# Pro Choice



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Nope, not abortion, surprise.

Now I know I am getting old. Either that or the world is loosing common sense. I was just catching an interview with Cavuto a couple of minutes ago as I was taking a much needed cookie brake.  He had on a lady they called the Manhattan Madam. It was her contention that prostitution was pro choice. Pro choice is covering more things every day. Soon I will be to confused to understand what they are really talking about. She said "why shouldn't women choose to better their lives when I give them the opportunity to work for me". This ride is getting nuts, stop the world I want to get off.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I'm all for legalizing prostitution.

What the government needs to realize is that just because something is illegal it doesn't mean you get rid of it. That goes for prostitution, prohibition, drugs, and as most of you have pointed out; guns.

The only reason why prostitution is illegal in this country is because of all the bible beaters. When you look at the issue, it makes much more sense for it to be legal when you weigh all the aspects pertaining to the issue...not applyine religious idealogy.

With that being said, I agree with you that it is both stupid and confusing to put this under the label 'pro-choice.'


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> I'm all for legalizing prostitution.
> 
> What the government needs to realize is that just because something is illegal it doesn't mean you get rid of it. That goes for prostitution, prohibition, drugs, *and as most of you have pointed out; guns*.


What are you trying to say here? When did guns become illegal?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I'm saying that if they made guns illegal they wouldn't magically dissapear. Just like prohibition didn't work, drug policies haven't worked, and laws against prostitution haven't worked. The problems that were there, and for which the laws were made, didn't go away after making them illegal. In all cases, it made matters worse by making them illegal.

Guns would be no different.


----------



## Chinwhiskers (Jan 13, 2008)

Matt Jones said:


> I'm all for legalizing prostitution.
> 
> What the government needs to realize is that just because something is illegal it doesn't mean you get rid of it. That goes for prostitution, prohibition, drugs, and as most of you have pointed out; guns.
> 
> ...


Yeah that would be a good world to live in. :eyeroll: Are you serious? By your last post I'm assumeing your for legalizing drugs as well.

Wouldn't it be great if the people teaching our kids were crack heads or better yet heroin addicts. :eyeroll: Could be one of the dumber posts I have read on here.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Prostitution isn't legal?

DC is nothing but prostitutes that we elected.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we need to step back and look at the women's point of view. I would guess prostitution was first outlawed to keep women from being victimized, exploited, and degraded. I'm sure no guys would be happy if the only way they could earn a sandwich was to have sex with an ugly woman who didn't know what a bath was. Shocker, their purpose in life isn't to be slaves of any kind.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Chinwhiskers said:


> Yeah that would be a good world to live in. :eyeroll: Are you serious? By your last post I'm assumeing your for legalizing drugs as well.


No, I'm not actually for legalizing them...just decriminalizing them. To be honest I like the direction we're headed. Look at pot; long gone are the days of "Reefer Madness" hysteria and jail time for offenders. Nowadays the penalties are equivelant to parking tickets in a lot of states. So it's not legal, but it's not really criminal either.

Even drugs like cocaine and meth are starting to be handled better. Most judges will lock up the dealers but let the people caught with small amounts in posession off with a slap on the wrist. Which is how it should be handled IMO. We can't afford to keep locking up non-violent offenders and frankly we don't have any space left.

I think decriminalizing is a good way to not promote drug use but at the same time not create bigger problems by locking up a good chunk of the country.


Chinwhiskers said:


> Wouldn't it be great if the people teaching our kids were crack heads or better yet heroin addicts. :eyeroll:


How do you know they're not? Statistics would suggest that your kids are going to be taught by someone throughout the course of their education who's experiemented with hard drugs at some point in their life.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Longshot said:


> DC is nothing but prostitutes that we elected.


I think you could debate what the oldest profession is...prostitution or politics.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Prostitution probably will become legal and I suppose Obama will help them research there STDs and hand them condoms!

Maybe that's how he's creating jobs :idea: :thumb: :eyeroll: :down:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bustem36 said:


> Prostitution probably will become legal and I suppose Obama will help them research there STDs and hand them condoms!


I hope so. It beats the alternative...a bunch of woman being smacked around by pimps and spreading STD's.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Matt Jones said:


> Bustem36 said:
> 
> 
> > Prostitution probably will become legal and I suppose Obama will help them research there STDs and hand them condoms!
> ...


