Personality

Uhhh gee, I can understand why you'd be concerned. O.o Why do women resort to this Tippelzone thing instead of working in the red light districts? And why are both methods legal, since the districts seem a hell of a lot safer for everyone involved?

To be allowed to work in a red-light disctrict, you have to follow a lot of rules. The prostitution rulebook is about 3 inches thick, and for a lot of women in difficult situations (drug addicts etc.), it's just too much to handle.

To work in a red-light district you also have to have a working-permit. Ih the Tippelzones you therefore find a lot of eastern european women.

The Tippelzones work as a way to keep the streets clean. The areas are usually reasonably well-lit, and there are roofs to stand under if it's raining. If they would illigalize the Tippelzones, these prostitutes will walk the streets like you see it in most cities, and this gives the police less control.

Women who work at the red-light district pay taxes etc. (it's considered a job), with women in the Tippelzones this is not the case.

Ok, so basically it's the lesser of 2 evils, I can understand that. It doesn't make it any less of a sad way to live, though.

Berkeley, California recently legalized prostitution.. I don't know to what extent (i.e. massage parlors, streetwalking, escort services, etc) though.

Has it ever struck anyone as odd that (in most places) it's only legal to be paid for sex if it's also being filmed? That's what porn movies are... (Yes, I have a twisted way of looking at things.)

In a lot of places, such as in Norway, it's not illegal to be a prostitute, but it's illegal to be the customer. It's based on the idea that one party is exploiting the other party's weakness/lack of judgement/desperateness.

You do make a good point, though. I think it's weird.

Actually, Berkeley rejected prostitution law changes that were on the November 2nd ballot. 'Measure Q' would have directed police to give enforcement of state prostitution laws their lowest priority, have required police to report any prostitution arrests to the City Council, and have directed the city to lobby for repeal of the state prostitution laws. Measure Q's supporters said it would help solve the problem by getting the sex workers off the streets and inside.

I have a theory about the reason why gay marriage is seen as a threat, and this is it. It has been shown scientifically that when shown films of gay men making out and such, homophobes get far more turned on than those who have no problem with it. And while most people dont care what other people do in the bedroom, homophobes are obsessed with the thought. It seems clear to me that homophobes are repressed homosexuals. Perhaps they live in a situation where they believe it is a sin, as Christianity does, and must deny it in order to respect themselves. In fact the internal battle against their own feelings is so strong that they want the support of the government in suppressing it. And so what is the threat gays pose to marriage? It is simply this:

If homosexuality were acceptable, then those homosexuals in a heterosexual marriage would have nothing to stop them from leaving their mate and finding a partner of the same sex.

In fact the irony is several layers deep. First, the most homophobic groups are likely to be filled with repressed homosexuals. They get together to take an internal battle and externalize it. And secondly, scientists have discovered a gene for homosexuality in rodents, and it seems to me likely there is one for humans as well. If so, and if ending homosexuality is their goal, there is nothing better they could do than to accept their homosexuality, marry someone of their own sex, and not have children.

As far as gay marriage leading to polygamy, that's an argumentative fallacy. I took an excellent class in college called Critical Thinking. In it we learned the art of argument and reason, and we learned each argumentative fallacy by name. The fallacy of denying a premise because it could lead to something, and that could lead to something- that's called the Slippery Slope fallacy. It doesnt address the issue at hand and has no true bearing on the argument.

In fact, watching the debates, it was like being on the sideline of an argumentative fallcy sporting event with the most popular fallacy being the Ad Hominem fallacy- attacking the argument maker, not the argument.

Bowchickawowers - I had heard it passed (not that it matters to me one way or another).. or maybe it was just 'ahead' at the polls when I went to bed that night.

Um, it sounds like you are saying all Christians are repressed homosexuals. I'm sure this isn't what you meant to say, so could you clarify?

I agree that arguing against legalization of homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would lead to legalization of polygamy is not sound reasoning. The point I was trying to make is that such a chain of events is not implausible. People usually attack the polygamy argument not by pointing out that it is irrelevant to the real moral issue, but by trying to deny that such a thing could happen.

One of my best friends was frighteningly homophobic right up until he came out. He so hated that part of himself and he was so worried that people might see it in him that he overcompensated by constantly bashing gays at every opportunity. Now that he's out he's much happier, much healthier, and is wants very much for it to be legal for him to marry his fiance. They'll be together no matter what, but there are legal protections that come along with a good legal marriage.

Certainly not every homophobe is a repressed homosexual, but that population definitely exists.

Maybe we should move this to seasons, since it's not about bots anymore...