Posted on 05/09/2007 6:51:49 AM PDT by Lusis
The resignation of Randall Tobias, the chief of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, for "personal reasons" following the revelation that he had engaged the services of two escort-service workers has provided rich grist for amusement on the punditry circuit. There was indeed plenty of material for humor in the situation, from Tobias's strong stand in favor of abstinence teaching in AIDS prevention programs to his "I didn't inhale"-style assertion that he never had sex with the women. But the predictable laughs have obscured a much larger issue than hypocrisy in the ranks of social conservatives. The reason Tobias's call-girl adventures became public is that the owner of the Washington, DC-based service, Pamela Martin, is facing prosecution and has turned her records over to news organizations to help pay for her legal defense.
Even those who feel a certain schadenfreude at Tobias's downfall should be asking the question: should there have been a criminal case in the first place?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
**** And Bill Clinton would probably figure out a tax loop hole to get around for paying for it.
If prostitution was legal, I can’t imagine many fathers being proud that their daughters grew up to be whores.
That's the same logical methodology the left uses for justifying their anti-war position. We, as a nation, are not in favor of losing the war on terror. However, when certain groups (liberals) poll the populace, they put the question as one of "dissatisfaction" with the progress of the war. Just as America can't be said to be "ok" with losing the war on terror based on this assumption, there was a majority against slavery at our founding. The issue was tabled because otherwise the southern states wouldn't have signed on to the Constitution. Highlighting these individuals as representative of the whole is hardly an honest disagreement.
If prostituion wasn’t legal in the Founding Father’s day why were there legal brothels in Washington DC until the 1900’s.
http://www.si.edu/oahp/madam/index.html
500 registered Brothels and 5000 registered prostitutes
I am not saying it is right or wrong I am saying the Founding Fathers did not have the puritanical view of sexual conduct that developed during the evangelical movements of the early 20th century.
History is History no matter how much you want to deny it. Deal with what happened don’t try to rewrite history that is best left up to Democrats and other leftist. Conservatives should be realists and not try to change or ignore history because they don’t agree with it.
Laws against kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, etc. were already on the books but they weren't working, hence the move to make prostitution illegal.
Just make sure that Mr. Tobias knows that it is OK to lie about it, since it is only about sex.
Yes, even under oath. It should be called the Clinton Precedent.
I’m not saying prostitution was correct I am saying it was legal and the attitudes of the Founding Fathers saw no reason to make it illegal it was the attitudes of the first women voters that put the nail in the prostitution coffin for most of the nation.
Sheer nonsense. Every law made to insure a civil society is at it's core about morality. Theft, assault, perjury, etc. are the way we codify those moral objections into law. Without morality all laws are useless and unworkable as people would feel no need to abide by them.
"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other." - John Adams
So what is the litmus test to determine if something is a right? Is free speech a right? In many "human institutions" are quite effective at infringing upon those rights. Is the right to life a right? Many "human institutions" are quite effective at killing masses of people.
However, you do seem to be getting close to establishing a definition. Human institutions may infringe upon "God-given" rights to prevent infringement of someone else's rights. This is my stance on how governments should legislate; your rights end where mine begin. Thus, when applied to prostitution, there should not be a law against it. After all, whose rights is someone infringing when they solicit a prostitute, or when a woman willing sells her body? People may find the process detestable; I will never pay for sex, and I will look down upon people who do. However, I will not legislate my morality on others.
Washington DC did not exist when the Constitution was drafted.
The laws of Washington DC were drafted by the municipal government, not the Federal government.
I am saying the Founding Fathers did not have the puritanical view of sexual conduct that developed during the evangelical movements of the early 20th century.
The various Founding Fathers had various views on public morality. What is certain is that none of them imagined that the Constitution of the United States legalized prostitution federally.
They knew that the decision to outlaw prostitution was left to the several states - or in states lacking statewide legislation, local governments.
History is History no matter how much you want to deny it.
This would be a more convincing statement coming from someone who was familiar with American history.
There were revival movements in America prior to the 20th century. Look up "The Great Awakening".
The historical fact is that prostitution was illegal almost everywhere in the United States, except for certain port towns and mining camps in unorganized territory.
Legalized prostitution has never been the norm in the United States.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Rights, if they are truly rights, can't be taken away by government without grave injustice.
What is the litmus test for whether something is a right or not? If it can be taken away without grave injustice? Define grave injustice. What if the government forbids you to do something and it is only a minor injustice? What if something is legal in one country and illegal in another country, without any difference in repercussions between the two?
The Ninth Amendment is vary vague, and we see the government taking away many "rights" without any problem. Furthermore, other countries do not go by the US constitution. Does that mean that they don't have rights?
A tiresome fallacy common to libertarians, to say that the only reason for legislation is to protect rights.
The foudning fathers based our nation upon the requirement of a republic to support and foster virtue, as well as to protect rights and liberties.
IOW, it's not about "me."
That hasn't worked well. People who are compelled to be virtuous because of law aren't actually virtuous. I suppose by your standards, adultery and homosexuality should be illegal.
IOW, it's not about "me."
I would say that it is the other way round. You want to enforce your notions of virtue upon others. I would say, let every man choose the path that he will lead so long as it does not impinge upon the the paths of others. I will be "virtuous," and I will try to raise my children to do the same. However, it is not my place to enforce my views upon my neighbor. Nor has it been shown that legislation has been effective in that regard.
LOL!
That could be it.
Wow. That's the same argument used by the pro gun control crowd.
Because some people still believe the Bible is the Word of God.
I'm going to ignore your childish questions and focus on this one. In case you're wondering, I call them childish because they are questions that have been answered and reanswered throughout history going back to the earliest philosophers. I'm not going to do them justice in a post, just encourage you to do some research if you are truly interested and not just out for mindless debate.
As for the above issue you raised, rights are God-given and endowed in us, His creation. Any society that respects that fact, respects the rights of its citizens. Any society that rejects that fact (and instead assumes rights come from government or some other man-made institution) rejects the natural rights of man and I would say that those men have given away their rights.
I guess those women didn’t like the idea of being taken advantage of and being used as a commercial product... imagine that!
A more awkwardly self-serving attempt at drawing an analogy between an historic and current event I've never seen. Your reply contained:
- An attempt to paint me in the wrong by associating something I wrote with leftists (yucky);Quit while you're behind, Zoomie. This is downright embarrassing.
- A subject jump from slavery (universally bad) to the war on terror (universally good, at least here on FR), along with a presumptive claim on the moral high ground (appealing to your audience), since you've already characterized me as being a leftist, or at least thinking like one;
- An attempt to paint me in the wrong by associating my opinion on the subject of slavery and my opinion on the subject of the war on terror (which was never solicited);
- A grandiose declaration at the end in an attempt to tie all these unrelated strings together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.