How about instead of legalizing these things we shoot the pimps and women realize that they don't need to do this for a living. Also if you gotta pay for something like that you should probably just shoot yourself.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Dont forget the illegal alliens. Pepper a few of them and they would think twice about crossing out borders


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bustem36 said:


> How about instead of legalizing these things we shoot the pimps and women realize that they don't need to do this for a living.


F'in Eh, Man! Why the F*** didn't I think of that? That is a great solution! And the best part is that it is TOTALLY plausible. What a great fix. How about this, you go grab your guns and start shooting pimps...and I'll be right behind you...uh, I just need to go get some ammo. Let me know how your flawless idea works out for you.


Bustem36 said:


> Also if you gotta pay for something like that you should probably just shoot yourself.


Agreed. But I try not to judge others too much...most guys don't have the same mojo I do. :wink:

The bottom line is that prostitution has been a perpetual problem (with the odd exception of Vegas, hmmm). Maybe instead of sticking with the status quo that hasn't worked we at least toy with the idea of trying something different.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

KurtR said:


> Dont forget the illegal alliens. Pepper a few of them and they would think twice about crossing out borders


Another great idea. Why are we sitting online wasting time right now discussing politics, policies and legislation? How dumb have we been? Let's all grab our guns, jump in our trucks and start shooting our way out of all our problems?

I can't believe that no one thought of this very realistic, potential answer to everything before!


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Matt Jones said:


> The bottom line is that prostitution has been a perpetual problem (with the odd exception of Vegas, hmmm). Maybe instead of sticking with the status quo that hasn't worked we at least toy with the idea of trying something different.


Yeah lets legalize prostitution, drugs, and other things that we are battling in this society.

The comment on shooting pimps was a joke/rediculous comment I made. But, the comment that KurtR wrote about peppering a few illegals may be what it comes down to. So like you've stated before that just because things are illegal doesn't mean they go away. I agree there is no way to completely control these things, but then to turn around and say ok now you can do it is unacceptable. And, immigration...no,no,no...invasion an illegal movement into this country is one of those things. It is illegal and no it won't go away but it needs to be deterred and with something drastic. You know how many jobs and how much money those illegals suck out of our economy?

So illegals can run across our borders rape, kill, and kidnap our citizens and we should be nice about it and let them in or try to talk with them. It's getting to a point where maybe the only way some will get them point is realizing there may be extreme affects againts there actions. We have enough problems in this country we don't need more flooding in.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Anything goes. You're either agnostic, atheist or idiotic to think this is what the country needs to grow in productivity. The glue that holds "this" society together does not come from a bong or a woman with a coin slot.

Where is your moral clarity? At the end of your next doobie and at the end of your penile appendage?

Sick.


----------



## nita (Dec 11, 2008)

Matt Jones: Just because a policy(LAW) doesn't work doesn't mean it's right to break it. Policies(LAWS) are put in place because, in America, the majority of people hold a value or ethic that they believe something to be right or wrong so if you disagree then make sure you vote...and not just for the presidential elections. But once it's policy(LAW), it is now right or wrong. So doing drugs, prostitution, and so forth are all wrong!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Where is your moral clarity? At the end of your next doobie and at the end of your penile appendage?


I'd say I have pretty good moral clarity. I think people should be free to do what they want...as long as what they're doing doesn't harm others.

People like to screw. It's human nature. Prostitution is two people consenting to sex with money involved. Explain to me how two people engaging in consexual sex hurts anyone?

Contrary to what some of you might think, I don't want to see prostitution legalized so I can go bang a bunch of whores legally. Frankly, I find that offensive. My morals cause me to see this as wrong. But I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my morals should be everyones.


4CurlRedleg said:


> You're either agnostic, atheist or idiotic to think this is what the country needs to grow in productivity. The glue that holds "this" society together does not come from a bong or a woman with a coin slot.


So you're arguing against this on the basis of religion? That scares me. Your religious beliefs should just that, your own. I have the utmost respect for people who believe in a higher power and believe that it is a personal relationship between them and god.

I've often found that people who preach the loudest about morals and act the most pious end up being your Ted Haggard's, Larry Craig's, etc. They, and people like them, are the last people anyone should be looking to for 'moral clarity.' Sadly, a lot of people did...and there are a lot of people who are being influenced by people like them who just haven't been uncovered for what they really are yet.

Things start going down a slippery slope very quickly when you start making legislation based on morals...because who's morals are best? Gun control is moral based legislation. Pushed by people who think they're bettering society by making a judgement call for others. I don't want these people telling me what I can do. As long as I'm not hurting anyone, why should anyone care what guns I own...or what I do in my free time.

That's the sad thing...you don't even see your own hypocrisy. You and the gun control crowd think exactly the same. You just disagree on what freedoms should be taken away and what privileges you should 'allow' people to have...

...and to me, that is extremely sick.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

nita said:


> Matt Jones: Just because a policy(LAW) doesn't work doesn't mean it's right to break it. Policies(LAWS) are put in place because, in America, the majority of people hold a value or ethic that they believe something to be right or wrong so if you disagree then make sure you vote...and not just for the presidential elections. But once it's policy(LAW), it is now right or wrong. So doing drugs, prostitution, and so forth are all wrong!


I was never arguing that people should break laws. I was arguing that the law needs to be changed.

Laws declare whether something is legal or illegal. I'm going to have to disagree with you, laws don't necessarily declare something is morally right or wrong. I could lists hundreds of laws that were morally wrong, and were eventually changed because of it.

The notion that once a law is on the books, that declares whether it's the ethical standard is crap. There's been lots of idiots sent to Washington...they often get the laws wrong.

If what you were saying was true, alcohol would be illegal, there'd be people beating slaves, women wouldn't be able to vote, if you didn't own property you wouldn't be able to vote, etc. the list could go on an on.

Societies change over time. I just think this is a law we should take another look at and ask if it really is benefiting the 'greater good.' Even though I am morally opposed to prostitution I think there's a lot of merit in the argument that legalizing it might solve a lot of the problems associated with it. It's not going to go away...I doubt there's ever been a society in history that didn't have prostitution. Maybe there's a better way to deal with it than to just pretend that by making it illegal it's going to stop it from happening.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Show me an open society that is thriving and productive where drugs are legal and prostitution is unfettered. Are they free like we are? When anything goes, freedom is what goes first.

California?? Anarchy?? Kaos.......Anything goes Jones.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Things start going down a slippery slope very quickly when you start making legislation based on morals.


I think most of our laws are based on morals. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. Why is anything wrong if it has no moral base? Just because?



> So you're arguing against this on the basis of religion? That scares me.


People who are scared of religious people scare me.



> I've often found that people who preach the loudest about morals and act the most pious end up being your Ted Haggard's, Larry Craig's, etc. They, and people like them, are the last people anyone should be looking to for 'moral clarity.' Sadly, a lot of people did...and there are a lot of people who are being influenced by people like them who just haven't been uncovered for what they really are yet.


That's an awful broad brush your stroking there.

There are a lot of bad people who have not been exposed yet, religious or not. You insinuate that all these people that preach moral clarity are perverts or something. Being offensive isn't going to win debates. I would guess that on average these preaching people are less likely to be immoral. Sure there are those who abuse their position, and I don't excuse them for it. However, the media loves to dwell on these Catholic priests and such. They like to portray that every priest out there is like that, but they are not. No, I'm not Catholic I am realistic.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Show me an open society that is thriving and productive where drugs are legal and prostitution is unfettered. Are they free like we are? When anything goes, freedom is what goes first.
> 
> California?? Anarchy?? Kaos.......Anything goes Jones.


Maybe you're right. I'm not an anarchist. Of course I believe society should have laws. Just to make it clear, I'm not a proponent of drugs being legalized. I said I was in favor of seeing them decriminalized...which is what's happening, and I think our drug policies are actually pretty good.

As far as country, I don't know...maybe the Netherlands. I've only been to Canada and Mexico so I don't have much knowledge there.

I just view prostitution as something that doesn't really bother me. Then again, maybe that speaks for why the law shouldn't be changed. It's never affected me. Maybe the law has been fairly effective.

I just think people should be able to do what they want, as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else. I think that makes more sense as a guideline to base laws off of than religious beliefs.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> People who are scared of religious people scare me.


I'd like to see you discuss why that is, to a muslim who has a bomb strapped to his chest.


Plainsman said:


> > I've often found that people who preach the loudest about morals and act the most pious end up being your Ted Haggard's, Larry Craig's, etc. They, and people like them, are the last people anyone should be looking to for 'moral clarity.' Sadly, a lot of people did...and there are a lot of people who are being influenced by people like them who just haven't been uncovered for what they really are yet.
> 
> 
> That's an awful broad brush your stroking there.


It was a generalization that maybe was too broad. There are certainly a lot of good people too. I don't deny that.



Plainsman said:


> There are a lot of bad people who have not been exposed yet, religious or not. You insinuate that all these people that preach moral clarity are perverts or something. Being offensive isn't going to win debates. I would guess that on average these preaching people are less likely to be immoral. Sure there are those who abuse their position, and I don't excuse them for it. However, the media loves to dwell on these Catholic priests and such. They like to portray that every priest out there is like that, but they are not. No, I'm not Catholic I am realistic.


I'm sorry a struck a chord, I wasn't trying to be offensive. Like I said, I have the utmost respect for any individual's personal religious beliefs...as long as they don't try to push those beliefs on me.

As far as the catholic priest deal goes, here's my take. People were more outraged because the institution of the church tried to cover up the molestations by moving problem priests around instead of turning them in to the authorities. That, more than the molesting itself, gave the catholic institution a black eye. Most priests are good people...a lot better than the institution they represent IMO. I sincerely feel for them. It has to be hard constantly trying to defend themselves from an organization that allowed that to happen.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Matt Jones said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > People who are scared of religious people scare me.
> ...


Matt I think Plainsman is just simply stating that just because someone is religious it doesn't mean they are going to try and rule every ones lives or try and push it on you like you state later in our post.

Like in your example the Muslim with a bomb on his chest is a small minority in the worlds overall Muslim population. Just because someone says they are Muslim doesn't mean I have to fear for my life. With anything else there are fanatics Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect.

Well maybe those Scientologist Hollywood people are all a little loopy.  but I'm not afraid of them because of it...or am I 8)


----------



## striped1 (Aug 17, 2005)

MOB said:


> What are you trying to say here? When did guns become illegal?


Chicago, DC, New York City

Guns are essentially iilegal in all 3
How well has has it worked?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'd like to see you discuss why that is, to a muslim who has a bomb strapped to his chest.


I wouldn't want to see that. I'm not discussing anything with anyone with a bomb strapped to their chest. Thanks, but no thanks.  Two to the cranium would be first order of business. 

I agree that the priests are better than the organization they work for. Why does everyone think hiding something is the best answer. Jocks on drugs, presidents on special cigars, and bad priests. :eyeroll:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Show me an open society that is thriving and productive where drugs are legal and prostitution is unfettered. Are they free like we are? When anything goes, freedom is what goes first.


Doesn't that describe the 1700's and early 1800's in this country almost perfectly? And which era would we rather live in...as far as thriving liberty is concerned? They knew what freedom was back then, and they recognized when someone was trying to take it away.

I mean this with all due respect to my fellow conservatives, but I gotta give Matt a pat on the back for his efforts here. I think you all know how far right I am, but these issues tend to bring out the libertarian in me.

Just like freedom is not synonomous with safety, legal is not synonomous with right. The government's job is *NOT* to protect me from _me._

Carry on!

:beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well maybe those Scientologist Hollywood people are all a little loopy. but I'm not afraid of them because of it...or am I


Just crazy in a humorous way. They can try push their beliefs on us, but I doubt they are going to strap a bomb to their chest and demand that we believe what they say. Not likely anyway, but there are a few nutsos out there. If Rosy O'Donnell knew me personally she might start packing a little C4 and a detonator right now. Oh, oh, you don't suppose someone will call and tell her do you? :rollin:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> If Rosy O'Donnell knew me personally she might start packing a little C4 and a detonator right now.


  I don't think she needs the C4, one thin mint should do it. :lol:

Do you think man was smart enough to come up with the basic laws that we bear as our standard?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you think man was smart enough to come up with the basic laws that we bear as our standard?


Not a chance in he he he ---- well a ah ah a warm spot.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman and 4curl, I admire and respect you guys more than I can say, and I value your opinions immensely...which is why I'd like to hear more thoughts on the portion of this debate that you've both just touched on. My point is one of credibility, and how our credibility could appear to be compromised by demanding that others stayed out of our business concerning our choice to exercise our 2nd amendment rights while in the next breath we condemn our neighbor for exercising his right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by smoking a joint in his living room on Friday night. And Heaven forbid we were holding a beer when we said it! 

I could argue both sides of this issue, but I prefer to believe our laws are based on preventing behavior that hurts or endangers others. The things mentioned by Plainsman above certainly fit that description.



> Murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. Why is anything wrong if it has no moral base? Just because?


I submit those things are "wrong"......in the eyes of the government... because they hurt others, not because it contradicts God's law. God's law is voluntary. The State's law is only voluntary to elected officials :lol:

Adultery, coveting, neglecting the Sabbath, dishonoring your father and mother, etc. are some examples of God's law that, to my knowledge, have not made it to the State level. And I believe that is as it should be.

