NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of the Pacific ones...
(Quick question: How many posts until you can give yourself a custom title?)
The Pacifics and Rejected Realms are the closest we have to 'super-regions'. The delegates for those regions carry the most votes.

No idea about custom titles, don't think we can actually get them. Ask in Moderation.

this one is going right down to the wire, isn't it?
some big old powerful countries are likely to declare war over this, ima thinking.

glad my countries are little, insignificant nothings. (HINT: please don't nuke me)

I doubt strongly war will be declared on anyone over this - or any other - proposal.

That is a very good point, and one that I'd like to see the opponents to the repeal address.

It already was, Mikitivity. See post #331. :rolleyes:

Markinland fully supports the repeal of Resolution #46. The United Nations should not be encouraging immoral activity which can lead to the spread of many diseases. Furthermore, violence against prostitutes (both male and female) is a huge problem in the world. Finally, the UN should not be infringing on individual states' sovereignty to make their own laws regarding prostitution. Prostitution should be strongly discouarged by this world body, and Markinland is confident that Resolution #46 will be repealed.


Markinland, which is more likely to spread disease - a legal trade, or an illegal one?

Consider when needle sharing came up. When it became legal to purchase or recieve clean needles, the incidence of AIDS and hepatitis went down.

What your support of the repeal means, is you support a higher rate of AIDS and STDs, or you are unaware of the truth that illegal activities are by their nature existant outside the control of the law.

Whee!

First, submit a new, better resolution, then repeal the old one, where no one will care.
How about that?

That is a violation of game rules.

No, it's not. Graceofseppuku stated quite clearly first add new legislation then repeal the old one. That is entirely within the rules, and is precisely the method to use.



See the second Global Library thread that Great Agnostica started on Thursday. Great Agnostica wanted to write a resolution to repeal his nation's Global Library resolution and the Most Glorious Hack (a game moderator) pointed out that you must first repeal a resolution before even submitting a new one.

... which is what Graceofseppuku said to do. :rolleyes:



Failure to follow the UN rules may be responded to be the mods issuing a warning.

Anyway, the point behind the repeal has been to build something better. We can't do that right now.

Yes you can. You've seen multiple examples of resolutions adding legislation to earlier resolutions. So apparently you're obfuscating the truth for a reason?

Stankystan has voted favourably to the repeal.

Our government and myself think prostitution does more harm than good to the people. Therefore we will never legalize it in our country. With or without UN's consent. Period.


The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Any other questions? *goes and picks up a prostitute in Stankystan*

Our country believes that the best way to deal with prostitution is through law enforcement. Strict punishment for both prostitutes and johns is recommended.

[And this is why no one wants to be in the UN, just leave the UN before it becomes more corrupt. I am not going back to the UN as it is almost as corrupt as it is in real life]

I think prostitution is not possible to regulate, it is always a free for all buisness of pure captialistic ideals, this not like other industries, it is like the drug industry, the government, no matter how oppressive or communist or socialistic the government is, you can almost stop it, you just cannot regulate it.

We disagree.

We removed the profit motive by making pharmaceuticals available through pharmacies with proof of age. We also subsidize the industry, bringing costs to customer below any sort of street profitability (a kilo of marajuana costs about $10, and no drug is over $50), and made "dealing drugs without a license" an automatic death sentence offense, including seizure of all property.

In short, you create a situation where in the cost-benefit analysis, the cost far outweighs any possible benefit.

You do not have the support of the Allied States of Killeanus.

Let's face it....sex sells. It's been on the best sellers list since the beginning of time (Literally). Who better that to profit from the taxation of sex than the government.

Since it's to be regulated by the government, public health needn't be an issue. We make the necessary precautions mandatory, and everybody gets to share in the booty (Pardon my pun!).

We in the Allied believe the legalization of prostitution, was a great step for this nation...

Premier of the Allied States of Killeanus

We disagree.

We removed the profit motive by making pharmaceuticals available through pharmacies with proof of age. We also subsidize the industry, bringing costs to customer below any sort of street profitability (a kilo of marajuana costs about $10, and no drug is over $50), and made "dealing drugs without a license" an automatic death sentence offense, including seizure of all property.

In short, you create a situation where in the cost-benefit analysis, the cost far outweighs any possible benefit.
wow. you nearly gypsied the entire thread.

my compliments! i'd never have the patience to read back through all the pages i'd missed.

telegramming the people you're responding to might work better; how many of them are likely to read this page?

The FAQ states NOTHING about nations forfeiting their national sovereignty once they join the United Nations. This is a stale argument that nations like yourself have used time after time to restrict the rights of other nations, to further your own left-wing agenda. The fact that people buy this garbage astounds me.

What the FAQ basically says is, you can try to mold the United Nations to your vision, but it's a double-edged sword; meaning issues will get passed that you don't like. I'm guessing this is where you got the idea that national soveriegnty doesn't apply in the UN; nations are forced to enforce resolutions they may not like. Well, this is amended with the repeal system. If their national sovereignty is being encroached on in a tremendously negative manner (like this legalise prostitution resolution is doing), they can repeal it on that basis.

The members of the United Naions WOULD have national sovereignty if idiotic legislation like this legalise prostitution resolution didn't get passed.

The UN Resolutions override any sort of national sovereignty you believe you have. You can try to pass a law allowing slavery - the UN Gnomes will rewrite your laws automatically removing that law as it would be against the "End Slavery" UN Resolution.

As yet another resolution makes clear - you have soverignty only in those areas which a Resolution does not exist. In other words, your national soverignty is much like State Law vs the UN "Federal Law" structure. When in doubt, the more stringent law wins.

Your Tax Dollars Are Being Wasted Ruining Citizens Lives Instead of fighting real crime

While most all Western and many other countries have more reasonable laws regarding sexual pleasure, in the U.S. we are faced with moralists imposing their values on other people. If they can't reach us by knocking on our doors and preaching, then they will instead enact laws to prevent us from doing what they secretly wish they could. We oppose laws that violate our freedom as consenting adults to in private share intimacy and pleasure.

It is long overdue for private consenting adult prostitution to be decriminalized in the U.S. There are millions of sexworkers in the U.S. who enjoy their profession and the largest risk is not bad clients, not STD's since most insist on safe sex, but the law enforcement stings wasting resources on morality crimes with no victims.

Prostitution fills a vital role in our society by addressing the sexual and emotional needs of men and women, and by providing high paying employment options to women and men who wish to provide sexual services.

People in a free society have the right to work in their chosen profession, and to do with their own bodies as they so choose. Likewise, all citizens have the right to engage in consensual adult sexual contact.

Criminalization of private adult prostitution is wrong. Almost all the rest of the world realizes this, and the U.S. is one of the few countries were private sexwork is illegal.

Decriminalize Private Adult Sexwork Coalition (http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html)

U.S. may have to decriminalize prostitution per U.N. Treaty

If the U.S. Senate passes the UN Convention the was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and has been signed by 165 countries this could force the U.S. to acknowledge voluntary prostitution is a legal women’s choice as well as a women’s right to choose of abortion. If passed the U.S. would have to accept these human rights as the treaty provides.

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/untreaty.html


*does the UN Happy Dance*

Current vote status:

For: 5,284
Against: 4,489

We can still pull this off. Only one of the big delegates even voted in favor. The rest are all tiny regions. The rest of the big delegates have yet to even vote.

Just because the resolution will be repealed, doesn't mean that it will make prostitution illegal. All that it will do is allow nations to choose for themselves, rather than have people force them to legalize it.

Methinks the problem here is, our nation looks globally, and you are looking locally.

Under the directive passed currently, nations must have legal prostitution. As such, most who realize there is money and sex involved (the biggest buzzwords known to humankind), will attempt to legislate power over this industry. Why? Because they have to accept it exists; therefore, they will react by regulating.

That is human nature.

Under the repeal, nations can sweep it under the rug. This will increase crime, increase STD and AIDS transmission, increase unsafe sex and uneducated practitioners of prostitution, and overall cause more difficulty for the average citizen.

If you would like, we can go into each event individually - however, it remains, under the repeal things in net only get worse.

You forgot to mention "This proposal will only make worse the overall public health of UN members, which is exactly the opposite of what it claims to do".

We would also mention the quote below shows your intent better then the text of the proposal itself - the public health bit is a scam, nothing more.


Well, they don't have to. If there's someone just coming to the forum with a question answered previously I'd be ecstatic to respond again.

The main misconceptions I can clear up right now:

This proposal does NOT outlaw prostitution.

This proposal does NOT legalize prostitution.

This proposal is based on the idea that, in this issue, the UN hasn't taken enough circumstances into consideration to universally legislate. At best, I feel the proposal is a misplacement of UN legislative power. At worst, it's just a waste of paper as it "doesn't do anything".

I plead that you vote FOR. Be it that you have an STD crisis in your coutnry, that you want to outlaw what you see as an immoral practice, or you, like me, want to clean up previous resolutions.

Please vote FOR.

Thank you for your time.

Current vote status:

For: 5,284
Against: 4,489

We can still pull this off. Only one of the big delegates even voted in favor. The rest are all tiny regions. The rest of the big delegates have yet to even vote.
I already TG'd them all.

*sigh* the early results were so encouraging... just like the exit polls on Nov 2nd.

Why are you people against this proposal, just because joining the UN means that you're supposed to listen to it? This proposal increases the freedom of the UN nations to do what they want. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. I wasn't here when the proposal was made, so I don't have to abide by it though. Hahaha.

*cough* wrong. You just don't get the stat bumps.

We agree with Vastivia.

Thats why whe have also voted against it & are encouraging our delegates

Interesting comments by Vastiva. Of course there are some assumptions built into it.

First, that the spread of aids, disease, etc. can be limited by legalizing prostitution. Unfortunately, while there are examples of illegal prostitution increasing the occurrence of disease it does not seem to hold true for many countries today. Example, the United States. Aids is spread more through unprotected sex by consenting adults than all the illegal prostitution acts could ever hope to.

Second, if we really want to talk about disease and or health issues we should be focusing on licensing sex between any two individuals. Contrary to some perceptions on here the majority of sex is not occurring between prostitutes and johns. Thus, if disease is the issue we should be looking at licensing sex altogether. No one should be allowed to have sex without a condom or testing for sexual disease. You can see where this will lead and I will leave it at that.

Third, the assumption is that all governments in nation states our interested in regulating a substantial amount of their citizens behavoir. Based on a cursory look at many of the nations on her posting I would argue that many of them specifically limit the amount of regulation they impose on their people.

Fouth, while this is not one by Vastiva, I was surprised to find out that prostitution is a civil rights issue

Samsonish

Interesting comments by Vastiva. Of course there are some assumptions built into it.

First, that the spread of aids, disease, etc. can be limited by legalizing prostitution. Unfortunately, while there are examples of illegal prostitution increasing the occurrence of disease it does not seem to hold true for many countries today. Example, the United States. Aids is spread more through unprotected sex by consenting adults than all the illegal prostitution acts could ever hope to.

Grammatical problems aside, that doesn't make any sense. Prostitution is illegal almost everywhere in the US. Experience throughout the world has shown that transmission of STD's is dramatically reduced by legalizing and regulating prostitution. Gonorrhea, syphyllis, all those diseases with the hard-to-spell names. AIDS isn't the only STD, and I don't believe AIDS is primarily even spread through unsafe sex in the US anymore.


Second, if we really want to talk about disease and or health issues we should be focusing on licensing sex between any two individuals. Contrary to some perceptions on here the majority of sex is not occurring between prostitutes and johns. Thus, if disease is the issue we should be looking at licensing sex altogether. No one should be allowed to have sex without a condom or testing for sexual disease. You can see where this will lead and I will leave it at that.

License sex between teenagers? You're dreaming.
Contrary to some perceptions, a lot of sex is occurring between prostitutes and johns, even if it's illegal.


Third, the assumption is that all governments in nation states our interested in regulating a substantial amount of their citizens behavoir. Based on a cursory look at many of the nations on her posting I would argue that many of them specifically limit the amount of regulation they impose on their people.

grammatical problems aside, you have it backwards. the oppressed peoples of asshelmetta do not believe it is justified for any government.


Fouth, while this is not one by Vastiva, I was surprised to find out that prostitution is a civil rights issue

Samsonish
I could agree that this is almost as much an economic issue, or a public health issue. So what?

Your pardon as we will discuss "imaginary" nations in the below to some extent.

Our country believes that the best way to deal with prostitution is through law enforcement. Strict punishment for both prostitutes and johns is recommended.

Do you know how much of your nations law enforcement budget, court space, and prison space, this sort of thing requires? And at a net loss of revenue as these resources could be better served going after real crime.

Do you know how much additional tax revenue could be brought in by legalization and regulation? How much you could reduce your AIDS and STD rate by educating sex workers?

Figures: Vastiva has 40,000 registered sex workers, total of both sexes. The average pre-tax income is $200,000 (that's average, not highest). At our 38% tax rate, this one career brings in over $3 billion USD per year in income tax revenue alone.

We have never seen a nation which manages to legislate morality successfully succeed for any length of time - Cuba tried, it went underground and re-emerged. The USSR tried, it emerged fully formed with the fall of the government.

On the other hand, Thailand has successfully regulated it's prostitutes, as does Nevada. Japan has had geishas since time immemorial - at great advantage to its nation.

We ask how overburdening the law enforcement of your nation with attempting to regulate consensual crime is of advantage to your nation.

Interesting comments by Vastiva. Of course there are some assumptions built into it.

First, that the spread of aids, disease, etc. can be limited by legalizing prostitution. Unfortunately, while there are examples of illegal prostitution increasing the occurrence of disease it does not seem to hold true for many countries today. Example, the United States. Aids is spread more through unprotected sex by consenting adults than all the illegal prostitution acts could ever hope to.

By this arguement, you show a need for more education. We have found educating sex workers heads off the problem "at the source" for many.

We would also ask you to compare reported STD and AIDS rates in the "imaginary" US States of Nevada and New York, let us say for the last ten years. Then you might explain why the rate for Nevada is less then 20% of that for New York, per capita. Our explanation - legalized prostitution lead to self-interest and a consequent increase in education and protective measures, including health-care checkups. Where it was illegal and a stigma attached, it increased accordingly, without any sort of check.



Second, if we really want to talk about disease and or health issues we should be focusing on licensing sex between any two individuals. Contrary to some perceptions on here the majority of sex is not occurring between prostitutes and johns. Thus, if disease is the issue we should be looking at licensing sex altogether. No one should be allowed to have sex without a condom or testing for sexual disease. You can see where this will lead and I will leave it at that.

You mean a repeal of a different resolution? Yep. Or you could be speaking of adding another resolution calling for health/sex education.



Third, the assumption is that all governments in nation states our interested in regulating a substantial amount of their citizens behavoir. Based on a cursory look at many of the nations on her posting I would argue that many of them specifically limit the amount of regulation they impose on their people.

Which is interesting, no?



Fouth, while this is not one by Vastiva, I was surprised to find out that prostitution is a civil rights issue

Samsonish

The "Right to ones own body, to sell/lease/rent as you choose to" fit under Civil Rights. Personally, we believe it to be Free Trade, but that is our opinion and we were not there at the time of initial passage.

This sounded too good not to post. Citation at bottom.


15 Reasons Why Prostitution is Beneficial - Often referred to as Sexworkers who are the professionals as opposed to the street hooker.

1) Sexworkers are a legitimate option for older single men or those married.
For example, I gave up the dating game more than 10 years ago. I am just not attracted to most women my age - 50s - and was frustrated with "usual" women who are so sexually conservative in our culture. Further most women in our culture are overweight to which I have no physical attraction. I find I have far more in common with sexworkers than I do regular women and enjoy younger slim women - yet with some maturity so say age 25-35.

For others, they are married but that doesn't always bring sexual satisfaction. Many men enjoy variety and zillions of married men are sexually frustrated since the wife lost interest long ago. Or many of us enjoy intimate sexuality with more than one women we enjoy different personalities, bodies, interacting sensually with different women which also helps us learn good sexual and intimacy skills. Going to sexworkers is far better than an affair and can actually help keep otherwise loving marriages together, if man gets basic sexual needs met by sexworkers vs. an "affair".

2) Biblically Not an Issue - Many wives and concubines was acceptable as were "common" prostitutes
for Christians there is clearly nothing wrong for Christians or Jews seeing "common" prostitutes. The only negative references in the Bible is to the sex goddess prostitutes in the Temples worshiping the fertility gods. It was idolatry not sex that was the sin. Many times common prostitutes are mentioned in the bible with no negative inference. Prostitution has always been legal for example in Israel and Tel Aviv is known as the brothel capital of the world. Yet so many ignorant Christians totally distort biblical sexuality based on negative traditions that have no biblical basis. Likewise having many wives and concubines was not wrong. A married man never committed adultery as long as the "other women" was single - not the property of another man. Adultery was a property sin not a sex sin. For extensive biblical study see Prostitution Is Not A Biblical Conflicthere (http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/christian.html)

For many Muslims you marry by reciting certain words. Marriage can be for any length from 1 minute to 99 years. I have heard of sexworkers with a Muslim client who recites the marriage vows with the time limit, so he feels no guilt since he is married to the sexworker for the time they are having sex. For many Muslims this makes the "arrangement" perfectly legal and is acceptable by the society since you are married! It is called "sigheh." Mohammed, it is said, recommended it to his soldiers and friends. And of course you can be married to many women at the same time. Mohammed is said to have had between 9 and 14 wives, the exact number is not clear.

3) Prostitutes can make the world safer for women and healthy for normal men
Rather than encourage rape, or sexual harassment from sexually frustrated men, prostitutes are there for people who have a strong sex drive and cannot find anyone to have sex with or who enjoy sexual variety. For the socially inept man, they cope with all those with confused and repressed sexuality, removing the risk of attack they cause to other women. But most clients are just ordinary normal men, your neighbors, the man in the Church pew next to you, your children's teacher, your lawyer, or politician. Some of us well adjusted normal men enjoy physical intimacy with a variety of women and it is physically and emotionally healthy for otherwise healthy men.

4) Prostitutes become experts who can offer high quality sex.
If there was not such a negative stigma, most everyone would want to visit prostitutes for erotic inspiration and self indulgence. They provide the chance for new experiences without entering a new relationship which many people find of enormous value at certain stages of their lives. In some cultures, it is customary for all young men to learn about sex from the local prostitutes before they have sex with other women.

5) Prostitution is the oldest profession and should be respected
Like any other profession - there are the experts, the specialists, the all-rounders, the scoundrels and the bad people who need hounding out. Bad people such as the cash and dash scams ruin the reputation of the industry as to those few that are on drugs, drink to much or just think of men as ATM machines.

6) Prostitutes offer many services often far more than just sex
Prostitutes call themselves all kinds of names, from whore to therapist; slut to Tantric teacher; hostess to surrogate. Each have their own style but when you listen to what they actually do, most provide approximately the same range of services. They act as listeners (to everyone in pain, including sufferers of child sexual abuse), pacifiers (often of the same), substitute mothers, sisters and brothers, they enact fantasies, dominate to force those who are normally in control in their work and social lives to play submissive; whores may also play sub.

Prostitutes fulfill all kinds of role: from a quick hand-job behind a carrier bag in the park, to dinner and all night bed companion to "girlfriend" for a month's holiday.

Some do this with grace and love, others with one eye on the clock and the other eye on his wallet, hoping to steal it. There are sex workers who can actually adapt their mind sets to "fall in love" with each client, in order to give them maximum benefit of the time spent. There are others who despise all clients and play tricks to make them come fast. But there are many who sincerely love and enjoy men and for them it is an ideal profession and not only about men as ATM machines. These are usually the most successful sexworkers since men can tell their sincere enjoyment of what they do.

7) It can be a satisfying Job
The fact is that a growing number of women are switching to work in sex rather than in other jobs because they find it gives them more freedom and job satisfaction. You chose your hours, you make more money per hour than most of your friends and you spend your time giving pleasure (and often receiving it too).

Some women who may once have opted for a career in nursing find it more satisfying offering a caring "hands on" service caring for people's personal needs. So many people in society have never been touched caringly or had their emotional needs catered for. Sex work allows caring individuals to offer such services and they often just advertise as a prostitute because this is the easiest way to make a living.

