MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

In Response to Wendy

January 5th, 2005 Visited 1171 times, 1 so far today

Wendy has had two comments that I thought justified a regular post instead of a tag back and forth or reply in the comments.

The first subject is the issue of God’s blessings versus the Tsunami.  I posted a thanks to God for being with us over the past year and for His blessing.  Wendy commented, “I guess you mean with the exception of the Tsunami victims…”

This type of question could also have been asked about 9/11 or any other event with mass loss of life.  The fact is, many people die every day– I would go so far as to say every hour– from all sorts of things. This doesn’t even attempt to take in the number of abortions performed!  Yet there is no similar question about the loss of life then?  If we started to put a limit on who could die and it would be just, we’d eventually get down to 0.

The point is, God did not create us to die, we chose to because of our sin.  We are constantly suffering from our decisions.  Now the fact that many died at the same time is a tragedy; however, God is just in how He deals with death and be it all at once, or few here and there, He is still just.  What is not just is when man takes another man’s life– and that is a different topic.

After reading and replying to her comment, I followed the link in the comment to her journal which supports the “decriminalization” of prostitution.  The current post discussed the pros of decriminalization, including the fact that prostitutes would be able to go to the police about misuse, better pay, better health coverage, etc.  I made the comment, in a tag, that we should also consider decriminalizing theft, since that would allow for people to have all they need…

I mean, think about it.  If theft were not a crime, those that were poor could simply take all they needed from the local store.  We would have no need of worrying about food stamps or other government programs to take care of the poor, they would have all they needed– we would eliminate poverty.  We’d also seriously cut down on worry about keeping up with the Joneses since we could always take what the Joneses had and they would not be able to do anything about it.  Need to get to work? Just take the car that’s sitting outside.  Need some money to send your child to school?  Go to the nearest bank.

Of course, you know I’m not serious, but it’s the same argument– and it’s being used over and over again to justify letting people do what they will, even if that means letting them do something morally wrong.  Abortion, Drug Use, Prostitution, the list goes on– since “people will do it anyway” and “if we made it legal, then we could control it…”  The logic is flawed, and that’s what I was attempting to illustrate with absurdity.

Now, someone could say, “Prostitution is my own body, whereas theft is doing something against someone else.”  However, prostitution involves at least two– and I highly doubt the prostitute checks to see if the
man is married, whether or not there are children involved, the background of the person that is paying, etc.  Since a sex act– criminal or not– can tarnish a person’s relationships (present and future), can ruin his business, etc., it does have an effect on them. This isn’t some fun extra-curricular activity we’re talking about– it’s sin.

Laws are society’s imposition of morals.  Right now, prostitution is illegal (except for some places in Nevada).  Even if it were made legal, it would still be immoral.

Comments

4 Comments

RSS
  • Wendy Miller says on: January 5, 2005 at 6:19 pm

     

    I was a little confused with all your chriten rambling, but I think I got some of it, and it is down right ludicris! Decriminalizing shop lifting wouldn’t ALIEVATE poverty it would reenforce it, because then the store owners would be poor etc. Prostitution is completly different. When to people engage in CONSENSUAL sex they are not hurting others, when someone robs they are physically taking something that is NONCONSENSUAL! You see what I mean? Now if that man has a wife, well then maybe they shouldn’t be married, I wouldn’t blame the pro because she would just be doing her job, but him, he on the other hand broke his marriage vows (which a lot of men do with women who arn’t pros), then well than he would deserve to have his wife leave him.

  • MInTheGap says on: January 6, 2005 at 8:24 am

     

    The basic core of your argument here, I believe, is that you believe prostitution to be harmless– or “not hurting others.” On this point is where I beg to differ. I’m going to leave alone, for the time being, the immorality of it, and just address the harm factor.

    For one, this “profession” does some harm to the institution of marraige. If “pros” were not available, it would be harder for committed men to cheat. The fact that sex was designed to be shared by a married couple, and that a person can get this for a fee from someone else means that there is an easy way to break the vow.

    It harms any children involved– if the child is of the “pro” when he/she learns about mother’s “profession” this child will most probably grow up with a warped understanding of sex, love and marriage. Sex will be a money maker, rather than the glue of a relationship.

    Sex harms the workers– whether they use protection every time or not, there is still the risk of STDs and pregnancy. Even in the porn industry they have this problem. There have also been interviews with both porn stars and “pros” that would not wish the profession on any of their children, or anybody for that matter.

    It also hurts the pro’s family in the fact that I can imagine the father who picks up the phone and asks the woman how her job is, and she says she’s a pro. That’s sure to make the parents feel great.

    Lastly, there is harm done in the fact that sex is supposed to be a part of a person that is very intimate and shared– by broadcasting it to everyone that a “pro” is willing to give it up for a fee, she is cheapening herself and everyone around her.

  • Wendy Miller says on: January 7, 2005 at 12:08 pm

     

    GAWD! Stop blaming women for the sins man creates! if there were no prostitutes a married man will find someone else to cheat on his wife with. Prostitutes don’t ruin a marriages, Married people ruin their own marriages!
    As well, who said sex is SUPPOSED to be intimate and for love? Catholics describe sex as what you should do to procreate, nothing their about love. Sex is different for different individuals, each person has their own view, and that view may be different but should be respected as well.
    As for the kid thing, when I found out that my dad fought in the Korean War I couldn’t talk to him,How could I associate with any one who volunteered to kill. Then he would talk about the innocent people they ‘acidentally’ killed. That is way worse then finding out that your parent not only had sex to get you but also has sex for money. I got over it and I’m sure other kids will too. Thats the great thing about kids, there resilient.

  • MInTheGap says on: January 10, 2005 at 8:21 am

     

    It may surprise you, but I agree that married people are the ones that ruin their marriages, and usually by the time it gets to adultry/prostitution it’s already been established. What I am saying is that I believe it’s easier to get a prostitute than it is to get someone to cheat with– though since I’ve never done either it’s an uneducated opinion.

    I’m not a Catholic, and don’t know what they stand for, so you could be right. The Bible is very clear about what sex is intended for. There’s a whole book of the Bible talking about the process of a couple making love. There’s commands in the New Testament refering to the fact that a married person’s body belongs to the other.

    There’s also this command: 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 – “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

    Conclusion: It is a sin against your body to “join it with a harlot”. Why? Because the joining was meant to be for marraige, two becoming one.

    As for children, I’m appalled that you are upset with your dad because he decided to defend his country. Your rights to hold your opinion exist because people gave their lives and took others– freedom isn’t free.

    As for children, looking at the current figures, they are a lot less resiliant than you think. Kids generally tend to follow in their parents footsteps, and I am an example! Not only that, there was an interview a while back when a porn queen was asked about her kids, and she hoped that they wouldn’t take the right course, but she realized the example that she put before them. Kids are not stupid (as your thing about the War proved), a

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: