Reply #69: Not quite.

[Joshua The Marshall]

Actually if you would read, you're missing two things.

But since you decided to piggy back onto this thread, I address the bulk of what you said in my new post #67 and previous post #43 as well as others.

My post was a rebuttal to posts #43 and #67, so I was directly dealing with the claims you were offering. That's why my post is listed as a "Rebuttal". If you would kindly address my rebuttal, I'd be delighted.

I will make one brief note here, you spend the latter portion of your post, talking about how the conditions for illegal prostitution are so horrible and go into the violence and depression involved in it.

And you need to read my citations more closely. I was not dealing with situations where Prostitution was illegal, but chiefly where prostitution was legal.

"All that you note there is simply a reason to make prostitution legal, not to continue the current system that ensures that women will continue to get beaten and raped."

All of the situations I were citing, save for the psychological conditions alone, were where Prostitution was legal. I was citing conditions in Nevada and the Netherlands. Both of these locations are where prostitution is legal. Nice try, though.

More fundie nonsense telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I'm a homosexual, Democratic Socialist Jew. It's extremely ironic to call me "fundie". Likewise, I was providing concrete arguments, not 'faith'-based nonsense.

You seem to be falling into a binary here, which is extremely similar to Fundamentalists themselves. If someone disagrees with me, they MUST be a part of X group. This is patently absurd. Someone can disagree with you and not be a fundamentalist. None of the reasons we've been giving have been religious in nature.

So, I would be obliged if you would actually address my post instead of bypassing every point I made without addressing them.