8) Many Men Need Teaching
Sociologists recognize that many men pay for sexual gratification and emotional solace because they have not yet learned to find either elsewhere. Many shy, socially phobic and disabled men rely on prostitutes to teach them how to gain a positive body image, seduce and make love. The book Shadow Syndromes by John J Ratey and Catherine Johnson identifies a high incidence of minor forms of Aspergers Syndrome in males in Western cultures, which means that they can't respond to normal invitations of emotional bonding and socialization.

9) Prostitution enables many women to liberate themselves
It is not uncommon for women to enter the sex industry in order to establish their own sexual identity. Belle du Jour was a classic. There are many situations where women decide to enter sex work because it seems to be the only way they can throw their sexual repressive background to the wall. They usually have to keep quiet about it and never identify themselves publicly.

10) Prostitution provides a better alternative to starving or stealing
When a woman is desperate to feed herself and her children and has no other income, prostitution is often the best option for her. One woman is quoted as saying that working as a street worker to provide the money to buy heroin for herself and her partner is better than him going out thieving because he might get a long prison sentence. (Mckeganey, Neil and Barnard, Marina 1996 Sex Work on the Streets). But there should be safe off street incalls available or zones of tolerance so as to not be a public nuisance "in the face" of the public in neighborhoods where not wanted. If prostitutes want respect they should also respect neighborhoods and businesses that do not want street hookers in front of their homes or businesses.

11) Prostitutes Educate
Prostitutes provide a service where people can learn. A young person can learn about their orientation and how to become a good lover. A couple can experiment with group sex. Isolated people can learn how to become intimate, people can learn about S/M and explore their submissive or dominant sides.

12) Prostitutes provide fun
They offer a service of pleasure. In countries where women are allowed to work together, there are clubs where people go along for an orgy: sex parties with several prostitutes and a group of clients. People enjoy visiting prostitutes for light hearted yet intensely erotic experiences, which may be very difficult to find elsewhere.

13) Prostitution is good for mental health
Comforting sex without ties is excellent for mental health, soothing the nervous system, and helping the client improve their sense of well being.

14) Prostitution can cure problems
People with social disabilities such as stammerers can be helped to overcome their problems by loving attention and uncovering anxieties. People who have been sexually abused as children often need a lot of patient body work to overcome sexual difficulties and prostitutes are invaluable in this work.

15) Sex Work can be empowering
People gain personal strength from selling their bodies because their clients worship and admire them, they have as much sex as they want and the defy traditional mores and roles imposed on them. Often prostitutes are extremely healthy, playful, creative, adventurous and independent women.



Quoted from this site (http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/15reasons.html)

So when we Repeal "Legalized Prostitution" . Is there gonna be a Repeal "Repeal 'Legalized Prostituion'" ? I think that that once it is repealed it should never come up again

You forgot to mention "This proposal will only make worse the overall public health of UN members, which is exactly the opposite of what it claims to do".

I didn't include it because I don't believe it's true.

We would also mention the quote below shows your intent better then the text of the proposal itself - the public health bit is a scam, nothing more.

Er, that's not what I glean from my statement. Just recognizing there are multiple reasons to vote "for", I feel, doesn't discredit any of them. I have very varied support for this proposal. I'm simply trying to express the many reasons for which nations have previously declared their vote as "for". I am, strangely enough, interested in the proposal passing.

So when we Repeal "Legalized Prostitution" . Is there gonna be a Repeal "Repeal 'Legalized Prostituion'" ? I think that that once it is repealed it should never come up again

Haven't been here long, have you?

So when we Repeal "Legalized Prostitution" . Is there gonna be a Repeal "Repeal 'Legalized Prostituion'" ? I think that that once it is repealed it should never come up again

No, I don't believe one can repeal a repeal. Yeah, I just checked. Under the resolution "Repeal 'Fight The Axis of Evil'" there is no "repeal this proposal" option. In order to overturn a repeal you'd have to reintroduce the original sort of legislation.

Vastiva,

I enjoyed your top 15 reasons. It was entertaining. Thanks. However, while it was fun to read I noticed that by my count off the top of my head 7 of your reasons have been used to justify slavery also. Not sure about the others but I do remember my Southern Senator John Sherman using the bible to justify slavery. As far as the oldest profession, prostitution may be first but slavery has got to be in the top 5. I don't have the time or inclination to research the ones I don't know for sure but I would not base my argument on those no matter how entertaining they may be. I truly enjoy your posts even if I disagree with them.

Second, to the grammar queen or king. Thanks for the information on grammatical mistakes. When I have more than half an hour a day to spend on here I will write a correct 5 paragraph essay. Until then keep pointing out my mistakes. Also, with a simple internet search you will find that AIDS is still spread more by unprotected sex than by dirty needles or any other way. Surprisingly all of those other venereal diseases are also spread by unprotected sex primarily. Hmmmm

On a tangent that might help to keep things in perspective more Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year than all of the American and Iraqi deaths combined since the formal military combat ended. Where is the outcry. I don't have time to check but I bet that would be the case regarding AIDS deaths in the U.S. also. My first resolution will be to ban motorized transport world wide. We could save a lot of lives and get people in shape.

The arguments in this forum have been very enlightening (well with some exception) and informative. The pro bill 46 camp has raised some very good issues. Vastiva has commented that their country thinks "globally" rather than locally. This indicates to us a certain benevolance toward the world as a whole. We must kindly refuse this "benevolance" and beg for forgiveness for choosing to dissagree with Vastiva's universalism.
Some matters are universal. Prostitution is not. We are not talking about starving or diseased people, we are talking about values and mores. If our government chooses to outlaw taxi's, that is an internal matter in my nation. If we choose to ban the practice of eating ice cream in our many parks, that again is our prerogative. If your worried about disease, there are numerous ways to control disease.
The U.N should not legislate on such matters. We will however consider a future replacement law, provided it is more detailed and carefuly considered.

OOC---- Vastiva, in case you are not aware. Prostitution is illegal in Thailand, and yes we are regulating it succesfuly here. You know why?? They don't have any legal rights in their work so the government is able to crack down on the drug and criminal aspect. The girls and guys are pretty much free to get help without risk of police retribution, but the blood money that owns so many of the brothels is limited. Would you force Thailand to legalize?

The arguments in this forum have been very enlightening (well with some exception) and informative. The pro bill 46 camp has raised some very good issues. Vastiva has commented that their country thinks "globally" rather than locally. This indicates to us a certain benevolance toward the world as a whole. We must kindly refuse this "benevolance" and beg for forgiveness for choosing to dissagree with Vastiva's universalism.
Some matters are universal. Prostitution is not. We are not talking about starving or diseased people, we are talking about values and mores. If our government chooses to outlaw taxi's, that is an internal matter in my nation. If we choose to ban the practice of eating ice cream in our many parks, that again is our prerogative. If your worried about disease, there are numerous ways to control disease.
The U.N should not legislate on such matters. We will however consider a future replacement law, provided it is more detailed and carefuly considered.


With respect, prostitution is present the world over. We have found it among eskimos, we have found it among aboriginies, we have found it in Africa, in Cuba, in Japan, in China. We can not name a single nation in which the selling of oneself for money or objects or consideration does not exist. As such, it is a global consideration.

There are many ways to control disease, we find trained and regulated sex workers to be one of them. As they deal directly with STD carriers, they are in the best location to help stop the scourge in its tracks.



OOC---- Vastiva, in case you are not aware. Prostitution is illegal in Thailand, and yes we are regulating it succesfuly here. You know why?? They don't have any legal rights in their work so the government is able to crack down on the drug and criminal aspect. The girls and guys are pretty much free to get help without risk of police retribution, but the blood money that owns so many of the brothels is limited. Would you force Thailand to legalize?

Yep. Why? Because you're doing such a wonderful job getting rid of the criminal and drug element, and could increase your tax base so much by the addition, we see no reason you should not. We note that tourism is six percent of your economy - would it not be in Thailand's best interest to increase that number? The extra funds could then be put to good use in modernization and the purchase of necessary equipment.

Edit As I'm less then fully informed at this point, I'll request time to review what is going on there and then formulate a full reply, and will leave the above as a "at first glance" response. Perhaps I shall change my mind, time will tell.

Chimaea's position, just thought I may as well give a reason for my vote... for once:

Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world--as such, it isn't going to easily go away. Even in the most religious-extermist nations prostitution exists. Sadly, because of the sometimes underground nature of this profession, sex workers are involved in crime, drugs, poverty, the spread of STDs and are often assaulted or raped.

Resolution 46 gives a chance for all UN nations to take the crime, drugs, poverty, diseases and physical danger from the profession--to have a government-regulated sex industry, just like every other industry, with rights, responsibilities and protections. Sex workers would no longer have to 'walk the streets' in order to solicit clients and can do it from the safety of an organised brothel which employs them, makes sure they're healthy and protects them.

Repealing this resolution would be disastrous for the programs already implemented by various governments to decriminalise, legalise and regulate prostitution.

Please vote against the repeal resolution.

I know everyone's said basically the same thing, just thought I'd add my voice. :)

Chimaea's position, just thought I may as well give a reason for my vote... for once:

Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world--as such, it isn't going to easily go away. Even in the most religious-extermist nations prostitution exists. Sadly, because of the sometimes underground nature of this profession, sex workers are involved in crime, drugs, poverty, the spread of STDs and are often assaulted or raped.

Resolution 46 gives a chance for all UN nations to take the crime, drugs, poverty, diseases and physical danger from the profession--to have a government-regulated sex industry, just like every other industry, with rights, responsibilities and protections. Sex workers would no longer have to 'walk the streets' in order to solicit clients and can do it from the safety of an organised brothel which employs them, makes sure they're healthy and protects them.

Repealing this resolution would be disastrous for the programs already implemented by various governments to decriminalise, legalise and regulate prostitution.

Please vote against the repeal resolution.

I know everyone's said basically the same thing, just thought I'd add my voice. :)

Here here! :D

Prostitution is LEGAL (with some restrictions that aren't that bad) in Canada, most all of Europe including England, France, Wales, Denmark, etc., most of South America including most of Mexico (often in special zones), Israel (Tel Aviv known as the brothel capital of the world), Australia, and many other countries. It is either legal or very tolerated in most all of Asia and even Iran has "temporary wives" which can be for only a few hours! New Zealand passed in 2003 one of the most comprehensive decriminalization acts which even made street hookers legal which is causing many concerns.


Also - for AP - if you would answer this question:
Athletes sell their bodies. Models sell their bodies. Actors sell their bodies. How is prostitution different significantly?

OOC---- Vastiva, in case you are not aware. Prostitution is illegal in Thailand, and yes we are regulating it succesfuly here. You know why?? They don't have any legal rights in their work so the government is able to crack down on the drug and criminal aspect. The girls and guys are pretty much free to get help without risk of police retribution, but the blood money that owns so many of the brothels is limited. Would you force Thailand to legalize?

Initial research came up with this quote:


Thailand has a very similar situation and has been known since the Vietnam war days as one of the best places in the world to go for great sexuality. For centuries brothels have just been an accepted part of the culture. Most Thai men got their first sexual education and experience in the local brothel. When sexwork became so popular when the U.S. military enjoyed their rest and relaxation stops in ports, for public relations purposes, Thailand made it officially illegal due to Western pressure, but the Entertainment Places Act and "special services" exempted most all of the sexwork for the military or tourists since it brings in so much cash. Consenting adult prostitution is illegal only officially in Thailand, not in practice.

Interesting. If true, it appears the "lower class" prostitutes are being "taken care of", while the "higher class" ones are left alone. Perhaps not as sweeping a change as first stated. More research as it appears.

Edit Hmmm, more....


The twentieth century has seen the rise of the world marketplace. In this new world market, Thailand and the Philippines have recently stepped in to play the role of whorehouse to the world. This is facilitated by developing agents having disregarded the development of women's opportunities for economic independence, leaving prostitution as the highest paying job available to many of the women of Southeast Asia.
While these countries have benefited from the tourist presence and the resulting foreign exchange, the women who actually put themselves out for their countries development process are to a large extent victims of threefold oppression on the basis of gender, class and the particular role of their homeland in the games of international political economy.

and...


In Thailand, the official position on prostitution is that "prostitution does not exist because it is illegal," which is explained by the fact that "massage parlours, restaurants, motels and tea houses may well offer sexual as well as other services, but they do not count as brothels." This side-stepping the issue "is a severe handicap to campaigns that seek to provide safeguards for prostitutes and to limit the spread of AIDS." But this doublespeak is vital to maintain a supposed clean bill of health for foreigners considering Thailand for their next sexcapade.

Ultimately, much of official complacency with prostitution is tied to the view of prostitutes as a national resource. During a South Korean orientation session for prostitutes, the women were told: "You girls must take pride in your devotion to your country. Your carnal conversations with foreign tourists do not prostitute either yourself or the nation, but express your heroic patriotism." These women play a vital role in the tourism industry which, "including group sex tours, is Thailand's largest single source of foreign exchange." Ultimately, what it comes down to, is that "young Thai country women are just another kind of crop."

Curiouser and curiouser. I think I shall continue down the rabbithole and see where it leads...

The interesting thing about this (http://www.iht.com/articles/119178.html) article, is it points out that the Trade earns at least $4.3 billion per year. When you factor in Thailand's weak Baht (1 USD = 39.2834 Baht), that gives an amazing figure; considering it is an "illegal" trade, and not all is reported, that leaves a force to be reckoned with, economically.

At this point, we would still favor legalization and regulation in Thailand, as the advantages seem many, with the "disadvantages" already present. A further crackdown would not appear to aid the public health; it will serve to injure tourism (6% of Thai economy); it will continue the poverty among the masses, even further as you are cutting off a means of support.

Ah, yes, and here (http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2004/) is the US State Department report on trafficking in persons. Thailand is listed.

Very interesting indeed.

BANGKOK — There are mixed reactions to a recent proposal to legalize prostitution, but activists and sex workers in Thailand say that this would bring not only financial but social gain, by ensuring better protection of rights. "I see that every party can benefit from the change," said Natee Teerarojjanapongs, director of the Fraternity for AIDS Cessation in Thailand (FACT), a non-governmental organization that works with male sex workers.

Although some have argued that legalization would encourage more people to go into the sex trade, Natee says that having legal status would allow actually sex workers protection from the exploitation of their bosses and customers.

For the government, legalizing an industry that fuels a large part of the underground economy would bring more income, he said. [...]

Legalization will also boost efforts to crack down on child trafficking for the sex trade. By making the sex trade operators transparent in the tax system, it is less likely that they will want to get into trouble by including child prostitutes in their places, says columnist Veena Thoopkrajae of the English-language newspaper 'The Nation'.

Certainly, she said, if they are made taxpayers, sex workers should enjoy all the rights that other taxpayers have, including health care services and other benefits that the government provides

Natee says that the legalization of sex work would also curb risks such as sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS, because the government as well as AIDS activists will have access to brothels.

"We AIDS activists have long faced problems of having no access to educate or control the spread of HIV among sex workers, because such vulnerable groups and places are out of our reach," he said, pointing out that sex workers are always too afraid to show up for tests".

Some have warned that licensing prostitution might force more poor people into the sex trade, but Natee thinks otherwise.

"I think it will even push people away from this business with those who only want easy money have to think twice. Nobody wants to be labeled prostitutes," he said.

"For society, it needs to realize that sex workers do not have an easy life. In most cases, it is the last choice one can make, when one is willing to give up and risk many things to survive," Natee said. "Instead of detesting them, society should understand them."

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2003/ips-030221.html

BANGKOK — There are mixed reactions to a recent proposal to legalize prostitution, but activists and sex workers in Thailand say that this would bring not only financial but social gain, by ensuring better protection of rights. "I see that every party can benefit from the change," said Natee Teerarojjanapongs, director of the Fraternity for AIDS Cessation in Thailand (FACT), a non-governmental organization that works with male sex workers.

Although some have argued that legalization would encourage more people to go into the sex trade, Natee says that having legal status would allow actually sex workers protection from the exploitation of their bosses and customers.

For the government, legalizing an industry that fuels a large part of the underground economy would bring more income, he said. [...]

Legalization will also boost efforts to crack down on child trafficking for the sex trade. By making the sex trade operators transparent in the tax system, it is less likely that they will want to get into trouble by including child prostitutes in their places, says columnist Veena Thoopkrajae of the English-language newspaper 'The Nation'.

Certainly, she said, if they are made taxpayers, sex workers should enjoy all the rights that other taxpayers have, including health care services and other benefits that the government provides

Natee says that the legalization of sex work would also curb risks such as sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS, because the government as well as AIDS activists will have access to brothels.

"We AIDS activists have long faced problems of having no access to educate or control the spread of HIV among sex workers, because such vulnerable groups and places are out of our reach," he said, pointing out that sex workers are always too afraid to show up for tests".

Some have warned that licensing prostitution might force more poor people into the sex trade, but Natee thinks otherwise.

"I think it will even push people away from this business with those who only want easy money have to think twice. Nobody wants to be labeled prostitutes," he said.

"For society, it needs to realize that sex workers do not have an easy life. In most cases, it is the last choice one can make, when one is willing to give up and risk many things to survive," Natee said. "Instead of detesting them, society should understand them."

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2003/ips-030221.html

Even more interesting indeed... Thank you for the citation.

Even more interesting indeed... Thank you for the citation.
You are very welcome. ;)

I appreciate the very informed responses. My point is that Thailand is winning the war against STD's and is doing it without it being legalized. So I suppose you should admit that legality does not equate a rise in abuse or STD's.
Many people in Thailand think the situation is completly out of control, I don't think the idea of taxing the prostitutes would go over well and would probably drive many further underground then where they are now. The government is aware of them and the police know them by name and who they work for, but officially they don't exist.
Very many Thais are embarrased that so many tourist come here solely for the purposes of sex. While some don't see it as a problem, many others see it as a great blemish. How would you feel if your country was most famous for its prostitutes?
Some of these workers do it by their own accord, but spend some time with your friends who have gone into work and then you begin to realize how they really feel. Ever hear of shame? Sure they act like they like it, thats their job, but usually when you have a serious conversation with prostitutes you here more things like: "its just to get through school", "only until i find another job", or more painfuly : " I have to help my parents, their sick" or "I can't feed my son".

All of these arguments are merely semantics until you delve a little deeper and talk to people one on one.

Check this one out: http://www.thaiembdc.org/socials/childprs.htm

Not sure about the others but I do remember my Southern Senator John Sherman using the bible to justify slavery. As far as the oldest profession, prostitution may be first but slavery has got to be in the top 5. I don't have the time or inclination to research the ones I don't know for sure but I would not base my argument on those no matter how entertaining they may be. I truly enjoy your posts even if I disagree with them.


By the way, all statements of sex workers I read until now are STRONGLY FOR legalization. I don´t think, this would apply to slaves. ;)

Shouldn´t we listen to the people who are the most affected by this sort of prohibition?

The International Union of Sex Workers (http://www.iusw.org/)

I appreciate the very informed responses. My point is that Thailand is winning the war against STD's and is doing it without it being legalized. So I suppose you should admit that legality does not equate a rise in abuse or STD's.

No, legality appears to have a net decrease in abuse and STDs.

As to whether the "war" is being won or lost, it will be at least a decade before we know for sure.



Many people in Thailand think the situation is completly out of control, I don't think the idea of taxing the prostitutes would go over well and would probably drive many further underground then where they are now. The government is aware of them and the police know them by name and who they work for, but officially they don't exist.
Very many Thais are embarrased that so many tourist come here solely for the purposes of sex. While some don't see it as a problem, many others see it as a great blemish. How would you feel if your country was most famous for its prostitutes?

I've lived in Nevada. Didn't bother me in the least. They do what they do, and my business saw more business because of increased traffic overall. Economically, win-win.



Some of these workers do it by their own accord, but spend some time with your friends who have gone into work and then you begin to realize how they really feel. Ever hear of shame? Sure they act like they like it, thats their job, but usually when you have a serious conversation with prostitutes you here more things like: "its just to get through school", "only until i find another job", or more painfuly : " I have to help my parents, their sick" or "I can't feed my son".

All of these arguments are merely semantics until you delve a little deeper and talk to people one on one.

I've a neice whose a call-girl and another who is a model; I also know several who have done stripping and/or prostitution, both sexes. None appear to be very "traumatized"; one just added on to her $250,000 house in South Carolina, significantly.

"Shame" isn't present in these people, but then all of them got into the Trade voluntarilly. As such, perhaps it is different, would you give that much? Would you allow that legalizing - and regulation with standards - would change the face of prostitution, allow for greater enforcement against the real criminals (slavers, child-molesters, rapists), and increase the tax base?

By the way, all statements of sex workers I read until now are STRONGLY FOR legalization. I don´t think, this would apply to slaves. ;)

Shouldn´t we listen to the people who are the most affected by this sort of prohibition?

The International Union of Sex Workers (http://www.iusw.org/)

It appears one confusion here is the difference between those who are forced into prostitution, and those who do so voluntarilly. Very, very different breeds.

Perhaps this is why Vastiva requires licensing, and treats pimps and slavers to a nice bath with the sharks.

Around 80,000 women and children have been sold into Thailand's sex idustry since 1990, with most coming from Burma, China's Yunan province and Laos. Trafficked children were also found on construction sites and in sweatshops. In 1996, almost 200,000 foreign children, mostly boys from Burma, Laos and Cambodia, were thought to be working in Thailand. (Mahidol University's Institute of Population and Social Research, "Trafficking of children on the rise," Bangkok Post, 22 July 1998)


The internal traffic of Thai females consists mostly of 12-16 year olds from hill tribes of the North/ NorthEast. Most of the internally trafficked girls are sent to closed brothels, which operate under prison-like conditions. (CATW - Asia Pacific, Trafficking in Women and Prostitution in the Asia Pacific)

Thousands of women from rural Thailand, China, Laos, Burma and Cambodia are sold to brothels in Bangkok or in other countries by unscrupulous "job brokers," who often operate in organized international syndicates. ("Survival the name of the game," Bangkok Post, 3 July 1998)

50% of the prostituted women in Chiang Rai are Burmese. Thousands of indigenous Burmese women from Shan State in the north and from Keng Tung in Eastern Burma have been sold into brothels in Bangkok and throughout Thailand. (CATW - Asia Pacific, Trafficking in Women and Prostitution in the Asia Pacific)


Of the estimated 20,000 prostitutes in Pattaya, hundreds are children who are either lured from their villages by the idea of opportunity or by criminal networks. (Mark Baker, "Sin city can’t shake vice’s grip," Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 1997)

Girls, age 13-15, from Ban Vanaluang, were sold to pimps for 5,00 - 10,000 baht by their parents, who may be drug addicted. The girls are deceived about their destination, which is often Chiang Mai. (Anjira Assavanonda, "Drugs and prostitution flourish in quiet village," Bangkok Post, 3 January 1998) Trafficking women and children from the Mekong countries - China, Burma, Laos and Cambodia has been increasing. The largest groups of newly trafficked women into the sex industry are from Burma’s Shan state, and minority women from the Northwest border areas. (1996 study conducted at 40 commerical venues in Bangkok, Kulachada Chaipipat, "New law targets human trafficking," The Nation, 30 Novermber 1997)

The AIDS pandemic is how the sex industry is excusing recruiting more young girls from remote areas in Thailand, Shan State in Burma, Southern China, Kampuchea and Laos, under the false pretense that younger girls will not be infected with the disease. (CATW - Asia Pacific, Trafficking in Women and Prostitution in the Asia Pacific)

Thai police are looking for an ethnic Chinese man and his accomplices who lured local women to South Africa and forced them into sex slavery. A police spokesman told Reuters at least seven Thai women had complained they had been offered jobs in South Africa as dancers or hostesses in night clubs but when they arrived found they were required to serve as unpaid prostituted women. The women said they were tricked into paying the gang a "commission" for their tickets, work permits and employment before they left Thailand. In South Africa they were forced to work day and night, they said. "Some of them have already returned home and some are in the process of repatriation," said the police spokesman. He said the operation appeared to be part of a well-organized business sending Thai women and girls to Africa but did not say how the women had managed to escape. ("Thai women lured to South Africa as sex slaves," Reuters, 24 August 1998)

An Australian, Bradley Pendragon, was charged with beating and raping two Thai girls, aged eight and 11 in a Bangkok hotel room in October 1993. Pornographic photographs made of the assaults show the youngest girl crying as she was orally raped. Pendragon was arrested after a series of pictures was sent to a Bangkok child protection agency by a photo-processing laboratory in Chiang Mai. Captain Soontorn told the Bangkok Southern Criminal Court that he rescued the girls, who had been sold into prostitution by their family, after they had been working in Bangkok's Patpong bar district for about four months in November 1993. The Thai pimps were allegedly paid between $250 and $500 by foreign clients, but the mother and grandmother received only $20 or $40 a time. Pedragon is already serving a sentence for the rape of a nine-year-old mentally handicapped girl in the northern city of Chiang Mai - the first conviction of an Australian for sexual assault of a minor in Thailand. (Mark Baker, "Australian beat girls, 8 and 11, for sex, court told," Sydney Morning Herald, 26 February 1998)


Just like any other line of work right?

All of these arguments are merely semantics until you delve a little deeper and talk to people one on one.

Check this one out: http://www.thaiembdc.org/socials/childprs.htm

Alright, problem - here you are discussing Child Prostitution which is already against UN Resolutions. Vastiva dumps people who attempt to coerce underage persons into prostitution into the Antarctic ocean with a rotten side of beef and expired blood bags tied to them. We also dump people who attempt to enslave people into prostitution, which is also against UN Resolutions.

With legality and regulation came licensing, which meant the prostitutes were there voluntarilly; attempts to coerce were caught then or quickly, with significant results on the perpetrators (yes, we consider "death and seizure of all properties" to be significant). A capitalistic want to remove competition allowed for anonymous calls to the police, which ferreted out more illegal sites - why should you pay taxes and they not? Besides, we give good rewards for good tips.

Around 80,000 women and children have been sold into Thailand's sex idustry since 1990, with most coming from Burma, China's Yunan province and Laos. Trafficked children were also found on construction sites and in sweatshops. In 1996, almost 200,000 foreign children, mostly boys from Burma, Laos and Cambodia, were thought to be working in Thailand. (Mahidol University's Institute of Population and Social Research, "Trafficking of children on the rise," Bangkok Post, 22 July 1998)...

Did I advocate this with any word? To the contrary: "Legalization will also boost efforts to crack down on child trafficking for the sex trade. By making the sex trade operators transparent in the tax system, it is less likely that they will want to get into trouble by including child prostitutes in their places, says columnist Veena Thoopkrajae of the English-language newspaper 'The Nation'."

Around 80,000 women and children have been sold into Thailand's sex idustry since 1990, with most coming from Burma, China's Yunan province and Laos. Trafficked children were also found on construction sites and in sweatshops. In 1996, almost 200,000 foreign children, mostly boys from Burma, Laos and Cambodia, were thought to be working in Thailand. (Mahidol University's Institute of Population and Social Research, "Trafficking of children on the rise," Bangkok Post, 22 July 1998)


This is slavery, and not the same issue. We do not support slavery, and have a manditory death penalty (with seizure), fast tracked.

You also mention children, which is also in violation of another UN Resolution, and another manditory death penalty (with seizure), fast tracked in Vastiva.

Let us be sure we are discussing the same thing first - we are talking about those who voluntarilly enter the Trade, not those coerced or sold into it.

My point is: The seperation between free will and a form of slavery (if not overt slavery) is a very thin line. How many people do you know who are "sold" into becoming taxi drivers? Or how many people are forced to play on a professional sports team? How many young children are murdered selling oranges on the street?

You see the difference? What I'm asking for is the power to do more. How can you effectively clamp down on something when you must continously worry about the U.N henchmen ensuring your in compliance? The current resolution must be repealed because it does not set limits, it doesn not indicate what forms of prostitution are ok, and which are not. Basicly it just decalares prostitution legal! Less regulation then tobacco? I mean i'm not saying this is happening in every country, but if a country does not have its own regulations, this u.n thingy just says... Go ahead, its wonderful to be a sex worker.
One final point before i sign off. No, Vastiva, prostitution is not legal in Canada. Wherever you got that from I'm not sure, but recheck your sources.

And you won´t get international sex trade and child prostitution under control by prohibition as history shows.
Only supporting the affected countries economically and self-empowering projects for the affected women and children will change anything.

My point is: The seperation between free will and a form of slavery (if not overt slavery) is a very thin line. How many people do you know who are "sold" into becoming taxi drivers? Or how many people are forced to play on a professional sports team? How many young children are murdered selling oranges on the street?

You see the difference? What I'm asking for is the power to do more. How can you effectively clamp down on something when you must continously worry about the U.N henchmen ensuring your in compliance? The current resolution must be repealed because it does not set limits, it doesn not indicate what forms of prostitution are ok, and which are not. Basicly it just decalares prostitution legal! Less regulation then tobacco? I mean i'm not saying this is happening in every country, but if a country does not have its own regulations, this u.n thingy just says... Go ahead, its wonderful to be a sex worker.
One final point before i sign off. No, Vastiva, prostitution is not legal in Canada. Wherever you got that from I'm not sure, but recheck your sources.

Prostitution, slave trade and child abuse are different things. As far as I know this resolution was for the legalization of prostitution, and NOT for the legalization of slave trade and child abuse.

My point is: The seperation between free will and a form of slavery (if not overt slavery) is a very thin line. How many people do you know who are "sold" into becoming taxi drivers? Or how many people are forced to play on a professional sports team? How many young children are murdered selling oranges on the street?

Not relevant. Selling someone into anything is slavery, and is already covered by separate UN Resolution.



You see the difference? What I'm asking for is the power to do more. How can you effectively clamp down on something when you must continously worry about the U.N henchmen ensuring your in compliance? The current resolution must be repealed because it does not set limits, it doesn not indicate what forms of prostitution are ok, and which are not. Basicly it just decalares prostitution legal! Less regulation then tobacco? I mean i'm not saying this is happening in every country, but if a country does not have its own regulations, this u.n thingy just says... Go ahead, its wonderful to be a sex worker.

Due to space requirements, no resolution can cover everything - it is impossible. However, taken as a whole the present resolutions allow you to determine what is legal prostitution and what is not (Resolution:End Slavery, for example) There is also one against child labor under 18. You can enforce against both situations and remain in compliance.

National additional laws are always your own to make - or not make. Our point remains, a repeal of this resolution will not help anything it states it wishes to help. All it will do is make things worse.



One final point before i sign off. No, Vastiva, prostitution is not legal in Canada. Wherever you got that from I'm not sure, but recheck your sources.


Throughout Canada’s history, prostitution has been legal. However, a visitor or even a citizen may never be aware of this fact. This is due to the impeding laws stated in the Canadian criminal code. Canada has a very clear position on prostitution in theory. Part VII of the Canadian criminal code; Laws pertaining to prostitution, state that “bawdy houses” are illegal (Criminal Code sections 210 and 211), procuring and living on the avails of prostitution of another person are also prohibited (section 212). Procuring and living on the avails are indictable offences, which carry terms up to ten years in prison. If a person under the age of 18 is involved, the term increases to 14 years in prison. A common bawdy house is a place, which is occupied or used by at least one person for the purposes of prostitution. “Keeping” a bawdy house is an indictable offence liable to up to two years in prison (section 210 (1)). Being found in a bawdy house is a summary offence; the offender will receive a maximum term of six months in prison and/or a $2000 fine (sections 210 (2) and 211). Offences in relation to Prostitution focus mainly on acts committed in the public eye, including women attempting to stop moving vehicles, impeding the regular flow of pedestrians, or making an attempt to communicate with others with the intent to offer sexual services (section 213(1)), these are all considered summary offences.
Although the written laws against prostitution are relatively clear, the overall goal of Canadian prostitution is not. There is no prohibition of the buying and selling of sexual services. This is what makes the Canadian law on prostitution unclear.

Very interesting legal system they have, btw.

Also:


Although prostitution has never been illegal in Canada, many of the peripheral activities intimately related with it are so penalized. Communicating for the purposes of prostitution, soliciting, keeping a common bawdy house, procuring, and living off the avails of prostitution are some examples of the type of activities that are criminalized according to the legal system.

and


Problems arise as a result of the discrepancies between the way prostitutes and the law define pimps. For a prostitute a pimp is someone who "turns out" another person to work for him. This is another area where prostitutes are in conflict with the law; these women are not allowed to have a significant other. A prostitute from Toronto voices her frustration; "according to this law I'm not allowed to have a boyfriend because any man who is habitually in my company is defined as a pimp. We want the procuring laws removed. We [prostitutes] demand the right to have lovers" (Good Girls Bad Girls, 1987: 102; Lowman, 1992: 55-6). Noteworthy is that not many people are prosecuted under this offence.


So we do not see a law directly against prostitution, but many against the acoutrements. Very strange legal system.

One final point before i sign off. No, Vastiva, prostitution is not legal in Canada. Wherever you got that from I'm not sure, but recheck your sources.
Prostitution IS legal in Canada but still too restricted...

"Canadian Prostitution Law
Prostitution is legal in all of Canada it has been part of the Federal Criminal Code since at least mid 1800s. It is similar to British law and laws in much of Europe. Local communities can establish brothels and have some other limited powers such as licensing and zoning but can not outlaw prostitution which flourishes throughout Canada. Many Canadian cities have required escort licensing. But all it does is raise money at the sexworkers expense, since there is no real advantage of being licensed other than to comply with a city revenue raising requirement since prostitution is legal anyway."

See http://www.sexwork.com/montreal/law.html for details.

It appears one confusion here is the difference between those who are forced into prostitution, and those who do so voluntarilly. Very, very different breeds.

Perhaps this is why Vastiva requires licensing, and treats pimps and slavers to a nice bath with the sharks.

Right, and legalization will STRENGTHEN voluntary sex work and WEAKEN forced prostitution (which by the way is covered by other laws regarding child abuse, slave trade...)

Pro-Criminal Positions
- Prostitution is immoral.
- Prostitution has a lasting negative impact on the prostitutes, especially those forced into it against their will.
- Prostitution is a contributor to the high divorce rate in the US.
- Prostitution is a blight on many neighborhoods, especially in larger cities.
- Prostitution contributes to the spread of STD’s.

Pro-Legal Positions
- Assist in reducing and/or eliminating child prostitution.
- Reduce the amount of street prostitution and pimping by providing a legal alternative.
- Provide for a future escape-route for prostitutes by removing criminal aspect of their career.
- Reduce the incidents of serious crimes against prostitutes and customers that currently go unreported.
- Provide for a safer and better environment for prostitutes including allowing them to obtain medical insurance and other typical employment benefits that currently must be covered by state and federal agencies.
- Reduce the general incidents of rape and related activities by providing a legal alternative for sexual release. An estimated 32% of rapes are violence based (vs purely sexual) and would not be impacted by this.
- Prostitutes are more cautious with regard to protection from STD’s and therefore help reduce the spread of STD’s
- It’s a victimless crime.
- Provide additional tax revenue.
- Current laws are not effective, we need to try a different approach.
http://www.sexwork.com/whatisnew/circuitbust.html

I disagree. I feel that an illegal state of prostitution is not worse from a health perspective from what we have now: a rampant, legal, but unregulated practice. If the resolution's going to make prostitution legal it should make nations take some sort of regulatory action. Now, nations are forced to keep it legal with or without needed regulation. Thus, I find leaving it a resolution a more dangerous option for many nations.

By legalizing prostitution it means they have the same rights and duties as other trades. This includes health and safety regulation. I agree that the resolution makes no mention of regulations, however, that isn't necessary in the same way that we don't need a resolution for the health of office workers.

I disagree that it's a rampant unregulated practice right now. Legalising prostitution in Groot Gouda has had a tremendously positive effect on health, with less STDs spreading each year. Prostitution may not be the most respected work, but the prostitutes union makes sure that prostitutes can work in a healthy, clean and safe environment. Working together with the police, housing coorporations and local welfare organisations, many old prostitution ghettos are renovated into more respectable looking night recreation areas. As the sex business realises that this increases respectability and income, they too are now investing more in their environment and in the health of their workers. Prostitutes are checked regularly on STDs and condoms are mandatory.

Without legalization, this wouldn't be possible. Without this resolution, many nations would never be able to follow this path to enlightenment.

I urge all UN members to practise sceptical approach to regarding proposed issues since this approach in this case is highly productive.

I suggest that you take a look at this problem from the both sides.

The proposer of the issue wants to note the consequences of encouraging the prostitution. I do not disagree with the consequences but I want to note that there may be factors far more important.

On the one hand, I believe that legalization of prostitution allows government to take control of this activity and therefore, it has is pros. Government manages to provide all that is required by people, i.e. hygiene, social protection for people of this occupation, etc., and it loses the grip if the prostitution is made illegal. Prostitution as a service type is harmless, it is the dangerous conditions of it which are responsible for its bad reputation.

On the other hand, I believe that all countries should have the right to choose whether they want prostitution or not. There are many societies for whom prostitution is simply unacceptable and there are many societies for whom no prostitution is unacceptable.

Our nation decides that legalization of prostitution of more appropriate in this case due to improving of health conditions and also because our nation is socially open.

I disagree that it's a rampant unregulated practice right now. Legalising prostitution in Groot Gouda has had a tremendously positive effect on health, with less STDs spreading each year. Prostitution may not be the most respected work, but the prostitutes union makes sure that prostitutes can work in a healthy, clean and safe environment. Working together with the police, housing coorporations and local welfare organisations, many old prostitution ghettos are renovated into more respectable looking night recreation areas. As the sex business realises that this increases respectability and income, they too are now investing more in their environment and in the health of their workers. Prostitutes are checked regularly on STDs and condoms are mandatory.

Without legalization, this wouldn't be possible. Without this resolution, many nations would never be able to follow this path to enlightenment.

It is truly a great thing the government of Groot Gouda has taken those measures. I believe those measures put in place will greatly benefit the sex workers in your country. However, just because Groot Gouda has a good system doesn't mean everyone does. When I say there's a rampant unregulated practice, I mean in nations which have no desire or don't have the resources to regulate it. And it makes sense that there is. Their made to legalize prostitution, but then not told how to use that legalization in a positive way.

The UN, as pointed out in the proposal, has a tradition of encouraging and mandating its memeber to be health-sensitive. I feel that this issue needs better legislation, which will enforce proper regulations on nations which do legalize prostitution. However I do not feel that every nation should be forced to. In some nations the health situation is better if they're able to outlaw it. I feel there would be fewer health risks in a country which tries to crack down on the sex industry, than in one which is forced to allow it but refuses to regulate it. I feel that in regulating it, nations also need the option of outlawing it, even if just temporarily, as independent epidemics and health disasters may call for. The current resolution does not take this into account at all.

No, without legalization nations would be allowed more diverse and freely felt views. They'd achieve their own enlightenment, and not have a small numbers' enlightenment forced upon them. Or "not forced", as the case is now.

prostitution does not belong in a enlightened society. global actions is obviously nessecary

Calamitonia
I'm curious why prostitution doesn't belong there. Could you explain that?

how does it feel to know that your mother sleep with your best friend? say no to prostitution! we just need more job opportunities!

what about a compromise here instead of repealing the leagaliztion of prostitution why don't you make it mandatory that all prostitutes get the requried shots/ immunizations.?????think about it

Crycheck
You seem to overestimate the meaning of legalized prostitution. I believe that the example you have given is not entirely suitable. If "the mother" wants to "sleep" with "your best friend", she will probably do it even if the prostitution is illegal, too. Yes, you are completely right that each of the citizens should be cared about, but does your example really have to do with prostitution? No. We are talking about health and social protection.

Someone show me where this original act requires prostitution? It seems to me that the act simply opens the door to allow prostitution in member nations. It doesn't require it, though.

Read it again.

what about a compromise here instead of repealing the leagaliztion of prostitution why don't you make it mandatory that all prostitutes get the requried shots/ immunizations.?????think about it

Already have. You can have the shots if you want, I can have my National Guard shooting every whore they find. Both of us are happy.

Hmm, well, isn't it against the law to "shoot the whores" if the global law is still working? Then, if you do it now, you will be a criminal, won't you?

Hmm, well, isn't it against the law to "shoot the whores" if the global law is still working? Then, if you do it now, you will be a criminal, won't you?

:rolleyes: The ego bashing stopped on page 34, but I think I'll start it up again. If you're going to agrue with someone, you have to understand them, or you'll look like an idiot. Understand that I'm saying that if the repeal passes, both of us can follow our own paths, and we'll both be happy.

Moral beliefs aside, abolishing legalized prostitution will simply cause more problems than it solves:

1) Legalized prostitution will make imposing protective health standards on those involved in the profession - whether workers or clientele- much easier to effect. Health risks to prostitutes and clientele are much higher where the practice is deemed illegal opposed to countries where it is legal and regulated. This should be noted in an age where STDs including AIDS is still very much a global concern.

2) Legalized prostitution makes protecting the civil rights of the workers much more possible than when it is criminalized thus decreasing the occurence of crimes that are related to such an occupation, especially violent crimes.

3) Making prostitution illegal will simply divert potential revenue from the government towards criminal elements who will likely be involved in tax evasion schemes and potentially re-invest the income to other, more violent crimes especially those involving drugs and or human lives.

Yet again we have annother moron who hasn't been with us long. If he had read at least some of the other pages, he'd find hes just repeating things already said. That and he hasn't noticed that repealing it won't abolish prostitution.

Notice that nowhere in the resolution does it call for repealing legalized prostitution on moral or in fact financial grounds. In essence, the old resolution was too vague to really BE a resolution. You can draft a whole new 'legalizing prostitution' resolution, but this time be specific.

From a strictly Mazzellusian standpoint, I vote we keep "Legalize Prostitution" on the grounds that if you criminalize it, you're dismantling an economic powerhouse; therefore economies will suffer across the board. In addition, employed women will suddenly become wanted felons. Crime rates will immediately SOAR throughout the great nations of the UN and their regions of governance. We, as responsible nations have a duty to vote AGAINST this repeal; delegates hold the crime rate and economies of their respective nations in their hands!

Notice that nowhere in the resolution does it call for repealing legalized prostitution on moral or in fact financial grounds. In essence, the old resolution was too vague to really BE a resolution. You can draft a whole new 'legalizing prostitution' resolution, but this time be specific.

I agree and disagree. If you make a new proposal, specifically state that a nation MAY allow prostitution to be illegal.

From a strictly Mazzellusian standpoint, I vote we keep "Legalize Prostitution" on the grounds that if you criminalize it, you're dismantling an economic powerhouse; therefore economies will suffer across the board. In addition, employed women will suddenly become wanted felons. Crime rates will immediately SOAR throughout the great nations of the UN and their regions of governance. We, as responsible nations have a duty to vote AGAINST this repeal; delegates hold the crime rate and economies of their respective nations in their hands!

Nothign we haven't heard (aka rideculed to the point of making it meaningless because the writer failed to provide a good point) before.

Nothign we haven't heard (aka rideculed to the point of making it meaningless because the writer failed to provide a good point) before.

verily.

delegates hold the crime rate and economies of their respective nations in their hands!

You mean that they hold it in their hands...if they take back the right to make decisions in that area, as in voing by "for"?

:rolleyes: The ego bashing stopped on page 34, but I think I'll start it up again. If you're going to agrue with someone, you have to understand them, or you'll look like an idiot. Understand that I'm saying that if the repeal passes, both of us can follow our own paths, and we'll both be happy.

I was not arguing, I simply decided to remind you about the rules of the UN. Yes, I do understand your point :)

The UN, as pointed out in the proposal, has a tradition of encouraging and mandating its memeber to be health-sensitive. I feel that this issue needs better legislation, which will enforce proper regulations on nations which do legalize prostitution. However I do not feel that every nation should be forced to. In some nations the health situation is better if they're able to outlaw it. I feel there would be fewer health risks in a country which tries to crack down on the sex industry, than in one which is forced to allow it but refuses to regulate it. I feel that in regulating it, nations also need the option of outlawing it, even if just temporarily, as independent epidemics and health disasters may call for. The current resolution does not take this into account at all.

Whatever a less enlightened nation does, it will certainly not improve health conditions by making prostitution illegal. Prostitution is a stable factor in life, which doesn't have the nickname "the oldest profession" for no reason at all. Cracking down heavily on prostitution will cause it to go deeper underground, less visible, less attention to health - somethine we both do not want.

Perhaps legalising prostitution won't improve health conditions either - but it won't affect them negatively either. Legal prostitution could, however, be a first step towards a better situation in that industry. And that is what we all want.

Instead of repealing this resolution, you could have written a resolution which adds to this one, improving health and safety for the prostitution industry. But you haven't. You disagree with this resolution, but where is your improved resolution? All you can do is take the negative road - repeal. With disappointment I see that the repeal will have a negative effect on the health of many NSUN citizens, and will allow governments to push people into illegality. Apart from that, it will introduce a greater strain on our own health care institutions, as we will be forced to increase health checks on people travelling to and from NSUN nations that will take the opportunity to make prostitution illegal.

Repeated over and over again is the argument regarding improving health and safety. While I understand this argument and believe there is some validity to it I put this issue into a second or third tier category of how we should be focusing our energies.

Disregarding the issue of choice which is a significant one for me, if we take actions to reduce poverty, increase education, and various other economic reforms, it will have a much bigger impact on the health of the citizens of the world. Poverty and a lack of education endangers the health of so many millions more citizens than prostitution could ever hope to. While in the ideal world we could do all things for all people, I make the assumption that there are limited resources and time.

Most of the arguments for keeping legalization have various amounts of validity as do most of those against. Repealing the resolution allows everyone to do what they think is best while keeping some perspective. One of the previous posts against repealing said that we need to act globally. I agree and in the global sphere if we want to fight for healthier citizens lets spend out time on those areas that will have a lot bigger impact than this one.

Roman328 President of Samsonish

I was not arguing, I simply decided to remind you about the rules of the UN. Yes, I do understand your point :)

Funny way of showing you understand. And one more thing.

:upyours:

Repeated over and over again is the argument regarding improving health and safety. While I understand this argument and believe there is some validity to it I put this issue into a second or third tier category of how we should be focusing our energies.

Disregarding the issue of choice which is a significant one for me, if we take actions to reduce poverty, increase education, and various other economic reforms, it will have a much bigger impact on the health of the citizens of the world. Poverty and a lack of education endangers the health of so many millions more citizens than prostitution could ever hope to. While in the ideal world we could do all things for all people, I make the assumption that there are limited resources and time.

Most of the arguments for keeping legalization have various amounts of validity as do most of those against. Repealing the resolution allows everyone to do what they think is best while keeping some perspective. One of the previous posts against repealing said that we need to act globally. I agree and in the global sphere if we want to fight for healthier citizens lets spend out time on those areas that will have a lot bigger impact than this one.

Roman328 President of Samsonish

Good point.

In case my points don't indicate my preference. I am in favor of the resolution that repeals the mandatory legalization of prostitution.

Roman3282 President of Samsonish

In case my points don't indicate my preference. I am in favor of the resolution that repeals the mandatory legalization of prostitution.

Roman3282 President of Samsonish

My bad.

The Mods are gunna kill me for my responce to knucles tho.

My bad.

The Mods are gunna kill me for my responce to knucles tho.

You can delete it.

It's OK, don't. I voted against the repealing but I see many good points in repealing the legalization of prostitution, e.g. freedom of choice.

Repeated over and over again is the argument regarding improving health and safety. While I understand this argument and believe there is some validity to it I put this issue into a second or third tier category of how we should be focusing our energies.

Disregarding the issue of choice which is a significant one for me, if we take actions to reduce poverty, increase education, and various other economic reforms, it will have a much bigger impact on the health of the citizens of the world. Poverty and a lack of education endangers the health of so many millions more citizens than prostitution could ever hope to. While in the ideal world we could do all things for all people, I make the assumption that there are limited resources and time.

Most of the arguments for keeping legalization have various amounts of validity as do most of those against. Repealing the resolution allows everyone to do what they think is best while keeping some perspective. One of the previous posts against repealing said that we need to act globally. I agree and in the global sphere if we want to fight for healthier citizens lets spend out time on those areas that will have a lot bigger impact than this one.

Roman328 President of Samsonish

But it's a common known fact that with poverty comes crime and prostitution isn't is important to protect and imporve the lives of prostitutes? they are the ones who are at risk and in the most danger. By keeping the bill intact we will be saving countless lives and allowing for a safe atmosphere for this age old practice to happen.

I have a bad feeling the repeal action is going to pass though, lol. I hope it doesn't. When I voted the numbers were 6,300 to 5,600

They've tried using that approach before, and it failed.


Is anyone else going to prove how ignorant they are by displaying that they havent read the previous posts?

I have a bad feeling the repeal action is going to pass though, lol. I hope it doesn't. When I voted the numbers were 6,300 to 5,600

Today's Monday. Don't call it quite yet.

I have a bad feeling the repeal action is going to pass though, lol. I hope it doesn't. When I voted the numbers were 6,300 to 5,600

There is a draft on a new social justice category resolution that actually will address some of the issues raise here that has been passed along to me. I won't say by which nation (other than they are a long-time and well respected UN member), but my government's objection to the present resolution is that it is in the wrong category. The text of the original resolution is a Social Justice resolution, while the category is Human Rights.

I've seen many proposals deleted on similar grounds and will point out that if the existing resolution were submitted as a proposal today exactly as it appears it would be Deleted for violation of UN game rules.

Please give me and the coalition of governments wanting to submit a proper resolution consistent with the game rules the chance to do so! :)

n.p. in strict confidence :: love kills!

Today's Monday. Don't call it quite yet.

Plus, the Pacific Delegates have not voted yet (except Pixiedance). They can turn the tide either way.

There is a draft on a new social justice category resolution that actually will address some of the issues raise here that has been passed along to me. I won't say by which nation (other than they are a long-time and well respected UN member), but my government's objection to the present resolution is that it is in the wrong category. The text of the original resolution is a Social Justice resolution, while the category is Human Rights.

I've seen many proposals deleted on similar grounds and will point out that if the existing resolution were submitted as a proposal today exactly as it appears it would be Deleted for violation of UN game rules.

Please give me and the coalition of governments wanting to submit a proper resolution consistent with the game rules the chance to do so!

Mikitivity, prostitution IS a human rights issue, in that it is the right of the human to sell their own bodies if they so choose (as per the freedom of choice). As such I won't be voting for a Resolution that does not address that right, nor will I support a Resolution that discourages or outright bans it.

Plus, the Pacific Delegates have not voted yet (except Pixiedance). They can turn the tide either way.

Let's just say that if one particular suspicion pans out, Pixiedance's votes will be removed along with the nation.

Let's just say that if one particular suspicion pans out, Pixiedance's votes will be removed along with the nation.

Can I ask what it is? You can TG it to me if you don't want to say here.

No, it's not. Graceofseppuku stated quite clearly first add new legislation then repeal the old one. That is entirely within the rules, and is precisely the method to use.




... which is what Graceofseppuku said to do. :rolleyes:




Yes you can. You've seen multiple examples of resolutions adding legislation to earlier resolutions. So apparently you're obfuscating the truth for a reason?

Yay! Someone cares!

Besides, from what it's looking like now, anyone speculating the final tunrout is wrong.
Even if they're right, right now, they're wrong.

LISTEN TO THIS

IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BE ILLEGAL, OR AGAINST THE LAW, THERE HAS TO BE A LAW AGAINST IT. SO JUST REPEALING THIS WILL NOT MAKE LAWS AGAINST PROSTITUTION, THEREFORE MAKING IT ILLEGAL. IT WILL STILL BE LEGAL UNTIL NATIONS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES TO MAKE LAWS AGAINST IT. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, GIVING NATIONS THE RIGHT TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.

LISTEN TO THIS

IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BE ILLEGAL, OR AGAINST THE LAW, THERE HAS TO BE A LAW AGAINST IT. SO JUST REPEALING THIS WILL NOT MAKE LAWS AGAINST PROSTITUTION, THEREFORE MAKING IT ILLEGAL. IT WILL STILL BE LEGAL UNTIL NATIONS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES TO MAKE LAWS AGAINST IT. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, GIVING NATIONS THE RIGHT TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.

Anyway, little bitty print man, it's the UN's job to screw with your nations, if you want to make the desision yourself, leave the UN.

Anyway, little bitty print man, it's the UN's job to screw with your nations, if you want to make the desision yourself, leave the UN.

Or repeal the legislation you disagree with.

Or repeal the legislation you disagree with.

Well, he/she didn't say that. They said they wanted choice, not that they disagreed with the legalization of prostitution.

Prostitution Should Remain Legal. The Practice Is Safer And Healthier When Regulated. And If "buying" Is Legal, And "Sex" Is Legal, Then "Buying Sex" Should Be Legal.
Please Vote Against The Repeal.
The Free Land Of Elesdia Thanks You.

Can I ask what it is? You can TG it to me if you don't want to say here.

Certain questions have been raised about how many UN alts the person controlling Pixie has...

Mikitivity, prostitution IS a human rights issue, in that it is the right of the human to sell their own bodies if they so choose (as per the freedom of choice). As such I won't be voting for a Resolution that does not address that right, nor will I support a Resolution that discourages or outright bans it.


I think you may be forgetting that in our UN there are rules that resolution text must match resolution categories, and there is a category called "Free Trade", in which the right to *sell* things is promoted.

I'm talking about the stickied thread at the top of this forum.

The legal right to have sex would be a civil freedom (and is already protected by the UN resolution on Sexual Freedom -- there is no need for a duplicate resolution, is there?).

The legal right to *sell* sex is not a civil freedom, but an economic freedom. There is no such resolution promoting this economic freedom.

The resolution as written is however focused on social justice, public health issues, and here Anti Phar. raises a point I see often ignored:

It is legal to drink.
It is legal to drive.
Yet somehow most governments would agree that it is illegal to drink and drive.

Why is that? Simple, the two acts together represent a public health and safety issue. Personally I find that I value Anti Phar.'s point of view, as it isn't based on anything other the legality of the reoslution. Remember, Anti Phar. also presented a very careful analysis of the legality concerning the Eon Convention on Genocide based on the double jeapoardy clause and has an established pattern of focusing not on the title of a resolution or asking "does this mostly do what I want it", but instead basing their arguments on the overall legal framework of the NS UN.

If you want to give people the right to sell sex, then advocate for a "Free Trade" resolution. Cog's notes on UN resolutions are very clear about this. You could even use the original resolution here as a guide and resubmit it after making some very minor changes to emphasize the "right to sell sex".

If you want to improve the living conditions of prostitutes, then advocate for a "Social Justice" resolution. Again, Cog's notes are clear. And while I think the original resolution is poorly written, I'd say that the text as written would be ideal for being a Social Justice resolution.

As it stands now, the game rules on copying existing resolutions would prohibit submitting a new resolution. The draft I referenced earlier is extremely long, but seemed to focus on the living conditions of prostitutes.

Anyway, little bitty print man, it's the UN's job to screw with your nations, if you want to make the desision yourself, leave the UN.

Just because the UN has the right to infringe on national sovereignty doesn't mean it should on every issue. National sovereignty should still be an ideal that is respected by this body and only breached when human rights are being violated, or when an issue is deemed appropriate for UN consideration. An internal economic affair should not be the business of the UN.

Also, points have been brought up that prostitution is only a health risk if national governments aren't doing their job in regulation of the business and education of the health risks. However, many nations cannot or will not spend the extra money to do this; in Nargopia, we would rather outlaw prostitution than take away funds from social welfare or defense, just so we don't find ourselves in the middle of an STD epidemic

Just because the UN has the right to infringe on national sovereignty doesn't mean it should on every issue. National sovereignty should still be an ideal that is respected by this body and only breached when human rights are being violated, or when an issue is deemed appropriate for UN consideration. An internal economic affair should not be the business of the UN.

Also, points have been brought up that prostitution is only a health risk if national governments aren't doing their job in regulation of the business and education of the health risks. However, many nations cannot or will not spend the extra money to do this; in Nargopia, we would rather outlaw prostitution than take away funds from social welfare or defense, just so we don't find ourselves in the middle of an STD epidemic

But, the UN should, because otherwise nothing would go on, would it?

you are taking the extreme point of each side.

That's not going to get anyone anywhere, as in real life we tend to avoid the extremes. It makes life that much easier to live in.

you are taking the extreme point of each side.

That's not going to get anyone anywhere, as in real life we tend to avoid the extremes. It makes life that much easier to live in.

He's in the middle! Burn him!

But, we need extremes to fuel the extremists!

We the nice people of Strangetobia are against this.

It's another silly thing that people are "moral" are against because they don't like it. There are less risks with it being legal as the Prostitutes can be protected under laws and it can be regulated. And the the more capitalistic nations it can be taxed to therefore make more money.

You make it illegal, it still happens with no controls or regulation and there's nothing you can do to stop it completely.

People can choose.

The legal right to *sell* sex is not a civil freedom, but an economic freedom. There is no such resolution promoting this economic freedom.

Have you asked a mod's ruling on this? Because I regard the right to be or visit a prostitute as something which ought to be in the "human rights" proposal category, because its just another aspect of leaving consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual activities they please - just as the government shouldn't be interfering on the basis of the genders of the participants etc., it shouldn't be prohibiting the parties from consenting to attach any conditions to the act. By banning prostitution and similar consensual acts, governments effectively announce that citizens do not have full rights over their bodies, which is why I regard it as being in the human rights category.

Plus, a resolution banning prostitution would almost certainly belong in "moral decency", so shouldn't one legalising it be in the opposite category?

Have you asked a mod's ruling on this? Because I regard the right to be or visit a prostitute as something which ought to be in the "human rights" proposal category, because its just another aspect of leaving consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual activities they please - just as the government shouldn't be interfering on the basis of the genders of the participants etc., it shouldn't be prohibiting the parties from consenting to attach any conditions to the act. By banning prostitution and similar consensual acts, governments effectively announce that citizens do not have full rights over their bodies, which is why I regard it as being in the human rights category.

Plus, a resolution banning prostitution would almost certainly belong in "moral decency", so shouldn't one legalising it be in the opposite category?

No, it would belong in economic freedoms, or something like that.

I think you may be forgetting that in our UN there are rules that resolution text must match resolution categories, and there is a category called "Free Trade", in which the right to *sell* things is promoted.

I'm talking about the stickied thread at the top of this forum.

The legal right to have sex would be a civil freedom (and is already protected by the UN resolution on Sexual Freedom -- there is no need for a duplicate resolution, is there?).

The legal right to *sell* sex is not a civil freedom, but an economic freedom. There is no such resolution promoting this economic freedom.

The resolution as written is however focused on social justice, public health issues, and here Anti Phar. raises a point I see often ignored:

It is legal to drink.
It is legal to drive.
Yet somehow most governments would agree that it is illegal to drink and drive.

Why is that? Simple, the two acts together represent a public health and safety issue. Personally I find that I value Anti Phar.'s point of view, as it isn't based on anything other the legality of the reoslution. Remember, Anti Phar. also presented a very careful analysis of the legality concerning the Eon Convention on Genocide based on the double jeapoardy clause and has an established pattern of focusing not on the title of a resolution or asking "does this mostly do what I want it", but instead basing their arguments on the overall legal framework of the NS UN.

If you want to give people the right to sell sex, then advocate for a "Free Trade" resolution. Cog's notes on UN resolutions are very clear about this. You could even use the original resolution here as a guide and resubmit it after making some very minor changes to emphasize the "right to sell sex".

If you want to improve the living conditions of prostitutes, then advocate for a "Social Justice" resolution. Again, Cog's notes are clear. And while I think the original resolution is poorly written, I'd say that the text as written would be ideal for being a Social Justice resolution.

