• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it the government's job to regulate Morality

Is it the government's job

  • Total voters
    60
Its the governments job to stay the hell out of my life as much as possible.
 
Tigger said:
Oh, I'm sorry. That just earned you a seat right beside sangha. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

Real men don't run and hide from women who challenge them

I'm beginning to udnderstand why Tigger wants the govt to forbid women from challenging men.
 
Mathematician said:
That does not imply such. Just like the number 0 being non-positive and non-negative, there are actions which we would not debate as morally right nor wrong (e.g. breathing). Please work on your logical reasoning skills.
Click to expand...

Giving charitably cannot be mandated. Giving charitably is something some people like to do. Some people like to make baskets in their spare time. I don't see making baskets to be a moral act nor an immoral act. I don't see giving charitably as a moral act nor an immoral act. Giving charitably is just something that some people like to do. The same thing goes for swimming. Swimming is neither moral nor immoral.

Trust me: That ridiculous statement was loaded as junk.
 
tecoyah said:
Government regulation of morality/ethical behavior is required for societal stability and is done so through laws preventing violence and the removal of elements that threaten personal freedoms. The balance of this process is corrupted when religion is used for the implementation of these regulations as the laws are inherently biased against anyone of differing opinion.
Unless these regulations fall under these categories:

Prevention of violent action.
Protection of the citizenry.
Infrastructure improvement/creation.
Majority approved Constitutional adjustment.
....and a few others....

The regulation becomes an invasion of rights.
Click to expand...

Are you a fan of totalitarianism?
 
Tigger said:
Yes, they CAN and SHOULD be. Of course you need the assistance of the general public to help ferret them out, but the threat of death themselves, if they know and fail to turn someone in is always a useful tool in promoting assistance from the public.
Click to expand...

Really? Feelings can be controlled by law. Just how exactly are they suppose to do that? If I feel love there is no law what so ever that can take that love away. If I feel anger, again, there is not a single law out there that can take it away. You're not trying to regulate feelings, you're trying to regulate actions. There is a difference. And a huge one. As such you will never get rid of homosexuality. You might be able to hide it, but you will never get rid of it.
 
Is it the government's job...

...to do what the voter's tell them to do.


And if the voter's don't tell them what to do, then the government should do NOTHING.

Imo, the politically weak call politicians 'leaders'; the not-so-politically-weak call them 'public servants'.

They are there to do what we tell them to do - not the other way around.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Really? Feelings can be controlled by law. Just how exactly are they suppose to do that? If I feel love there is no law what so ever that can take that love away. If I feel anger, again, there is not a single law out there that can take it away. You're not trying to regulate feelings, you're trying to regulate actions. There is a difference. And a huge one. As such you will never get rid of homosexuality. You might be able to hide it, but you will never get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Hiding it would be a good start. Then, slowly over time you root out those dark corners it hides in and burn them to the ground until there is nowhere left for them to hide.
 
Tigger said:
Hiding it would be a good start. Then, slowly over time you root out those dark corners it hides in and burn them to the ground until there is nowhere left for them to hide.
Click to expand...

Its been tried before. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. It will never happen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Its been tried before. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. It will never happen.
Click to expand...

It hasn't worked because the cost to being one, or helping shelter one has not been high enough.
 
Tigger said:
It hasn't worked because the cost to being one, or helping shelter one has not been high enough.
Click to expand...

Death isn't high enough? Because that is the price used in the past and currently in some theocratic countries. Yet homosexuality is still here...even in those countries that ban it with penalty of death.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Death isn't high enough? Because that is the price used in the past and currently in some theocratic countries. Yet homosexuality is still here...even in those countries that ban it with penalty of death.
Click to expand...

True, but have their families, their friends, and their co-workers (at times) been punished for failing to see and report it; or for actively supporting it? Has the criminal's family paid the price for their relative's mistakes? THAT is when things truly start to turn.... when it's more beneficial for you to turn in your mom/dad/husband/wife/child than it is not to.
 
Lursa said:
Of course. That's why I wrote what your words implied, *to me.* You are welcome to correct them.

I didnt see you doing so yet.
Click to expand...

I have to waste my time correcting you? That's rich.

I did correct your words. I pointed out that you have no idea what you're talking about when you're talking about me.

Next time you want to play mindreader, select another person to project onto.
 
Tigger said:
Prostitution would be totally legal. Of course it would be one of the only vocations a woman would be allowed to engage in, and only with her father/husband's approval.
Click to expand...

Tigger said:
Heterosexual AND as part of a committed, monogamous relationship. That's the ONLY appropriate form of sexual activity.
Click to expand...

If heterosexual and part of a committed monogamous relationship is the only appropriate form of sexual activity, then how can prostitution be legal under your morality laws? You can't even agree with your self.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Really? Feelings can be controlled by law. Just how exactly are they suppose to do that? If I feel love there is no law what so ever that can take that love away. If I feel anger, again, there is not a single law out there that can take it away. You're not trying to regulate feelings, you're trying to regulate actions. There is a difference. And a huge one. As such you will never get rid of homosexuality. You might be able to hide it, but you will never get rid of it.
Click to expand...

If it's 'hidden' then it's easier to ignore it and all the 'icky' and disturbing feelings some people cant avoid when around them. I wonder if he thinks 'those' feelings can be controlled?
 
maquiscat said:
If heterosexual and part of a committed monogamous relationship is the only appropriate form of sexual activity, then how can prostitution be legal under your morality laws? You can't even agree with your self.
Click to expand...

That's probably not 'sexual activity.' It's probably commerce. Or her punishment for something.
 
All law is based on someones morality. Some moral codes are more live and let live and others are more controlling is all.
 
Tigger said:
Welcome to the Ignore List. Enjoy your stay, it's permanent.
Click to expand...

sangha said:
Promises, promises

You've said the same thing before, and it was a lie. A Real Man doesn't renege on their vows

You know this. I am certain that you do.
Click to expand...

Always wondered about the point of 'ignore.' It only means you can still comment on their posts and they cant defend their posts. Weird.
 
Lursa said:
Always wondered about the point of 'ignore.' It only means you can still comment on their posts and they cant defend their posts. Weird.
Click to expand...

I love it when people put me on ignore. then i can mock their posts without them knowing it. Plus, even when they put me on ignore, they still get notifications that I've responded to one of their posts.
 
"Is it the government's job to regulate Morality"

Government's raison d'etre is to secure the individual rights of The People primarily and to provide for the common defense secondarily. It seems this government's agenda is to control every aspect of everyone's life and to wage hegemonic war, and when it does that, it is no longer a government and therefore has no useful purpose for The People. It is then nothing more than a dangerous destructive force.
 
sangha said:
I love it when people put me on ignore. then i can mock their posts without them knowing it. Plus, even when they put me on ignore, they still get notifications that I've responded to one of their posts.
Click to expand...

Plus they'll probably see the response in someone else's response to you.
 
Tigger said:
True, but have their families, their friends, and their co-workers (at times) been punished for failing to see and report it; or for actively supporting it? Has the criminal's family paid the price for their relative's mistakes? THAT is when things truly start to turn.... when it's more beneficial for you to turn in your mom/dad/husband/wife/child than it is not to.
Click to expand...

Some people have honor and would not want to lose that than do what is "beneficial" for them.
 
cpgrad08 said:
This came up with a discussion with Tigger. Do you guys think it is the job of the government to judge,decide,regulate the morality of the people or that the job of the people and the laws of the government should reflect that?
Click to expand...

You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's a cheap trick, and you should feel ashamed.

The government IS the people. If the people have that right, then so does the government.
 
All law is regulating morality of some kind. This is a pointless question.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's a cheap trick, and you should feel ashamed.

The government IS the people. If the people have that right, then so does the government.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The government if for the people, by the people and of the people, but it is not the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom