• 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
Then what are they?

Women are property. They always have been and always will be. Individuals who act on homosexual urges prove themselves to be unworthy of acceptance as full people because they have violated one of the most basic human instincts, reproduction. Therefore, they do not deserve to be granted full Rights/Privileges because of this.
 
Women are property. They always have been and always will be. Individuals who act on homosexual urges prove themselves to be unworthy of acceptance as full people because they have violated one of the most basic human instincts, reproduction. Therefore, they do not deserve to be granted full Rights/Privileges because of this.

1: Regarding the women and property bit...do you still believe in slavery? Because that is what your statements amount to.

2: Who says that homosexuals can't have kids? Being a homosexual does not equal being steril. There are plenty of homosexuals out there that choose to have kids....and do.
 
Women are property. They always have been and always will be. Individuals who act on homosexual urges prove themselves to be unworthy of acceptance as full people because they have violated one of the most basic human instincts, reproduction. Therefore, they do not deserve to be granted full Rights/Privileges because of this.

What the actual blue ****

Wow. Just ... wow.
 
1: Regarding the women and property bit...do you still believe in slavery? Because that is what your statements amount to.

2: Who says that homosexuals can't have kids? Being a homosexual does not equal being steril. There are plenty of homosexuals out there that choose to have kids....and do.

1. Yes, I do. Not based solely on racial criteria, but on other criteria, yes.

2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?
 
I'm bowing out of this thread now, because it has future infraction for me written all over it.
 
1. Yes, I do. Not based solely on racial criteria, but on other criteria, yes.

As a mod I need to set a certain standard here. I'll not comment on this.

2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?

Ever hear of Surrogacy? Completely natural and brings a child into the world. Remember, your criteria is that the homosexuals must be able to reproduce and do it naturally. ;) And just so you know, this came about due to infertile heterosexuals and as such is accepted and has been around for a LONG time...before the US even.
 
Ever hear of Surrogacy? Completely natural and brings a child into the world. Remember, your criteria is that the homosexuals must be able to reproduce and do it naturally. ;)

Where I come from that's called ADULTERY.
 
1. Yes, I do. Not based solely on racial criteria, but on other criteria, yes.

2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?

2) Yes. You missed that fact that homosexuals can have sex with people of the opposite sex.
 
Where I come from that's called ADULTERY.

Adultery only applies in marriage. :shrug: Besides, that is not the criteria that you laid out. Not only that it has been an accepted form of having a child even when married since at least the Babalonia era.
 
2) Yes. You missed that fact that homosexuals can have sex with people of the opposite sex.

As I just mentioned to Kal, that's called ADULTERY where I come from.
 
Adultery only applies in marriage. :shrug: Besides, that is not the criteria that you laid out. Not only that it has been an accepted form of having a child even when married since at least the Babalonia era.

I assumed (my fault) that monogamy was a given in the discussion. Apparently I shouldn't have. Adultery is a potential in ANY committed relationship so far as I'm concerned.

Surrogacy may have been an accepted means to procreate over the years in other cultures, but it most definitely is not in any that I am associated with.
 
Really? Two people of the opposite sex engaged in marital sex is adultery? Since when?

When they are not married to each other or in a committed relationship with each other. We're talking about a homosexual couple, therefore there are no "two people of the opposite sex" to discuss anywhere in this. Engaging in any form of sexual activity with anyone other than your committed partner/husband/wife is Adultery. It's that simple. Therefore, a homosexual couple CANNOT, by definition, have a natural child.... their sexual organs don't allow for it.
 
When they are not married to each other or in a committed relationship with each other. We're talking about a homosexual couple, therefore there are no "two people of the opposite sex" to discuss anywhere in this. Engaging in any form of sexual activity with anyone other than your committed partner/husband/wife is Adultery. It's that simple. Therefore, a homosexual couple CANNOT, by definition, have a natural child.... their sexual organs don't allow for it.

You seem to have forgotten what you originally asked, so I'll repeat your own words that you have abandoned

2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?

Two homosexual men can have children by having sex with the women who are their wives. That's not adultery
 
I know you are a woman and it's still insulting that you *think* women dont "understand what they are doing" when they have an abortion. And did you not imply that there was some responsibility involved that she was avoiding...by not being probed apparently, as that was the example.

I appreciate that you are pro-choice, and even more so because by your words, you disagree with choosing abortion, but still support the right to choose, but not recognizing that these belittling, painful (physically and emotionally), and obstructionist tactics (probes, pictures, moving facilities far from people, etc) are all completely disrespectful of women....if the law says she can have an abortion before 21 weeks, then leave her alone and stop putting up roadblocks.

We're on the internet. You have no idea what I "think", nor should you presume to assume what I "think".
 
