Sells, you would be far more convincing if you were more consistent in your approach.

First the set-up.

>>The liberal attitude is that we are free to do what ever we please as long as no one gets hurt<<

Then the little sly sideways dig.

>>It is also used to justify abortion because the fetus is believed not to be a person<<

Surely, to make this connection there has to be "no hurt" in the abortion. If there is hurt involved, then according your first statement, liberals must be against it. Right?

Then you put in a bit of religious waffle to pit theology against rationalism, to take the audience's attention away from the card up your sleeve.

Which appears as:

>>The article described how warnings on the danger of alcohol had no impact on boy’s behaviour... This shows the depths to which public morality has sunk<<

Sells, the reason that the article was written is because alcohol abuse is harmful. Picking on one aspect of that harm does not imply it is the only harm caused - it was simply using sensationalism to attract attention.

So, back to your initial statement. People are hurt by alcohol, so your "liberals" must be against it. Right?

>>It seems that we are encouraged to indulge in all of the traditional vices as long as they do not lead to an adverse health outcome<<

By whom, Sells?

Clearly, not those nasty "liberals".

>>“Prostitution: a health hazard”. I did not pause to read the article, the banner being enough food for thought<<

That's pretty slack. You have built an entirely imaginary scenario, and drawn some pretty far-fetched conclusions, on the strength of a headline.

I prefer your impenetrable musings on the minutiae of Christian devotion to this vaguely dishonest sleight of hand.

This article by Sells is an ill-conceived (pardon the pun) load of conservative theological twaddle. The church has always had a silly hangup about sex inherited from Jewish ideas of cultural and spiritual purity.
The church has never had anything sensible to say about sex and has no better argument than to claim that sexual union creates some sort of mystical, magical bond that is tragically broken if it is not exclusive. This is desperate stuff and clear evidence that the church lacks any rational basis for its stand on so-called sexual morality.
The desperation of the church is evident here in Sells article in the unjustified, alarmist claims that sex conducted in circumstances other than those prescribed by the church will have dire consequences, ignoring, by the way, the awful outcomes of many conventional marriages. It also ignores the real value of all sorts of childless relationships.
The attitude Sells reveals here goes hand in hand with an intolerance and a judgemental position that is unchristian and inconsistent with the values and principles of our civilised society.
To argue, as he does, that society has reduced the discussion to a 'medical' one is quite wrong. He is indulging the classical propaganda game of setting up a 'straw man' to knock down rather than engage in serious debate.
Sells, this is not a good one.... shame on you for publishing this awful article!

Reading your article it looks like I agree with you more than most.

Is prostitution morally wrong? I say yes.

Should it be illegal? Being a classical liberal, I say no.

Do we need to look down on prostitutes because we condemn prostitution? I don't see any reason to. We don't know what circumstances have led to that situation.

Do we need to dismiss a moral view because it also is religious?
I believe not. I think the case against prostitution being moral can be supported independent of a religious view.

Good article!

Stewartglass identifies an important distinction that Sells tends to overlook in lumping together several different political philosophies he disapproves of under the single banner “liberal”. It is one thing to hold a thing to be immoral, to disapprove of it, and to refrain from doing it, quite another to advocate that it should be prohibited or forbidden. I disapprove of prostitution, but I don’t think it should be illegal.

Morality includes the concept of refraining from doing what one ought not to do, even though one is free to do it. Or indeed, even if one is not “free” to do it – and let’s face it, practice of the “oldest profession” is not exactly limited to modern western “liberal” culture.

Liberalism takes seriously the responsibility to choose ones own moral path and to live with the consequences of that choice. It is also reluctant to force its own moral code on others, recognising that their interpretation of their moral obligations in some circumstances may be different to ours.

Christians are called upon, amongst other things, to judge not, lest we be judged; to remove the “log” of sin from our own eye before the “speck” from our neighbour’s eye (Mtt. 7.1-5); and to leave it to the one without sin to cast the first stone (John 8.7).

Maybe Sells is a little hasty to rush to judgement here, especially as – by his own admission – he didn’t read the article below the headline.

My sole point in this very short paper was to highlight the growing connection between morality and health outcomes as if they were the only consideration. Liberalism, as I use the word, is that attitude that would reduce morality to a bare minimum and which ignores the deeper harms that come from certain behaviours. Certainly such a deeper harm is involved in prostitution since that which is by its nature intimate, private and future directed becomes unemotional, non-intimate and short term. Without a rich understanding of the nature of the human person, which I believe the Christian faith gives us, we are open to the moral reductionism of “as long as no one gets hurt”. A deeper analysis would show that the client gets hurt because he is displacing a full sexual relationship with something he can have on demand, ie, no strings of relationship or shared living or future plans. The prostitute is harmed by having to suffocate her natural emotional connection with sex and become an object. Both client and service provider (now there is a neutral description) are damaged by the act that they engage in. Surely the triumph of Christian faith is to insist that intimacy must displace ownership. What do you think “love your neighbour means”?

Sells

I think "A deeper analysis would show that the client gets hurt because he is displacing a full sexual relationship with something he can have on demand, ie, no strings of relationship or shared living or future plans. The prostitute is harmed by having to suffocate her natural emotional connection with sex and become an object."

Shows a very shallow analysis, for a start you insinuate that men are the client and women are the "prostitute". This very one dimensional view shows you have little or no information.

Men have sex with women for money, men have sex with men for money, women have sex with men for money and women have sex with women for money.

Always have always will, in fact the majority of human relations are defined around the need for sex.

The disturbing bit in your article which nobody has commented on is "the resultant demographic decline in our populations".

Demographics is a marketing term, so what are you saying is "our populations" meaning Anglican heterosexual monogamists?

In my opinion if the Anglican heterosexual monogamist demographic is in decline it is your own fault.