[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

Ohhh, I see. Murder and theft aren't wrong, they're just illegal.

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.

Prostitution stands alone in that the laws against it are based solely on someone's perspective of right .vs wrong.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

But you just said it again in your previous sentence.

There you go again, bringing the word "moral" into the fray. You're the one that first injected this word into our discussion.

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?

Do you have a predisposition about me?

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

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".

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.

Maybe I should've used laws preventing children from buying cigarettes as an example. Would that have been more politically correct?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

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".