New Prostitution Poll

[Don John of Austria]

So to those who seem upset by this idea that it might be tolerated by the State.


Could you answer my statements in post 66 or 70?


Specifically should fornication be criminalized?

If not whyexactly is fornication for money worse than fornication for dinner and a movie, or fornication for fun?

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909524' date='Jul 3 2009, 05:12 PM']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.[/quote]

I don't think it's different either, morally speaking. But we're talking about the difference between sex as an official, legal, commercial business, and sex in a consentual, albeit shallow, relationship. This is probably not the best analogy, but that's why the government has laws regarding the relationship between an employer and employees in an official business setting, but those laws don't apply to less formal "jobs"... like a kid getting paid for mowing his neighbor's lawns. The relationship is obviously different.


[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1910817' date='Jul 4 2009, 02:41 PM']Well I pretty much disagree on every count. The television does not satisfy the baser desires, it inflames them. Quite the opposite actually.

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.[/quote]

Did you read my post at all? Notice that I said, "All a guy has to do is turn on the television and he'll find something to "satisfy his baser desires." [b]But does it satisfy? No, they are rather consumed by lust[/b]"

And then I said, "does giving in to these baser desires cause any man to truly value a woman for her purity? No... [b]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.[/b]"

My point was PRECISELY that both men and women do not respect each other or purity, because of an acceptance of lust. I do not consider someone being looked at as an "object for sexual gratification" as being respected or valued, and I expected that the term obviously implied a lack of respect, at least to those with an understanding of the true value of sexuality. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

My reason for saying that was because YOU were the one to say "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." And I don't understand why anyone would think that if prostitution was legal and accepted that men will suddenly respect women because of that. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Pardon my language here but.

Why the hell are any Catholics trying to moralise prostitution?

[Resurrexi]

It is not possible for Catholics to moralize prostitution since fornication is against the natural law.

Catholics are able to legalize prostitution, however.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910873' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:37 PM']It is not possible for Catholics to moralize prostitution since fornication is against the natural law.

Catholics are able to legalize prostitution, however.[/quote]

But it is a sin against justice to put someone in an occasion of sin. Making prostitution legal and therefore more available, creates a greater occasion or circumstance for sin. It is scandal. And therefore, it would be an unjust law.

Edited July 4, 2009 by zunshynn

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1909524' date='Jul 3 2009, 05:12 PM']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.[/quote]

I want to add to my reply to this that because sex is not necessarily required of a civil marriage, that is also a reason why the government is not really in a position to make sex outside of marriage illegal. Legalized prostitution, however, is making sex a business. The government's involvement in that sense does not have anything to do with governing marital fidelity, but in making sex as a business using legal tender, illegal. I would say they have the same responsibility in regard to pornography. A law that allows human beings to be sold, even consentually, is unjust.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910892' date='Jul 4 2009, 06:10 PM']But it is a sin against justice to put someone in an occasion of sin. Making prostitution legal and therefore more available, creates a greater occasion or circumstance for sin. It is scandal. And therefore, it would be an unjust law.[/quote]

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that "[T]hose who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred." (St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiæ II-II, Q. 10, Art. 11)

I think that if the state legalized prostitution and made prostitutes take tests for venereal diseases, that public health would be improved.

As present, prostitutes do not have to take tests for venereal diseases to practice prostitution illegally, and so such diseases spread among the populace more quickly.

Additionally, prostitution does not differ specifically from regular fornication except that prostitution involves a near occasion to sin and a readiness to sin. Though it is certainly true that prostitution always reduces a person to an instrument of sexual pleasure, the same can often be said of the intentions of those who commit regular fornication. Currently fornication itself is not illegal, and I do not think that it should be.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910900' date='Jul 4 2009, 06:18 PM']The government's involvement in that sense does not have anything to do with governing marital fidelity, but in making sex as a business using legal tender, illegal.[/quote]

Would you feel the same way if the prostitute were not being paid with legal tender but instead with silver or gold?

Edited July 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910903' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:23 PM']St. Thomas Aquinas taught that "[T]hose who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred." (St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiæ II-II, Q. 10, Art. 11)

I think that if the state legalized prostitution and made prostitutes take tests for venereal diseases, that public health would be improved.

As present, prostitutes do not have to take tests for venereal diseases to practice prostitution illegally, and so such diseases spread among the populace more quickly.[/quote]

good health, even of a whole society, is a lesser good than the salvation of one soul, or even of one mortal sin not being committed. surely you must agree with that.


[quote]Additionally, prostitution does not differ specifically from regular fornication except that prostitution involves a near occasion to sin and a readiness to sin. Though it is certainly true that prostitution always reduces a person to an instrument of sexual pleasure, the same can often be said of the intentions of those who commit regular fornication. Currently fornication itself is not illegal, and I do not think that it should be.[/quote]
I'm not saying that the government should make laws based on the legitimacy of sexual pleasure between partners, but that the government does have an obligation to stop human trafficking. It is irrelevant, from a legal point of view, if the partners are committing adultery or fornication. You're right it doesn't differ specifically, in the moral sense, but it does legally because one involves commerce, and one does not.

