In her decision released Tuesday, Justice Susan Himel concluded that prohibiting sex-trade workers from operating a common bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of prostitution, violate the Charter of Rights.
“I have found that the law as it stands, is currently contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes,” Judge Himel wrote in a 131-page ruling.
The three sections of the Criminal Code ruled unconstitutional, “force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person,” she said.
The long-awaited decision stems from a constitutional challenge initiated last year by three women involved in the sex trade.
“It is important to state at the outset what this case is not about: The court has not been called upon to decide whether or not there is a constitutional right to sell sex or to decide which policy model regarding prostitution is better,” Judge Himel said. “Rather, it is the court’s task to decide the merits of this particular legal challenge, which is whether certain provisions of the Criminal Code are in violation of the Charter.”
[…]“We want to be good citizens and now we can,” said Valerie Scott, executive director of the Sex Professionals of Canada and one of the three women in the constitutional challenge.
I think I understand women fairly well, and I think that what was going through Susan Himel’s head was something like this: “if I make this legal, then women who do this sort of thing will feel a lot better about it, because no one will judge them since it’s legal”.
I read one feminist web site that called Ms. Himel’s decision “Excellent News”, but I didn’t want to link to them. I would say that legalized prostitution is consistent with feminism’s promotion of non-marital sex as a way of eliminating the unequal gender roles inherent in marriage.
The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.
[…]This limitation notwithstanding, the results presented here should shift attention away from research that focuses on the selection of individuals into cohabitation and premarital sex to a focus on the selection of individuals who do not marry the individuals with whom they first cohabit or initiate first sex. It may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lasting relationship.
The graph:
Published in the Journal of Marriage and Family
(Click for larger image)
The Teachman study was not done by a conservative.
What is the point of a man being a virgin?
OK, I just wrote this part out in one fell swoop, and I am not sure if it is all relevant, but…
I wanted to consider the question of whether women should value the property of virginity in men from a Biblical perspective. Men have specific things they are supposed to do based on the Bible’s specifications. First, they have to be able to provide for the family financially. Second, they have to be able to protect the family from threats, including threats from false worldviews that lead to damage and destruction. Third, they have to be moral and spiritual leaders, nurturing their wives and children in moral values, moral duties, and their relationships with God.
Biblical men make good decisions all along their lives in order to satisfy these Biblical goals. In order to be a good provider, they study math and become engineers, which is hard and requires self-sacrifice. In order to be a good protector, they study science apologetics, philosophy of religion and the historical Jesus, which is hard and requires self-sacrifice. In order to be a good moral and spiritual leader, they guard their chastity and learn how to behave chivalrously, which is hard and requires self-sacrifice.
What women need to do is to do the research on everything including marriage/divorce/parenting, just like the research I talked about above, and generate a seriously Biblical set of criteria for choosing men that seriously satisfies the requirements for Biblical manhood. Women cannot expect good behavior from bad men. And they should actually affirm, approve, and encourage good behaviors in men – and not be resentful about having the obligation to build good men up with words and gifts.
What women need to do is to understand the behaviors that lead to stability and fidelity in a marriage – and that means studying research. Saying “I already know about the damage caused by divorce” is useless – it’s the knowledge of the evidence that changes how a woman makes decisions about men. Personal preferences can be changed at any time, but knowledge doesn’t vary depending on how you feel at any given moment.
For example, to test men for apologetics knowledge, it’s really easy – just ask them what the significance of cosmic microwave background radiation is, what chirality is, what the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is, and what is the difference between the deductive and inductive problem of evil. If they can’t answer all four of those then you can’t marry them. Biblical manhood concerns are not check-boxes on the marriage application form – they’re long-form essay questions. Judging the man’s ability to do silly stuff, like get a tattoo or clown around in a bar, is just not relevant to making the marriage serve God. A woman’s personal preferences don’t decide here – evidence decides. (So long as the goal of marriage is to serve God, instead of to make women happy)
Men have a very specific role in marriages. They have to be able to teach the children about theology, apologetics and morality. When it comes to morality, women should not just believe what a man says. Instead, women need to look at what a man does. Specifically, she should look at what a man does representing his worldview, faith and morality to people who disagree with him. Go to his non-Christian co-workers and ask them what the man has told them about theology, apologetics and morality. Ask them for the reasons and evidences that were used in debates with them. That’s how you know what a man really thinks – it’s about what he is willing to say to people who he would rather not upset. Where standing up for the truth is really going to hurt his career and make him less popular. That is the true measure of his faithfulness. Not how well he speaks, sings and prays in church. What matters is whether he puts God above his own selfish needs for advancement and popularity. Is he willing to choose Christ over his own selfish desires? What is number one in his heart?
And finally, if a women chooses a bad man because she knows nothing about how to choose a good one, and hasn’t done any research about what a man has to be able to do to make a marriage stable, then she needs to stop blaming men and taking responsibility for her own poor decision-making. Choosing a man just because he makes you feel happy is not the best way to have achieve a stable marriage. You need to have better criteria than that, because you are going to answer for it later, especially if things go awry.
Evidence creates knowledge and knowledge binds the will
OK now back to the real topic of the post: the use of evidence to support Biblical moral values.
I like having evidence. I hate having to take stands for Biblical morality without evidence. If I can use the evidence for the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of biological information, the Cambrian explosion, the habitability fine-tuning and irreducible complexity to argue for theism, and then argue for the resurrection based on early sources and minimal facts, then I should have the exact same quality of data when defending moral values. If the Bible says something, I should be able to look at the best research and find that the Bible is correct.
You have to persuade a person during courtship by making them read and write about things, and dump them if they won’t do it. People can say anything during a courtship – make all kinds of promises and then suddenly just turn selfish and break them all. If they haven’t studied and tested these things out, because they think they know everything already, then you really can’t expect good behavior. It’s a crapshoot unless they’ve seen the evidence.
Through Obama’s election, some of the most ferocious and unhinged inmates of the nation’s radical sexual fringe have been released upon the citizenry.
This fringe doesn’t want to be left alone. In fact, it will not leave you and your children alone. We’re talking about a lethal combination of traits: for many, manic-depression, severe character disorders, and addictions, sexual and otherwise.
The fusion of the three produces the most toxic of people, what I call “poisonous personalities.” Empowered, they are now wrecking havoc in every place imaginable.
Corrupting the public has been on the Left’s agenda for decades. Beginning in the l930s, the Frankfurt School plotted the installation of Marxism in the West. They knew that a debauched citizenry is easier to manipulate.
The school found willing henchmen in the amoral Left, which worships at the altar of pleasure: If it feels good, do it. Their hedonism has been legitimized by a host of mad scientists, such as Drs. Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey.
A principal architect of the sexual revolution, Kinsey purportedly falsified evidence to support his subversive theories that everyone, babies included, is hyper-sexual and bisexual.
Growing up, Obama himself was surrounded by people with no boundaries to speak of. Grandpa Stanley told lewd stories about women in front of young Barry. Stanley anointed alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis to be the child’s mentor and tutor.
Frankly, given Obama’s early exposure, I wonder if he’s desensitized to abuse. Can he see it if it’s front of his eyes?
This possible blindness may partly explain Obama’s selection of Kevin Jennings as the Safe Schools Czar. Jennings, a militant gay man, has been “queering” students in Massachusetts for years.
Robin goes on to explain how the favorite allies of Democrats – the UN, the public schools, etc. have been going after children. And she links it to moral relativism, which is in turn a consequence of Christians who refuse to defend the existence and character of God using mainstream evidence – which grounds objective morality. We made our religion about “faith” and people rejected that as delusional and instead pursued pleasure. And the pursuit of pleasure means that even if you do something wrong, you want people to approve of you, since being judged by others makes you less happy. Which brings us to indoctrinating children to approve of hedonism, which is a project of feminists and gay activists alike.
The left goes after children because they want to normalize their own views. Parents are the enemy. And that’s why Christians need to get serious about de-funding and abolishing public schools and enacting school choice. Every Christian who votes Democrat is voting to destroy the innocence of children. That’s one thing that redistribution of wealth rhetoric results in – it really means letting strangers teach your children how to sin. If you think that voting Democrat means “sticking it to the rich”, then you’re a fool. It really means that you won’t have a job, that you’ll be depending on the secular left government, and that your children will be taught from cradle to grave by people who repudiate your worldview and values. And since when are Christians supposed to be envious anyway? Leave the rich alone and worry more about who is teaching your children.
WINTERY KNIGHT 