[US Only] Legalization of the sex trade?

[BADecker]

Since sex is already lawful between people who voluntarily marry each other, the only reason for government to make it legal is to make money off it by selling licenses, and by regulation the children that are products of marriage.

Some groups have even legalized polygamy. Since we have legal same-sex marriage, a little more pushing, and we will get wives with more than one husband, and formal communal marriage. So far some of this stuff is only legal on the private level. But liberals are pushing it to be legal publicly.

I mean, marriage is all about legal sex, isn't it? Sure, there are other reasons, but sex is the main one, isn't it?

[1713485765]

1713485765

[1713485765]

1713485765

[1713485765]

1713485765

[1713485765]

1713485765

[coolcoinz]

For many people marriage is not about legal sex but about making life easier. In case of an accident I wouldn't be able to know my girlfriend's condition, I wouldn't be treated like family and might be even denied entry to her hospital room. If one of us died, parents and siblings would inherit everything, even though we've worked for it together.
It's just convenient to be married when you're living together and sharing investments and expenses.

[Sithara007]

Prostitution, Weed, Gambling.etc can never be banned. They have been around for thousands of years (or probably since the beginning of humanity). Semitic religions such as Christianity and Islam imposed a moral code on us, which is not very compatible with the basic human character. This is one of the reasons why we hear about so many sex abuse scandals from the Islamic and Christian clerics. I am not saying that Buddhist and Hindu clerics are immune, but the incidence is very low.

And the problem with banning prostitution is that, since sex is one of the basic human necessities, the demand will always persist. And this will result in the business going underground, where there is more scope for exploitation and forced sex trafficking. Legalization can eradicate this issue.

[eddie13]

Less laws is always good..

[BADecker]

For many people marriage is not about legal sex but about making life easier. In case of an accident I wouldn't be able to know my girlfriend's condition, I wouldn't be treated like family and might be even denied entry to her hospital room. If one of us died, parents and siblings would inherit everything, even though we've worked for it together.
It's just convenient to be married when you're living together and sharing investments and expenses.

For you, put everything that you own in trust. Place the conditions of your bodies (you and she) into trust with the right to be the first authorization for each other in case of accidents. Be co-trustees if you want. Or have two trusts if you want your property to remain separate. List all your property in the trust, and state who gets what if you die or she dies, or if it all should remain in trust for the other one, or for the successor trustee. Appoint a successor trustee with distinct, detailed instructions for the successor, should you both die.

You can write it up almost any way you like. There are even ways to overcome just about any State rules that might be against something you want in your private trust.

See https://apeacefulsolution.wordpress.com/ and http://www.theultimateinassetprotection.com/?ref=SWC.

[BADecker]

Prostitution, Weed, Gambling.etc can never be banned. They have been around for thousands of years (or probably since the beginning of humanity). Semitic religions such as Christianity and Islam imposed a moral code on us, which is not very compatible with the basic human character. This is one of the reasons why we hear about so many sex abuse scandals from the Islamic and Christian clerics. I am not saying that Buddhist and Hindu clerics are immune, but the incidence is very low.

And the problem with banning prostitution is that, since sex is one of the basic human necessities, the demand will always persist. And this will result in the business going underground, where there is more scope for exploitation and forced sex trafficking. Legalization can eradicate this issue.

Almost nothing can be banned by government if it is set up to be done privately. Government is there to regulate the public, not the private. In private, government might still have some control over things that are dangerous. But government has to be ready to prove the danger in court if they attempt to regulate what you do in private. Sex laws are currently set up so that consenting adults can do just about any sexual thing in private.

We have had gentleman's clubs for ages. Since they are private, there is a lot that goes on within them that would not be allowed in public.

Possibly the best way to set up a private club these days is with Private Membership Associations (PMA). Net search and Youtube search on "Private Membership Association." If you set one up, the attorneys who do your legal paperwork will be ready to help you if government tries to take away your freedom when you are doing things in private.

All of that being said, prostitution, public or private, wrecks the lives of people and society. Rather, get married (via a simple PMA if you want, rather than a public marriage license), and keep sex between one man and one woman, in the family.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I agree with legalization of prostitution more because of concern from the public health risk of an unregulated industry. People will dip and and get dipped when they want to and they can bring diseases back into the family. Having it legalized and regulated meant more frequent testing.

