The debate "Being prostitute are not sin" was started by
April 22, 2015, 5:45 am.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 5 arguments, I_Voyager posted 2 arguments, Sosocratese posted 4 arguments, Marvelgirl2002 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
debateer, PsychDave, I_Voyager, Marvelgirl2002, ZarinDumasia, Sosocratese, DesolatedRoses, AwfulOctopus, sighnomore99, rishab, debater and 6 visitors agree.
pretty_twin, transfanboy, Kirito, austin, cr1813, Natalie_097, Bodaciouslady16, AtheistOfHappiness, frozen_emily, gotitgod, raz, Eagle528 and 23 visitors disagree.
I don't mean to make this an argument about whether or not God exists but rather whether or not objective morality exists. I don't care how you ground the argument for objective morality. It's just a boring debate to limit it only to religious texts.
As to your comment on prostitution being sinful in texts. In proverbs you'll find:
For a prostitute is a deep pit and a wayward wife is a narrow well. Like a bandit she lies in wait, and multiplies the unfaithful among men
For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death, Her steps lay hold of hell
Corinthians also describes proper sexual conduct and you can infer from these improper sexual conduct which is described as sinful and deserving of an eternity on hell. It describes sex within the confines of marriage as being the only sexually moral act. Adultery is also a sin. So any prostitute who lies with a married man has committed a sin.
I'm using the Bible since it's the book I'm most familiar with. I'm sure I can dig stuff up from the other abrahamic religions if I looked a little.
And I argue from thus perspective because otherwise the debate becomes meaningless. The debate over the existence of God has been done repeatedly, so rather than go through the same arguments here, I choose to accept, for this debate, that God and sin exist.
And my question is, where in Abrahamic texts is prostitution labeled as sinful. I don't actually know of any that explicitly condemn extramarital sex. Sexual immorality is, and wives should be virgins on their wedding night, but I don't remember any verses actually saying sex is a sin. Churches have taught that it is, but church dogma is not always the same as actual religious rules. The church fought heliocentricity and they are now fighting evolution because they do not/did not mesh with their interpretation of the texts. As dogma eventually accepted that the Earth orbits the Sun, I suspect that eventually they will make their peace with evolution, though probably not in our lifetimes. By the same token, the church is against extramarital sex, but I don't know of any verses explicitly condemning it.
Here is the problem with accepting sin in this argument as a given (not being debatable): you have to accept that there is a objective morality, that said morality is given to us by God, that actions are punishable if they are described as wrong by said God, and that we have knowledge of this objective morality through the word of God (I. E. Whatever holy book you choose to ascribe to). These are the conditions of a sin.
This means that you're really only arguing texts. In the Bible, tora, and the Koran prostitution is definitely a sin; often times multiple sins at once. So are you arguing that in some other text (a text which describes acts as sinful, I.e. A religious text which has clear moral objective and ascribes a form of punishment by the deity to said action) prostitution would not be a sin? That is where your position leaves you; backed into a corner with only holy books to back your position, which would leave you having to accept prostitution as a sin by any Abrahamic religion.
From the religious perspective, Sim exists and they work from there. A parallel could be the debate between string theory and loop quantum gravity. Neither can be discretely tested yet, but to make predictions you start with the assumption that one or the other is correct and work from there using mathematics to expand into testable fields.
The existence of sin is definitely pertinent to whether or not prostitution is one, but the question assumes the existence of sin. Whether sin exists is a debate unto itself. If I made a topic about the Canadian justice system, it can safely be assumed that, for the debate, the crime is taking place in Canada. Otherwise, like if sin doesn't exist, the topic is moot.
@psychdave the argument for con would look like this:
P1: sin exists
P2: sex outside of marriage is sinful
P3: prostitutes have sex outside of wedlock
C: therefore prostitutes are sinners
There may be some other premises, but this is the simplest argument con could make.
How is attacking P1 not a valid challenge? If I challenge the concept of sin itself, it's a valid attack on the argument since the existence of sin is a necessity for the argument to function. It's the easiest out of all of those premises to attack, so why go through the trouble of arguing over whether or not prostitution is sinful if sin itself is a much easier target? You have to prove the foundation of the argument.
I don't really care how real sin is to a religious person, but in order to use it in an argument, you must first prove the concept. Sin is different from immoral as it carries with it an objective measure. You have to prove that there is an objective measure to morality if you want to prove sin. So it's an immensely difficult argument to make, thus it's the strongest objection to the original argument of prostitution being sinful.
And that a prostitute is almost always female (or gay) is a confusing thing. I'd totally be a heterosexual male prostitute, but there is no market.
If you need the money then prostitution is alright because it could be the matter of life and death. However, if you are doing it just because it is an 'easy' way to make money then you are in the wrong. And prostitution isn't always sex. A prostitute can be a woman (mainly) who you can hire to make you look good by hanging on your arm.
For religious people, sin exists as outlined in their holy text, so I could understand bypassing arguing its existence. Even working from the belief that sin exists, con has to demonstrate where prostitution is listed, and explain why important religious figures had no problem with prostitutes.
The burden of proof is on CON's side here. You'd have to prove that sin even exists.... Seems like a tall order. I doubt anyone is actually gonna take this point on
It's incidentally sinful given Christian theology. Since unwed sex is sinful, and incidentally of prostitution is unwed sex.
But sins don't seem likely to be true.
Sexual immorality is repeatedly condemned, and no man or woman if Israel should become a cult prostitute, but I don't know of any verses that explicitly say that prostitution is sexually immoral. Jesus freely associated with prostitutes without condemning them.