Nudity Should Be As Legal As Clothing

Thank you for responding to this debate so quickly. Nudity will be a hot button issue over the next few years and it doesn't hurt for me to get fully prepared with a few debates. Thank you for your participation. Point #1: (God created us naked. God wanted us naked. If you believe in God, then you cannot disagree with me. To do so is to go against God's will.) - This I must refer to the good book, the Bible Genesis: "Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on." This sacred text shows us that God covered the bodies that had stripped themselves, through sin, of the garment of grace. For this reason, we must all clothe ourselves decently, modestly and with dignity. Those who appear indecently dressed are an incentive to sin, and so are responsible not only for their own sins but also for those that others may commit because of them. Reflect that fashion, if it is indecent " and we see that the world unfortunately follows it as if it were a law " is a trick of the devil, a clever trap in which the devil catches souls, in the same way as hunters catch game in the woods and fields. My Response: The religious significance of nudity in the public arena will play a small part in getting nudity as legal as clothing. But there are a few things that fascinate me. #1: I never sinned back then. You never sinned back then. Why should we pay for someone else's sin? #2: A number of people don't believe in God and are not bound by this punishment for original sin. #3: Although the bible hasn't been added to since it was written, there have to be new prophets appointed by God to bring a new message. Why wouldn't God want us to go back to a time before original sin? Why wouldn't he appoint a new prophet to relay this message? #4: We are better off moving forward than being stuck in the past. (Response Closed) Next: Point #2: Clothing has seen many atrocities from child labor in sweatshops during the industrial age of America. To slaves working cotton fields that led to countless deaths during the Civil War. With the incredibly destructive history of a product meant only to cover a part of the human body no more meaningful than the rest, how can anyone support forcing others to use it? - There have been countless atrocities through history, from war machines to making drugs, prostitution and the like. This is not a valid enough to point your finger at an industrialized nation that has better standards than the time that you are referring to. Also note that these same clothes may very well have protected them from the elements. My Response: I'm glad you agree there were many atrocities attributed to societies perceived need for clothing. A need probably further enforced by the very people committing them. But this is getting off-track a bit. I guess my question is, How can anyone continue to make others wear clothing when clothing itself has such a bad history? Nudity doesn't have such a history. I would prefer to offer a more environmentally friendly and humanistic approach to appearing in public. People can still wear clothing whether it's for protection or any other reason. I just don't see why a person can't choose to go without it as they see fit. Me and you didn't invent clothing. We didn't make it socially unacceptable to wear nothing in public. We should be allowed to make that decision on our own and not be told we have to. (Response Closed) Next: - Of coarse our body has many functions. A very complex system, capable of performing multiple tasks. Can you tell me that an erect penis or an aroused vagina has a sole purpose of excreting waste? Genitalia is the outwardly parts of our reproductive system. They are vital in reproduction and an essence to survival. Twisting around such a notion that any body part can be used for gratifications is a meager attempt to downplay the role our genitalia play in our reproductive cycle and to support your argument. If you were to use that theory our brain would be our biggest adversary. How would that be covered up? My Response: An erection in males is perfectly natural and the cause of which is not important as long as other activities are not being done. Criminalize the act. Not something as natural as arousal. A person will become aroused with or without clothing on. That doesn't mean we should require everyone to wear clothing to cover themselves just in case. That's like saying we should all be required to wear rain coats just in case there is a shower. Not everyone reproduces and not everyone cares if we survive. Is that all you think about when you see genitals? So you do not see anything else? I think I made a clear case when I said other parts of the body can be used for sexual gratification. Don't you agree? The question is whether or not a body part with multiple uses should be covered for no better reason than some concept of decency. Genitals are no better or worse than any other part of the body. Why do people want to make them into something dirty or indecent? Accept them as equals with all other parts of the body and cover nothing up. Soon no one will even refer to genitals as sexual organs. They will be nothing. (Response Closed) Next: - I can and do see beauty in my own body and in others. I personally feel the body is the greatest work of art known to man. This however does not negate the fact that for the betterment of a society, that some body parts should not be exposed. My Response: So you love your body yet treat parts of it as....Why do you feel society will be better if certain parts of your body are not seen? In a clothed society, how often do you look at another person's genitals? If you're like me, not often. The same is the case if the person were naked in front of you. You might take an initial glance, but after it wouldn't make a difference. (Response Closed) Next: - We could only know if nudity made these crimes worse if we lived in a current nude society. A subjective stance on both of our parts, nudity may not be the sole cause but would certainly play a role in fostering such behavior. Nudity is not the cause, it is the perpetrators. Yet again, it could very well make a bad situation worse. My Response: And I can make a similar statement about clothing. The perpetrator is the cause, but since clothing covers what that person desires it makes them commit the acts to get their fix. Therefore, clothing makes a bad situation worse. Therefore, clothing should be banned. Since we don't know what makes people commit sexual crimes, we can't blame clothing or nudity. The right way to handle this situation is to allow both. All I do know is clothing doesn't stop crime. So protection is not a good reason to make everyone wear it. (Response Closed) Next: - Clothing can be costly but there are many charities, fund raising, subsidies, etc. in place that make clothes affordable and accessible. Clothes can also be beneficial against many elements that are outside of our control, inside and out. In addition, our culture has grown to enjoy the many benefits and comforts of clothing. Yes, even the superficial ones. Yeah, it's nice when you are able to feel comfortable. Not everyone gets that choice without the threat of reprisal. Why is it so hard to allow others to be comfortable without clothing? If you are allowed to wear clothing to be comfortable, why be afraid to allow someone else to not wear clothing and be comfortable? It really doesn't effect you, does it? Just like a bad outfit, if you don't want to see it, turn your head. (Response Closed) Next: - To be willing and to not abide by a law are two different things altogether. A law is enforcement and to willfully act would be on my own terms. I would not choose too go without clothing by choice, unless a law was enacted that I had to abide by, unwillfully. Lucky for you the laws are with you. But laws change. Would you fight against a law you didn't believe in? If made to go naked all the time in public, would you start a petition or possibly debate the issue? (Response Closed) Next: - This, from your own perspective makes you better at answering your question. There are many things legal and illegal that I have chosen not to partake but have used reason and data to support my decisions. I don"t feel being a nudist is a prerequisite for debating this topic. Anyone can debate any topic. I do it myself. But I also understand that until I've experience the topic first hand. I can only offer an opinion. Bottom Line: If you can think of any reason why someone going naked in public should not be allowed the same freedom as a clothed person, please chime in. Nudity harms no one. Clothing harms no one. Both should be as legal as the other. Just not wanting to look at someone doesn't mean you should take away their freedom and a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are hundreds of people at Wal-Mart in clothing I wish I never would've seen. I would not, however, take away their freedom to wear it. (Response Closed) Next: - I look forward to your replies and would like to thank you for starting an intriguing debate! My Response: I'm kind of forced into it. Not being able to live your life as you'd like can do that to a person. I hope you'll continue this debate with a response to round 2. I think we have a few more issues we can cover. Take care and God bless! (Response Closed) Exit: