what's wrong with legalizing prostitution?

I was asked if my position on legalized prostitution was thought out, or is it merely "knee-jerk conservatism?"

'Knee-jerk conservatism' is merely the proper and automatic recognition of right and wrong. All else is sophistry.

As for prostitution:

Prostitution is wrong because it spreads disease, both physical and moral.

There are many who, including those who were sex-trade workers, see prostitution as slavery.



Legitimizing the sex trade will also have the undesirable effect of making it more acceptable. Moral decay is a label that liberals usually equate with 'meaningless religious argument.' Then they stop paying attention. If you are honestly liberal in thought, you will consider this viewpoint even if it differs from yours. Sex is a part of the procreative act, designed for the perpetuation of our species. It leads to the creation of children who are best raised in a stable family environment of a Father and Mother. The most stable parenting arrangement in history is a Husband and Wife in a covenanted married relationship. It is morally repugnant for a society to encourage the destabilization of the family unit, in this case by making illicit sex licit.

Science has proved that there is no such thing as safe sex. Condoms were designed to prevent pregnancy. I remember reading reports of tests that showed the best Condoms have consistent failure rates as high as 20%. When you factor in all the various activities that can be included under the heading of 'intercourse' (Billy Clinton's bizarre definition excepted) the failure rates can approach 100%.

When you consider the incubation periods of some STDs you can see there is no such thing as a 'safe' sex-trade worker.

There is also the medical threat to the innocent. As a former reporter I've spoken with sex-trade workers, and they'll be the first to tell you a large percentage of their 'johns' are married men. The health of the wives of these married men is jeopardized by their mate's infidelity.

Government Regulation won't prevent STDs from spreading through the sex-trade either. Jurisdictions where prostitution is legal have umpteen regulations against unprotected sex. Yet I've read more than a few reports that unprotected sex is available for an extra fee in supposedly 'regulated' establishments.

It is repugnant for a pimp to benefit from the perverse thing that is the sex trade. Legalizing and taxing it merely makes the Government a pimp as well. If it is legalized, Every Government member who votes FOR this should be made to share a pooled blood transfusion from sex-trade workers.

legalized prostitution #2

A guy walks into a brothel and tells the madam he wants six girls for the evening. The next morning the madam informs the gentleman that there will be no charge. Very happy, he leaves. A few days later he returns, and again tell the madam that he would like six girls for the evening. In the morning the madam presents him with a bill for $1,000. Confused the man asks, ''I don' t understand, on Tuesday it was free.'' ''That's right,'' replies the madam, ''but on Tuesdays we're on cable.''

Last month I brought up this example of the evil combination of Big Government and it’s morally tin ear with legalized prostitution.

This month a few buttheads in the Liberal Party of Canada are trying to get the government to legalize prostitution. It's like their push to legalize marjiuana. They can wiggle and try to justify themselves all they want, but you can’t help but think a few of those moldy ex-hippies in caucus want to be able to toke up now and then. Likewise I think someone on Parliament hill can’t get laid at home, and wants to be able to legally buy it.

I swiped the joke from Roger.

Don't register with the Orlando Sentinel - They're Spammers

Hah! When I sent the email below the recipient's server (chicago tribune) rejected it as SPAM!

feedback@orlandosentinel.com

------------------------------


Dear Orlando Sentinel

I appreciate the service you provide, making your news articles available online. I registered in order to read your paper.

I do not appreciate receiving spam from advertisers who use your subscriber lists. I know they did, because their email said they had a special offer for subscribers to the Orlando Sentinel.

Our Free Press is part of the system of checks on Big Government that help maintain society's other freedoms. I expected that you, a member of America's media and beneficiary of the right to a free press, would respect my right to privacy and by extension, a SPAM FREE mail box. If the price to read your news articles is that I have to be spammed, you should have said so, and I'd have given you a throw-away email address for your throw-away mail.

Right now you rank down there with the purveyors of penis enlargers.

Sincerely,
Andrew (hamm172) Rondeau.

---------------------------

Paul Martin: anything but ballistic missiles?

Now that Canada is officially 'out' of the Ballistic Missile defense system, the Prime Minister has demanded that Canada be consulted before the Americans shoot down any incoming Ballistic missles over Canada. With virtually the same breath that he then claimed that Canada was still commited to Continental Defense and Norad.

???

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! Whooop Whooop Whooop!!!
Moonbat alert!

How can you be both for and against continental defense at the same time?

As for demanding the Americans consult with Ottawa before shooting down a missile... What if it's a Sunday? Or the middle of the night? Or Canada day? Or after 4:30pm on a weekday? All the government offices will be closed.

Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party's Foreign Affairs Critic, laughed it off too...
"These missiles are coming in at 4 kilometers ( 2.5 miles) a second, and if the president calls the 1-800 line and gets: `Press 1 if you want English, press 2 if you want French, press 0 if nobody's there ...' I mean, it's crazy."

A poke in America's eye

A month before budget day, the Canadian media carried stories that implied George Bush was “bullying” Canada into participating in missile defense. It’s clear that Canada’s Prime Minister is taking his foreign policy cues from the peace-loving, anti-american fellow travelers at the CBC.

At a funeral yesterday, I got in an argument with a couple of friends who were against missile defense, but clearly didn’t understand what it was. When I questioned their reasons, they had only the vague notion that missiles and America were bad. It sounded to me like they were listening to the CBC again.

As for Paul Martin and his Government, they sound more and more like French surrender fairies every day. They rule not from principle, but by flapping in whichever wind the Liberal Party strategists think is flying today. And, poking their thumb in America's eye is the current trendy 'in' thing for liberals to do.

After 30 years of Liberal Party fiscal neglect the NYPD has more policemen that the Canadian army has soldiers of any rank. The morons running the show announced in this week's federal budget that the Canadian military's new spending priority will be more TRUCKS. The Defense minister, Pierre Petticoat Pettigrew was on the news yesterday and it was obvious he is one confused Quebecois. I think when the Prime Minister asked him to be Minister of Defense, he thought he said Minister of Sitting on de Fence. He didn't know the difference between being against nuclear proliferation (which most countries are) and missile proliferation (invented on the spot by Pierre Petticoat, who apparently thought it was the same thing).

I'm pissed. Now instead of ABM sites in the high Arctic shooting down incoming missiles over empty wilderness, the ABM sites will have to be placed along the 49th parallel. Any incoming missiles will be shot down over Canada's populated south. Fucking liberals.

Public School teacher allows students to send hate mail to soldiers

Mr. Xavier Costello,
Principal, JHS 51
350 - 5th Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11215
U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

I experienced disgust today whilst reading in the NY Post about how one of your teachers, Alex Kunhardt, allowed hate mail to be sent by nine of his students to American Soldiers serving in Korea. If it was inadvertent, he owes those young men and women in the service an abject, public apology. At the very least he was negligent in his duties as a citizen, and as a teacher to those misinformed kids.

If it was intentional, then he should be corrected. Corrected, you ask? For allowing the children in his care to think that free speech allows them the moral equivalent of yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre. What the hell kind of value system does your school’s mission statement refer to?

If it was intentional, then he needs to know that civil disobedience doesn’t extend to mental torture of his country’s soldiers who are presently putting their lives on the line in a foreign country. The Korean DMZ isn’t Iraq, but people die there today still. North Koreans don’t have the ability to indulge in civil disobedience and free speech, let alone a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who’s to blame? Not the American Soldier, Comrade.

If it was intentional, then he also deserves ‘corporal punishment.’ Much as I'd like to suggest a good beating and time on the unemployment line, I won't. But a 12 month deployment to teach English in North Korea, followed by a 12 month teaching job in a school on an American military base somewhere might get through to him. Let him teach the orphaned children of some of your servicemen about free speech. They’ll teach him.