Contrary to how this may make me appear, I have a VERY strong belief in God, and I worry about my soul every day. But I worry more about a government who _claims_ to worry about my soul. It's simply not their job. They *SUCK *at multi-tasking, and I would prefer the location of my soul throughout eternity be left up to me while they concentrated their efforts on protecting our shores and learning the difference between expenditures and income.....and how the two have to balance !!!!!!! 

Please share your thoughts.....


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Csquared said:


> I submit those things are "wrong"......in the eyes of the government... because they hurt others, not because it contradicts God's law. God's law is voluntary.


Gods law is mans law. Left to his own device he will self destruct. Our entire set of laws in this country is founded on the 10 Commandments. To understand this you must read them and have them explained what each one means and not someones interpretation.

Everytime you feel crappy for something you did wrong there is a reason for it, broken law. I don't expect younger folks to understand this because they are still conquering the world in a most invincible way. Been there done that? I sure did. Freedom for youth means getting out from under the thumb of accountability in some form or another. Freedom for me is keeping my rights and liberties the forefathers set and securing them for my children.

This countries forefathers set the civil laws by using Gods law. 200+ plus years and they have stood, must be something to it.

The govt. has no claim on your soul, as a matter of fact they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. They just want everything else.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

The problem with our government or one of the millions is they are no longer developing standards for this country. They are not concerned with the people who like it the way it was/is.(more of the way it was because it sucks bad now)

The basic laws and principles this country was founded on, based on God's laws or not, were to ensure someone the pursuit of happiness and the life of their choosing as long as that pursuit did not impose on another person's pursuit of the same thing(life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

No, now the government and the anti-everything people view their wants as rights. Animal Rights people want to infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Anti-Gun groups want to infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Now more than ever the government want to infringe on the same principles.

This country has always had major problems during history one way or another. But it seems to me the majority of the citizens wanted to make America great and believed in those three basic principles for their country men. Now however people want me and you to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in the way they see fit. I don't infringe on there beliefs or life dealings but they want to step into mine.

It took drastic measures for this country to build a foundation and escape what it is becoming now. People who can not choose to live their lives free and pursue *their own* dreams. I think it's going to take drastic measures if we ever want to get it back.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You know I love these types of discussions.It is also interesting to see that many whom have lived a while longer have a more conservative view of things. I point this out, because at a time in my life, I could have and would have written and defended the positions that Matt is taking.

But life experience has a way of changing one view opening your mind on many issues that you thought where once clear as a bell. Others your mind remains open, but you apply a reality test to them and the end result is that things like pot, and prostitution need to have regulations and laws making them illegal.

We really live a sheltered existence out here on the prairie. Some may not think so, but we do. When was the last time we had a sex house raided full of young teen aged girls and boys who are here illegally but not by choice. When was the last time we had a full scale turf war between rival gangs over control of an area for protection shake down or drug trafficking, fencing of stolen goods.

How many of us see dozens of homeless people sleeping in boxes, over vents for heat pan handling for a fix or a bottle of Night Train as we go to work and come home. How many of you have bars on your windows to keep your family safe as well as your property. I can go on and on.

Much of what is listed above is intertwined to the use of drugs and prostitution. Making it legal is not going to push the rate of addiction down, nor reduce the number of people who will try it and soon become addicted going from a productive member of society to one who has nothing to offer.

Treatment programs work only for those who have made the choice to help themselves. I am addicted to nicotine, and I have quit and started many times. I have not yet had the courage and made the proper choice to help myself. We are as humans very subject to addictions and back a few years people began the dumbing down of society and people in general. They called alcohol addiction a disease suddenly making it more acceptable in public. If we legalize pot which by the way is some wicked stuff today from what was around when I was a teenager. How long before those who feel free will behavior are calling addiction to pot a disease?

Then look at sex, the Internet people claim is causing many to become addicted to sex. Maybe this is a disease we are born with as well?

Society needs moral based laws to provide for the majority a safe place to live, love and raise a family. Without those moral laws we would not have been a nation as long as we have.

We talk about rights, liberty, freedom etc... Someone made reference to the era of the 1700-1800"s as a time of free will, but it was also a time of self reliance, but even back then immoral people exploited others and to even more extremes than we have today.

Take for example one moral law no different than making pot or prostitution illegal was the passage of labor laws. No longer could one be forced into indentured servitude. Some will say it is different because one person is forcing his will upon another. Well many like hookers of today had no other choice if they wanted to eat.

Heck we cannot even inspect peanut plants how in the heck would we inspect all the hookers and make sure they are STD free! Which bring up one of the real reasons prostitution was made illegal and that was the spread of TB and other diseases. So what really has changed?

