution is legal?

Yes, you are advocating what they call "legislating morality".

One could consider marriage an act of prostitution because, according to law, one gives up half of their assets to their partner for the privilege of engaging in morally recognized sexual acts.
$100.00 over at the Swiss fun park would be much cheaper. Even if you add in round trip airfare and taxi.:yep:

On the one hand marriage is justified by the love and companionship that springs from it. Would it work to get a dog and still go to Switzerland?

On the other hand the prostitute will never tell you she has a headache. :O:

[edit] I just looked at your picture of Inara again. I could never afford her services, so...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...ps0bb9a8bc.jpg

Now and then the discussion about prostitution in Denmark comes up to the surface. It's those who's against and those who's for

Then they take a look at their brother-country Sweden and see what happened there after they made it illegal.

Then the discussion somehow dies out. until it again hit the surface

Here the Danes see it as something naturally thing.

Markus

We should consider the objective of legislating prostitution.


There was a time, in the United States, where the acts involved in prostitution, when performed outside marriage, were illegal. We had fornication laws which prohibited sexual acts outside marriage. Under those circumstances, it makes sense for prostitution to be illegal -- there were already existing fornication laws. It could be safely assumed that the prostitute and customer were not married.

Currently, any fornication laws have either been repealed or are not prosecuted. The acts involved in prostitution are legal when done for free. I don't understand the logic in making it illegal when it is not done for free.

That is a difference between a prostitute and a sexually liberated lady. Both choose who they wish to have sex with and how often. But only one charges money. We may morally disagree with a sexually liberated lady choosing to have many sexual partners, but there is no talk about arresting her and throwing her in prison. Her choice, her consequences.

I think that everyone can agree that a person being forced into prostitution against their will is a bad thing. So we would be on firm ground if we had laws written to protect people who are forced into it and to prosecute those who force people into prostitution.

Unfortunately, the way the US laws are written, there is no difference between someone forced into prostitution and someone willingly choosing to be a prostitute. It may be difficult for some people to understand how a person may choose that profession, but it does happen.

I do not understand how the government can make something that is legal when done for free, to be illegal when money is involved. I don't think the bribery laws apply. :haha:

However, I do expect the government to protect people who may be forced (how ever that may be defined) into prostitution against their will and to prosecute those who do force people into prostitution.

But to me, these are very different issues.

Well, Steve, if you'd prefer Jayne Cobb it's alright. I won't judge.:D
Whatever it takes to provide serenity, right?
Can we call you a Browncoat now?:03:

No, I don't think that anything I said proves that, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I think we're misunderstanding one another on many points and yes, I was being sarcastic, though not with malicious intent. Pointing a finger at me proves nothing. At least your predisposition toward me is more clear now.

Please explain it to me then. I was arguing with what you said, nothing more.