LookingForAnswers Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2014 There seems to be a reading comprehension problem on this thread. I didnt say it would solve the problems, that it would help to resolve them. No can regulation stop the abuse in any thing, yet we normally don't use that as a reason to do regulate something. We have speed limits and people still speed and die form it. Guess since we cant stop them all we should not have any speed limits. That is an invalid comparison. Speed is not regulated on the grounds that it is immoral to drive a certain speed. Speed limits are there regulate speed to prevent accidents. Prostitution is immoral from the outset. There is no way to regulate the immorality out of it. You cannot, with any intelligent credibiliity, compare speed limits with regulating prostitution. Even regulated prostitution is wrong to start with and still results in all kinds of problems listed by others on this thread that no amount of regulation wil solve. How is prostitution any more immoral than any other sexual act outside of marriage? Why is prostitution any more immoral than a girl marrying a rich man for his money? Our laws should be there to protect people from other people, not to tell people what is and what is not moral. Murder is not outlawed because it is immoral, but because it harms someone else. Same with theft, battery, speeding, drinking and driving and every other law. Are there any other laws that are based purely on what is "immoral"? I guess states that still have blue laws would qualify, but you likely support them also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 23, 2014 How is prostitution any more immoral than any other sexual act outside of marriage? Why are you so obsessed with advocating and advancing prostitution? "Making something legal would go along to to removing a social stigma." Do you believe prostitution having a negative social stigma is a bad thing? P.S., you should watch the video presented here: http://www.faithit.com/the-way-this-video-connects-porn-and-global-injustice-will-make-you-see-the-world-in-a-very-different-way-warning-you-cant-unwatch-this/ If there was a way to ban porn, I would be all behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2014 How is prostitution any more immoral than any other sexual act outside of marriage? Why are you so obsessed with advocating and advancing prostitution? "Making something legal would go along to to removing a social stigma." Do you believe prostitution having a negative social stigma is a bad thing? P.S., you should watch the video presented here: http://www.faithit.com/the-way-this-video-connects-porn-and-global-injustice-will-make-you-see-the-world-in-a-very-different-way-warning-you-cant-unwatch-this/ If there was a way to ban porn, I would be all behind it. I am not obsessed with advocating and advancing prostitution, I am obsessed with advocating and advancing personal liberty. If two consenting adults wish to have sex and then exchange money, why should you or I care? Why should you or I impose our moral views on other people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,715 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Denying service isn't imposing anything. They're not forcing them not to to be gay they're just refusing to do service. They may have the right to be gay but the business should have the right to do business with whomever they choose. Its a two way street if one person has the right to be gay the other should have the right to say that they're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyU Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 64 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 18 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/13/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2014 If I were a baker I would not refuse to bake a cake for gay couples. Even though it is a sin. What other sins am I going to not bake a cake for? Am I going to give out a list of questions to see if people are sin free enough for one of my cakes? Of course not I am a sinner saved by grace only, and have no right punish people with my cake service. (throw stones)But I don't want the government dictating to privately owned businesses. So I am on the side of the bakery on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 There seems to be a reading comprehension problem on this thread. I didnt say it would solve the problems, that it would help to resolve them. No can regulation stop the abuse in any thing, yet we normally don't use that as a reason to do regulate something. We have speed limits and people still speed and die form it. Guess since we cant stop them all we should not have any speed limits. That is an invalid comparison. Speed is not regulated on the grounds that it is immoral to drive a certain speed. Speed limits are there regulate speed to prevent accidents. Prostitution is immoral from the outset. There is no way to regulate the immorality out of it. You cannot, with any intelligent credibiliity, compare speed limits with regulating prostitution. Even regulated prostitution is wrong to start with and still results in all kinds of problems listed by others on this thread that no amount of regulation wil solve. How is prostitution any more immoral than any other sexual act outside of marriage? Why is prostitution any more immoral than a girl marrying a rich man for his money? Who said it was? That is a red herring. This thread is not about what is more or less moral than something else. Our laws should be there to protect people from other people, not to tell people what is and what is not moral. But protecting people from other people is inherently a moral issue. Laws protect one person from imposing their immorality on another person. Murder is not outlawed because it is immoral, but because it harms someone else. That is why it is immoral. Murder IS immoral because it hurts other people. It is wanton act of taking innocent human life. It is immoral and we pass laws to prevent immoral pepole from committing the immoral act of murder. Same with theft, battery, speeding, drinking and driving and every other law. Are there any other laws that are based purely on what is "immoral"? Theft battery, drinkiing and driving are inherently immoral because they hurt other people and are illegal on that basis. Harming other people is immoral and there are laws against things that bring harm to others. How you can separate what is immoral from what harms other people is rather mind boggling. It shows you really don't know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2014 There seems to be a reading comprehension problem on this thread. I didnt say it would solve the problems, that it would help to resolve them. No can regulation stop the abuse in any thing, yet we normally don't use that as a reason to do regulate something. We have speed limits and people still speed and die form it. Guess since we cant stop them all we should not have any speed limits. That is an invalid comparison. Speed is not regulated on the grounds that it is immoral to drive a certain speed. Speed limits are there regulate speed to prevent accidents. Prostitution is immoral from the outset. There is no way to regulate the immorality out of it. You cannot, with any intelligent credibiliity, compare speed limits with regulating prostitution. Even regulated prostitution is wrong to start with and still results in all kinds of problems listed by others on this thread that no amount of regulation wil solve. How is prostitution any more immoral than any other sexual act outside of marriage? Why is prostitution any more immoral than a girl marrying a rich man for his money? Who said it was? That is a