The Political Discussion Thread

[Ukko]

true love does not cause strife.....only reducing it or eliminating it altogether is what causes strife

and I'm not arguing that sex isn't good...but like a drug there's a right way and a wrong way to use it

Yes it bloody does!

Who are you to tell people they're having sex the "wrong way."

[Ukko]

I never said sex caused the fall of the Roman Empire And I didn't mean to say that if you don't believe in God's laws that you are lesser of a person or whatever...but I did say that you have to start somewhere and naturally as soon as you draw a line there are going to be people on either side of it. PERIOD. There is no way you can rule a people and appeal to everyone....there is just no way. So you have to take a stand as a governing body on what you say is right and wrong and stick with it. YOu can't wax and wane and keep changing your position cuz it may offend this person or that person...it is just the way it is.

And the act of sex when it is absent from love or true caring like Mad Gator says below (when one person is paying) that is not truly consenting...and it IMO defiles what is natural and good. It is not natural to go out and pay for something in that manner. But that is my opinion on the matter and clearly we differ in our views on that.




absolutely correct. It becomes more of a client/customer type of thing and reduces the act of sex or love or whatever you want to call it to just a service like any other service and that to me cheapens it and maybe will lead to people valuing it less and less.

It is consenting. You can say no, you dont have to accept the money. Wich is part of the point of legalizing it bacause at the moment the men and women have no choice but to do as their pimp tells them.

Food and water are natural things, things we cant live without. I hear no complaints about paying for those.

You may feel it cheapens it, but you dont have the right to tell others they cant do it just because you dont like it.

[squirrely1]

It is consenting. You can say no, you dont have to accept the money. Wich is part of the point of legalizing it bacause at the moment the men and women have no choice but to do as their pimp tells them.

Food and water are natural things, things we cant live without. I hear no complaints about paying for those.

You may feel it cheapens it, but you dont have the right to tell others they cant do it just because you dont like it.

well that is the problem there I don't put Sex up there as a need like food and water. You won't die if you don't have sex. And about the saying no....would they really say no tho? I mean if that is their livelihood could they afford to say no?? They may be apt to just take on anyone just to make the money....cuz it is more of a service rather than an emotional attachment...or love.....right?

Well we tell other's it's wrong to kill or rape or beat up someone right? But maybe there is someone somewhere who thinks that according to them it is ok and they find offense that I'm telling them it's wrong? So yeah you have to draw the line somewhere.

[Ukko]

well that is the problem there I don't put Sex up there as a need like food and water. You won't die if you don't have sex. And about the saying no....would they really say no tho? I mean if that is their livelihood could they afford to say no?? They may be apt to just take on anyone just to make the money....cuz it is more of a service rather than an emotional attachment...or love.....right?

Well we tell other's it's wrong to kill or rape or beat up someone right? But maybe there is someone somewhere who thinks that according to them it is ok and they find offense that I'm telling them it's wrong? So yeah you have to draw the line somewhere.

Its needed for the continued existence of the human race.
Yes, they can say no. And they would (and do in places its legal) if they wanted to.
And its possible to have sex for enjoyment and not love. That doesnt make it wrong.

Because those things are crimes. They are abusive and harmfull and wrong and done against the will of a victim. You dont choose to raped, beaten up or killed.

Sex is not abusive or harmfull or wrong when between consenting adults. And propper education will help them avoid STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

[Goose]

And the act of sex when it is absent from love or true caring like Mad Gator says below (when one person is paying) that is not truly consenting...and it IMO defiles what is natural and good. It is not natural to go out and pay for something in that manner. But that is my opinion on the matter and clearly we differ in our views on that.

So what about a one-night stand? Or just sex for the sake of having sex? One does not need to be in love in order to have sex, and having loveless sex is not wrong or unnatural. Sex and love are two entirely different things, and are not dependent on each other. To say that sex without love is not natural or uncconensual is just plain wrong. People have sex without being in love all the time!

[squirrely1]

Its needed for the continued existence of the human race.
Yes, they can say no. And they would (and do in places its legal) if they wanted to.
And its possible to have sex for enjoyment and not love. That doesnt make it wrong.

Because those things are crimes. They are abusive and harmfull and wrong and done against the will of a victim. You dont choose to raped, beaten up or killed.

Sex is not abusive or harmfull or wrong when between consenting adults. And propper education will help them avoid STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

So what about a one-night stand? Or just sex for the sake of having sex? One does not need to be in love in order to have sex, and having loveless sex is not wrong or unnatural. Sex and love are two entirely different things, and are not dependent on each other. To say that sex without love is not natural or uncconensual is just plain wrong. People have sex without being in love all the time!

I have never ever said here that sex is unnatural or wrong. I really don't know where either of you are getting that. And I am not even saying that sex for recreational purposes would be unnatural or wrong either. But there is a difference between meeting someone say in a bar or online and deciding to meet and have a one night stand or a sexual fling with them if you are both consensual....but that is far from prostitution and I think we have gotten waaaaaaaay off the point here. My feelings are clear on this...in that prostitution (selling your body for sex is wrong) I think it takes something that what could be fun and spontaneous and/or the act of showing love that two people share in....and sort of cheapens it. Again my opinion here and one I guess not many share

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I wouldn't want it in my food though.....most food tastes good enough on its own...and I don't want any hallucinogens forcing me to like a food I simply don't like

When i say that about food I mean that after smoking weed most food tastes amazing. At least that has been my experience.

[Col.Foley]

In the end of the day it has occured to me that this is one of the many states rights issues. The Fed should have no say in this matter. This is not a cop out so much as a further way for moral people to make moral choices. If a state passes a bill and makes it legal and you do not want to support that Sodom and Gomorah you are free to express your displeasure and move to a state that does not legalize prostitution. The Federal Government has no standing here. I cannot see how this 'industry' can effect interestate commerce.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

We got him.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Guys let's put away our political differences for a day and just celebrate that we got him!

[Col.Foley]

Guys let's put away our political differences for a day and just celebrate that we got him!

Yeha. But lets also keep in mind that this is by no where near mission accomplished. There are still a lot of threats out there.

[KEK]

Yeha. But lets also keep in mind that this is by no where near mission accomplished. There are still a lot of threats out there.

And there always will be. Killing terrorists will never keep you safe, it only helps make more of them. The reaction to Osama's apparent assassination have bee hilarious. It really means nothing at all beyond a nice little propaganda coup for Obama. In fact I'm not even sure this should be something to be celebrated at all. I mean why wasn't he captured and given a trail?

[Col.Foley]

And there always will be. Killing terrorists will never keep you safe, it only helps make more of them. The reaction to Osama's apparent assassination have bee hilarious. It really means nothing at all beyond a nice little propaganda coup for Obama. In fact I'm not even sure this should be something to be celebrated at all. I mean why wasn't he captured and given a trail?

Well to be blunt I would rather us then them. It is not a solution but it is part of a solution.

[squirrely1]

Are you serious....give him a trial? At the taxpayers expense no less....pfffffffffffft OMG I've heard everything now. The man is a known terrorist.... we have proof that he was a terrorist that is all the trial we need. Yeah let's break out the bubbly....sorry if that seems cold.....can't help it.

[Col.Foley]

Are you serious....give him a trial? At the taxpayers expense no less....pfffffffffffft OMG I've heard everything now. The man is a known terrorist.... we have proof that he was a terrorist that is all the trial we need. Yeah let's break out the bubbly....sorry if that seems cold.....can't help it.

He did say trail. Though he probably meant trial O.O

it is not cold but a bit premature maybe.