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 Only in your imagination. We regulate lots of stuff and people's lives are still destroyed by those things, regulations, or not. No amount of legalization or regulation will work. We have regulation concerning alcohol and yet alcoholism and liver disease are still huge problems. Alcoholism is at the root of the destruction of so many families and no amount of regulation can mitigate the damage that alcoholism does. 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. Legalizing prostitution will not remove the social stigma it carries and will only serve to leave women hating themselves, leaving them suicidal as well. One only needs look at what sexual objectification does to women who are NOT prostitutes to see the harm that prositution can bring to women, with or without legalization or regulation. Legalizing prositution would not bring any benefit to this country but would only deepen the pit of immorality we are sinking into as a nation. You cannot regulate the sin out of prostitution. Making something legal would go along to to removing a social stigma. I am anal when it comes to inconsistencies. There is no logical reason that pron is legal and prostitution is not. I think it can be said that porn is far worse than prostitution yet it is not only legal it is a multi-trillion dollar a year industry. It seems that under the throughout the Old Testament prostitution was legal in Israel, why is that? 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 This does not remove all harm, but it does offer protection, Thank you for admitting it causes harm. What doesn't cause harm? What we were talking about. Do I have to repost the entire conversation? Or is this all about playing word games to you? Or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing? 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 This does not remove all harm, but it does offer protection, Thank you for admitting it causes harm. What doesn't cause harm? What we were talking about. Do I have to repost the entire conversation? Or is this all about playing word games to you? Or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing? I mention that seat belts cannot remove all harm and you come back with 'Thank you for admitting it causes harm." and then you accuse me of word games? I am more than just a little confused. 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 This does not remove all harm, but it does offer protection, Thank you for admitting it causes harm. What doesn't cause harm? What we were talking about. Do I have to repost the entire conversation? Or is this all about playing word games to you? Or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing? I mention that seat belts cannot remove all harm and you come back with 'Thank you for admitting it causes harm." and then you accuse me of word games? I am more than just a little confused. "Minus any harm based on a religious point of view what harm comes from well regulated prostitution?" Harm is caused by prostitution - period. Lessening the harm through regulation does not remove the harm. In fact, making prostitution legal will only result in an increase in prostitution - the same as has happened with anything else formerly forbidden that was legalized. An increase in prostitution, even though regulated, increases the chances for an increase of the spread of venereal diseases. 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 The text of the bill fairly vague, applying to far more than wedding cakes. it'll probably get struck down in the first court case. That's what happens when you pass laws trying to make it easier to discriminate against others. What about Christians who are discriminated against when folks try to force them out of business because they will not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding? That has happened to several bakers already. I would not deny service to any customer for my business because of their sexual orientation in the same way that I would not deny service based on their race, or gender, or their political beliefs. That is an ugly thing to do. The law makes it so that someone could deny service without repercussions to anybody if it would offend their "sincerely held religious beliefs". It would not just apply to baking cakes or taking photos, it could apply to selling virtually any product so long as it offended someones beliefs. It is wrong (and it is illegal) for someone to deny service to you because you are a Christian. It does not make it any less wrong to so if that person is gay, or of a specific gender, race, or political belief. Equal treatment under the law doesn't mean Christians should be granted special privileges that gay people are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 23, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 It is not denying them service based on their sexual orientation. It is denying them service for something that violates the constitutionally guaranteed religious rights of the business owner. The baker will still make cakes for a birthday etc. Just not for a wedding that violates his religious beliefs. 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 It is not denying them service based on their sexual orientation. It is denying them service for something that violates the constitutionally guaranteed religious rights of the business owner. The baker will still make cakes for a birthday etc. Just not for a wedding that violates his religious beliefs. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 23, 2014 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. You being very dishonset about what is play. The business owners are simply refusing to participate either directly or indirectly in an activity that violates their convictions based on what Scripture says about how God hates the homosexual lifestyle. God hates that lifestyle and says so in the strongest terms possible. The company that was approached to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple refused on the grounds of their faith and their religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution to do so. There is no consitutional "right" for marriage, so no rights of the same sex couple are being violated. There is no constitutional right to be "gay." There IS a consitutional right to be a Christian and to follow the dictates of one's heart. 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. 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. Making something legal would go along to to removing a social stigma. No, it wouldn't. I am anal when it comes to inconsistencies. There is no logical reason that pron is legal and prostitution is not. I think it can be said that porn is far worse than prostitution yet it is not only legal it is a multi-trillion dollar a year industry. On that point, we agree. Pornography should be illegal. We should be consistent in banning both industries. It seems that under the throughout the Old Testament prostitution was legal in Israel, why is that? "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, "I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity." And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deu 22:13-21) It wasn't "legal" from the vantage point of God's law. The fact that there were times when Israel allowed itself to descend into the mire of tolerating sin, is a really a meaningless argument. It only shows that human nature is the same regardless of the time period. Immoral, ungodly people are still willing to promote, legalize and regulate sin bdcause they hate God's righteousness and his righteous laws. Legalize prostitution = "I hate the Word of God because I love sin more." 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 It is not denying them service based on their sexual orientation. It is denying them service for something that violates the constitutionally guaranteed religious rights of the business owner. The baker will still make cakes for a birthday etc. Just not for a wedding that violates his religious beliefs. maybe you can explain how making a wedding cake in exchange for payment violates Christian beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts