# General Discussion > Opinions >  Fight for consistent social laws

## Maciamo

There have been many threads about typically divisive social issues such as drugs, prostitution, gay rights and abortion. I have always stood in favour of individual freedom and self-responsibility, as opposed to governments deciding what's best for people in their lives. 

But another major reason why I am in favour of legalising soft drugs, protitution, abortion and gay marriages (which are all legal in the Netherlands and Belgium, btw) is that I want logical consistency in the way laws are made.

I personally don't care whether any of those are legal or illegal. I am not gay, don't know any gay couple, and have no reason to sympathise for them. I don't care about drugs, as I am already too worried about my health not to eat at McDonald's or drink soft drinks. I don't care about prostitution because I am happily married, and anyway would not find any satisfaction in it (I can be pretty stingy, and the very idea of giving money for sex somehow repulses me). As for abortion, I am not a woman, so I am a bit less concerned, but I don't see anything wrong with it (we do kill animals to eat them, right ? And a 2-month foetus is not as developed or intelligent as most animals, as it doesn't really have a brain yet).

So why do I argue so much in favour of all of them ? Well, I am under the impression that many people won't understand, but it is much more important for me to live in a society with consistent, logical laws, that the actual content of laws that do not concern me much.

For instance, I am for the legalisation of soft drugs because alcohol and tobacco are legal, and cannabis is probably less dangerous for health than those two. So if one wants to be coherent, cannabis should be legal as well, or tobacco and alcohol should be banned. I wouldn't mind tobacco to be banned, and only a little about alcohol (esp. wine). But I also believe that people should know what is best for them, and use these products in moderation, and that if they can't, they will just learn moderation the hard way. That's a kind a punishment for not being responsible, self-controlled and thoughtful enough. I like that.

Again, I am in favour of gay marriages, first because I know that homosexuality is a natural and normal condition, and because I am not too keen on the traditional image of marriage anywya (because of the association with religion). This way, it changes the image of marriage. And to be fair, everybody, gay or not, should have the same rights. So either marriage is allowed for all, or for nobody. I really wouldn't mind the disappearance of the institution of marriage. I only got married because it was important for my wife (the party I guess  :Blush:  ), but otherwise it doesn't make much difference to live together and have children being married or not. In fact, I don't understand at all why some gays make so much fuss about wanting to marry. I don't even understand why so many straight people care. One can have a party and live in exactly the same conditions as married without signing a piece of paper, right ? Maybe it is just a way to make insecure people feel more secure ?

I have recently explained my views on prostitution. Basically, it is also for reasons of logical consistency that I am in favour of legalisation. I can't help to put in the same category people who have sex for money, and those who have sex for favours or presents. I also can't see why porn should be a more legal way to make money by having sex than prostitution. In fact, I see porn actors and actresses as prostitutes too. It's just prostitutes having sex together and selling their video or photos. In fact, in some countries the proper term for prostitute is "sex worker". Aren't porn actors and actresses sex workers too ?

So my message to governments is PLEASE be consistent and logically coherent in your laws. It make me sick to have to live with the idea that tobacco is legal and not cannabis or vice versa, or that porn and having sex with one's boss is ok but not prositution. Either ban all or allow all, I really don't care, but do not make rationally conflicting laws if you have any mental sanity at all.

----------


## MeAndroo

I can certainly understand a desire to see consistency across the board in terms of legislation. But it's so much more complex than simply applying logic. Even if logic were the only factor driving legislation, it wouldn't necessarily mean everyone would approach them the same way. Even within the activities you mention lie differing perceptions by the public. Soft drugs may be opposed by different groups than those that oppose gay marriage, which differ from those that oppose abortion. The judeo-christian slant in this country tends to drive people towards opposing all of them, but that shouldn't be allowed into politics right? At least not here. People have different moral standards, and these are what drive their behavior, religious or not. Not every atheist is a hedonist, and not every religious person abstinent. Factors beyond logic and rational thought enter politics and that's one reason why party discussions often dissolve into pissing contests and name-calling.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> So my message to governments is PLEASE *be consistent and logically coherent in your laws*. It make me sick to have to live with the idea that tobacco is legal and not cannabis or vice versa, or that porn and having sex with one's boss is ok but not prositution. *Either ban all or allow all*, I really don't care, but *do not make rationally conflicting laws if you have any mental sanity at all*.


My exact thought -- on all social levels. The points I really liked I have bolded.

It seems so easy to say and agree to, but on personal levels, I wonder who can be so consistant on rules and laws to not contradict certain aspects of them or use them to snare victims by catching them in interpretive loop holes. ???

When consistant logic is not adhered to, then we see the rogue officer or prosecuter interpreting the laws so that he/she can catch anyone they really want to in their net -- be it a small honest infraction or a personal grudge. This is played out on national levels and very small local levels all the time. We can all see this by opening our newspapers or just logging on to the net.

In what format has any kind of government ever tried to graph consistant logic to those they govern in order to offer fair protection and rendering of consequences to all and all interests and have been successful? Who strives at this hard? Show me a government that proclaims to do so and in all probability it can be shown to be a hypocritical government. And where and which leader, officers, and government follow the same laws by setting an example and model for all to follow without leading their citizens astray through contradictory actions?

Great OP! Well expressed -- my sentiments as well (i.e. the reasoning). 

When and where will that ideal government in whichever format put forth great effort to spring up, I wonder?

I have yet to see *Shambhala* anywhere.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

Most of teh topics you mentioned maciamo will never have the same laws in every country because of religion and what religion has to say about them- people are somtimes more concerned about what their religions have to say about such matters rather than their laws.
On different topics though, i think punishment for child rape/paedophles should be the same in every country. No question about that. Some guy in Thailand gets a couple of months in jail for raping a little girl/boy, over here a couple of years to a decade or more- i think there should be more consistant punishments in things like this across the world.

