that thought otherwise. Therefore, men and women should be free to be naked in public or private in any situation that does potentially expose their nudity to minors or other individuals who are unable to understand. In all probability, that would rule out most public spaces unless they were able to control those who attend; but would allow nudity in private establishments where minors can be prohibited or at least where the general public can be advised of the potential for nudity. Similarly, advertisement with nudity would be prohibited from places which were likely to been seen by minors. But in an adult only private establishment or in places designated as adult only public areas people should have the legal freedom to be nude. If this offends you, then no one is forcing you to attend those places or to even look. Legalizing nudity with limimtations is a simple solution to complex problem.
Prostitution
Without condoning nor condemning prostitution, there is no real reason why two consenting adults should be restricted or prohibited from engaging in sexual activity for the exchange of money. This mutually beneficial arrangement is little different from many other acts of personal service where enjoyment or pleasure is received by one and compensated for to the other. Prostitution maybe condemned on religious principles, but no one has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on another, no matter how right they think they are. Prostitution should be legal, except for minors.
Similar to drug use, it is those who profit the most from prostitution being illegal who want to keep it that way, not the God-fearing believer. It is that upstanding citizen who opposes prostitution on moral grounds who is being duped by the very group they so adamantly oppose. It is okay to be personally opposed to prostitution; but, it is not okay to enforce your belief upon another unless you can clearly demonstrate that the activity hurts their general health, safety and welfare.
Many studies have shown that societies with legalized prostitution actually fair better when it comes to the general health, safety and welfare of the general public than those who attempt to make it illegal. Health issues associated with prostitution could be more easily identified and controlled. Even if there was no significant difference; there would still be no grounds for part of society to enforce its belief upon another. For society to have the right to enforce regulations against a group of people or a particular activity, it must clearly demonstrate that such enforcement is truly in the best interest of the majority of society and does not deny someone their individual right.
Society does have the right, though, to treat prostitution as a legitimate business. Hence, society can require that individuals who provide sex for money to report income, pay taxes, record medical issues, and even keep records of customers. With the legalization of prostitution, there would be no need for law enforcement against it and there would be an immediate new source of tax revenue. This new tax revenue could even be earmarked to help fight prostitution and the social problems associated with prostitution, such as communicable diseases.
Society can find many ways to make prostitution unattractive and expensive in order to help discourage it; but they have no moral or legal right to make it illegal. Frankly, if two consenting individuals wish to engage in prostitution, even knowing the potential consequences, they should be allowed to do so, as long as does not endanger the health, safety and welfare of another or denies another their individual right. Similar to recreational drug use, you cannot legislate against stupidity. Thus, legalizing prostitution is a simple solution to complex problem.
Marriage, Prenuptials & Divorce
Marriage is a religious commitment or privilege that has inadvertently been afforded unintended non-religious legal ramifications or rights. It is actually a violation of separation of Church and State. Therefore, marriage by itself should not have any basis in societal law for either co-ownership or even parental responsibility unless there are corresponding legal documents associated with the partnership between the two people. Otherwise, there is nothing legally binding between the two parties when they are married. The significance of what is marriage is only between the individuals and their particular belief system.
Thus, when two people (whether male/female, male/male or female/female) do decide to get “married” – they do so only in the light of their respective religion or belief system, if any. There is no “marriage” in the legal sense or any corresponding legal advantage or disadvantage associated with their union. As for the government and society is concerned, there really is no such thing as marriage – the couple is simply two individuals who may be in a joint partnership. The married couple is afforded no special privilege because of their “married” status. Consequently, when two individuals decide to “divorce” it is only a divorce in terms of their religion or faith; and, there is no automatic claim to each other’s property or parental responsibility because of their so called “marriage” partnership.
Thus ideally, when any couple decides to co-habitat, combine resources, make joint purchases or decide to have sexual relations that may result in children, then the prudent thing for them to do is to sign agreements as to how things should be divided in the event they should ever separate and most importantly who is responsible in the event there is offspring. If would seem that if they are unable to agree upon these issues prior to or during their relationship or in the creation of offspring; then it is very unlikely they will agree on them during the demise of their relationship. Thus, it is best to resolve these issues before they become problems. Prior to a relationship, they should form binding agreements, much like any business partnership would do prior to entering into a relationship. Not to do so would be a bad business practice. Failure to do so who automatically negate any legal grounds against each other. Minors, of course, would not be allowed to make such agreements without the consent of their guardian(s).
This non-marriage “prenuptial” agreement could be made readily available at little or no cost to the general public. There even could be several variations from which to choose and should automatically be provided anytime a couple elects to “get married” or otherwise decide co-habitat or have sexual relations that could result in off-spring. Clear and objective minds could easily draft several viable options for a “divorce” settlement from which a “marrying” couple could easily select as their choice. Of course, couples can elect to opt out of signing such an agreement or they may not be able to agree at the time of the marriage, and if so, they must be required to check the box mark “would rather encage the services of divorce attorneys who will probably take most of our assets and conjure a custody arrangement far worse than anything we could have devised ourselves.” Again, you cannot fix stupid.
In the event that no prenuptial agreement is in place, it is still better to have a simple system in place (whether married or not) with regard to property. It would state that whatever belongs to one before the marriage is that person’s property after the divorce (provided they can demonstrate prior ownership). If there has been a co-mingling of assets during the marriage, then when separated, those assets are either divided based upon their respective contribution (provided they can demonstrate the contribution) or based upon some already agreed upon terms as one would have established if they were in any type of partnership, or as mutually agreed to between themselves; otherwise, they would by default be divided equally – even if it requires liquidation. The important point is that no divorce attorneys are needed. Likewise, liabilities are either split based upon prior responsibility, prior agreements, or liability decision responsibility (for example, only one party signs to purchase a boat, then they are the one responsible for its payment, and not the one who did not sign a purchase agreement); otherwise, liabilities are shared equally. Regardless, no divorce attorney should be needed to split either the assets or liabilities. It would be clearly determined by the agreement and simply enforced by a Judge if needed. The only ones against such a simple system are, of course, those who profit the most from a divorce, divorce
attorneys.
Unfortunately, divorce attorneys play on the emotions welled up in individuals during the divorce. They convince their client that it is in their best interest, or in the best interest of the children, or the best interest of almost anyone else other than the one they are divorcing to employ the lawyer’s services and file suit. But think about it, the only person who truly benefits in a divorce is the divorce attorney. And you should always be suspect of someone who tells you what you should do or believe who also has something to gain from convincing you. But, as you know, you can’t fix stupid. Unfortunately, most people are naïve or just plain ignorant to see this at the time during their divorce, often blinded by emotions; so, society has a responsibility to try and minimize these situations for them.
Similarly, with regard to offspring, if there is no prenuptial agreement, then those who had children prior to the marriage are still responsible for their respective offspring after the divorce. In the
You Can't Fix Stupid. Page 8