• 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!

Sperm-donor kept wife in the dark

So what is true about Bill Johnson

  • He is a hypocrite

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • He wants to do penance for being wrong

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • He likes money

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • He wants to foist unsuspecting Bill Johnsons on the gay community

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • He loves to screw people, but he hates having sex

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • He wants to create more Republicans in secret

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • He is gay curious

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • He is a mad scientist conducting an experiment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He wants to have lots of paternity lawsuits against him

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All of the above

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
His body - his choice.

It's always unfortunate when one person in a relationship goes behind the other's back concerning child-rearing and parenting. When this is the issue - and it comes out in the media - everyone focuses on 'what he did' and 'what she did' and 'how wrong' it was, etc etc etc. However : the bigger issue is: what's wrong with both of them and their relationship that one would do anything without consulting and considering the other's views and values first.
 
Last edited:
From the article:

He said he did not know the "relationship status" of the women he donated to: "I just know they want to have children." Asked if it mattered, he said: "I'm not going to answer that question."

Wait, what? He has a problem with lesbians getting married, but he has no problem with them having children? Urge to kill rising.
 
Campaigning on and believing in...two different things....Campaigning on means nothing...its only for election
 
I stopped taking the GOP platform on socially-conservative sexuality seriously a long time ago, now that so many of them have been exposed as either patrons of the sex industry, closet homosexuals, unfaithful to their partners, or just run of the mill scum bags. In other words, the condemnations by these people in power against the private lives of their fellow Americans means JACK at this point.

It's a shame because there are a lot of virtuous religious people who look up to what these politicians are saying, and give them their vote in good faith. You shouldn't do that. Politicians and religion do not genuinely mesh it seems. They will betray YOUR religious values for a buck, or for their own personal pleasure.

I really wish more voters would see through these people.
 
Wait, what? He has a problem with lesbians getting married, but he has no problem with them having children? Urge to kill rising.

My interpretation of that quote was that he didn't know if the recipients of his sperm were gay, straight, married/committed or single. In other words, he's invoking plausible deniability.
 
My interpretation of that quote was that he didn't know if the recipients of his sperm were gay, straight, married/committed or single. In other words, he's invoking plausible deniability.

Wiki ~ Plausible deniability

Do you have proof that he's just "invoking plausible deniability"? Or is it possible that he's actually telling the truth?
 
Wiki ~ Plausible deniability

Do you have proof that he's just "invoking plausible deniability"? Or is it possible that he's actually telling the truth?

It doesn't matter if he's telling the truth or not -- the very nature of his statement (that he didn't know) is one rooted in plausible deniability, since the chances that anybody will have concrete evidence of what he knew or didn't know is extremely slim.

You seem to be mistaking what I said for an accusation that he's done anything wrong. I've pointed out more than once now that the guy has said he didn't know the relationship status of the recipients of his sperm, which means we can't necessarily accuse him of hypocrisy.
 
This is actrually a common misconception. While I personally have no problem with gay marriage I CAN see the reason why people argue they shouldnt be allowed to be married. From the perspective of the church (which keep in mind is the one that DOEs the marriage) marriage is between a man and a woman and being gay is wrong. With this in mind why should they be forced to contradict their own religious beliefs just because a couple wants the official title? In Truth I think this matter should be left out of the government entirely and left to the churches to decided whether or not to allow a person to marry. IMO we should just give them a seperate title like a civil union with the same rights and benefits as marriage. this oculd be done in an effort to make both groups happy.

The misconception is yours. First, seperate is not equal. Second, no one would be forcing any religion to practice anything that is not within their beliefs. If your church does not believe homosexuals should be married then they don't have to marry them. If your church does believe that homosexuals can be married then your church is free to marry them. As it stands now...in most states...churches that believe homosexuals can marry cannot practice their beliefs the same as churches that do not beleive homosexual should be married. Third, you cannot leave government out of marriage without giving up the special rights and priveleges afforded to married couples. The state can only remove itself from the practice of marriage if it removes those special rights and priveleges it grants to married couples. It is equally true that the state should not be able to discriminate on a basis of gender, as many states still do, when awarding those special rights and priveleges.
 
Last edited:
Note...if you have a problem with gays getting married then you have a problem with gays.

Sorry, no. Don't confuse your opinion with a fact.
 
Sorry, no. Don't confuse your opinion with a fact.

I am not confusing my opinion with fact. The facts are simple. If you have a problem affording a certain group of people their due rights by law then you have a problem with that group of people. If you did not have a problem with that group of people then there would be no problem in affording them their due legal rights. Anything else is irrational.
 
Three. He, like many other men, like to jerk off and make some money while doing it.

He actually gave money to some of the women, and he said he did this because has a biological need to reproduce, which he can't with his wife. And he claimed to have discussed the issue with his wife, though maybe he didn't tell her what he did.

article said:
The Herald on Sunday approached Johnson on Thursday at a restaurant in Christchurch where he had just finished dining with one of the women he had successfully impregnated.

He said the urge to become a biological father was "a need that I have".

"I am married to the most beautiful woman in the world. When I married her I knew we couldn't have any more children. She had a hysterectomy 10 years ago.

"There is nothing my wife would want to give me more in the world than a child of my own."


He's an idiot to do it that way, there could be consequences for the children when they grow up and don't know who their biological father is, but I do pity him for the fact that he wants to have children but can't with his wife. As for his gay stance, I hope he learn to respect gay people more from this.
 
The guy's a doof for being a moron. He could have at least told his wife.

What an even doofier thing to do is using this guy to further any political cause.
 
Back
Top Bottom