What has changed is that our moral laws have allowed our creativity to advance providing us today a more comfortable life with the ablity to partake in many activities other than surviving.

So Matt no offense intended, but let's have this same conversation in 25 years and see what your view point is then. I know mine has changed a lot since my 20's.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Ron I agree with your post 100%, and I'm 23yrs old. I live on the fence of being sheltered I guess. But do not feel that way. I grew up what was about 40minutes outside the St. Paul/Minneapolis area. I however spent very little time there until I was in I guess my later years of high school when we got drug around by our girlfriends out to eat or started going to a lot of sporting events. I have only moved 5 miles from our original house and now with all the building/growth I live 5 minutes out of the city. I have seen nice areas turn to crap now there are tons of drugs and gang like activity. Going downtown I see homeless people and have learned the places to avoid.A house was raided right down the road from my old house because of illegals immigrants and drugs.

I however did not grow up in that type of environment. Any spare time outside of school,hockey, and baseball my family would be up north or in the Dakotas hunting and fishing. I apply the reality test to all the choices or situations that come my way.

The original thought of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to me is reality. It is the foundation/base to work off of. I think those 3 things are like a goal for perfection that can actually be reached. Not everyone will but it does say the "pursuit" not the "promise".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquare thank you for the very respectful question. However, I think it's going to make my head hurt trying to answer it.
Well lets start with this:


> God's law is voluntary.


I don't know if that's right. Certainly God has given us free will, but the law voluntary? Well maybe, but you know if I break in and steal money from a convenience store I would perhaps get a year or two in prison. If I break God's laws and don't ask forgiveness because I think it's voluntary I might get more severe punishment that lasts forever. Voluntary to me means choice, but does it mean choice without consequences? It means we have a choice alright, but there will be consequences. I guess it's sort of voluntary with a huge club over your head. So a year in prison, a thousand dollar fine, burn in hell forever, I don't know I don't like any of those options. Voluntary ???? Well, sort of yes, sort of no. I think each of us have to answer that one for ourselves.



> Contrary to how this may make me appear, I have a VERY strong belief in God, and I worry about my soul every day.


Hey reason for me to celebrate today. :thumb:



> But I worry more about a government who claims to worry about my soul.


Not me, I worry more about my soul than the government in any role. They can have my life, but they will have to take my life before I let them tell me who or what I can worship. I sincerely believe some think Obama is the messiah. In the past I joked about it, but some are so carried away I actually believe they think he is. I watched a young man I think from Florida on TV the other day. He could hardly breath and he kept saying oh, oh, oh, good and gracious God thank you for taking time from your busy day to meet with us, oh, oh, oh, great god thank you. I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember word for word what he was saying, but it was clear the man had lost it in the presence of Obama.



> It's simply not their job. They SUCK at multi-tasking, and I would prefer the location of my soul throughout eternity be left up to me while they concentrated their efforts on protecting our shores and learning the difference between expenditures and income..


I agree completely.



> and how the two have to balance !!!!!!


Screw balance. I will pledge allegiance to this nation, I may give my life for it, but not for a second will I compromise my integrity, my religion, or my soul.

OK, now to the tough part. Prostitution. How many are doing it voluntarily, and how many are forced into it? We see and hear of pimps who have a dozen or more girls, and threaten to kill them if they try to leave. They take 90% of their money and they keep them on drugs. It's odd that liberals fought so hard for equal rights for women (which I agree with), but have so little respect for their lives. I often hear liberals call prostitution the victimless crime. Perhaps half the time it is. However, that leaves half suffering every day at the hands of those who exploit them.

I see the Netherlands is closing down it's red light district and it's pot houses. Here in the United States we are often pointed towards their handling of prostitution and drugs as the answer. Now we see it has become such a problem for them that they must close them. For one thing it was getting to dangerous in those areas and it was killing tourism. The other thing is it was offending Muslims and they were killing people. There is another great irony of life. The Muslims hate us because of our liberal ways of life, but it is our conservative men and women in uniform dieing to protect the liberals who don't like the military. Is anything more ironic than that?

Sometimes the gambling, prostitution, and drugs are tempting. Just think we could tax the heck out of it and let the idiots pay our way. We could get rid of some of the crime by legalizing drugs. However, I think those who have a propensity for crime would find other crimes to commit to make money. Once you take away a lucrative although illegal activity those types of people simply look for another lucrative activity. They don't necessarily intend to break the law, but the risk and breaking the law is what makes those activities pay off. They are getting paid for their risk. Then what would be the cost of rehabilitation? During prohibition how many people drank alcohol compared to today. What would be the cost of paying for rehabilitation of ten million people, 50 million people?