red herring. This thread is not about what is more or less moral than something else. Our laws should be there to protect people from other people, not to tell people what is and what is not moral. But protecting people from other people is inherently a moral issue. Laws protect one person from imposing their immorality on another person. Murder is not outlawed because it is immoral, but because it harms someone else. That is why it is immoral. Murder IS immoral because it hurts other people. It is wanton act of taking innocent human life. It is immoral and we pass laws to prevent immoral pepole from committing the immoral act of murder. Same with theft, battery, speeding, drinking and driving and every other law. Are there any other laws that are based purely on what is "immoral"? Theft battery, drinkiing and driving are inherently immoral because they hurt other people and are illegal on that basis. Harming other people is immoral and there are laws against things that bring harm to others. How you can separate what is immoral from what harms other people is rather mind boggling. It shows you really don't know what you are talking about. A guy sitting in his basement watching pron is being immoral abut he is not hurting anyone but maybe himself. A woman can have sex with 100 different guys in the course of a year and as long as she is not passing on an STD she is being immoral but not harming anyone else. The line is between immoral and harming others is very clear for those who are not trying to impose their version of morality on other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I am not obsessed with advocating and advancing prostitution, I am obsessed with advocating and advancing personal liberty. If two consenting adults wish to have sex and then exchange money, why should you or I care? Why should you or I impose our moral views on other people? Because as Christians, we are called to be a light to the world. It is our mandate from God in Ehesians 5 to not only avoid the works of darkness but expose them. We are called to be a light to the world. The world hates the light because their deeds are evil. Nonetheless we are to be salt and light. We are to live proatcively in the Kingdom and call men and women to repentance. That means that we are not sit idly by and watch people live self-destructive lives and go to hell simply because they are consenting adults. We are not imposing our morality on them. If you were a Christian, you would understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 A guy sitting in his basement watching pron is being immoral abut he is not hurting anyone but maybe himself. A woman can have sex with 100 different guys in the course of a year and as long as she is not passing on an STD she is being immoral but not harming anyone else. The line is between immoral and harming others is very clear for those who are not trying to impose their version of morality on other people You are wrong. A man sitting in his basement watching porn is using his money to support an industry that is notorious for the way it uses and abuses women who are involved in the porn videos. Many people are unaware of the abuse and violence that takes place off camera. You need to think about how it affects the girls who are lured into making those kinds of movies and the physical abuse, the STDs they contract, since porn videos are not images of people having protected sex and the unwanted pregnancies and abortions that occur. Your approach to the harm of watching porn needs to take some other things into consideration: 66% of porn performers have Herpes, a non-curable disease. Chlamydia and Gonorrhea among performers is 10x greater than that of LA County 20-24 year olds. 70% of sexually transmitted infections in the porn industry occur in females. Over 100 straight and gay performers died from AIDS http://www.vachristian.org/Sexual-Purity/The-Dark-Side-of-Pornography-Part-2-Creating-New-Lows.html In addition, there is a huge suicide rate among porn stars http://www.vachristian.org/Sexual-Purity/The-Dark-Side-of-Pornography-Part-2-Creating-New-Lows.html A group of experts testifying before a Senate subcommittee compared the addictive and “toxic” nature of pornography to that of cocaine.6 As with any drug, one spirals out of control because he or she has to have more and more of the drug in order to get the same high. The same is true of pornography. As an industry, pornography continues to stoop to lower and lower levels of degradation in order to feed the ever growing demand of addicted users around the world. So many things that were once considered unthinkable now have been given legitimacy within the porn industry. Some of the categories include: child pornography, bondage pornography, rape pornography, menstrual, incest pornography, bestiality, gay pornography, scat, and a host of others that are disgustingly unimaginable. (From the same link as above) So when guy buys porn or views it on his computer, you may not think he is hurting anyone else, but he is. If people like him refused to buy the porn, no one would have the money to make it and lots of men and women would have been spared the pain and the destroyed lives, and the feelings of hopeless that led them to commit suicide. Once again you don't know what you are talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2014 noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Selling something to a straight couple and refusing to sell something to a gay couple is indeed discrimination. Refusing to provide services to people because they are different from myself is not part of my religion. The exercise of my religion does not include refusing service to others. This is where you are wrong. They are not denying the service, ulimately. They are not denying them service on the grounds that they are gay. If they were, they would ban them from the store across the board and not sell them any goods or services, whatsoever. That is not what is happening, here, and I think you know it. <snip> They are not claiming that the gay couple cannot come into their store and buy other things like cookies and donuts and bagels. They are not banning gays from their store. They are simply refusing ONE category of service on the grounds that it promotes a lifestyle that violates their Christian faith, based on what God says in the Scriptures. Your argument is generally more solid when you don't contradict it in a later paragraph. The point stands that if it was a straight couple that went in to buy a wedding cake, it would have been made. Because they were a gay couple, they were refused service. Same goes for the case of the wedding photographer who refused service to a gay couple, but provided service to straight couples. Referring to this case, they were sued because they violated state law. In the words of the judge, they were asked to bake a cake, not make a speech. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/7/denver-cake-shopmustsellcakestogaycouplejudgerules.html In this wedding photographer case, it also violated anti-discrimination statutes. It was found to be no different than if someone were to discriminate based on race.http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/august/nm-supreme-court-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings.html You call me "dishonest" because this wasn't "ultimately denying service" based on them being gay? It doesn't matter what portion of the service, or which product in the store it is. The instant the gay couple gets denied a product in a store that a straight couple would be allowed to be, that is denying service based on sexual orientation. They have been treated unequally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts