Sheesh...when she said "It looks like this" and I saw "double the download" I thought Telstra had gone into the sex business !... but then..its 4.00am.. so hopefully I'm forgiven for this slip :)

One thing is for sure.. there are no 'Christian' prostitutes. Its possible that a woman (one was my former neighbour) has fallen away from grace so far that she no longer hears the voice of consience and does that kind of thing to enhance family finances.. such as get an inground pool.... but in the long run... husbands don't take this kind of thing as 'just other work', and the screaming match at 3:30 one morning and running battle out in our court, testified to that admirably.

All we ('Bible bashing wowsers') can say is that Christ has compassion on people..but the woman who was found in adultery was advised by Jesus "go..and sin no more" so.. in Gods eyes, selling your body for sex is definitely sin.

"Sin" is a theological construct.. albeit very real. It is most difficult for a society which is not a Theocracy to outlaw or inlaw such things, only from the viewpoint of enforcability. I suppose in the long run it will wax and wane as the political pressure mounts for one way or the other..and this is the only way it can be in a democracy.

The Church will still be there.. and will not be ever advocating that such a practice is either 'ok' or 'moral' and we will be building our own values, and our own stream of history, while the rest crumbles around us. We will continue to be 'salt'.. seeking to preserve and 'light' seeking to illuminate.

Most of all, we will be a moral compass pointing to "True North" and fleeing from the conditions of Joshua's day where....

"There was no King in Israel at that time"

and

"every man did what was right in his own eyes"

Such a shame that such a serious issue attracts crackpots and holy rollers to the forum seeking to impose their worldview.

An unattributed quote I know of is "prostitution is the hire of the body, marriage is the sale". Probably based upon less enlightened times when a wife was expected to be available to satiate her husband's carnal desires.

I love the way OLO's rich tapestry includes people who can blithely provide contradictions as neat as this one:

"our moral compass is not pointing north if morality, an elusive, non-universal concept at best, can be evoked as a guideline for regulating the behaviour of prostitues and their clients."

And Sells' opening line is just as blithely ignorant: "The only reason that Dr Cannold can write such an article is because our community no longer has any shared attitude to what constitutes a human person."

The shared attitude is that individual human rights take precedence over religion. Most christians would agree with this when the religion in question is a non-christian one - they simply baulk at accepting it as a shared value when it comes into conflict with christianity.

In fact, Cannold's article argues for moderation of the right to practise the profession of prostitution, on human rights grounds. That Sells didn't notice this makes me suspect he didn't read the article at all - he just took it as his cue to climb up on the pulpit and start reciting this week's sermon.

There's a related story in today's Adelaide Advertiser:

"SEX work experience has been listed as an essential requirement for three tax-payer funded positions."

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22610828-2682,00.html

Sells, could you now please lead us in another chorus of "Decline with me."

Sells does make some interesting points, though I'd be curious as to his answer to these two conundrums:

1) it is the oldest profession and will always exist. Given that, what of the fact that zero tolerance approaches force the practice into illegality and dangerous circumstances?

2) What about people who for whatever reason, are unlikely to find sexual partners without a financial transaction? If sexual release is indeed a physical need, where is the morality in depriving some people of this? Undoubtedly, an intimate relationship is preferable, but for some people this is unlikely to happen.

JPW, no contradiction if you had grasped the two different “moralities” that I based my post on, that is, Christian morality firmly anchored in the Gospels (the one that underpins my worldview), and the (vague, non-universal) secular morality of Cannold.

But here’s a contradiction: Cannold claimed “I’ve been thinking about these issues for a long time”, yet despite this long consideration she trots out a definition of morality along the old Hobbes, Bentham and Mill line that morality is limited to behaviour that directly or indirectly affects others.

Here’s another: the feminist author agreeing with the paternalist solution. Lev applauds Cannold for affirming “the ability of adults with adult reasoning to make their own choices” yet Cannold embraces the opposite - legislating the ne’er do wells off the public thoroughfare for our own good. One small problem: the brothels don’t want them either (wrong ethnicity, wrong bust size, wrong fetish, wrong crack habit).

It is Cannold who agrees on a restriction of the bodily rights of others, Lev, simply based on a confidence that the women already in brothels continue to work in the sex industry despite having access to various government-sponsored programs.

And another: this solution actually upholds the status quo, with a twist: prostitutes as moral arbiters of the social impulse (not shared by all members of society) to trade in sex.

Back to morality, the state only needs to legislate when the members of society cannot agree. The regulated sex industry is not a triumph of social consensus, but a recognition of deep division, in the same way that legalized abortion, or the recognition of gay marriage, need state intervention. As DB says, morality cannot be legislated.

It appears I'm stuck on re-dial: in the light of a very old and distinguished volume of works, choices have eternal consequences.

KatieO: "Christian morality firmly anchored in the Gospels (the one that underpins my worldview), and the (vague, non-universal) secular morality of Cannold."

I find it strange that you describe 'secular morality' as non-universal, as that is exactly what it is aiming to be. It's about developing a basis that is common to everyone, regardless of faith, and determining what should be right and wrong from there.

"One small problem: the brothels don’t want them either (wrong ethnicity, wrong bust size, wrong fetish, wrong crack habit)."

The legislation in this article is about preventing individuals from unfairly burdening society, something which is a key role of the government. However, this legislation should attempt to minimize the restrictions it places on individuals. Limiting the reduction of freedom is a different issue all together from ensuring people are actually capable of doing whatever they want as your 'problem' suggests. For example, while the government may regulate how one flys a plane (regulate the sex trade), it's not their role to supply everyone their own aircraft (ensure absolutely everyone can participate).

"Back to morality, the state only needs to legislate when the members of society cannot agree."

Interesting point, however I'd argue that the state should only legislate when members of society do agree, since this is the basis of democracy. And since there is not general consensus on legislating against brothels, there should not be laws banning them.