A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Either way, aruging against the constitutionality of prostition is a bad way to lobby to get it legalized.
A better argument is to point out how all the positives of legalizing prostitution outweigh all the positives of keeping it illegal.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
I don't see how anyone can vote no on this one. While you may not believe its moral, the constitution and the founding fathers sought to protect individual liberty in-spite of their personal moral/religious beliefs and private contracts are one of those protections.
However, I fully support keeping prostitution illegal.
Last edited by X Factor; 04-30-11 at 01:24 AM.
Before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I dont really like the wording but Ill answer the best way I can.
I dont know if its constitutional per-say but it in no way shape or form is unconstitutional thats just silly, theres is no logic to support that what so ever.
I dont like saying its constitutional because to me that seems like the constitution protects that specific right, either way, again theres no logic to say its unconstitutional thats just peoples emotions getting in the way of logic.
Is it a private contract between consenting parties?
With the case of pimps, as someone mentioned, it get murky. However, in all other cases, theres no justification in my mind, legally, to have the action be illegal. If one were to perform a cost-benefit analysis of having the action be illegal vs legal, I'm more inclined to believe that its more favorable to have the action be legal while being regulated by laws, not executive agencies.
Hmmm... How does one go about getting published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology? Would you like to take a guess? Just for fun.A team of researchers in Toronto, Canada has recently published a paper, titled, "Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia" in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (August, 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610-615)
I'd be willing to bet, without looking it up, that you have to have a degree in Psychology at the minimum. And amazingly this was a group of "RESEARCHERS" Please note the plurality, which one would take to mean more than 1 person with a psychology degree. In actuality I'm willing to bet that a "group of researchers" means more than 2, since they didn't say a "pair of researchers".
To even attempt to argue the data is an idiotic argument at best. You yourself even admit that those who seek out child porn are the same ones who have inclinations towards pedophlia. Hmmm.... Who else would seek out child porn? I can only think of 2 groups.
1. Those who want to have sex with children: ie those with an inclination towards pedophilia.
2. Law Enforcement Agents tasked with the job of seeking out child porn in an effort to curb or stop it.
So, are there any other arguments you'd like to make for your case? Perhaps a study or 3 to say that those who view child porn do not have an inclination towards pedophilia? I don't think your going to find one, unless of course it's written by a pedophile attempting to justify his/her own case of viewing it. But then again, they have an inclination towards pedophilia so that would disqualify them from giving an objective answer wouldn't it?