Sincerely,
Andrew (Hamm172) Rondeau

facts and objectivity

Hahahaha! Cox&Forkum did it again!

>

What was I saying in my last post?

CBC tells half the story in lesbian wedding case

More fallout from the homosexual marriage battle lines, this time in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is once again only reporting the facts that help drum up sympathy for it's favored causes. Just one more reason why this taxpayer-supported money sucking bureaucracy needs to be cut loose and privatized.

On January 24th a CBC story reported that two women who booked and paid for a Knights of Columbus hall, alledged they were then denied the use of the Hall because it was for a lesbian wedding reception. CBC also made sure to point out that the Lesbian couple had already paid for all the invitations. According to the CBC story, the women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

The big meanies. So now the matter is before the unaccountable, quasi-judicial BC Human Rights tribunal, (whose rulings have Never been noted for their impartiality towards Christianity.)

Did the CBC report that the local KofC immediately refunded the Lesbian couple's money?
No.
Did the CBC report that the KofC booked and paid the rent for a different hall for the Lesbian couple?
Nooooo...
Did the CBC report that the KofC also paid for printing NEW INVITATIONS for the Lesbian couple?
Noooooooooooo...

Why not? The Toronto Globe and Mail got the story right. What's the CBC's problem? Well, for one, it would ruin a good story, that generates sympathy for a political cause the CBC management has no quams using our tax dollars to promote.

Bastards.

Canada’s Governing Liberals distorting the truth about pro-family groups

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wants it both ways. No, he’s not claiming to be bi-sexual, but last week he denounced the Knights of Columbus as a U.S. based group that lacks a Canadian perspective on the homosexual marriage issue. At the same time, he wants the Christian voters who belong to the K of C, or who support Focus on the Family, to ignore their morals, shut up, and stop bothering the government MPs about homosexual marriage.

Both the government’s Cabinet ministers and big media like the Toronto Globe and Mail and the National Post are attempting to paint religious groups like the Knights of Columbus and Focus on the Family Canada as U.S. based groups that have no business commenting on a Canadian issue like the non-democratic ramrodding of homosexual marriage into Canadian law.

There are currently 229 thousand Knights of Columbus members in Canada who last year donated 23 million dollars and 9 million hours of volunteer time to Canadian charities. The first Canadian K of C lodge started in 1897, more than a century ago. Compare that to 38 of the current Members of Parliament (who will be among the elite few permitted to vote on this issue) who were born in foreign countries, and figuratively speaking, became Canadian citizens only yesterday.

I am a K of C member, and part of my family has been in Canada since the 1660's. The other part walked here over the Asian land bridge over 10 thousand years ago. I think as a citizen, me and my organization have the right to comment and lobby our elected officials on any Canadian subject we damn well please.

In a similar way, Focus on the Family Canada (FOTF) was unfairly labeled as an American group that was supposedly spending thousands of dollars to lobby the government. FOTF pointed out Friday, that it’s detractors were lumping in all the money spent on the resources and services for Parents on parenting, and it’s pro-family radio broadcasts.

Canada’s Justice minister is either misinformed, or he wants the Canadian Public to be misinformed. That could make him a liar and a propagandist for the homosexual lobby. If so, is that why the Liberal Caucus trying to demonize us in the press as un-Canadian? Is this an attempt to deny us our freedom of speech, or freedom to participate in the political process by marginalizing us in the eyes of the electorate? Is that Canadian?

This railroading of homosexual marriage into Canadian Society by your government is one more example of the democratic deficit Paul Martin so proudly spoke out against during his leadership campaign. Poll after poll, informal and scientific show most Canadians resent not having a say in this legislation. This legislation is an attempt to re-define a central component of our society, against the will of a majority I believe, and I pray we get to have an election over this issue before too long.

Beer frees man from avalanche.

