| 
With prostitution illegal, the government is in position to keep crime on the streets, which we all know is good for government business. It's the same deal with drugs. Think about it. The government should really have no say about who has sex with who, unless of course we're talking about preventing violent sex crimes from occurring on the streets; which, at least in the case of prostitution, we are not. It is a moral error that is practiced by many "Johns" in the United States, for example, but one that is also generally accepted as something that is to be swept under the table as a dirty secret, but not necessarily as something that is "bad", even in the slightest term. It's "getting a fix", just as so many of our youth (as well as those much older) are spending money on drugs to get high every weekend. We all get our fixes in different ways, but prostitution is a common one, and one that should definitely be legal, if only because it is virtually harmless. The only moral argument that should even be existent is for the sexual health of those engaged in the activity. It is becoming more and more common for young men and women to spread sexually transmitted diseases to each other. With that said, the question is, if we cannot control diseases from being spread "legally", what is our reason to prevent the activity from being legal in any case? I suppose it's something that the government feels we can't milk for all its worth. The government enjoys taking away from people things that are, in a general sense, completely harmless. There really is no explanation for it other than it was a law that has yet to be overturned because the issue is still considered "taboo" by society. It is a grandfather clause, and nothing more, just like prohibition was in its day.
"He who refuses to seek will never learn"
|