As it stands now, the game rules on copying existing resolutions would prohibit submitting a new resolution. The draft I referenced earlier is extremely long, but seemed to focus on the living conditions of prostitutes.

Well, as we can see, prostitution is a pretty complex issue. My stance with any legalization of prostitution is that it has to:

-Legalize prostitution and NOT discourage it
-Regulate the profession so that all prostitutes are clean and all sex is "safe"
-For the business-minded, also to impose a tax on prostitution.

Not sure where that falls, but that's my stance on it.

Certain questions have been raised about how many UN alts the person controlling Pixie has...

I see. Thanks.

Prostitution Should Remain Legal. The Practice Is Safer And Healthier When Regulated. And If "buying" Is Legal, And "Sex" Is Legal, Then "Buying Sex" Should Be Legal.
Please Vote Against The Repeal.
The Free Land Of Elesdia Thanks You.

How many times have we shot this down? Won't you people shut up with this one?

We the nice people of Strangetobia are against this.

It's another silly thing that people are "moral" are against because they don't like it. There are less risks with it being legal as the Prostitutes can be protected under laws and it can be regulated. And the the more capitalistic nations it can be taxed to therefore make more money.

You make it illegal, it still happens with no controls or regulation and there's nothing you can do to stop it completely.

People can choose.

yet again your brining up a point that has been shot down when used by the AGAINST side, and is being widely used by the FOR side.

READ THE PREVIOUS PAGES BEFORE YOU POST, YOU MORONS!!!!

No need to flame people.

Thats not flaming, you havent seen my other posts. Besides, dissing the newbies is a good way to let out the frustration of arguing with those who actually know what they're talking about, you should try it (seppuku is exceptionally fun).

yet again your brining up a point that has been shot down when used by the AGAINST side, and is being widely used by the FOR side.

READ THE PREVIOUS PAGES BEFORE YOU POST, YOU MORONS!!!!

It has been used to greatly enforce the AGAINST side, and hasn't been adressed by the FOR side.
And he's just reinforcing an opinion.

I'm saying the point of the choise. The FOR side is using choise, and its been shot down on the AGAINST side. We want to choose weather we can have it illegal or not.

Thats not flaming, you havent seen my other posts. Besides, dissing the newbies is a good way to let out the frustration of arguing with those who actually know what they're talking about, you should try it (seppuku is exceptionally fun).
And people wonder why newbies often don't reappear in the UN Forum...

And people wonder why newbies often don't reappear in the UN Forum...

I thought it was because we argued with them in a semiabusive way and attacked each other a verocity many armies are incapable of matching.

Ah, it gives me, and Gatesville much glee... yes, glee to see that this Repeal of infingement on self-government will be struck null and void... into oblivion forvever! I do not want the UN telling me I have to legalize anything! Next they'll be telling us to legalize... who knows what, I'm not even going to guess on that one.


This repeal will pass... with ease, for all who thought it would "be shot down"

Ah, it gives me, and Gatesville much glee... yes, glee to see that this Repeal of infingement on self-government will be struck null and void... into oblivion forvever! I do not want the UN telling me I have to legalize anything! Next they'll be telling us to legalize... who knows what, I'm not even going to guess on that one.


This repeal will pass... with ease, for all who thought it would "be shot down"

But...gasp! It won't. Don't even speculate. It's just annoying at this point.

*Cries* I've been semi-abused and I didn't even notice!

I thought it was because we argued with them in a semiabusive way and attacked each other a verocity many armies are incapable of matching.
Well, that too, I suppose.

I'm saying the point of the choise. The FOR side is using choise, and its been shot down on the AGAINST side. We want to choose weather we can have it illegal or not.
The answering point to this is that many of us believe the right to have consensual sexual relations with certain strings attached should be universal, above the realm of national sovereignty.

I agree with what Enn suggested completely.

Can someone explain to me why there is such a thin margin between repeal and upholding?

This repeal will pass... with ease, for all who thought it would "be shot down"
Really?
Votes For: 6,723

Votes Against: 6,142
Less than 600 votes in it, hardly an 'overwhelming majority'.

Really?

Less than 600 votes in it, hardly an 'overwhelming majority'.

And this appears to be before the bigger regions get involved. Who knows what will happen then :}

Can someone explain to me why there is such a thin margin between repeal and upholding?

*talking slowly*

Because alot of people WANT it, and alot of people DONT.

When my old nation was here before it got deleted because of idleness, I voted against legalize prostitution, now I will vote Yea for this proposal as it gives a chance to repeal one of the closest resolutions in NS History.

Over 20,000 people voted on legalize prostitution and it was passed by only 700 votes, 700 VOTES! this undouldably makes it the closest resolution of our time and thus, because the times have changed, we need to take a new vote, based on the new U.N. population wether this unholy resolution stays or goes

When my old nation was here before it got deleted because of idleness, I voted against legalize prostitution, now I will vote Yea for this proposal as it gives a chance to repeal one of the closest resolutions in NS History.

Over 20,000 people voted on legalize prostitution and it was passed by only 700 votes, 700 VOTES! this undouldably makes it the closest resolution of our time and thus, because the times have changed, we need to take a new vote, based on the new U.N. population wether this unholy resolution stays or goes


Wow. Did you know most of the people who play NS are atheist?
Not a good point saying 'unholy' there.

Over 20,000 people voted on legalize prostitution and it was passed by only 700 votes, 700 VOTES! this undouldably makes it the closest resolution of our time and thus, because the times have changed, we need to take a new vote, based on the new U.N. population wether this unholy resolution stays or goes
No, it is not the closest winning margin.
The 40 Hour Workweek

Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526
Implemented Sun May 23 2004
That was. And guess what? Someone got a repeal attempt on that up to quorum, where it was soundly defeated. Arguing that something must be repealed based upon the winning margin is illogical - the majority passed it. Arguments should be limited to the actual resolutions, not how many people voted for them.

No, it is not the closest winning margin.

That was. And guess what? Someone got a repeal attempt on that up to quorum, where it was soundly defeated. Arguing that something must be repealed based upon the winning margin is illogical - the majority passed it. Arguments should be limited to the actual resolutions, not how many people voted for them.

Yeah, I was here when that repeal went up, and I remember how it was a close send back down too.
sound.
close.
Closely sound.

The answering point to this is that many of us believe the right to have consensual sexual relations with certain strings attached should be universal, above the realm of national sovereignty.

Strings attached to your WHAT?

Oh god, you're more of a pervert than I am!

Strings attached to your WHAT?

Oh god, you're more of a pervert than I am!

*cough* I think you just misinerpreted his phrase.
He uses weird phrases you know.
Like 'Share a truck'.

Sorry this is so long and boring, but if you read it, it makes sense, so please do!

Atheist or not, the problem with this proposal, for me, is that it doesn't take into consideration those who are less fortunate, nor the fact that this industry harms no one if regulated. Many people who are poor and/or uneducated have few options of what profession they can get into. For many, prostitution is an easy job with decent pay and does not have the unfortunate side-effects that illegal industries might have.

If the business is illegal, those who run such industries are forced to become violent in order to make money. Not only do they have to fight other rivals, but they have to fight the law. If the business is legal, it runs like a small business, and is much safer than a small business run by rough people in a rough neigbourhood, who were forced to become violent because of the lack of aid that the governments give, or should I say, don't, give them.

Also, prostitution is a relatively harmless industry if the government puts into effect certain rules and regulations crucial to the health of those engaged in such profession. If monthly appointments with a doctor are required, and if this industry is forced to provide Medicare benefits for its employees, then the industry suddenly becomes much safer, due to the fact that now those in the Health profession are watching for such diseases as AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases that could be harmful to customers and employees.

As I have stated before, this business is crucial to the less fortunate, and provides them with jobs and other economical benefits they cannot achieve thanks to the unfortunate ways their lives have gone. If governments are truly interested in almost snuffing out prostitution in their borders, the answer is to increase the funding and standards in education and social welfare. This increased spending will provide Welfare with the funds it needs to help more and more people out of poverty. It would help those who want to work, but just can't make it by themselves with a way out of the deslote pit of poverty. Of course, once they can provide for themselves and/or their family, the Monetary Aid from Welfare is no longer given to them.

Increased spending in education, particularly in public schools, would provide an incentive for better teachers to go to not-so-good schools, and give the children the knowledge they need to be able to make it in life, and not have to resort to such industries as prostitution. Also, if the standardized tests required by teachers to take are made more difficult, and the teacher is randomly monitored during their first years of teaching, better teachers will find their ways into the school system, and break the children free of the oppressiveness of ignorance.

With these two things put in place, children will be able to obtain more successful jobs, and not have to resort to prostitution and other criminal industries. There will always be prostitutes, but those who chose to still be in this profession will be one of two things:

1. Still poor and uneducated, unfortunately forcing them to take this job despite the gov'ts best efforts.

or

2. People will actually want the job as opposed to being forced into it, and there will be no sorrow on their part, since they know the risks of the job.

If the current proposal fails to pass, and prostitution remains legal, I promise all that I will propose that the things I have stated here to the U.N. I will demand that the international education standards be raised and that the government be forced to make prostitution into a safer and healthier industry. For now, though, I can do nothing but hope that those in the U.N. who haven't voted against this horrendous proposal realize that for some, prostitution is their only chance, and that this industry can be made into a safer and healthier one if the effort is put into making it so. Hopefully, those who are
against it, whether due to moral beliefs or some other reason, will realize that prostitution can be eliminated if desired,but not by a U.N. Law. It can be reduced by providing better education and welfare for those who are forced to choose such professions.

Whoo....that was long.

But, it was long and meaningful.
Showed those other people who write long stuff.

Anyway, little bitty print man, it's the UN's job to screw with your nations, if you want to make the desision yourself, leave the UN.

I already said that I would do that if it was not, but the point is that on certain issues that depend on a certain nation's moral views and do not affect other nations, should not be decided upon by a group of nations (the UN) but each nation for itself. If such issues are decided upon by the UN, then any issue can be, and that would lead to one large country, which is not the point of the UN. The UN is so that nations do not fight each other, but instead can help each other and do things for the good of all, not infringe upon each sovereign nation's rights.

I already said that I would do that if it was not, but the point is that on certain issues that depend on a certain nation's moral views and do not affect other nations, should not be decided upon by a group of nations (the UN) but each nation for itself. If such issues are decided upon by the UN, then any issue can be, and that would lead to one large country, which is not the point of the UN. The UN is so that nations do not fight each other, but instead can help each other and do things for the good of all, not infringe upon each sovereign nation's rights.

Well, it is for the benifit of all for legalized prostitution isn't it.

Many people who are poor and/or uneducated have few options of what profession they can get into. For many, prostitution is an easy job with decent pay and does not have the unfortunate side-effects that illegal industries might have.


Pleace refer to my very large print post a couple pages back, which noted that in order for something to be illegal, there must be laws passed against it. As there are none with the bill being repealed and not a new one replacing it, prostitution will still be legal untill new laws are made by countries to either let it run free, to control it, or to not allow it.

All other nations are trying to do is have the choice of which of these to do.

Well, it is for the benifit of all for legalized prostitution isn't it.

Um, no. Some people in this world still do have morals and believe in good and dont want sluts running around the street corners. Also, all studies prove that the bigger the family, the lower the crime and suicide rates. Like a person who is single, is far more likely to commit a violant crime or commit suicide, and be a far less productive member of society, while a person who is married, and has children, will be far, far less to kill themselves or commit a crime and is far more likely to keep a real job. So, people being married and having families instead of singles running around and sleeping around is in the best interest of everyone.

Um, no. Some people in this world still do have morals and believe in good and dont want sluts running around the street corners. Also, all studies prove that the bigger the family, the lower the crime and suicide rates. Like a person who is single, is far more likely to commit a violant crime or commit suicide, and be a far less productive member of society, while a person who is married, and has children, will be far, far less to kill themselves or commit a crime and is far more likely to keep a real job. So, people being married and having families instead of singles running around and sleeping around is in the best interest of everyone.

Psh. MORALS.

Also, people could marry prostitutes, since it is a vaild job. And people would still get married, regardless of prostitution. There's illegal prostitutes all over the place, and people still get married. So if prositutes are legal, people would marry THEM as well. So marriges go up.

Strings attached to your WHAT?

Oh god, you're more of a pervert than I am!
Whoa... complete and utter misreading there. What I meant was that people should be able to attach conditions when having sexual relations. These conditions may include payment i.e. prostitution.

I agree completely, ciata, upon the point that there are no laws repealing it. I'm not exactly crazy about the idea of prostitution, but i see the benefits it provides. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the point you were trying to make is that prostitution is legal, so why is it still so unsanitary. My point was that prostitution being legal opens up opportunities for those who are poor to improve their economic situation, but that it's not enough, and it is the world's responsibility to make it a sanitary job if it is to be legal by demanding that brothels give medicare to their employees.

I also believe that in light of prostitution being legal, many nations opposed to it didn't try to take political steps that would eliminate it without an all out ban, such as providing those who have few choices but prostitution with more effective welfare and education. I have no disagreements with the prospect of each country deciding for itself whether or not to legalize or illegalize prostitution, but if they illegalize it, I expect that these nations provide the poor with a better education, medicare, and welfare system, to make up for the lack of an easy job for the less wealthy and educated.

Also, people should not be told by their governments that marriage and having a family is to their benefit, they should leave it up to the people and their own impulses and desires regarding marriage.

Psh. MORALS.

Also, people could marry prostitutes, since it is a vaild job. And people would still get married, regardless of prostitution. There's illegal prostitutes all over the place, and people still get married. So if prositutes are legal, people would marry THEM as well. So marriges go up.

Yes, morals, like it's wrong to kill someone, or steal, or rape, y'now, things like that, and it doesn't matter if people are "married" if one of them is still a prostitute, they doesn't qualify as a stable marriage that brings all the benefits I listed.

I agree completely, ciata, upon the point that there are no laws repealing it. I'm not exactly crazy about the idea of prostitution, but i see the benefits it provides. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the point you were trying to make is that prostitution is legal, so why is it still so unsanitary. My point was that prostitution being legal opens up opportunities for those who are poor to improve their economic situation, but that it's not enough, and it is the world's responsibility to make it a sanitary job if it is to be legal by demanding that brothels give medicare to their employees.

I also believe that in light of prostitution being legal, many nations opposed to it didn't try to take political steps that would eliminate it without an all out ban, such as providing those who have few choices but prostitution with more effective welfare and education. I have no disagreements with the prospect of each country deciding for itself whether or not to legalize or illegalize prostitution, but if they illegalize it, I expect that these nations provide the poor with a better education, medicare, and welfare system, to make up for the lack of an easy job for the less wealthy and educated.

Also, people should not be told by their governments that marriage and having a family is to their benefit, they should leave it up to the people and their own impulses and desires regarding marriage.

Fine, you just shoot down my point I made up on the spot.

Maybe I'm just a flip-flopper ;). I don't think i shot down your argument, seppuku. As for your statement, Ciata, you think that people would marry a prostitute if he/she didn't like her profession, yet understood she/he was going to stick with it? People who would marry prostitutes would understand what they're getting into, and they could either decide that the spouse who was engaged in prostitution should quit, or that it wasn't all about the sex.

At least they wouldn't have to worry about STD's, since I'd hope a medical program would be set up where they received monthly check-ups for those things.

I agree completely, ciata, upon the point that there are no laws repealing it. I'm not exactly crazy about the idea of prostitution, but i see the benefits it provides. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the point you were trying to make is that prostitution is legal, so why is it still so unsanitary. My point was that prostitution being legal opens up opportunities for those who are poor to improve their economic situation, but that it's not enough, and it is the world's responsibility to make it a sanitary job if it is to be legal by demanding that brothels give medicare to their employees.

I also believe that in light of prostitution being legal, many nations opposed to it didn't try to take political steps that would eliminate it without an all out ban, such as providing those who have few choices but prostitution with more effective welfare and education. I have no disagreements with the prospect of each country deciding for itself whether or not to legalize or illegalize prostitution, but if they illegalize it, I expect that these nations provide the poor with a better education, medicare, and welfare system, to make up for the lack of an easy job for the less wealthy and educated.

Also, people should not be told by their governments that marriage and having a family is to their benefit, they should leave it up to the people and their own impulses and desires regarding marriage.


What I mean is that each nation should decide this very sensitive issue for themselves by a vote in their own country, so instead of countries that almost all are opposed to it being forced to by a few more countries where their leaders are not opposed to it, each group of people should decide for themselves, because is many real life countries in this world, adultry is still punishable by death and has been for thousands of years, and while that is wrong to kill them for it, it would be the same as some of them outlawing eating pigs for instance. What I'm arguing for is respect for each nation and their people to decide this very personal issue for themselves.

Also, with marriage, all studies done on the issue prove that the bigger (to a certain point) the family, the lower the crime and suicide rates. Like a person who is single, is far more likely to commit a violant crime or commit suicide, and be a far less productive member of society, while a person who is married, and has children, will be far, far less to kill themselves or commit a crime and is far more likely to keep a real job. So, people being married and having families instead of singles running around and sleeping around is in the best interest of everyone.

It may be so that statistics say that single people are more likely to commit suicide and commit crimes, but you still have to face the fact that the majority of singles don't commit heinous crimes. Most of them are perfectly normal. Your statistics give the impression that all single people are murderers, or rapists, or what-not. Like I said, I don't think the gov't should interfere with peoples marital choices. Also, I may sound repetetive, but the reason that a prostitutes life is so hard is because of one of these two reasons, the 2nd reason usually goes along with the 1st:

1. It's illegal, so they have to fear the law, and get involved with violent people who can protect them from it, who are usually involved in other illegal industries.

2. The government has failed to provide adequate chances for the poor in such areas as medicare, welfare, and education, some of the most important things to escaping poverty.

As for the idea that each nation choose for itself, I don't disagree with that. Like I said, I only feel that if a nation chooses to organize it, it must make up for that economic possibility for the poor with things such as better education, better health care, and better welfare, allowing them to get better jobs.

Also, with marriage, all studies done on the issue prove that the bigger (to a certain point) the family, the lower the crime and suicide rates. Like a person who is single, is far more likely to commit a violant crime or commit suicide, and be a far less productive member of society, while a person who is married, and has children, will be far, far less to kill themselves or commit a crime and is far more likely to keep a real job. So, people being married and having families instead of singles running around and sleeping around is in the best interest of everyone.
I would like to see your evidence. It must come from multiple, independent, international organisations working in multiple countries. Anything less could not be regarded as a full study of the issues in question.

Exactly, take into consideration that the majority of single people don't commit awful crimes.

BTW, for some reason I can't connect to nationstates, so if none of you ever hear from me again, you know what happened ;).

I would like to see your evidence. It must come from multiple, independent, international organisations working in multiple countries. Anything less could not be regarded as a full study of the issues in question.

Well, aside from my sociology profesor telling me that today, and it was in my Sociology book "A Down to Earth Approach" by James M. Henslin, http://www.globalchange.com/books/rpl7c.htm http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-wmm.html

"Married and employed people were less likely to be victims of assault or commit it, than those who had never married or those who were unemployed. Even after standardising for age effects, major differences between marital status groups and labour force status groups are apparent." http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/FDACA0CEDD1DEA6BCA2569BB00164F7C

"Physical Benefits
Study after study has consistently shown that married people across cultures have better health than unmarried people. For example:

Less alcoholism. Married men have lower rates of alcoholism than their unmarried counterparts. Researchers believe that wives offer encouragement, support, and protection from daily problems that could otherwise lead men to using alcohol. When married men do become alcoholics, they show higher recovery rates than unmarried men.
Less suicide. Numerous studies have found that married men and women have lower suicide rates than unmarried men and women, probably because married people have a larger social network of friends and relatives. Meaningful relationships give people a sense of personal value and a feeling of responsibility to others, both of which lessen the likelihood they will commit suicide.
Less illness, accidents, and murder. Married people are less likely to die from all causes, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, car accidents, and murder. They spend less time in hospitals and have higher recovery rates. Evidence even exists that social support boosts the immune system, making married people less likely to catch a cold.
Emotional Benefits
One of the most consistent findings in the study of psychiatric diseases is that married people enjoy better mental health than the unmarried. For example:

Less mental illness. Married men and women have the lowest rates of depression compared to the unmarried. They also have the lowest rates of schizophrenia. " http://www.foreverfamilies.net/xml/articles/benefitsofmarriage.aspx

Before I look through all of those fine links, can you tell me if one of those sites tells you that the majority of single people are deranged criminals?

Before I look through all of those fine links, can you tell me if one of those sites tells you that the majority of single people are deranged criminals?

None, I never stated or intentionaly applied that, I only said that un-married people or more likely to kill themselves or be criminals.

Who paid for the studies that showed it, or all of those "facts" about marriage based entirely upon the opinions of authors with no actual evidence to back them up?

OOC: I'm skeptical of accepting anything from an organization called "The Institute of American Values". As a pro-marriage movement, it obviously will have a pro-marriage slant in any of its findings. It can claim to be nonpartisan all it wants, but the truth is that it isn't.

OOC: I'm skeptical of accepting anything from an organization called "The Institute of American Values". As a pro-marriage movement, it obviously will have a pro-marriage slant in any of its findings. It can claim to be nonpartisan all it wants, but the truth is that it isn't.

and would you like to give some non biased prrof other wise, or any surveys at all that state otherwise?

I don't know that much about the subject, but that fact is irrelevant. The fact still remains you're quoting a heavily-biased source, and thus the evidence provided is not as valid as it could be because it is slanted to fit whatever bias they want. It doesn't matter that it may be the "only" evidence available- it still gets judged according to the same standards as any other evidence in any other field, and because of that, the evidence is flawed and I do not consider it binding.

I don't know that much about the subject, but that fact is irrelevant. The fact still remains you're quoting a heavily-biased source, and thus the evidence provided is not as valid as it could be because it is slanted to fit whatever bias they want. It doesn't matter that it may be the "only" evidence available- it still gets judged according to the same standards as any other evidence in any other field, and because of that, the evidence is flawed and I do not consider it binding.

Then you are a fool, because I put in very unbiased sources also, like the international poles that you asked for, and still a biased source is better than no source, which is what you have. To ignore such a widely accepted truth that is also simply logical, is just plain stupid. I just pulled off 4 or 5 of the first sources I found by Google, you can look in any text book or world almanac and find the same thing. To be so biased to your point of view that you ignore such obvious facts is not good debating policy.

Your sources, as listed so far, are not independent or covering multiple nations. They cover America and Australia, both of which are developed Western nations. Sorry to tell you, but the majority of the real-world nations are not western-style. If the only sources you can find only relate to Western nations, then an argument could well be made that it is something in the society, not the individual's state of marriage, that is at fault.
Indeed, I asked for international studies, which you have avoided. Unless the study is asking the same questions regardless of the nation, then it makes correlation difficult if not impossible. The results from one part of the earth can be vastly different to the results from another place.

[Edit]In particular, one wonders about societies where the concept of marriage does not exist. Are they all murderers and abusers?

Then you are a fool, because I put in very unbiased sources also, like the international poles that you asked for, and still a biased source is better than no source, which is what you have. To ignore such a widely accepted truth that is also simply logical, is just plain stupid. I just pulled off 4 or 5 of the first sources I found by Google, you can look in any text book or world almanac and find the same thing. To be so biased to your point of view that you ignore such obvious facts is not good debating policy.

Flaming. And not answering my questions. Also, Google isn't always the best way to find good sources.

Actually, what you posted isn't considered a truth, nor is it entirely "widely accepted." And looking in my psychology book from college does not state that marriage does any of that. And world almanacs are nowhere near scientific enough to count.

If the "facts" are "obvious," then why have I never heard them before from a source I know to be unbiased on this issue?

Then you are a fool, because I put in very unbiased sources also, like the international poles that you asked for, and still a biased source is better than no source, which is what you have. To ignore such a widely accepted truth that is also simply logical, is just plain stupid. I just pulled off 4 or 5 of the first sources I found by Google, you can look in any text book or world almanac and find the same thing. To be so biased to your point of view that you ignore such obvious facts is not good debating policy.

First of all, you are not the judge on how I view the source- I am; and, frankly, your source is incredibly biased. Thus, I am inclined not to believe it. Most pages on the Internet- including Wikipedia- are not good sources, for the sheer fact that just about anyone can put up a Web Page (in Wikipedia's case, it's the fact that it can be mercilessly edited at will and thus can- and, in my experience, does- contain errors (I had to correct something about my hometown listed in my location)). For informal research, the Internet can provide valuable material, but if you're looking to prove a point, you can't just take any Web Page and use it as evidence. In my 4th Year History course, my professor- as do all of my History professors- go to huge lengths to make sure that we are certain that we know where the source comes from as much as we know what's in it, so that we can learn any weaknesses the source contains. If it is a source- like the one you provided- that sets out to push a particular agenda it is not as good as an impartial source in that it has an extreme bias (the IAV may say it's nonpartisan but it still has an agenda to push).

Granted, almost any source has a kernel of truth in it, but when looking for information it's always about getting the best source, not the first ones that pop up; and the best sources are those that have the least amount of bias in them (every source has bias, and, furthermore, it's always better to get many sources than just one, and on both sides of the argument). The sources you have provided I do not believe are "authoritative" no matter who wrote them, and, if you want to convince me that you have a point, you need to find better, less-biased sources.

Your sources, as listed so far, are not independent or covering multiple nations. They cover America and Australia, both of which are developed Western nations. Sorry to tell you, but the majority of the real-world nations are not western-style. If the only sources you can find only relate to Western nations, then an argument could well be made that it is something in the society, not the individual's state of marriage, that is at fault.
Indeed, I asked for international studies, which you have avoided. Unless the study is asking the same questions regardless of the nation, then it makes correlation difficult if not impossible. The results from one part of the earth can be vastly different to the results from another place.

[Edit]In particular, one wonders about societies where the concept of marriage does not exist. Are they all murderers and abusers?

Marriage, in some form, is one of the few constants throught the world, and people who have no one to care for or be cared by or to be responsible for other people are far more likely to ingore do things that have serious reprocutions, like crimes, because of the thought that is popular even today that as long as something doesn't affect someone else it's okay. If you steal and are caught, it only affects you if you have no family, but if you do, they are greatly affected, make sense?

Also, I have not "avoided" international studies, I just went to the first few that popped up, and keep in mind that in nearly all non western countries that prostitution, divorse, and adultry, virtualy does not exist and is punishable by death. I also got my info out of my Sociology book, not my Psychology book that I did LAST semester, as in the study of a society as a whole instead of one person's mind which is Psychology. Also, why would it matter about the person's society, if they are more likely to commit crimes when not married or commit suicide, than how does a society affect that other than the things that a non-married person goes through that a married one does not? Anyway, more sources.

"In 2003 persons who had never married and those who were divorced or separated were victimized at higher rates for robbery and aggravated assault.

Never married persons were victimized at higher rates than married, widowed, and divorced/separated persons for violent crime overall. "
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

Is the U.S. Department of Justice inbiased enough for you?

"Nationally, seventy percent of youths incarcerated in state reform
institutions come from single-parent or no-parent homes. A survey of
juvenile delinquents in state custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than 1/6
came from intact families; over two-fifths were illegitimate"

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/society2.html

"In 2003 persons who had never married and those who were divorced or separated were victimized at higher rates for robbery and aggravated assault.

Never married persons were victimized at higher rates than married, widowed, and divorced/separated persons for violent crime overall. "
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

Is the U.S. Department of Justice inbiased enough for you?

Better, but the lack of facts doesn't make it a strong case in my eyes. For all I know, these "higher rates" could amount to no more than 0.00000001% more than married people, which is not a lot. Plus, it does not provide a ratio of how many single people get victimized vs. how many single people are around overall (and vice versa with married people), so I cannot verify how bad is the situation under the FBI's watch.

When my old nation was here before it got deleted because of idleness, I voted against legalize prostitution, now I will vote Yea for this proposal as it gives a chance to repeal one of the closest resolutions in NS History.

It does look as though it is going to be one of the closest votes. Some of the others looked like:

The 40 Hour Workweek: 8,637 to 8,526
Legalise Euthanasia: 10,810 to 10,031
Universal Freedom of Choice: 9,314 to 8,213
The GenetiCorp Convention: 5,415 to 6,992

Over 20,000 people voted on legalize prostitution and it was passed by only 700 votes, 700 VOTES! this undouldably makes it the closest resolution of our time and thus, because the times have changed, we need to take a new vote, based on the new U.N. population wether this unholy resolution stays or goes

I can see this resolution going either way. For many students I believe school just started or will next week after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. So I'm not sure how many nations are around right now. Since Christmas NationStates as a hole and the UN have been loosing members in rapid numbers. But I would not be surprised if now that students are returning to college if more nations don't join.

And how they will vote is uncertain to me, but I'll be interested in the results.

Marriage, in some form, is one of the few constants throught the world, and people who have no one to care for or be cared by or to be responsible for other people are far more likely to ingore do things that have serious reprocutions, like crimes, because of the thought that is popular even today that as long as something doesn't affect someone else it's okay. If you steal and are caught, it only affects you if you have no family, but if you do, they are greatly affected, make sense?

But marriage customs themselves are not universal. What are good customs in one region are strange in another.

Also, I have not "avoided" international studies, I just went to the first few that popped up, and keep in mind that in nearly all non western countries that prostitution, divorse, and adultry, virtualy does not exist and is punishable by death.

Okay, where the hell are you getting that from? Also, your sources didn't even cover all western nations. You might want to read this thread before posting that.

Also, I want a source for that claim.

I also got my info out of my Sociology book, not my Psychology book that I did LAST semester, as in the study of a society as a whole instead of one person's mind which is Psychology.

Suicide and other such things are psychological concerns primarily. It would make sense to rely on psychology to provide the actual answers.

Also, why would it matter about the person's society, if they are more likely to commit crimes when not married or commit suicide, than how does a society affect that other than the things that a non-married person goes through that a married one does not?

You have not shown it to be universal. In fact, you have shown it as existing in a minority of a minority of societies, which makes it more of a local issue those nations should be dealing with than an actual fact of marriage in general.

"In 2003 persons who had never married and those who were divorced or separated were victimized at higher rates for robbery and aggravated assault.

Never married persons were victimized at higher rates than married, widowed, and divorced/separated persons for violent crime overall. "
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

Is the U.S. Department of Justice inbiased enough for you?

"Nationally, seventy percent of youths incarcerated in state reform
institutions come from single-parent or no-parent homes. A survey of
juvenile delinquents in state custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than 1/6
came from intact families; over two-fifths were illegitimate"

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/society2.html

Once again, local focus. Get an international focus. Arguement denied due to lack of evidence to support it.

:mp5: :sniper:

Personally, and speaking as a regional delegate, it is my/our stance that prostitution and all vices should be regulated by the various states/countries, not by the world body. As a supporting question for that...howinell is the UN going to enforce it's rulings on the topic if the individual countries/states have differing opinions?

Not relevant. Selling someone into anything is slavery, and is already covered by separate UN Resolution.




Due to space requirements, no resolution can cover everything - it is impossible. However, taken as a whole the present resolutions allow you to determine what is legal prostitution and what is not (Resolution:End Slavery, for example) There is also one against child labor under 18. You can enforce against both situations and remain in compliance.

National additional laws are always your own to make - or not make. Our point remains, a repeal of this resolution will not help anything it states it wishes to help. All it will do is make things worse.




Tha Canadian legal system is highly dependant of precedent. By precedent prostitution is not permitted. Many aspects of Canadian law are by precedent alone and not covered in the 1982 Constitution Act, BNA or other written acts.

Prostitution leads to disease, kidnappings, and murderer. Why vote against a repeal of a law that helps us prevent the killing of many,many people? Much prostitution is unprotected, leading to the spread of HIV and AIDS. This also includes other sexually transmitted disease.

Once again, local focus. Get an international focus. Arguement denied due to lack of evidence to support it.

You cannot deny an argument due to lack of evidence, D. You can't deny an argument at all, actually. You can refute it, but unless you have some sort of magical control over the forums there's no way you will cause it to go away. Also, he put forth actual, unbiased evidence of one country as a theoretical example - one of the major issues of the legalization of prostitution is that it might not work in all countries, remember? If it doesn't work properly in all nationstates, then we vote for a repeal so that each country can regulate prostitution as they see fit. That way the U.N. gains members and furthers its influence in important matters. The only resolution we vote AGAINST is one that bans prostitution outright, a theoretical fear that has yet to present itself in any form of physical evidence.

Prostitution leads to disease, kidnappings, and murderer. Why vote against a repeal of a law that helps us prevent the killing of many,many people? Much prostitution is unprotected, leading to the spread of HIV and AIDS. This also includes other sexually transmitted disease.
Incorrect. Prostitution can lead to disease, kidnappings and murder. But it does not have to. If it is illegal it is far more likely to lead to these than if it is legal, in my opinion. If you wish to, it is possible to regulate prostitution to protect the employees as well as the clients.

By legalizing prostitution it means they have the same rights and duties as other trades. This includes health and safety regulation. I agree that the resolution makes no mention of regulations, however, that isn't necessary in the same way that we don't need a resolution for the health of office workers.

I disagree that it's a rampant unregulated practice right now. Legalising prostitution in Groot Gouda has had a tremendously positive effect on health, with less STDs spreading each year. Prostitution may not be the most respected work, but the prostitutes union makes sure that prostitutes can work in a healthy, clean and safe environment. Working together with the police, housing coorporations and local welfare organisations, many old prostitution ghettos are renovated into more respectable looking night recreation areas. As the sex business realises that this increases respectability and income, they too are now investing more in their environment and in the health of their workers. Prostitutes are checked regularly on STDs and condoms are mandatory.

Without legalization, this wouldn't be possible. Without this resolution, many nations would never be able to follow this path to enlightenment.

(underline mine)

We disagree here.

It is not that they would not be able, but rather that they will choose not to, for the simple reason it is easier to "sweep something under the rug" then to face it. This is human nature. In the false belief of "if we don't see it, its not happening", or "if it's illegal, its not happening", they will condemn many and make the situation overall worse.

how does it feel to know that your mother sleep with your best friend? say no to prostitution! we just need more job opportunities!

My, that was... self-conflictory.

Already have. You can have the shots if you want, I can have my National Guard shooting every whore they find. Both of us are happy.

Actually, that would be against UN Resolutions as it is discriminatory against one segment of the population. :p

Prostitution leads to disease, kidnappings, and murderer. Why vote against a repeal of a law that helps us prevent the killing of many,many people? Much prostitution is unprotected, leading to the spread of HIV and AIDS. This also includes other sexually transmitted disease.

One word: Regulations.

I suggest you use them. It tends to help prevent that.

You cannot deny an argument due to lack of evidence, D. You can't deny an argument at all, actually.

Main Entry: de·ny
Pronunciation: di-'nI, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·nied; de·ny·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French denier, from Latin denegare, from de- + negare to deny -- more at NEGATE
1 : to declare untrue
2 : to disclaim connection with or responsibility for : DISAVOW
3 a : to give a negative answer to b : to refuse to grant c : to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4 archaic : DECLINE
5 : to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of
- de·ny·ing·ly /-'nI-i[ng]-lE/ adverb
synonyms DENY, GAINSAY, CONTRADICT, CONTRAVENE mean to refuse to accept as true or valid. DENY implies a firm refusal to accept as true, to grant or concede, or to acknowledge the existence or claims of <denied the charges>. GAINSAY implies disputing the truth of what another has said <no one can gainsay her claims>. CONTRADICT implies an open or flat denial <her account contradicts his>. CONTRAVENE implies not so much an intentional opposition as some inherent incompatibility <laws that contravene tradition>

I posted relevant definitions to my usage of it. So, yes, I can deny an arguement. In this case, I have a reason for it.

You can refute it, but unless you have some sort of magical control over the forums there's no way you will cause it to go away.

Where do you see evidence I'm trying to make it go away?

Also, he put forth actual, unbiased evidence of one country as a theoretical example - one of the major issues of the legalization of prostitution is that it might not work in all countries, remember?

The first portion of his evidence was biased, the second is from a nation that currently has it illegal anyway. If you are going to post unbiased evidence that it is causing problems while legal, you need evidence from a nation where it is actually or effectively legal in. The US is really not a nation for that.

If it doesn't work properly in all nationstates, then we vote for a repeal so that each country can regulate prostitution as they see fit. That way the U.N. gains members and furthers its influence in important matters.

The UN really isn't going to gain many members over this issue. The nations that oppose membership in it oppose it for far more reasons that just prostitution. After all, this is a group that redefined marriage. If a nation really opposes prostitution, all they have to do is legislate it in such of a way that it becomes effectively illegal while still being legal.

The only resolution we vote AGAINST is one that bans prostitution outright, a theoretical fear that has yet to present itself in any form of physical evidence.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the proposals section of the UN. Health is just the latest trend to hit it, but many in the past called for it to be outlawed.

Also, go back a few pages and find my arguement about creating a proposal that includes banning it in the proposal. PC and I had a bit of a discussion about that. I think it's in the early 30s when it comes to page.

Prostitution Should Remain Legal. The Practice Is Safer And Healthier When Regulated. And If "buying" Is Legal, And "Sex" Is Legal, Then "Buying Sex" Should Be Legal.
Please Vote Against The Repeal.
The Free Land Of Elesdia Thanks You
How many times have we shot this down? Won't you people shut up with this one?

You haven't "shot it down" yet.

You've given an irrelevant arguement about drinking and driving - which by no stretch of the imagination is similar. This is the same as stating "You wore a hat, Lee Harvey Oswald wore a hat, you shot the JFK".

When you actually have an arguement against the selling of self, please post it. Til then, it remains a thorn in your arguement.

Thats not flaming, you havent seen my other posts. Besides, dissing the newbies is a good way to let out the frustration of arguing with those who actually know what they're talking about, you should try it (seppuku is exceptionally fun).

No, it's a good way to get banned.

:headbang:

I'm saying the point of the choise. The FOR side is using choise, and its been shot down on the AGAINST side. We want to choose weather we can have it illegal or not.

The answering point to this is that many of us believe the right to have consensual sexual relations with certain strings attached should be universal, above the realm of national sovereignty.

*adds "Favored Nation Trade Status" to notations about Enn*

;)

I already said that I would do that if it was not, but the point is that on certain issues that depend on a certain nation's moral views and do not affect other nations, should not be decided upon by a group of nations (the UN) but each nation for itself. If such issues are decided upon by the UN, then any issue can be, and that would lead to one large country, which is not the point of the UN. The UN is so that nations do not fight each other, but instead can help each other and do things for the good of all, not infringe upon each sovereign nation's rights.

Haven't been here long, have you?

Um, no. Some people in this world still do have morals and believe in good and dont want sluts running around the street corners. Also, all studies prove that the bigger the family, the lower the crime and suicide rates. Like a person who is single, is far more likely to commit a violant crime or commit suicide, and be a far less productive member of society, while a person who is married, and has children, will be far, far less to kill themselves or commit a crime and is far more likely to keep a real job. So, people being married and having families instead of singles running around and sleeping around is in the best interest of everyone.

You miss a huge point, Ciata. And you underline one of the oppositions.

Illegalizing prostitution will not "make it go away". It will push it underground, where it will fester.

And your statistics are wrong. According to the stats held by a Nevada brothel, the majority of its clients are married, not single. So you will have to show proof that "Marriage = Fidelity"; we have never discovered such a thing to be true on the basis of that one act.

Yes, morals, like it's wrong to kill someone, or steal, or rape, y'now, things like that, and it doesn't matter if people are "married" if one of them is still a prostitute, they doesn't qualify as a stable marriage that brings all the benefits I listed.

Again, are you aware that those who marry ex-prostitutes (male and female) for the most part report more stable marriages, as their partner is (a) far more experienced in sexual relations and (b) far less likely to "cheat"?

Is the U.S. Department of Justice inbiased enough for you?

Considering who is President, their value system, and their influence on all reports, no.

DONT REPEAL IT. PLEASE!!!!

or i will :sniper: you


if it stays, people will be :) because of :fluffle:

DONT REPEAL IT. PLEASE!!!!

or i will :sniper: you


if it stays, people will be :) because of :fluffle:

1) We don't respond well to physical threats.

2) Smileys don't help your arguement any.

3) No evidence, no proof, just basically a threat combined with a plead and an unsupported comment.

4) Please stand in front of this window while I give you a few pointers on how to do it better. Yes, that's it. The breeze is to help me think.

:Shoves the Thrifio delegate out of the window before he has a chance to react, watching with a sort of perverse pleasure as he plummets to the ground and his death:

Much better.

1) We don't respond well to physical threats.

2) Smileys don't help your arguement any.

3) No evidence, no proof, just basically a threat combined with a plead and an unsupported comment.

4) Please stand in front of this window while I give you a few pointers on how to do it better. Yes, that's it. The breeze is to help me think.

:Shoves the Thrifio delegate out of the window before he has a chance to react, watching with a sort of perverse pleasure as he plummets to the ground and his death:

Much better.

*presents DLE with bill for one car, new, without sunroof*

And there was a two liter of soda in there, too. Well, before he hit it there was. Now there's a splatter.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a delegate out of leather seats?

*presents DLE with bill for one car, new, without sunroof*

And there was a two liter of soda in there, too. Well, before he hit it there was. Now there's a splatter.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a delegate out of leather seats?

Don't worry. Your bill is being radioed to the DLE homeworld. You should have a new car within a week of the bill being recieved.

:Shoves the Thrifio delegate out of the window before he has a chance to react, watching with a sort of perverse pleasure as he plummets to the ground and his death.

Here's a better word:

de·fen·es·trate
Pronunciation Key (d-fn-strt)
tr.v. de·fen·es·trat·ed, de·fen·es·trat·ing, de·fen·es·trates

To throw out of a window.

I do not support this repeal. A vote for this proposal is a vote for fascism.

But everybody voting is a president/dictator, so they can already get it free, because politics works that way

I mean they vote for OOC reasons. In OOC, they definitely cannot...Unless they are a pimp, of course! ;)

I like mine better. "Arguement defenestrated" doesn't quite have the same feel as "Arguement denied."

I do not support this repeal. A vote for this proposal is a vote for fascism.

What the heck?! It's the opposite!

Giveing people the right to decide what they can do in their own country is NOT fascist!

I like mine better. "Arguement defenestrated" doesn't quite have the same feel as "Arguement denied."

LOL!

What the heck?! It's the opposite!

Giveing people the right to decide what they can do in their own country is NOT fascist!

That's leading to democracy, and the UN is a good example of why that's bad.

GTA Forums regional delegate The Great Sixth Reich offically votes FOR the repeal.

Don't worry. Your bill is being radioed to the DLE homeworld. You should have a new car within a week of the bill being recieved.

:rolleyes: Ten billion years is not quite the timeline I had in mind...

I like mine better. "Arguement defenestrated" doesn't quite have the same feel as "Arguement denied."

Look:

defenestrate

v : throw through or out of the window; "The rebels stormed the palace and defenestrated the President"

GTA Forums regional delegate The Great Sixth Reich offically votes FOR the repeal.

What a shock.

As many nations here think this is not a business of the UN, countries have to decide this one for themselves, we say it is not a business of the governments to prohibit prostitution. Sex workers have human rights too. See Asia Pacific Women's Meeting Declares: Recognize the Work, Dignity and Human Rights of Women in Prostitution (http://http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/008.html). Prohibition will NEVER work. Alcohol prohibition didn´t work too. To the contrary, "it was a miserable failure on all counts".

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.
Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html)

:rolleyes: Ten billion years is not quite the timeline I had in mind...

Takes longer than that. It has to be redirected past a few black holes.

If you wish, we can send it through normal channels. However, it has to be translated into Sarkarasetan, approved by a bunch of desk workers as worthy of being approved by those higher up, approved by the AIs, approved by the Ministress of Defense, put on the schedule for international relations issues (currently postponed indefinitely due to an upcomming war we are preparing for), and then dealt with whenever Enigma decides he feels like dealing with international issues (he happens to have all of the government's money, being as he is the entire government). The radio signal is quicker.

While you wait, feel free to use a DLE vehicle. They're the ones that use the helicopter landing pads and tend to drive the local airports nuts. Just be careful of the turbo button, as I don't know how well you can react to obsticles at Mach 16.

As many nations here think this is not a business of the UN, countries have to decide this one for themselves, we say it is not a business of the governments to prohibit prostitution. Sex workers have human rights too. See Asia Pacific Women's Meeting Declares: Recognize the Work, Dignity and Human Rights of Women in Prostitution (http://http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/008.html). Prohibition will NEVER work. Alcohol prohibition didn´t work too. To the contrary, "it was a miserable failure on all counts".

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.


Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html)

Precisely.

If the "moralists" hadn't attempted to legislate morality, organized crime would never have existed. Alcoholism would not have existed. Drug use would never have reached these heights. Smuggling in America would not have a foothold. Likely, hemp would never have been illegalized.

But no. "We do it for the moral good" - and the result was immorality and corruption on a scale unimagined before.

Ah well. Those who do not listen to history are doomed to repeat it.

Originally Posted by Mobile Suits
Originally Posted by Elesdia
Prostitution Should Remain Legal. The Practice Is Safer And Healthier When Regulated. And If "buying" Is Legal, And "Sex" Is Legal, Then "Buying Sex" Should Be Legal. Please Vote Against The Repeal.
The Free Land Of Elesdia Thanks You

How many times have we shot this down? Won't you people shut up with this one?



You haven't "shot it down" yet.

You've given an irrelevant arguement about drinking and driving - which by no stretch of the imagination is similar. This is the same as stating "You wore a hat, Lee Harvey Oswald wore a hat, you shot the JFK".

When you actually have an arguement against the selling of self, please post it. Til then, it remains a thorn in your arguement.

Did I make the Drinking and Driving analogy? Or did mobile suits... it has been awhile since I posted last and do not remember (regional affairs). It seems like something AP would throw out there for others to mull over.

Any way, such an anology is based on the right to conduct two legal acts mutually exclusively. The right to conduct the acts in tandem is denied when excercising those rights in unison causes an increased risk to the health and safety to others.

On Resolutions:
A resolution outlining driving under the influence as being illegal by its language sets forth the need to set a threshold for what constitutes being under the influence (regulation).

The resolution outlining that prostitution is to be legal out of economic neccesity contains no language requiring further regulation. It simply states the act is legal because the person needs a job.

Can regulations be imposed?
A drinking and driving resolution limits rights to conduct an act via legislation that requires regulation defining the terms of the act. Definitions proffered could be subject to judicial review, etc. The point being regulations are either contained within or necessitated by the resolution.

Is it legal for any government in the UN to impose health regulations on prostitutes, or other regulations? That is debatable. Any further regulation mandating a higher standard of care for prostitutes could be deemed illegal. As, the resolution outlines the right to partake in the profession. Regulations could be deemed an infringement on that right.

Why do you need regulations?
Choosing to drive under the influence impairs judgment and slows reaction time. Leading to greater risk of an accident.

The economics of prostitution under the current resolution make it such that persons are prostitutes out of economic necessity. Choosing such a profession under such conditions (assuming fee per consultation) means that to maximize revenues there must be an increase in the number of services provided. This means making personal sacrifices so as to ensure maximum work time availability. This means increased chance of exposure to disease and possibility of spreading contracted diseases.

Excercising health care is not required, nor is disclosure of sexual diseases. Such regulations could be argued against as outlined above- with infections from diseases to be classified as battery in some nations on the part of the prostitute who chooses not to disclose the infection (Freedom of Choice 5a).

A better written resolution expressly clarifying member states ability to regulate the industry is necessary.

This could go on, it is late and will stop there for now...

Have fun,

AP

(liked the Oswald analogy, but it does not follow the same stream as the drinking and driving analogy:p)

Hmm... sidenote: Legalized substance abuse cause more deaths in America than illegal substance abuse.

Alcoholism and abuse of the substance was a leading argument for prohibition. So I do not follow how prohibition created alcoholism.

Organized crime also existed prior to prohibition.

As a wise man from these parts once said," How can something that's perfectly legal to give away in the first place be illegal? Selling is legal, sex is legal, how can selling sex be illegal?".

The mind boggles.

Hmm... sidenote: Legalized substance abuse cause more deaths in America than illegal substance abuse.

Alcoholism and abuse of the substance was a leading argument for prohibition. So I do not follow how prohibition created alcoholism.

Organized crime also existed prior to prohibition.

Prohibition did not CREATE alcoholism. It was there BEFORE. And it´s evident that alcohol causes more deaths in the US since alcohol is the drug traditionally consumed by a majority in the US, not opium. And prohibition did NOT decrease alcohol consumption in the long run, only for a very short period initially. See: Figure 1 at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

And regarding organized crime see:
Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons. First, it can provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition--a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Did I make the Drinking and Driving analogy? Or did mobile suits... it has been awhile since I posted last and do not remember (regional affairs). It seems like something AP would throw out there for others to mull over.

Any way, such an anology is based on the right to conduct two legal acts mutually exclusively. The right to conduct the acts in tandem is denied when excercising those rights in unison causes an increased risk to the health and safety to others.

No, that's a moronic analogy on the level of "are you allowed because of your state to recklessly endanger nonconsenting others?" vs the stated analogy of "are you allowed to sell sex, if you allowed to sell and allowed to have sex?"

Cmon, you're better then that twaddle.

Hmm... sidenote: Legalized substance abuse cause more deaths in America than illegal substance abuse.

Alcoholism and abuse of the substance was a leading argument for prohibition. So I do not follow how prohibition created alcoholism.

Organized crime also existed prior to prohibition.

Well, no, alcoholism was not the leading arguement. Moralism was the leading arguement (see "the Temperance Movement").

Crime existed before Prohibition. However, it bloomed far beyond small time crime due to the nature of creating a need everyone wanted, but was suddenly illegal. Because of the immense growth factor, organization became necessary in the US - and Organized Crime in the US was born.

If you are speaking of "outside the US" - well, DUH, but always in response to the same set of circumstances.

Hmm... sidenote: Legalized substance abuse cause more deaths in America than illegal substance abuse.

Alcoholism and abuse of the substance was a leading argument for prohibition. So I do not follow how prohibition created alcoholism.

Organized crime also existed prior to prohibition.

Before Prohibition, alcoholism was a small problem. Social pressure controlled it.

During Prohibition, suddenly it was "illegal". This increase manyfold how many people wanted it ("forbidden fruit"). It also brought about the mixed drink, which hid the amount of alcohol being consumed, making the problem far worse; and it increased the number of women who consumed alcohol.

Afterwards, there were far more alcoholics then before; public health had gone down the toilet, as along with Prohibition came the Drunk Driver in droves. Where before - when alcohol was legal - help could be gotten, during it was impossible to get. So, after, there were more problems then could be confronted in any reasonable manner.

You'll have to point out anywhere that Prohibition made any part of alcohol better. It decreased knowledge, it decreased visibility, it decreased societal pressure not to imbibe, it VASTLY increased money to Organized Crime (Capone alone made over $100 Million per year. That is roughly equivalent to Two Billion, Five hundred Million in modern equivalents. And that is PER YEAR of just him!).

Without the huge influx of money, the Corruption present to this day in Chicago and the USA would not have been possible.

So, do point out how Prohibition did a whit of good?

The same goes for Prostitution. Excluding the slave trade and the child trade, the average prostitute is worth over $100,000 per year in tricks. Heck, at $100 a trick, thats only 1000 tricks in a year.

Let's use some real world figures to demonstrate what is being provided to Organized Crime.

Mustang Ranch in 1990 had a tax billassessed against it for $7.3 million. That is at the 38% bracket, of 45% of earnings. So we can assume an income of roughly $42 million. That's with 12 "workers" registered. So each earned approximately $3.5 million per year for the house. And that's the guess the IRS on the income of Joseph Conforte's Mustang Ranch. My estimate would have been far higher.

Exactly how does funnelling all of this income to Organized Crime help anyone?

Any questions?

And about "Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada" - found this article, rather interesting. (http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/vancouver_97/vansun-970218.html)

1. It is legal to have sex.

2. It is legal to sell services.

Therefore there can be no logical reason you can't sell sex. There is nothing else in existance that is illegal to sell, but perfectly legal to give away.

I do not support this repeal. A vote for this proposal is a vote for fascism.


Oh golly gee, since I'm a communist, I'd better change my vote... pronto... :rolleyes:

And about "Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada" - found this article, rather interesting. (http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/vancouver_97/vansun-970218.html)

Vastiva quotes the source above:

In that time period 2,045 men were charged with communicating for the purpose of prostitution, but only 44 repeated the offence, said Lowman. However, the recidivism rate for prostitutes was approximately 80 per cent, he said.


Interesting isn't it Vastiva. If prostitution is legal in Canada, why are those who purchase it being arrested? Why are the police 'no longer' going after the prostitutes themselves and trying a new strategy in Vancouver (only one city)? Right, so if you insist that prostitution is legal, then the prostitutes can't really be prostitutes then if no one is allowed to buy their services..... interesting.
If you understand a nation like Canada's system of law, then you will understand that most of Canada's constitution (laws) are not actually written, but set by precedent.

Sai

You should just go through with this repeal, and let the UN member nations decide for themselves what they shall do, ban prostitution, legalize it, or legalize it and regulate it. I'm going with the ban, but thats just me... If this is passed, everyone else can do whatever they want on this issue. This is a repeal of 'Legalized Prostitution', not a law that says 'Ban Prostitution'.

You guys are freakin perverts! God... Well, I guess that's the 21st century for ya... :headbang:

What the heck?! It's the opposite!

Giveing people the right to decide what they can do in their own country is NOT fascist!

Incorrect. Repealing the resolution could lead to prostitution being made illegal in UN countries, and that leads to a more authoritarian and fascist state.

People are forgetting that right now every country in the U.N. has prostitution. This means that if you take away its legality and countries dont individually leaglize it, people will still practice it. The same thing happened in America with prohabition. It didnt work at all, in fact it made the situation worse by creating the mob, and distilled alcohol was often of too high a quality for bodies to handle. If we repeal the leaglize prostitution act then we will be making the workld a worse place, prostition will not go away, and any hope that we have of controlling it to ensure the righst of the prostitutes, or controll the spread of desease, will be lost.

Incorrect. Repealing the resolution could lead to prostitution being made illegal in UN countries, and that leads to a more authoritarian and fascist state.


Incorrect again. Just because a government decideds to outlaw something doesnt mean that they are authoritarian, that all depends on the make up of the government. In a democracy for example if the entire population voted and decided that they wanted to outlaw snicker because of a vaild reason, like it was making everyone fat, then that would be legitimate. Being authoritarion has nothing to do with the legality of prostitution, it is based on how that decesion will be made.

i think repeal this decision will allow more power over "sex frustrated" population. I see only this explaination. The others are wrong.

Help i need an english teatcher : we only speak "squeek language" in Free Rodent

Legalize prostitution!?! What the heck? THat's how the population of the world goes up and up and up! And abortion is just murdering a baby that isn't born yet, so that would be wrong, wouldn't it? OMFG WHAT IS WRONG!?!

I'm for this repeal on these grounds:

The UN is an authority created to govern international issues, such as trade, war, the enviroment, and global humanitarian concerns. The legality of prostitution is in no way an international concern. It should be individual countries' right to choose for themselves their own domestic policies.

prostitution is a job. Sex worker must be considered like any other worker. If peoples are so anti-prostitution it is because they cannot face their own sexuality (you know : sex is bad bad bad).
We must not mix everithing. Prostitution is a work. And all workers must have the same rights.
All ideas about, god, good or bad behavior, suposed dignity are not the subject.
Prostitution is the oldest work and will always exist. We muste face the obvious.

Haven't been here long, have you?

I've been here as long as you, just I have real friends, two jobs, college, and in short a life outside of this place. So I can't afford to post a hundred times a day or keep up with all the silly little politics like some people.

Again, are you aware that those who marry ex-prostitutes (male and female) for the most part report more stable marriages, as their partner is (a) far more experienced in sexual relations and (b) far less likely to "cheat"?

Now it's my turn to ask "prove it" because that just makes no sense. If a person has spent a good part of their life running around and sleeping with dozens of random people, I dont think they will all of a sudden be happy with one person and not cheat more than a person who has never been involved with multiple people sexualy.

Precisely.

If the "moralists" hadn't attempted to legislate morality, organized crime would never have existed. Alcoholism would not have existed. Drug use would never have reached these heights. Smuggling in America would not have a foothold. Likely, hemp would never have been illegalized.

But no. "We do it for the moral good" - and the result was immorality and corruption on a scale unimagined before.

Ah well. Those who do not listen to history are doomed to repeat it.

That is the mind set that makes me so mad. "If you cant stop it, then support it" Also, how can people standing up for morality cause more immorality? And duh, if you make everything legal there will be less crime. Also, to say that morality is the cause of smuggling and alchoholism is.....less than wise. True, if people were allowed to get anything they wanted, people wouldn't have to smuggle is, but then what would be the point of having laws at all? And how do laws like having a minimum age for buying alchohol cause more alchoholics? If something is hard to get that doesn't mean people will abuse it more and more and drink more and more.

Look a the societies today, and which ones are still standing? The ones who have some morals and do not let harmfull and sick practices run rampant. Which survived, the Third Reich and the USSR or the UK and the US, who up untill a few years ago at least held to some of the morals and values that they were founded upon. Which lasted longer, the Japanese empire or the Roman one? One that had strict codes of honor and morals, or the one that let all kinds of sins corrupt their society? Look at the nation of Israel, they have a history going back over 6 millinia, and they survived as a relatively small people because they held to morals and ideals that kept them from following the doom of the other nations around them that no longer exist. A lack of morals and lawlesnes leads to destruction and suffering, that is what history shows.

If prostitution is banned, I will withdraw from the united nations, and declare war on the entire world. *Evil laugh* If i cannot buy sex, then the united nations is not the place for me. If you ban this, I will give you all the finger, and then go buy sex... lots of sex. Peace and Love, class of '07.

prostitution is a job. Sex worker must be considered like any other worker. If peoples are so anti-prostitution it is because they cannot face their own sexuality (you know : sex is bad bad bad).
We must not mix everithing. Prostitution is a work. And all workers must have the same rights.
All ideas about, god, good or bad behavior, suposed dignity are not the subject.
Prostitution is the oldest work and will always exist. We muste face the obvious.

I face and oppose the obvious, that although it has been around for a very long time, so has murder and other things that most people stand against. I have nothing at all against sex, the Bible says that one of the very first things God told Adam and Eve to do was to have sex, the Bible says not to refuse you partner from sex unless for prayer or meditation. I just believe that the most intimate thing that two humans can share should only be shared between two people that are married to each other. I hold it much higher than most of you in that it is more important a symbol of unity between two people instead of just a pleasure (though it is).

If prostitution is banned, I will withdraw from the united nations, and declare war on the entire world. *Evil laugh* If i cannot buy sex, then the united nations is not the place for me. If you ban this, I will give you all the finger, and then go buy sex... lots of sex. Peace and Love, class of '07.

Whatever, the repeal will not outlaw it, only make it where each nation can either outlaw it or allow it.

Whether prostitution is illegal or not, it still will be a successful business. Consider the amount of money that is spent paying police officers to find, arrest, and process a prostitute compared to the fine of around $2,500 US it is actually causing a nation to loose money, and valuable policing time. Also consider the fact that this catch and release program for prostitutes have little to no effect to deter the sex trade industry, it is unreasonable to continue to consider prostitution as illegal on a purely economic platform.

Although prostitution has been stereotyped with images of abused women addicted to a variety of legal and illegal drugs, there is some truth to this aspect of the business. Many ‘Pimps’ who introduce women to the sex trade industry often abuse their women to maintain power over them to continue their cash flow. With legalization, we cannot ignore that this happens and must maintain a management over the prostitution industry – perhaps through a registration program of some sort.

As for the health issues, a Public Health Review of Chancroid from the World Health Organization stated:

“In Kenya, where the importance of chancroid in HIV transmission
was first described in the late 1980s, interventions targeting sex
workers and STD patients were implemented. Reported condom use
by sex workers has since increased to over 80% in project areas and
the incidence of genital ulcers has declined. Chancroid, once the most
common ulcer etiology, now accounts for fewer than 10% of genital
ulcers seen in clinics in Nairobi, Kenya.

In Senegal, HIV prevalence among pregnant women has been below
1% for more than a decade. A strong multisectoral response, an
effective STD control program and early legalization of prostitution have
been credited for this low level. Special clinical services, for example,
offer regular examination and treatment for registered sex workers. Not
only has there been a significant decline in STD rates among sex workers
and pregnant women between 1991 and 1996, but genital ulcers are also
no longer common and chancroid is reportedly rare.*"

Since the report from the W.H.O is in favour of legalization of prostitution to reduce the spread of STD's, it is obvious that forcing prostitution to be illegal actually helps the spread of diseases amoung the sex trade work force and the general population who uses their services.

:fluffle: I have voted against repealing the decision to legalize prostitution.



*Steen, R. (2001) Eradicating chancroid. Bulletin World Health Organization. 79(9): 818-826.

I I just believe that the most intimate thing that two humans can share should only be shared between two people that are married to each other. I hold it much higher than most of you in that it is more important a symbol of unity between two people instead of just a pleasure (though it is).
And what hapen to the people who never marry?
The people who never find someone "to share" . you know ugly, idiots, and people who does not have the luck to be "normal"??
They don't have the right to have sex?
And what about the people who does not share this religion?
I don't like this point of view. It's remind me the Spanish Inquisition

I face and oppose the obvious, that although it has been around for a very long time, so has murder and other things that most people stand against. I have nothing at all against sex, the Bible says that one of the very first things God told Adam and Eve to do was to have sex, the Bible says not to refuse you partner from sex unless for prayer or meditation. I just believe that the most intimate thing that two humans can share should only be shared between two people that are married to each other. I hold it much higher than most of you in that it is more important a symbol of unity between two people instead of just a pleasure (though it is).

Ah, yes. One of those.

The Bible says a lot of things. Included are telling you to stone people to death, exterminate people, and quite a few other horrors. And let's not forget the rampant genocides, wars, and items of perversity (such as incest) that show up in it. If you are going to use it, you must be aware of the entirety of what it says and that what it says is very, very damaging to its credibility in these circles. Besides, there are still unresolved questions as to whether or not certain humans editted the book to remove portions they didn't like or change portions to match their views. Part of what has to be struggled with is if the book you are quoting and the book originally set down as being The Bible are actually the same book, and if the people who set it down as The Bible were not actually editting out portions they felt did not match their agendas.

The question of whether the original book is holy is not what I am bringing up. What I am questioning is whether what you are reading is actually the original book. You must remember that humans are easily corrupted and not above changing things to suit them.

So, now that I've brought up the internal questions of whether what you are reading is the true text or something conciously perverted down through the centuries, let's move on to the rest of your arguement.

While a marriage of two people can be intimate, cannot a marriage of three be as intimate? Humans are by nature intimate creatures, though many species may vary in that, and they can make connections that go far beyond family among people not related by blood. And these days, people manage to live the close, intimate lives like being married without actually being such. Marriage is more of a tradition than a necessary institution.

And what hapen to the people who never marry?
The people who never find someone "to share" . you know ugly, idiots, and people who does not have the luck to be "normal"??
They don't have the right to have sex?
And what about the people who does not share this religion?
I don't like this point of view. It's remind me the Spanish Inquisition


I suppose us single, ugly, stupid people have to stick to vibrators and ShowCase after midnight. ;)

xxxProstitution is such a ridiculous thing: it ruins marriages, it spreads out HIV.
DOWN WITH PROSTITUTION
Lets hunt down and kill all those "obsene workers" BUUUURN THEM!!!!!!!!

The Confederacy of COMUNI (Comandos Unidos) strongly suport this resolution. If we dont pass it, the world is doomed

SEMPER FIDELIS

And what hapen to the people who never marry?
The people who never find someone "to share" . you know ugly, idiots, and people who does not have the luck to be "normal"??
They don't have the right to have sex?
And what about the people who does not share this religion?
I don't like this point of view. It's remind me the Spanish Inquisition

Well, for each ugly or stupid man as you put it, there is an ugly or stupid woman to match, though it is a crude way of putting it. Also if you are a Christian then you believe that God has someone special for you. Almost all established religions honor marriage.

Ah, yes. One of those.

The Bible says a lot of things. Included are telling you to stone people to death, exterminate people, and quite a few other horrors. And let's not forget the rampant genocides, wars, and items of perversity (such as incest) that show up in it. If you are going to use it, you must be aware of the entirety of what it says and that what it says is very, very damaging to its credibility in these circles. Besides, there are still unresolved questions as to whether or not certain humans editted the book to remove portions they didn't like or change portions to match their views. Part of what has to be struggled with is if the book you are quoting and the book originally set down as being The Bible are actually the same book, and if the people who set it down as The Bible were not actually editting out portions they felt did not match their agendas.

The question of whether the original book is holy is not what I am bringing up. What I am questioning is whether what you are reading is actually the original book. You must remember that humans are easily corrupted and not above changing things to suit them.

So, now that I've brought up the internal questions of whether what you are reading is the true text or something conciously perverted down through the centuries, let's move on to the rest of your arguement.

While a marriage of two people can be intimate, cannot a marriage of three be as intimate? Humans are by nature intimate creatures, though many species may vary in that, and they can make connections that go far beyond family among people not related by blood. And these days, people manage to live the close, intimate lives like being married without actually being such. Marriage is more of a tradition than a necessary institution.

God told the Israelites in the old testiment to make sure they wouldn't get wiped out in return, and so that their immoral culture would not infect them.

Though some argue otherwise, Christianity is based on the new testiment, and the new testiment revokes the ideas of revenge, hate and violence and opens salvation up to all people and not just a chosen people. That is why many Christians including me do not believe in war or with me the death penilty, because every person should be saved and recieve the hope and joy we have.

Oh I know it has been altered over the years, leading to many of the errors in the King James Version, and that is why Christian colleges dont use King James Version any more, but only new translations that are coppied from the earliest known manuscripts, and there are over a dozen major differences, and why I have it in it's original languages to get the real meaning.

You cant have two masters, you love one and hate the other or hate one and love the other, and you cant bond the same with two people or truly share your heart with two instead of another.

I suppose us single, ugly, stupid people have to stick to vibrators and ShowCase after midnight. ;)

No, they can stick to real friends, people who love them despite the way they look or think, and someone out there is bound to be a match for them, either like them, or opposite in ways that complements them. I've never held and physical standards for looks for the person I'm going to marry, looks fade, but if you marry someone for their gorgous heart, that will make you happy for the rest of your lives, day in day out in ways that a sex partner cant fulfill.

Prosturion is agood part of sciotey and the worlds oldest profesion don't take it away now to do that corectly ud need atime machine

Prosturion is agood part of sciotey and the worlds oldest profesion don't take it away now to do that corectly ud need atime machine

And you need an English class, or a spell checker. I dont think that it is the world oldest profesion, things like gardening, making tools, and hunting probably came first. Also, the earliest forms of prostitution probably came at a time where woman were little more than slaves anyway and that wouldn't count as a profesion.

prostitution is a job. Sex worker must be considered like any other worker. If peoples are so anti-prostitution it is because they cannot face their own sexuality (you know : sex is bad bad bad).
We must not mix everithing. Prostitution is a work. And all workers must have the same rights.
All ideas about, god, good or bad behavior, suposed dignity are not the subject.
Prostitution is the oldest work and will always exist. We muste face the obvious.

Sex isn't bad to a Muslim. It's quite good, when in the confines of marriage. Prostitution is a horrible crime, and it's not up to you to legalize it in my country, especially when the majority of my people, being Muslims, would not stand for that. You can't just automatically assume everyone is amoral like yourself. My nation does not have separation between religion and government, and even if it did, religion influences the decisions of everyone who has one. That's why prostitution is not legal in the US, because most people don't agree with it, and the main reason for it is their religion.

Thank the Lord, someone on my side for once. It is the same in my country, where there is no distinction between faith and politics. If you have true faith it affects every part of your life. To us prostitution is as much a real job as being a hitman. I find it very ironic that the same philosophy that demands that everyone's rights must be adhered to and people must be free to do whatever they want for the most part, also heavily oppreses and dismisses the religious rights and wishes of people. Talk about hypocrites.

Thank the Lord, someone on my side for once. It is the same in my country, where there is no distinction between faith and politics. If you have true faith it affects every part of your life. To us prostitution is as much a real job as being a hitman. I find it very ironic that the same philosophy that demands that everyone's rights must be adhered to and people must be free to do whatever they want for the most part, also heavily oppreses and dismisses the religious rights and wishes of people. Talk about hypocrites.

My thoughts exactly. If someone wants to legalize it in their country, that's all well and good for them. But I don't think my nation should have to comply with resolutions which can directly come in conflict with religion, which is not just a faith but a way of life for Muslims. I might not agree with certain economic or environmental regulations, but they do not challenge the basic beliefs of my people.

Maybe I'm just a flip-flopper ;). I don't think i shot down your argument, seppuku. As for your statement, Ciata, you think that people would marry a prostitute if he/she didn't like her profession, yet understood she/he was going to stick with it? People who would marry prostitutes would understand what they're getting into, and they could either decide that the spouse who was engaged in prostitution should quit, or that it wasn't all about the sex.

At least they wouldn't have to worry about STD's, since I'd hope a medical program would be set up where they received monthly check-ups for those things.

*sees little shards of his arguement all over the place*

Maybe I can get the king's horses to put it back together again!

But, on a more serious note, can we all not bring religon into this, it has nothing to do with it.

If it were: 1 religon per country resolution, than religon is important there.
It's not here.

This is not a question of religon.

Legalizing something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing; it merely means that one is allowed to do something if one so wishes. It's legal for you to cut off your own fingers if you really want too, but by no means is it encouraged. If someone tried to pass a law that made it illegal for you to cut your own fingers off (even though it would definitely be for your own good), I'm sure most of us would oppose that measure quite fiercely. Prostitution is outside of the UN's jurisdiction, and should be left up to individual nations. Personally, I would legalize prostitution, but I'd still strongly discourage it (much like I would strongly discourage cutting off your own fingers for no particular reason).

So, therefore, we should NOT repeal the old resolution.

So, therefore, we should NOT repeal the old resolution.

lol, I guess I should have said that explicitly somewhere...

People only read short posts anyway.
Just bold what you mean at the bottom of your posts or something, it'd help browsers.

My thoughts exactly. If someone wants to legalize it in their country, that's all well and good for them. But I don't think my nation should have to comply with resolutions which can directly come in conflict with religion, which is not just a faith but a way of life for Muslims. I might not agree with certain economic or environmental regulations, but they do not challenge the basic beliefs of my people.

Everyone who believes this way has no place in the United Nations. The point of this orginization is to protect the rights of the citizens from governments that want to restrict people rights. You say that everyone in your country believes, which shows that you are supressing the minority to the point that you will not even recgonize them. This is evil in one of the highest forms. It is this line of thinking that makes genocide possible. You forget that all of "your" people do not necessarily believe the same as you do, and if they dont you cannot presecute them for it. If you dont feel like complying with the U.N. resolutions then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

As much as I want to agree with that, I do know the UN is what the people say it is.

But everything else you said is pretty much right.

So, therefore, we should NOT repeal the old resolution.

It should be repealed. If you want to legalize it, that's your decision. But, it's immoral in the eyes of many, including myself. You're naive if you think religion doesn't play a role. Cutting off one's fingers is stupid, but not immoral to most people. Some Christians would even say that if your fingers cause you to sin, cut them off. In any case, obviously the people want it repealed. It was passed originally, but that was almost a year ago, and we have new nations now, and perhaps the ones who voted for it at first found that the author of the repeal made their case. It's your decision whether or not to legalize it, and that's how it should be. It shouldn't be forced on me. By legalizing it, you ARE encouraging it. I'm not naive to believe that prostitution wouldn't go on just because it's illegal, but legalizing it just makes it so more people wouldn't have fear of doing it. Like I said, I find it immoral. You can't just legalize things you want to because you feel religion shouldn't play a role. Religion does play a role, and discriminating against it is the same as discriminating against people who want things like gay marriage, prostitution, etc. In the end, it comes down to a nation voting, not the UN. And whatever side wins, wins. There will always be losers, which sucks. The only exception to this is when the Constitution is being violated. You cannot violate a Constitution of a government even if the majority of the populatio says its ok (like now in the US for gay marriage; straight people can marry the person of their preference, so should gays according to the idea of equality, regardless of whether or not I agree).

It should be repealed. If you want to legalize it, that's your decision. But, it's immoral in the eyes of many, including myself. You're naive if you think religion doesn't play a role. Cutting off one's fingers is stupid, but not immoral to most people. Some Christians would even say that if your fingers cause you to sin, cut them off. In any case, obviously the people want it repealed. It was passed originally, but that was almost a year ago, and we have new nations now, and perhaps the ones who voted for it at first found that the author of the repeal made their case. It's your decision whether or not to legalize it, and that's how it should be. It shouldn't be forced on me. By legalizing it, you ARE encouraging it. I'm not naive to believe that prostitution wouldn't go on just because it's illegal, but legalizing it just makes it so more people wouldn't have fear of doing it. Like I said, I find it immoral. You can't just legalize things you want to because you feel religion shouldn't play a role. Religion does play a role, and discriminating against it is the same as discriminating against people who want things like gay marriage, prostitution, etc. In the end, it comes down to a nation voting, not the UN. And whatever side wins, wins. There will always be losers, which sucks. The only exception to this is when the Constitution is being violated. You cannot violate a Constitution of a government even if the majority of the populatio says its ok (like now in the US for gay marriage; straight people can marry the person of their preference, so should gays according to the idea of equality, regardless of whether or not I agree).

No, it's not.
Because, gay rights is letting something happen, and leaving something up to individual nations is NOT letting it happen.
The UN is made to force our belifs on each other. So, lets just discard that arguement, and use facts, and reasons that you think it's immoral. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

Everyone who believes this way has no place in the United Nations. The point of this orginization is to protect the rights of the citizens from governments that want to restrict people rights. You say that everyone in your country believes, which shows that you are supressing the minority to the point that you will not even recgonize them. This is evil in one of the highest forms. It is this line of thinking that makes genocide possible. You forget that all of "your" people do not necessarily believe the same as you do, and if they dont you cannot presecute them for it. If you dont feel like complying with the U.N. resolutions then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

What about the rights of others? It is my right for my religious laws to be followed in my religious country. It is my right to see that my government is followed the way it is set up. This is not the US, or Germany, or France. There is no separation of "church and state." It is my right not to see whores on the street when my religion and government forbid it. There is a difference in the right to whore yourself, and the right to live. The purpose of the UN is not to limit national sovereignty, but to intervene in issues which are pressing to the world. It is not their right to tell me whether or not what my people want is ok. No one is being deprived of life. And there is no persecution for any belief. You can believe anything you want to. I can believe I am allowed to kill people if I want to. It doesn't make it right. There is a point when the rights of minorities should be protected. They should be able to live without fear of persecution for whatever reason. They should not have to fear for their lives. However, the right to prostitute oneself is not an inalienable right in any government that I know of, and it most certainly isn't in mine. Notice how the resolution is winning? I don't think I will be leaving the UN anytime soon, but maybe if you feel so strongly about this absurd "profession" you should. Oh wait, it doesnt make illegal that right, does it? It allows nations to CHOOSE! Oh my, democracy, what an evil thing, as opposed to tyranny by the majority (when the resolution passed), which you were just condemning, except those "religious psychos" are wrong, and you're right, huh? Idiot.

No, it's not.
Because, gay rights is letting something happen, and leaving something up to individual nations is NOT letting it happen.
The UN is made to force our belifs on each other. So, lets just discard that arguement, and use facts, and reasons that you think it's immoral. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

For one thing, I am not a Christian, and have no ties to Mary Magdelene. For another thing, no where in any scripture does it say she was a prostitute. That is an assumption by someone (no one knows?) that gradually became accepted as fact. Do your research.

For one thing, I am not a Christian, and have no ties to Mary Magdelene. For another thing, no where in any scripture does it say she was a prostitute. That is an assumption by someone (no one knows?) that gradually became accepted as fact. Do your research.

I don't really care either, I'm a atheist.
But, again, relgion shouldn't matter.

*sees little shards of his arguement all over the place*

Maybe I can get the king's horses to put it back together again!

But, on a more serious note, can we all not bring religon into this, it has nothing to do with it.

If it were: 1 religon per country resolution, than religon is important there.
It's not here.

This is not a question of religon.

I dont know what you are talking about at the first part, but maybe it would help if you read the rest of the thread, like the part where I pointed out that to a person who has any real faith, it affects every part of their lives, including politics. You cant leave out another person's opinion because of their reason for believing it, a religion is a better reason to beieve something than most people have, like just because they fell like it. A person's religion is a major part of them that determines many issues, and you cant discard their opinion on those issues just because they have a real reason for believing it.

I dont know what you are talking about at the first part, but maybe it would help if you read the rest of the thread, like the part where I pointed out that to a person who has any real faith, it affects every part of their lives, including politics. You cant leave out another person's opinion because of their reason for believing it, a religion is a better reason to beieve something than most people have, like just because they fell like it. A person's religion is a major part of them that determines many issues, and you cant discard their opinion on those issues just because they have a real reason for believing it.


Religon isn't tangible, therefore isn't real, in my opinion.

I can't just leave out somebodies opinion, I'm just saying it shouldn't be.
Not that I can.
But I am.

Legalizing something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing; it merely means that one is allowed to do something if one so wishes. It's legal for you to cut off your own fingers if you really want too, but by no means is it encouraged. If someone tried to pass a law that made it illegal for you to cut your own fingers off (even though it would definitely be for your own good), I'm sure most of us would oppose that measure quite fiercely. Prostitution is outside of the UN's jurisdiction, and should be left up to individual nations. Personally, I would legalize prostitution, but I'd still strongly discourage it (much like I would strongly discourage cutting off your own fingers for no particular reason).

Actualy if you did that they would lock you up to keep you from hurting yourself if you did it on purpose.

And you agreed with me that the nations should choose and that we should repeal it.

Actualy if you did that they would lock you up to keep you from hurting yourself if you did it on purpose.

And you agreed with me that the nations should choose and that we should repeal it.

If it's legal, and you don't want it to be legal, leave the UN.

Everyone who believes this way has no place in the United Nations. The point of this orginization is to protect the rights of the citizens from governments that want to restrict people rights. You say that everyone in your country believes, which shows that you are supressing the minority to the point that you will not even recgonize them. This is evil in one of the highest forms. It is this line of thinking that makes genocide possible. You forget that all of "your" people do not necessarily believe the same as you do, and if they dont you cannot presecute them for it. If you dont feel like complying with the U.N. resolutions then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Who are you to say what the UN is for and who should be in it? The UN doesn't exist to make every nation in it a "perfect" democracy, every one like the other. No other nation has the right to decide on our spiritual matters.

Who are you to say what the UN is for and who should be in it? The UN doesn't exist to make every nation in it a "perfect" democracy, every one like the other. No other nation has the right to decide on our spiritual matters.

Unless you prostitute as a relgion, it isn't meddling with your spirituality.

If it's legal, and you don't want it to be legal, leave the UN.

You see I wont, unless this doesn't pass, because I have this thing about trying to change things that I feel are wrong and harm myself and others. I'm not a quiter like most people, if I was I'd be dead right now. I have this funny thing about not giving up, I guess it comes from being born not breathing, or being born with MD, or by growing up being locked out by others, or going through serious depression and other things you dont believe in. If i'm going to survive all I have, I'm going to use my life to change as much as I can, whether it's going to college (full paid), writting (being published in 4 books this year) or getting Eagle Scout at 13 or giving my life to minister to people like you. I dont quit, I dont leave, I dont give up. It's simply not in me. I believe what I believe and I have my convictions and I'll die before I turn my back on them or my Savior.