I was thrilled to read the news story about a Slovak man who freed himself from an avalanche by drinking 60 bottles of beer and peeing on the snow to melt it. Trapped in his car, in Slovakia's Tatra mountains, he opened a beer to think about his predicament. Rescue teams found Richard Kral drunkenly staggering down a mountain road, four days later.

Wow. After the story was carried by a number of news services, (tribune.uk, sun.uk, ananova and others in India, New Zealand, and the U.S.) snopes.com debunked it.

And here I thought I had an excellent excuse to add beer to my car's emergency kit.

They want us silenced.

The front page headline in Friday’s local Canwest/Southam Newspaper read “GOVERNMENT TELLS CHURCH TO BUTT OUT.” Cabinet minister Pierre Pettigrew was quoted as saying that the invention of the concept of a separation of Church and state is really great, and the Catholic Bishops should butt out of political issues like the homosexual redefinition of marriage debate. He actually tried to say it was not a moral issue, but a strictly political one.

Over the past month, both Calgary’s Bishop Fred Henry and Edmonton’s Archbishop Tom Collins have published pastoral letters in defense of traditional marriage. Collins’ letter explained the basic flaws that make Gay marriage impossible, and both bishops called for their adherents to contact their MPs and make their views known. In response to Pettigrew’s remarks, Henry said marriage predates the Canadian State by thousands of years, and neither Parliament nor the Supreme Beings Court has the authority to redefine it.

Yeah!

For years I’ve been disappointed as our bishops hid behind the anonymity of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops. Seemingly reluctant to speak out on their own, they missed what seemed to me to be opportunity after opportunity to provide their flocks leadership on moral issues before the voters- or moral issues that /should be/ before the voters.

But Canada’s Catholic Bishops seem to be growing some backbones of late. From the Northwest Territories, Bishop Croteau began writing a few years ago about the social cost of Government approved gambling. Then Calgary’s Bishop Fred Henry began commenting regularly on labour and social justice issues. Prior to the last Federal election, Bishop Henry wrote a pastoral letter asking Catholic voters to question the wisdom of voting for candidates that supported the culture of death, (pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-Christian agendas). This earned Henry a phone call from an anonymous Revenue Canada official (CCRA) threatening the Church’s tax free status.

This week, Edmonton Archbishop Tom Collins, who’s written a number of public statements about the wrongness and impossibility of homosexual marriage, encouraged his parish priests to use their pulpits Sunday to tell their parishioners to contact their MPs.

I didn’t hear Collins, but my parish priest, a young polish immigrant, gave the most direct call to democratic action in defense of marriage that I’ve ever heard in a Catholic church. Not that I’m the passive voter type, but today (Monday) my daughter and I wrote and sent letters in support of traditional marriage to Prime Minister Paul Martin, and liberal cabinet members Shirley McLelland (deputy Prime Minister,) Irwin Cotler (attorney general,) and Leon Benoit.

But I digress.

What really bothers the governing elites is that the Catholic Bishops are now doing their jobs as shepherds of their faith communities. They’re telling them to wake up from their slumber of apathy and be the activists called for in Vatican II.
Bothers the elites? It scares them shitless.

Canada’s Supreme Court in Contempt of Decency?

Friday was a day of absurdities in the newspapers from our rulers in Ottawa. Liberal politicians told the church not to comment on moral issues; Now the Supreme Beings Court has ruled that a man seen masturbating in his picture window, in view of passersby, his neighbors across the street and their kids, did not commit an indecent act in public.

One night 4 years ago, Daryl Clark's neighbors and their children were watching TV when they looked out their darkened window and saw him pleasuring himself in his living room, lights ablaze and curtains wide open.

Yup.

The court said he was in the privacy of his own home, and didn’t intend to commit a public act.

Well, it was an act all right. But what the hell kind of act was it then?

I guess I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand that bit of legal sophistry.

What a pack of retards.