More disingenuous bleating and happyclapper hogwash. OzSpin, this is how Shelton chose to describe himself for the article under discussion:

"A former rural journalist, Lyle Shelton is serving his second term as a Councillor on the Toowoomba City Council. He is a father of four young children and his interests include Australian Football, jogging, reading and public affairs."

Given the salience of Christianity to both his life and the topic of the article, why did he choose to conceal this in his description? However, I'm more than happy to ignore his deception, because the article fails to convince on its own premises.

As another former journalist, OzSpin must be aware that one of the major reasons that prostitution was legalised in Queensland was to remove its control from organised crime and corrupt police. S/he hasn't addressed at all my question as to how re-criminalising prostitution would in any way improve the lot of sex workers.

Instead, s/he presents us with her own logical fallacy - that of the false analogy - when she compares prostitution with theft, assault and other crimes against the person. S/he avoids my rebuttal of this ploy by accusing others falsely of deploying ad hominem arguments against Shelton.

Then we get the happyclapper assertion that sex is God's gift and is degrading if it happens in ways other than God intended (i.e. other than ways of which religious wowsers approve). What nonsense!

Christians should stop using deception to try and impose their morals on the rest of us. They are free to boycott brothels and sex shops, just as the rest of us are free to avoid their places of worship.

Yes, the prostitution legislation needs improvement, but prohibition is not the answer.

While I support the idea that all those able to work should do so, does it mean that single mothers, once their youngest child starts school, could be required to work in a legal and regulated sex-industry?

Mahatma Duck
You carry out disingenuous bleating.
You carry out happyclapper hogwash.
You conceal your description.
You carry out deception.
You present logical fallacy.
You deploy ad hominem arguments.
You are nonsense.
You impose your morals on the rest of us.

I think it was mentioned elsewhere that you probably hold the record on OLO for maligning other posters and other people, and the same can be returned to you.

Prostitution is a health and safety problem, with considerable risks involved for both men and women. So how to solve that problem?

If there is a demand for prostitution, then there will be prostitution. Increase the demand for prostitution, will likely increase prostitution (somehow or somewhere). So identifying what creates the demand, will likely go a long way to reducing or eliminating the risks involved in prostitution for both men and women.

Oh great - so now I'm being stalked around these forums by someone whose often puerile comments reveal a distinctly odd attitude to women and sex.

However, in the spirit of debate - of course there is a demand for prostitution, otherwise it wouldn't exist, would it? And the fact that it's often called 'the world's oldest profession' would seem to indicate that this demand has been around for a long time.

Funnily enough, people everywhere seem to enjoy having sex. And also everywhere there are others who want to make rules about when, where and with whom this can happen.

I'm certainly not saying that prostitution shouldn't be regulated, rather that the motives for doing so should be based on rational reasons such as health and safety, rather than the imposition of a religious morality.

If Timkins could see past his need to vindictively pursue those who have the nerve to disagree with him, he might actually see that there is quite a bit that we agree upon about this particular issue.

Mahatma Duck
You are not great.
You stalk other people.
You make puerile comments.
You reveal a distinctly odd attitude to women and sex.
You cannot see past your need to vindictively pursue those who have the nerve to disagree with you.

Why don’t you come up with a list of ways to reduce the demand for prostitution Mahatma Duck. Oh, I forgot, you generally don’t answer too many questions. Too much focus on other things, such as making maligning remarks about other people.

If Christians are truely speaking out against prositution on safety grounds as opposed to moral should we not hear similar concerns voiced about other jobs and activities which place individuals at risk?

Example when have we ever heard the church call for safer industrial work places? Or had something to say about road safety initiatives?

For some reason it's always prostitution, drugs etc. those activities which also happen to be in conflict with Christian morality. And as we're seeing here they will even sometimes denounce safe practices if they are against the churches teachings e.g. condom use.

Here is a report on a study which seems to contradict what has been previously posted.

http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/factsheets/breakslip.htm

It says that most breakages occur to a very small number of people. Of course there are always dunces who won't get it right, and it is irresponsible to average their experience across the whole sample.

Quote, "If every couple were equally likely to experience condom breakage/slippage, then each couple would have been expected to have about 1 out of 11 condoms either break or slip off. However, in this study, 16 couples (less than 10 percent of participants) were responsible for 50 percent of all the breakage/slippage."

Common sense and experience tells me 1 in 8 do not break, you have to question why someone would be motivated to quote such an outlandish figure.