Shouldn't the private activities between two consenting adults be protected from Goobernment interference? If two homosexuals can have their privacy protected in their bedroom, why can't the rest of us? Not debating the moral aspect of this but since goobernment (i.e. the SCOTUS) has issued rulings that goobernment has no business in citizens bedrooms, then why can’t that be applied to all citizens and not just homosexuals?

Well,where do I start.Lets see,first its not about SEX between consenting adults,its about the CONSEQUENCES of a debased transaction involving sex.
If you lived in a neighborhood where outside your kitchen window people were transacting sex,at all hours of the day and night,you might have a slightly different viewpoint.

I guess the politicians and judges better get some good walking shoes.
Like most things, this is none of government's business.
Politics is a lot like prostitution, except with politics nobody gets any pleasure and someone else pays for it.
We are better off with the prostitutes.

BS If the cities could find a way to tax every sexual transaction, they would be advertising it like the Lottery.

I don't mean to have a chuckle over this serious problem, but one of the city's attempts at a solution is rather humorous:

In 2007, a John school program, which aims to help men change their attitude about paid sex, was launched.

I thought M'ass was too enlightened to wage a war on women under the cover of a victimless crime.

I'm with #1. Why is gay sex lauded and admired by politicians and the media, but heterosexual activity still criminalized? One could easily argue that a man who gives his lover a cash gift is no different than a man who treats a woman to drinks and dinner before the deed.

Because #8 Sandra Fluke is still in Law school and the hookers make enough money to pay for their own condoms.

Think about it, there must be hired love.

No one endorses criminal activity but expanding seizure laws is a bigger crime. First it was for drugs, then for DUI, now for soliciting? Remember when failing to use a seat belt was a 'secondary offence'?

Mark my words, it will soon be proposed for failure to use seat belts, improper child seats, then too many points, etc, etc.

You won't even have to car to hock and pay an attorney.

Police love the great cars they seize and guess who gets first dibs at auction?

Sounds like a war against women to me