Replies

You posted: “Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.”

To some extent, every law is a legislation of morality (as a principle). Should we take, “Thou shalt not kill”, or “thou shalt not steal”, out of our criminal codes as well...since they are legislations of morality?

One has to view the government as an institution that secures certain rights at the expense of other rights. In an anarchy, you can go around, killing/stealing/raping/burning, etc. You have infinite "rights:" the right to life, the right to kill, the right to your possessions, the right to steal, etc. Many of these "rights" are incompatible with each other, and hence they are tenuous; my right to life would be in conflict with someone else's right to kill. A government is there to secures everyone's right to life at the expense of everyone's "right" to kill, in order to maintain stability.

As another poster who replied to me mentioned, legislating morality causes a problem because one must pick whose morality to legislate. Somebody else mentioned that this is a Judeo-Christian nation, and as such, those morals are the ones to be enforced. However, examine the growing Muslim population. If/when they have the majority, it won't be your morality that is legislated.

To some extent, every law is a legislation of morality (as a principle). Should we take, “Thou shalt not kill”, or “thou shalt not steal”, out of our criminal codes as well...since they are legislations of morality?

Killing and stealing are clear violations of someone's right to life and right to property.

There is no "right" to pursue happiness by regulating other peoples' sexual behavior - only your own.

Since theft and murder (the usual statist red herrings) have quantifiable VICTIMS (you know, the dead body on the floor and the missing stereo or cash belonging to the deceased), they are properly considered crimes, the crime being the violation of the rights of the victim. You know, the dead guy. If a prostitute is not coerced into her profession and does not put a gun to the head of her customer, then who is the victim? (Hint: “Society” is NOT a valid or correct answer.)

Now, granted, renting a sex partner may be wrong, reprehensible and/or immoral. But it is NOT something for government to attempt to outlaw. It is something for families, churches and individuals to deal with, to convince its practitioners that there is a better way than renting out their bodies. When you outlaw it and drive it underground, you LOSE that opportunity.

I only go through this since you are a relative noobie here and possibly you haven't seen your ploy used by the nanny-staters yet. However, this is probably going to be the only time you get such a break for that silly remark.

I forgot to include you in post #291...

You said — “since they are legislations of morality?”

That is a red herring argument which does not describe the purpose of the divinely-commanded “institution” of “government (by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).