|
i find debating legality to be silly
the way i see it, morals are like laws that an individual imposes on themselves, a societies laws in a democracy should then be in line with the morals of the majority.
thus in my mind, there are reasons for individuals having a moral stand, but there are no reasons why a law should be passed against the morals of the majority.
but i guess thats not really the point youre trying to address.
pornography and prostitution are significantly different, i liken it to the difference between murder in a movie and murder in real life. while noone actually dies in the creation of murder scenes, id imagine most of the arguments against porn are due to the content rather than whether the people actually had sex or not.
legalising prostitution is a double edged sword, similar to recreational drug use.
on the one hand you have increased safety of the people already involved, increased tax revenue, and its easier to impose regulation on something thats legal, than to try and stamp out something thats illegal.
on the other hand, it also makes these activities more accessable, more prominent, and more 'normal'. these objections however are based on morals of the individual, others may not see the 'negatives' bad things.
which comes right back to what a law should mean in democracy, its a majority decision, not a matter of debate.
|