New Prostitution Poll

[zunshynn]

And another thing... making sin more available does not help those who are otherwise "honorable" as you say to remain pure. The most honorable young man or young woman is not so pure and strong that they could not fall, could not be tempted by something so readily available. We don't need to be encouraging our government to make sin even more available than they already are. We have enough things to struggle with already. We don't need to be allowing brothels to be built to present one more temptation.

We're not called to be honorable, we're called to be saints. Saints don't use people to keep things looking nice and decent and respectable.

[kafka]

now you're preaching to the choir.

Rex,

I get the sense that the reason your thoughts have become distorted in this discussion is that you are favoring and placing to much respect in medieval thoughts and practices instead of analyzing the question independently with cold and detached reason using sound Catholic moral/ethical principles to guide you.


Anyhow its been hard for me to learn how to respect no-one and play no favorites in the search for Truth.

Edited July 3, 2009 by kafka

[Don John of Austria]

WEll I think we are supposed to respect the opinions of saints, Fathers of the Church and Doctors of the Church. That both Augustine and Aquinus agreed on this, we should not be too quick to dismiss them.

[kafka]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909424' date='Jul 3 2009, 06:28 PM']WEll I think we are supposed to respect the opinions of saints, Fathers of the Church and Doctors of the Church. That both Augustine and Aquinus agreed on this, we should not be too quick to dismiss them.[/quote]
you may have missed the spirit of my post. It is good to hold the writings of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints in esteem and reverence.

In any case the Augustine may be quoted out of context. I'd have to read that quote in the original to decide if he may have been exaggerating or doing something else with it. Aquinas used that quote for an example supporting the toleration of the rites of other religions, which has nothing to do with the legalization of prostitution, so Aquinas must have thought Augustine was expressing some sort of principle, however like I showed it isnt sound at all. So overall I thought it was poor for Aquinas to use that.

Saints and Doctors can err here and there, that is why one has to read them objectively and critically disregarding their name and reputation otherwise you might err with them.

Edited July 3, 2009 by kafka

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='kafka' post='1909444' date='Jul 3 2009, 06:40 PM']you may have missed the spirit of my post. It is good to hold the writings of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints in esteem and reverence.

In any case the Augustine may be quoted out of context. I'd have to read that quote in the original to decide if he may have been exaggerating or doing something else with it. Aquinas used that quote for an example supporting the toleration of the rites of other religions, which has nothing to do with the legalization of prostitution, so Aquinas must have thought Augustine was expressing some sort of principle, however like I showed it isnt sound at all. So overall I thought it was poor for Aquinas to use that.

Saints and Doctors can err here and there, that is why one has to read them objectively and critically disregarding their name and reputation otherwise you might err with them.[/quote]


I don't disagree. I just think that we should respect them and give them the benefit of the doubt. That certianly does not mean they are always right.

[Don John of Austria]

However, I fail to see why charging for doing something that is not illegal to do should be punishable by the state.

If fornication is legal, and formicaiton is evil and wrong, and corrupting to society, why should the fact that money changes hands suddenly make it criminal?

[zunshynn]

Not to mention that the two societies were VERY different. If something is legalized nowadays, it will be hot news everywhere, on television, on the internet, it will be discussed in schools,... everywhere, very quickly, until it becomes accepted as "the way things are."

That was not the case in Augustine's time, or Aquinas' time. And I have my doubts as to the context of that quote too.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909483' date='Jul 3 2009, 04:53 PM']However, I fail to see why charging for doing something that is not illegal to do should be punishable by the state.

If fornication is legal, and formicaiton is evil and wrong, and corrupting to society, why should the fact that money changes hands suddenly make it criminal?[/quote]

You're joking, right?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1909493' date='Jul 3 2009, 05:56 PM']And I have my doubts as to the context of that quote too.[/quote]

I don't have a copy of [i]De Ordine[/i]. Perhaps you do. If so, you can enlighten us all as to the context of the quote.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1909497' date='Jul 3 2009, 06:59 PM']You're joking, right?[/quote]

No I am not joking.

Either fornication should be criminalized or prostitution should be decriminalized. The State either has the authority to punish fornication or it does not; it either should punish fornication or it should not, I do not see how paying a women for sex is any differant than taking her to dinner and a movie getting a nice bottle of wine and having sex. Except that prostitution has the virtue of being honest "dating" often does not. Sex outside of marriage is wrong, but it is not criminal.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1909493' date='Jul 3 2009, 06:56 PM']Not to mention that the two societies were VERY different. If something is legalized nowadays, it will be hot news everywhere, on television, on the internet, it will be discussed in schools,... everywhere, very quickly, until it becomes accepted as "the way things are."