I guess one has to look at prostitution and ask does it hurt others? Does it exploit women, does it infect others with disease, does it break up marriages, does it attract a criminal element, do we care?

About the only Biblical reference was Jesus stopping the stoning of the prostitute. Did he not say let anyone without sin cast the first stone? From his viewpoint we were not in that good of standing to judge her, we are no better than her. However, did he say woman go your way, or did he say woman go your way and sin no more? So I ask myself is it any of my business. That brings me back to your comment:


> and I worry about my soul every day


Me too, and would I be forgiven for saying nothing? I don't know, but I'm not much of a gambler. I always loose. Not this time, I'm not taking any chances.

Crap I was going to hit the country and look for some coyotes at sunrise. Got to go I'm late.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

WOW! I love discussions like this probably as much as Ron! It reminds me what untapped brain power resides on this site! It also clearly illustrates that _what_ a person believes is rarely as important as why he believes it !!!!! I'm sure none of us will agree on all aspects of this thread, but I'm also sure we will all get a little something from all the heart-felt thoughts expressed in the posts.

If you guys could humor me for one moment I would like to point out one aspect of these posts that is a constant anytime there is a discussion about legality as it relates to safety...whether it be drugs, guns or sex...or practically anything. That constant is the way 2 separate problems are lumped together, and in so doing it's inferred that you can't have one without the other. Prohibitionists were convinced you can't have alcohol without all the damage that results. Anti-gunners are convinced (or at least the_ act_ like they're convinced :wink: ) that you can't have private gun ownership without gun crime. And the anti-drug crowd claims that you can't have legal marijauna without escalated hard drug usage and all the illiegal activities that go along with drug use. The same goes for the prostitution discussion. Let's start with that one.



> OK, now to the tough part. Prostitution. How many are doing it voluntarily, and how many are forced into it? We see and hear of pimps who have a dozen or more girls, and threaten to kill them if they try to leave. They take 90% of their money and they keep them on drugs.


Two separate problems. The girl who was selling her body, although terribly wrong, should not be a problem in the eyes of the law. But the guys making the threats and stealing the money should be pimping in the penitentiary! I'm guessing if prostitution was legal the girls would be more likely to successfully combat the agressive pimps...with help from the same guys who now want to fine _them_!

Prostitution is wrong in so many different ways, and I totally agree with the list of things it destroys, but the Constitution doesn't say "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness...as long as we agree that pursuit is in your best interest".

As far as being "forced into it", well I was "forced" into this whole trading hours for money fiasco about 30 years ago, and I can't say I'm real fond of it !!!!!! But it's a living ! :wink:

There is another angle to this. For something to be illegal it must carry with it a punitive aspect. And if it's OK to convert the 10 commandments into law, what is the proper penalty...on earth...for adultery? How about a failed suicide attempt? What should we do to people who refuse to obey the 4th commandment and go fishing on Sunday morning instead and end the day at the bar....totally oblivious to the fact it was a holy day? Or how many years in prison should a 18 year old girl get when she disobeys the 5th commandment and calls her mom a ***** in public?

Please forgive my sarcasm, but I'm trying to make a point. The point is, in a truly free society there will be "legal" activities that might literally make your skin crawl...but that's OK !

I gotta thank Ron for a great post, but I have progressed in the opposite direction of you (would that be_ regressed_?) When I was young I avoided anyone who used drugs, and if asked would have whole-heartedly agreed with the fact that users should be worried about the legal consequences of their acts. It wasn't until well into my adult years that I realized that *most* of those "users" turned out to be good people. Productive people. They just happened to like to smoke weed occassionally....and no one got hurt. I wish the same could be said for the ones who used alcohol! 

And for the record, I have never even tried _any _controlled substance. I've never had a cigarette, I don't drink, and I've never been drunk. So my views here are based solely on my belief in freedom...not to allow for more productive weekends !!!!! :lol: I was the guy dancing with your girlfriend while you were too stoned to dance....or to kick my butt for taking your place !!!!  :beer:

And I'm very happy to say you guys have packed so much good info into these posts I can't begin to respond to all of it, but I would like to clarify to plainsman that I meant in my statement about God's law being voluntary exactly that. We're all free to decide if we want to obey. But if our goal is to spend eternity in Heaven then it's mandatory................................sort of :wink:

In theory one could live the life of a Clinton, with no repentence or remorse, and as long as they accepted Christ on their death bed, and truly believed in their heart that Jesus died for our sins.....they would make it to Heaven.