I assumed (my fault) that monogamy was a given in the discussion. Apparently I shouldn't have. It may have been an accepted means to procreate over the years in other cultures, but it most definitely is not in any that I am associated with.

And yet it is a part of the culture that you are associated with. Christians have allowed surrogacy for centuries, even while married.

And monogamy has nothing to do with reproduction. Monogamy is about marriage. Something that is independent of reproduction. Which was your requirement for homosexuals being banned...because they couldn't reproduce naturally. When shown that they can indeed reproduce naturally you started throwing other obstacles against them. Obstacles which have nothing to do with reproduction. Which shows that your statement that they should be banned and not allowed rights by the government because they can't reproduce is a false statement. Simply admit that your ban has nothing to do with reproduction but has everything to do with your own style of morality that is no doubt based on your interpretation of a book written by men dead thousands of years ago.
 
Two homosexual men can have children by having sex with the women who are their wives. That's not adultery

Yes it is adultery. They are not in a committed relationship with those women, therefore the sexual act in and of itself is a Moral Crime. As I said to Kal, there was an assumption of Monogamy in my original comment. That was probably a poor assumption on my part considering the lack of morals in this age, but that's my mistake.
 
Women don't have rights. They belong to the dominant Male (father, brother, husband, etc....) in their family.

I'm a woman. I have rights, and lots of them. I don't belong to anyone - and I can assure you, my husband wouldn't consider me his property either.
 
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?

To a certain extent laws are based on morality. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc. But I think morality can be subjective when it come to a lot of the rest. What is moral to some can be determined to be immoral to others. This can be based on religion, what religion the individual is or if they do not belong to any religion. It can be based on customs, traditions, background, point of origin and how someone was brought up. Then society as a whole also has a say in what is and is not moral. Morals also can change over the years.

For the most part, I believe government should stay out of enforcing morals, that is unless we are talking major ones like murder and robbery. I think how one leads or lives their own life is up to them, that is as long as they are not doing any harm to others. Only when harm befalls others, should the government step in and regulate, pass laws etc. Quite simple.
 
Yes it is adultery. They are not in a committed relationship with those women

Now you're just desperately grasping at straws. A gay man can be committed to his straight wife, to his family, and his marriage

After all, it's not like marriage is about love, right?
 
Yes it is adultery. They are not in a committed relationship with those women, therefore the sexual act in and of itself is a Moral Crime. As I said to Kal, there was an assumption of Monogamy in my original comment. That was probably a poor assumption on my part considering the lack of morals in this age, but that's my mistake.

Monogamy is actually a recent invention. Indeed Moses had two wives, and Solomon had lots more. I'm sure that if I looked I could find many more people that are mentioned in the bible has having polygamous relationships. And it being A OK to do by the Christian religion.
 
And yet it is a part of the culture that you are associated with. Christians have allowed surrogacy for centuries, even while married.

I'm not a Christian, Kal. I thought I'd made that incredibly clear over time.

And monogamy has nothing to do with reproduction. Monogamy is about marriage. Something that is independent of reproduction. Which was your requirement for homosexuals being banned...because they couldn't reproduce naturally. When shown that they can indeed reproduce naturally you started throwing other obstacles against them. Obstacles which have nothing to do with reproduction. Which shows that your statement that they should be banned and not allowed rights by the government because they can't reproduce is a false statement. Simply admit that your ban has nothing to do with reproduction but has everything to do with your own style of morality that is no doubt based on your interpretation of a book written by men dead thousands of years ago.

My values are not based on the Bible. They're based on basic human instinct necessary for the species to survive. I have clearly stated over time that I do not believe sex is appropriate in any context other than in a committed relationship/marriage. Therefore the idea of surrogacy is incompatible with basic sexual morality so far as I'm concerned. It always has been. A same-sex couple would need to find a way to engage in direct sexual relations between themselves and somehow create the pregnancy for it to be "natural" in my mind. For the men that's impossible as neither has a womb. For the women it's impossible because neither has the means to provide sperm to inseminate the other partner.
 
Now you're just desperately grasping at straws. A gay man can be committed to his straight wife, to his family, and his marriage

Responding to the numerous immoralities in that comment would likely get me permanently banned from this site, so I'm not going to bother.
 
Monogamy is actually a recent invention. Indeed Moses had two wives, and Solomon had lots more. I'm sure that if I looked I could find many more people that are mentioned in the bible has having polygamous relationships. And it being A OK to do by the Christian religion.

Again, you make the mistake of arguing against Christianity with someone who has absolutely no use for Christianity.
 
I'm a woman. I have rights, and lots of them. I don't belong to anyone - and I can assure you, my husband wouldn't consider me his property either.

Then with all due respect, there is no way that I could engage in any form of social interaction with you or your husband in real life.
 
Back
Top Bottom