Of course that don't automatically erase the risk, for example testing is already a requirement in the porn industry but there are still some companies that have sloppy compliance but it does reduce the risk.

Oh, and also it removes money from syndicates that are operating prostitution ring.

For many people marriage is not about legal sex but about making life easier. In case of an accident I wouldn't be able to know my girlfriend's condition, I wouldn't be treated like family and might be even denied entry to her hospital room. If one of us died, parents and siblings would inherit everything, even though we've worked for it together.
It's just convenient to be married when you're living together and sharing investments and expenses.

The asset sharing is definitely a big benefit, especially if the spouse's family is hostile to the relationship. Else the remaining spouse could be left with nothing. I'm not fond of it with divorces though.

[BADecker]

Less laws is always good..

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

[Spaffin]

Less laws is always good..

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

Friend, maybe I'm wrong. Of course, I am not familiar with the legislative system of the United States of America, but it seems to me that, first of all, the main law is the Constitution and other laws must be in agreement with this document.  If a citizen believes that his rights are violated, then of course, with the help of the court, he can appeal any decision of the congress.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Law and legislative acts are two different documents that have different degrees of importance.

[BADecker]

Less laws is always good..

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

Friend, maybe I'm wrong. Of course, I am not familiar with the legislative system of the United States of America, but it seems to me that, first of all, the main law is the Constitution and other laws must be in agreement with this document.  If a citizen believes that his rights are violated, then of course, with the help of the court, he can appeal any decision of the congress.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Law and legislative acts are two different documents that have different degrees of importance.

The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow jury trial for almost anything. The 9th Amendment essentially says that the people have all the rights not granted to them by the Constitution.

The jury has the duty of deciding anything in the case, including the legality of any law. The jury is common law, because it was around before the Constitution, and is simply guaranteed by the amendments. The jury can be local or nationwide. The jury cannot be coerced by a judge/magistrate.

These amendments give the bottom-line control to the jury and the local jury. There is no governing body that has any more legal or lawful strength than the jury... if it is used correctly.

[7777wonder]

Sex is part of marriage but there is a lot to it,you might need children ,to take good care of you when you are ageing ,your wife or kids to inherit your properties when you are no more and some other vital issues

[BADecker]

Sex is part of marriage but there is a lot to it,you might need children ,to take good care of you when you are ageing ,your wife or kids to inherit your properties when you are no more and some other vital issues

Most people think that a good retirement income will do this. But they are wrong. For example, hospice costs these days are like $5,000 a month, basic. This drains the retirement income right out of average Americans. Government takes over, but it is draining the resources of government, as well. It's going to collapse the whole money system if it continues going on like this.

So, you are right. People will need family to support them in old age. But many (most?) people don't have it set up this way. Not in the USA, that is.

[cabron]

Sex is just a bonus. If you look like you are the one doing all the cooking and laundry for yourself, you'd look miserable. But having someone to do it for you is a lot better. 
Having kids that will look after you and visit you from time to time in the retirement home will be something to look forward to when you decide to marry someone. Watching kids becoming like you feels good.

[iamsheikhadil]

I don't think sex is the main reason behind a marriage because it's only a temporary stuff and all, there lies a true love between the couples in a marriage and if it lacks, it's just gonna break the marriage in no time. Because stuffs like property sharing, offsprings and unconditional love for ones on child, these feelings can only originate if there exists a true love or bonding which is more than the lust for sex. And sex is already legal, isn't it, if you are an adult, you can have it with any consensual adult

[BADecker]

I don't think sex is the main reason behind a marriage because it's only a temporary stuff and all, there lies a true love between the couples in a marriage and if it lacks, it's just gonna break the marriage in no time. Because stuffs like property sharing, offsprings and unconditional love for ones on child, these feelings can only originate if there exists a true love or bonding which is more than the lust for sex. And sex is already legal, isn't it, if you are an adult, you can have it with any consensual adult

Sigmund Freud would disagree with you about sex not being the main reason behind marriage. In fact, Freud would tell you that sex is essentially the reason you do everything in life that you do.

But regarding sex in marriage, the sexual bond in marriage (even if there aren't any other bonds holding it together) is designed to maintain the marriage for stability for the children long enough to get them to maturity. This doesn't always work, of course. Who Set it up like this? God did. But we continually mess up the good stuff God provided.

[PopoJeff]

Less laws is always good..

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

This is wrong.  Very very wrong.  As Ive seen in other posts of yours, you lack practical legal knowledge, yet perpetuate legal inaccuracies repeatedly. 

[BADecker]

Less laws is always good..

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

This is wrong.  Very very wrong.  As Ive seen in other posts of yours, you lack practical legal knowledge, yet perpetuate legal inaccuracies repeatedly. 

Of course you might say something like this. You are trained as a code enforcement officer. If they wanted common-law-of-man officers, your training would be a whole lot different. It's your training that is keeping you ignorant of the rest of the law... especially common law, which is the basic law.

[PopoJeff]

Less laws is always good..

But consider. When you go to the statutes, you will find that they are not the laws.

Some Congress or Governor might vote a law into place. Then the law is turned into a statute/code. The statute/code doesn't say the same thing as the law. It might not even mean much of anything that the actual law that it was based on meant.

In the USA and a few other countries, things are based on common law in the locality. Anyone who wants to fight a law can take it to jury trial, and get the jury to vote on that particular law in the case at hand.

A simple example might be two counties in State X. The posted speed limit on the highway is, say, 65. In County A, a jury lets John Doe travel at 85. In County B a different jury lets John Doe travel 45 max. All the rest of the people in those counties can go 65 but not over. However, if enough juries adjudicate that enough people can travel 85, the State will have to change the speed limit law to 85.

This is wrong.  Very very wrong.  As Ive seen in other posts of yours, you lack practical legal knowledge, yet perpetuate legal inaccuracies repeatedly. 

Of course you might say something like this. You are trained as a code enforcement officer. If they wanted common-law-of-man officers, your training would be a whole lot different. It's your training that is keeping you ignorant of the rest of the law... especially common law, which is the basic law.

Sorry, I missed the Esq. after your name.

But I will guarantee that you cannot get a jury trial for a traffic offense in my state.

[Artemis3]

I don't think sex is the main reason behind a marriage because it's only a temporary stuff and all, there lies a true love between the couples in a marriage and if it lacks, it's just gonna break the marriage in no time. Because stuffs like property sharing, offsprings and unconditional love for ones on child, these feelings can only originate if there exists a true love or bonding which is more than the lust for sex. And sex is already legal, isn't it, if you are an adult, you can have it with any consensual adult

Sigmund Freud would disagree with you about sex not being the main reason behind marriage. In fact, Freud would tell you that sex is essentially the reason you do everything in life that you do.

But regarding sex in marriage, the sexual bond in marriage (even if there aren't any other bonds holding it together) is designed to maintain the marriage for stability for the children long enough to get them to maturity. This doesn't always work, of course. Who Set it up like this? God did. But we continually mess up the good stuff God provided.

This is why Carl Jung had to come and: "de-emphasized the importance of sexual development and focused on the collective unconscious".

In fact, they had quite the heated debate and ended breaking relations... But still, Carl was right, and Freud just didn't like his theories getting broken...

[BADecker]

But I will guarantee that you cannot get a jury trial for a traffic offense in my state.

All right. We are missing something in our correspondence here.

If you mean one of the 50 States in the USA or one of the US Territories, and you are not using some kind of play on words to mean something other than what the standard understanding of your words means, you are wrong.

Consider the 6th and 7th Amendments. Amendment 6:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7:

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

How much plainer can foundational law be? And this doesn't include all kinds of other things that can be done without relying on a jury.

Are you really talking without some kind of trick to it, or some kind of play on words? You know this stuff. If you are in the USA, you are supposed to take the Oath of Office that states that you will uphold the Constitution. And the Amendments are part of the Constitution.

Are you in some other country, other than the USA. Because if you are LEO in the USA, without an Oath of Office, you are placing yourself in danger from anyone who challenges your right to be an LEO.