[quote]Would you feel the same way if the prostitute were not being paid with legal tender but instead with silver or gold?[/quote]

Yes, because its still commerce. and silver and gold technically is legal tender, even if it is not the normal mode of business transaction.

Edited July 4, 2009 by zunshynn

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910912' date='Jul 4 2009, 06:34 PM']good health, even of a whole society, is a lesser good than the salvation of one soul, or even of one mortal sin not being committed. surely you must agree with that.[/quote]

The salvation of souls is certainly better than the health of society, that that does not mean that the state needs to outlaw every sinful action.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1911179' date='Jul 4 2009, 10:22 PM']The salvation of souls is certainly better than the health of society, that that does not mean that the state needs to outlaw every sinful action.[/quote]

No one said the state needed to outlaw every sinful action. YOU were the one that used Aquinas' quote about tolerating certain evils so as to prevent "greater evils" from being incurred to justify tolerating prostitution. I just pointed out that damage to public health is not a greater evil than any mortal sin or the trafficking of people. You have not presented any evil greater than that that legalized prostitution would somehow remove to justify its legalization. So Aquinas' quote does not apply in this circumstance.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1911272' date='Jul 5 2009, 01:01 AM']No one said the state So Aquinas' quote does not apply in this circumstance.[/quote]

St. Thomas probably thought that the principle of the government tolerating certain evils applied to prostitution since he himself used prostitution as an example:

"Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): 'If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiæ II-II, Q. 10, Art. 11)

Edited July 5, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910832' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:27 PM']I don't think it's different either, morally speaking. But we're talking about the difference between sex as an official, legal, commercial business, and sex in a consentual, albeit shallow, relationship. This is probably not the best analogy, but that's why the government has laws regarding the relationship between an employer and employees in an official business setting, but those laws don't apply to less formal "jobs"... like a kid getting paid for mowing his neighbor's lawns. The relationship is obviously different.




Did you read my post at all? Notice that I said, "All a guy has to do is turn on the television and he'll find something to "satisfy his baser desires." [b]But does it satisfy? No, they are rather consumed by lust[/b]"

And then I said, "does giving in to these baser desires cause any man to truly value a woman for her purity? No... [b]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.[/b]"

My point was PRECISELY that both men and women do not respect each other or purity, because of an acceptance of lust. I do not consider someone being looked at as an "object for sexual gratification" as being respected or valued, and I expected that the term obviously implied a lack of respect, at least to those with an understanding of the true value of sexuality. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

My reason for saying that was because YOU were the one to say "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." And I don't understand why anyone would think that if prostitution was legal and accepted that men will suddenly respect women because of that. You seem to be contradicting yourself.[/quote]


I am not contradicting myself at all. Traditionally, in societies which tolerated prostitution men valued women more than they do today, where instead of haveing whores in brothals, we have whores in clubs. In our current society, men seem to alue women, as women, as wives and mothers and single women living a chaste life very little. In the past when prostittion was tolerated virtually everywhere men valued women who were not prostitutes more than they do now. Because in many cases men now see all women as simply objects to satisfy thier sexula desire. In societies where prostitution was legal, this does not seem to be the case, at least notto the extent they are today.

I think this is becuase it created a group of women who were by the nature of thier profession objectified, thus women not of that profession were more respected, in our current culture all women are objectified and none are respected.

Now I did not say that there would be some magical change, I am just pointing out tht women who were not prostitutes tended to be more highly regarded in societies which had legal prostitution, than in modern times where prostitution was made illegal. and the correlation between then was quie strong. That does not mean that the reverse would occur.

I would point out that women seem to equally objectify men, there is no reason that we should assume there would not mbe a good number of women visiting male prostitutes.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910900' date='Jul 4 2009, 07:18 PM']I want to add to my reply to this that because sex is not necessarily required of a civil marriage, that is also a reason why the government is not really in a position to make sex outside of marriage illegal. Legalized prostitution, however, is making sex a business. The government's involvement in that sense does not have anything to do with governing marital fidelity, but in making sex as a business using legal tender, illegal. I would say they have the same responsibility in regard to pornography. A law that allows human beings to be sold, even consentually, is unjust.[/quote]


Actually sex is a requirment of a civil marriage, one can recieve a civil annulment if the marriage was never consummated just like a catholic marriage. Similarly, sex outside of marriage was once regulated. Adultery used to be illegal, and in many places fornicaiton was as well.
I see no differance in a man letting a women live with him in exchange for sex and paying her "legal tender", why would the government?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1910832' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:27 PM']I don't think it's different either, morally speaking. But we're talking about the difference between sex as an official, legal, commercial business, and sex in a consentual, albeit shallow, relationship. This is probably not the best analogy, but that's why the government has laws regarding the relationship between an employer and employees in an official business setting, but those laws don't apply to less formal "jobs"... like a kid getting paid for mowing his neighbor's lawns. The relationship is obviously different.[/quote]


Not according to the government. the governments laws on employment are supposed to apply to ALL jobs. as are the rules on income tax. If I get my friend to plumb my house for free, I am supposed to report the valure of that job as income and pay taxes on it. Barter works the same way. The government turns a blind eye to the boy mowing lawns, as it does to barter, but the law governs them. The relationship, according the the US government is not differant at all. So why would it be with prostitution.