So it _IS_ voluntary :wink: ......but your timing needs to be flawless !!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So it IS voluntary ......but your timing needs to be flawless !!!!!!!!


Isn't that the truth. No one wants to suffer a long death, but it might be better than lights out instantly. Unless your prepared that is.



> In theory one could live the life of a Clinton, with no repentence or remorse, and as long as they accepted Christ on their death bed, and truly believed in their heart that Jesus died for our sins.....they would make it to Heaven.


Ya, Hitler could make it there, but I don't much like who he was. I would have dumped one into his head in a heartbeat, but prayed for the rotten sucker afterwards.

I think voluntary means no consequences. Perhaps we confuse freedom of choice with voluntary. I will admit I am a bit confused by your interpretation. Lets look at a comparison. How do you look at killing another person. The Ten Commandments say "you shall not kill" while mans laws call it murder, and make it against the law. Why is one voluntary and the other not? Is man's law voluntary, but you have to be careful not to be caught? I'm having trouble following the voluntary thing. One moment I understand what your saying, but then I have a conflict.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I don't want to give up any of it. However, I owed it to my children, and now they owe it to theirs to be brought up in a world that doesn't have so many pitfalls. Pitfalls appear to grow by the day. As a member of society I refuse to accept some simply as a witness to my kids and grand kids.

Ya, I know some pot heads that turned out ok. I also agree that alcohol has hurt more people that I know, but then I know a hundred who drink compared to those who used pot. It's so odd that at a time when everyone is jumping on cigarettes that some want to accept a substance that you not only inhale, but hold your breath so the crap sticks in your lungs. I wonder what a pot smokers lungs looks like?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> Isn't that the truth. No one wants to suffer a long death, but it might be better than lights out instantly. Unless your prepared that is.


A chance many, many people are willing to take. If you think Gods law is voluntary you better hope checkout time isn't made in haste because the sorting out process may not have any gray area.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I wonder what a pot smokers lungs looks like?


Good question. I know what their brain looks like. I saw it on a billboard once. I seem to remember it resembled an egg! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll bet you could pound a nail into oak with a set of pot smoker lungs.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I think voluntary means no consequences. Perhaps we confuse freedom of choice with voluntary. I will admit I am a bit confused by your interpretation. Lets look at a comparison. How do you look at killing another person. The Ten Commandments say "you shall not kill" while mans laws call it murder, and make it against the law. Why is one voluntary and the other not? Is man's law voluntary, but you have to be careful not to be caught? I'm having trouble following the voluntary thing. One moment I understand what your saying, but then I have a conflict.


Sorry. I didn't see this the first time. You must have added to it.

Let me put it this way. The State's law is *NOT* voluntary. Meaning that if you break it, you WILL be punished. God's law* IS* voluntary. Meaning that you _might _be punished later, but not through the legal system. I meant it in the context of here and now....on earth. No *LEGAL* consequences.

If someone films me violate the 4th commandment, nothing will happen to me on Monday. But if I'm filmed violating the 8th one I will get a free ride downtown. There is no "enforcement" of any of God's law at the state level except for that which has been accepted as the State's law, and that is what then makes it *mandatory*.

Have I made it any more clear?

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes I did add to one of my posts as an after thought.

I think the only difference is timing. If your going to be punished on Monday, or Friday will it make a difference. Simply because your not punished immediately doesn't make it voluntary.

Remember when (Hanoi Janes husband) Tom, Tom, crap I can't remember. Anyway, he said we should change the Ten Commandments to the Ten Suggestions. I think a Suggestion would be voluntary. I don't see a commandment as voluntary.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I see your point, and you and 4curl have almost succeeded in making me wish I wouldn't have said it  ! :lol:

But I stand by it. I felt the context of the discussion was legality, and there are no legal ramifications for violating God's law......unless it's one of His laws that has been accepted as State law.

It speaks well of you that you have managed to forget Ted's name. We haven't heard much out of him since he bought his 2 million acres in Montana.......or maybe I've blocked him out, too !

PS..........I'm glad I didn't change your mind !!

:beer:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I wonder what a pot smokers lungs looks like?


I did some research and found a pic of a pot smoker's lung.....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, they would perhaps crunch if you squeezed them just like Doritos. You need to change the label from cool ranch to warm tar.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

:lol: :lol:


----------