----------


## Maciamo

> Most of teh topics you mentioned maciamo will never have the same laws in every country because of religion and what religion has to say about them- people are somtimes more concerned about what their religions have to say about such matters rather than their laws.


I don't mind that different countries have different laws about this, as long as each country allow or ban all of them. In fact, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain allow all them if I am not mistaken. Muslim countries ban all of them, I think. The US has inconsitent laws because some states, or even cities, may allow abortion or gay marriages, and not others. 

France has almost exactly the same religion (Catholicism + lots of Muslim immigrants, although a big part of the population is not religious) as Belgium, yet their stance on these issues are not very clear. Soft drugs are illegal, but the police turns a blind eye. Prostitution is legal, but some prostitutes get arrested (maybe for causing public disturbances in the street). Gay marriages are not recognised, but maybe people wouldn't mind. I think there is just the legality of abortion which is not so controversial (yet still a little).

Note that some other devisive issues are not related to logic consistency (e.g. death penalty or the legal drinking age).

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> I don't mind that different countries have different laws about this, as long as each country allow or ban all of them. In fact, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain allow all them if I am not mistaken. Muslim countries ban all of them, I think. The US has inconsitent laws because some states, or even cities, may allow abortion or gay marriages, and not others. 
> France has almost exactly the same religion (Catholicism + lots of Muslim immigrants, although a big part of the population is not religious) as Belgium, yet their stance on these issues are not very clear. Soft drugs are illegal, but the police turns a blind eye. Prostitution is legal, but some prostitutes get arrested (maybe for causing public disturbances in the street). Gay marriages are not recognised, but maybe people wouldn't mind. I think there is just the legality of abortion which is not so controversial (yet still a little).
> Note that some other devisive issues are not related to logic consistency (e.g. death penalty or the legal drinking age).



You cannot ban or allow all these things because they are very different matters. You need to adress each one separately. I think these topics will always remain a hot centre of debate because they are controversal...America is a christian country and the christian community is against gay marriage, prostitution, soft drugs and abortion, so if we are talking about consistancy, that would mean banning all of them- there's no way the christian community will ever be happy with such topics. 
I personally do not want them banned though, but there will always be many who do in such countries due to the religion.

----------


## Maciamo

Sorry, I completely f#cked up in my explanation above. What I really wanted to say is that I want consistency for each of them, not in relation to each others. For instance, prostitution should be legal if doing porn or sleeping with one's boss for a promotion is legal, because it's basically the same thing. Likewise, soft drugs should be allowed if tobacco is allowed, because it's also a "soft" drug. And so on. Now it's actually ok if one country allows soft drugs and not prostitution, as they are different issues. I don't know why I wrote that.  :Okashii:  I must be tired.




> America is a christian country and the christian community is against gay marriage, prostitution, soft drugs and abortion, so if we are talking about consistancy, that would mean banning all of them- there's no way the christian community will ever be happy with such topics.


Why wouldn't the Christian comunity be happy if they are all banned (as is almost the case) ? That's what they want.

The US is not an exclusively Christian nation. All the denominations of Christians only make up 76% of the population. I believe that religion should not interfere at all with politics, especially in a multii-religion country, because it's bound to create frictions between religious communities. Politicians should decide what is best for the majority, which is not necessarily what the biggest religious group wants.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> Sorry, I completely f#cked up in my explanation above. What I really wanted to say is that I want consistency for each of them, not in relation to each others. For instance, prostitution should be legal if doing porn or sleeping with one's boss for a promotion is legal, because it's basically the same thing. Likewise, soft drugs should be allowed if tobacco is allowed, because it's also a "soft" drug. And so on. Now it's actually ok if one country allows soft drugs and not prostitution, as they are different issues. I don't know why I wrote that.  I must be tired.


Thats ok, don't worry about it  :Wavey:  .
I agree, i personally see no difference in people getting paid to have sex for porn and people just getting paid to have sex (i.e. they are prostitutes). I think prostitution should be legallised, so it can be more tightly controlled- few people want to set up brothels because you have more chance of being caught, but the brothel adds more protection to the prostitute as people then can know who are the customers, who is doing what, who is getting paid what etc...Regular routine STD check ups can also be done in a brothel.

Unless a lot of strict steps are taken in legalising prostitution though, i would not agree with it due to its current state.

I am wary of cannabis though...I see it as a fairly harmless drug, but can be devasting in the hands of somone who has mental illness in their family history (although alchohol would be just as bad in the hands of somone mentally ill)...I dunno, they are all addictive substances in their own way. I suppose it comes down to one's ability of self dicipline and their ability to properly control the intake of such things...


I think the biggest contradiction though is with the porn star/prostitute thing though.

----------


## No-name

Other countries, other states can have whatever laws they want. I'm going to concern myself with those I can effectively interact with...

----------


## Maciamo

> Other countries, other states can have whatever laws they want. I'm going to concern myself with those I can effectively interact with...


That is how most ordinary people react. Didn't I start this thread by mentioning that these controversial issues (gay rights, prostitution...) do not concern me at all. I just feel uncomfortable with the idea of governments not being rational and consistent. Isn't it every government's duty to strive to make their country the best possible on earth ?

----------


## No-name

I wont disagree with your view on goverment's duty or on consistency. But I can always express my opinion about what I think your government should do, but it would express my values and prejudices without in all probability a full understanding of your society, culture, laws, norms and values. What may seem irrational and inconsistent to me may have other ramifications in other cultures. My opinion in such matters would not only be irrelevant it would not have any credibility. It would just be an opinion...

----------