That was not the case in Augustine's time, or Aquinas' time. And I have my doubts as to the context of that quote too.[/quote]


Certianly the societies are dfferant, butthe question Rex posed was it "ever" morally acceptable.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1908858' date='Jul 3 2009, 12:55 AM']No comments on my points?[/quote]

OK, you want a comment, here it is, since I was waiting for someone else to talk about it but nobody did:

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1908771' date='Jul 3 2009, 12:13 AM']Well I also think, as distasteful as this is, that in a society where there prostitution is legal and safe and more or less accepted men are more likely to [i]value[/i] a women who is pure because he can satisfy his baser desires with a prostitute who is obviously impure. As that aspect of society has changed men have come more and more to simply not value women at all, to only value sex with women.[/quote]

So, are you saying that women should be pure but men get to have someone on the side to "satisfy their baser desires" with? That sounds like a double-standard to me.

Additionally, is it not possible that "satisfying one's baser desires" will become addictive?

[zunshynn]

[quote]Well I also think, as distasteful as this is, that in a society where there prostitution is legal and safe and more or less accepted men are more likely to value a women who is pure because he can satisfy his baser desires with a prostitute who is obviously impure. As that aspect of society has changed men have come more and more to simply not value women at all, to only value sex with women.[/quote]

On what basis do you think that? If you just look at the way society is now, that's obviously not the case. All a guy has to do is turn on the television and he'll find something to "satisfy his baser desires." But does it satisfy? No, they are rather consumed by lust in constant grasping for something else, something more, which often gets more and more perverse. And does giving in to these baser desires cause any man to truly value a woman for her purity? No... it's pretty standard understanding that the more someone gives in to lust, the more he (or she) will look at their spouse as an object for sexual gratification.

[Don John of Austria]

Well actually I have been waiting for any counter to any of my original points. But since you chose this to respond to.


[quote name='Norseman82' post='1910103' date='Jul 4 2009, 12:12 AM']So, are you saying that women should be pure but men get to have someone on the side to "satisfy their baser desires" with? That sounds like a double-standard to me.

[color="#2E8B57"]No I don't recall saying anything [i][b]should [/b][/i]be, I man an observasion about what I think [i][b]is[/b][/i]. THat is completely differant. And I am not concerned about a double standard, I find the argument menaingless. Men and women are not the same, thier behavior [b][i]IS[/i][/b] not the same, practical expectations for thier behavior, both good and bad is only the same if you are a fool. THat does not mean both are not obliged, morally to be chaste. there is no doublestandard about sin.
However, in society we have double standards about all kinds of things, and in America we support them. For example at 18 I had to register for the draft, but my sister did not. That is a double standard. Or are you suggesting women should be obliged to be drafted for combat duty to aviod a double standard?
Men and women are differant. the charge "double standard, when discussing practicalities of behavior is a false arguement. [/color]
Additionally, is it not possible that "satisfying one's baser desires" will become addictive?
[color="#2E8B57"]I suppose so, but I fail to see how sex via prostitution would be more addictive than sex with someone I picked up at a bar.[/color][/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910231' date='Jul 4 2009, 02:01 AM']On what basis do you think that? If you just look at the way society is now, that's obviously not the case. All a guy has to do is turn on the television and he'll find something to "satisfy his baser desires." But does it satisfy? No, they are rather consumed by lust in constant grasping for something else, something more, which often gets more and more perverse. And does giving in to these baser desires cause any man to truly value a woman for her purity? No... it's pretty standard understanding that the more someone gives in to lust, the more he (or she) will look at their spouse as an object for sexual gratification.[/quote]

Well I pretty much disagree on every count. The television does not satisfy the baser desires, it inflames them. Quite the opposite actually.

[quote]And does giving in to these baser desires cause any man to truly value a woman for her purity? No... it's pretty standard understanding that the more someone gives in to lust, the more he (or she) will look at their spouse as an object for sexual gratification.[/quote]

What? Who's standard understanding is that? Historically speaking this was simply not the case, not ever, not anywhere. Do you really believe that men value women more now than they did 500 years ago? Do you really believe that?
If you do you should read some of the extant letters from men to women, or from men about women. Some of the most deeply respectful things I have ever read are from 16th century spaniards to women of various relationships to them.
Men have , on the whole ceased to respect women at all, and both genders have stoped respecting purity.