• 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
Tigger said:
Responding to the numerous immoralities in that comment would likely get me permanently banned from this site, so I'm not going to bother.
Click to expand...

I can see right through you, Tigger.

For all your blather about your moral code, the truth is you lack the moral fiber to admit that you've been stymied.
 
There are certain morals, ones I tend to refer to as "universal morals", that are indeed within the government purview to enforce, as they also coincide with violations of rights and freedoms. Murder is a prime example as is theft. But overall these types of morals are few and far between. Most morals are subjective and as such are not in the purview of the government to regulate, especially in a government that has as a baseline tenant religious freedom. Mind you not all morals are religiously based, or not in everyone. For those morals that are not "universal", then it is purely upon the people to enforce that moral through legal means, and not have them enacted into law.

For example, the basic religious moral of not working on the sabbath. There should never be a law that prevents a business from being open on a certain day of the week. If all but one person in a community holds to that particular moral instead of using the law to force the one person to be closed on their sabbath, they simply do not frequent that business, either on the sabbath in question or at all, making known to the business owner why they are doing so. This is the proper way to enforce morals that are not "universal"
 
sangha said:
For all your blather about your moral code, the truth is you lack the moral fiber to admit that you've been stymied.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Adulterers deserve the same punishment as homosexuals.... DEATH.
 
Tigger said:
I'm not a Christian, Kal. I thought I'd made that incredibly clear over time.
Click to expand...

I don't pay attention to most of your posts so probably missed it. :shrug: Though from the ones that I have seen they reflect the extreme side of the Christian religion. My assumption, my bad.

Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they were based on the basic human instinct necessary for the species to survive then you should be all for surrogacy and polygamy as they both offer the best chance at our species survival. Both allow the man to reproduce far more times than he can do with just one person who may be infertile. Indeed there have been many studies that have shown that men are polygamous in nature.
 
Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's okay, Tigger. We don't have any friends who view me as my husband's property anyway. We live in America where that sort of thinking isn't the norm.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If they were based on the basic human instinct necessary for the species to survive then you should be all for surrogacy and polygamy as they both offer the best chance at our species survival. Both allow the man to reproduce far more times than he can do with just one person who may be infertile. Indeed there have been many studies that have shown that men are polygamous in nature.
Click to expand...

I probably should have said for the species to thrive rather than survive. It's irrelevant, as we are not going to agree on any of these things.
 
sangha said:
So we're back to your "a married man and woman having sex with each other is adultery" spiel? :lamo
Click to expand...

No. In fact so long as they're married TO EACH OTHER, that is the only acceptable form of sexual intercourse..... Heterosexual AND as part of a committed, monogamous relationship. That's the ONLY appropriate form of sexual activity.
 
tres borrachos said:
That's okay, Tigger. We don't have any friends who view me as my husband's property anyway. We live in America where that sort of thinking isn't the norm.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the reason this nation is circling the toilet drain of history, just like Rome did.
 
Tigger said:
No. In fact so long as they're married TO EACH OTHER, that is the only acceptable form of sexual intercourse..... Heterosexual AND as part of a committed, monogamous relationship. That's the ONLY appropriate form of sexual activity.
Click to expand...

So IOW, you were wrong to say that homosexuals are incapable of making children naturally and morally but you still lack the moral fiber to admit that you were wrong.

Even in your ideal world, you'd be a low-status individual due to your inability to demonstrate the sort of moral strength required to adhere to your own moral code
 
sangha said:
So IOW, you were wrong to say that homosexuals are incapable of making children naturally and morally but you still lack the moral fiber to admit that you were wrong.

Even in your ideal world, you'd be a low-status individual due to your inability to demonstrate the sort of moral strength required to adhere to your own moral code
Click to expand...

A homosexual man cannot legitimately be married to a heterosexual woman in a proper society, sangha. Your entire concept is absurd on its base. Even if he was, the moment he touches a man in a sexual manner, they're both DEAD as they have now committed Adultery. Your entire concept is ridiculous.
 
Tigger said:
I probably should have said for the species to thrive rather than survive. It's irrelevant, as we are not going to agree on any of these things.
Click to expand...

It seems that there are a few things that you "should have said". You keep moving the goal posts. But in anycase I can meet each one. And have, and will continue to do so.

Polygamy has been around for more thousands of years than monogamy. As I said earlier, monogamy is a relatively new invention. Polygamous relationships have been around since the caveman days and still thrives today. Indeed the majority of people on this planet are in polygamous relationships. In polygamous relationships the male is able to keep having children year round while the woman can only have 1.5 children per year (a woman is pregnant 9 months of the year and can get pregnant again almost immediately after childbirth). If polygamous relationships doesn't allow our species to thrive as your post implies then how is it that the human race is still here since through out the majority of human history we have led polygamous relationships?
 
Kal'Stang said:
It seems that there are a few things that you "should have said". You keep moving the goal posts. But in anycase I can meet each one. And have, and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

No you won't because this conversation betwen us is over. If you weren't a Moderator, you'd be on Ignore right now.
 
Tigger said:
A homosexual man cannot legitimately be married to a heterosexual woman in a proper society, sangha.
Click to expand...

Not only can they, they *have* been legitimately married to straight women. For centuries, if not longer

Your entire concept is absurd on its base. Even if he was, the moment he touches a man in a sexual manner, they're both DEAD as they have now committed Adultery. Your entire concept is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Now you're assuming that a homosexual man *must* have sex with another man.

Some people will believe anything that rationalizes their inability to live up to their own moral code. It's the reason why this nation is circling the drain.
 
sangha said:
Not only can they, they *have* been legitimately married to straight women. For centuries, if not longer
Click to expand...

We don't have a proper society, so that's irrelevant.

sangha said:
Now you're assuming that a homosexual man *must* have sex with another man.
Click to expand...

That's the definition of homosexuality, at least as I was taught it.... An individual who is aroused by and engages in sexual activity with members of their own sex.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not trying to take sides by outside of marriage they call it fornication. But one can reproduce without coitus. Anyway, carry on I'm out of it. :mrgreen:
 
Tigger said:
No you won't because this conversation betwen us is over. If you weren't a Moderator, you'd be on Ignore right now.
Click to expand...

So when confronted with a view that disproves your beliefs you run away from it? Thank you for proving a theory of mine. It's been quite enjoyable chatting with you. :2wave:
 
sangha said:
Not only can they, they *have* been legitimately married to straight women. For centuries, if not longer



Now you're assuming that a homosexual man *must* have sex with another man.

Some people will believe anything that rationalizes their inability to live up to their own moral code. It's the reason why this nation is circling the drain.
Click to expand...

What's longer than centuries? :lol: eons?
 
Tigger said:
That's the definition of homosexuality, at least as I was taught it.... An individual who is aroused by and engages in sexual activity with members of their own sex.
Click to expand...

That would be the wrong definition of homsexuality. It is simply two people of the same gender being attracted to each other. The act of sex has nothing to do with attraction. If it did then prostitutes would have no customers. ;)
 
Tigger said:
We don't have a proper society, so that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's because even the people (or more accurately) person who advocates for a "proper society" (I'm talking about you) lack the moral fiber to adhere to the rules which govern that proper society.


That's the definition of homosexuality, at least as I was taught it.... An individual who is aroused by and engages in sexual activity with members of their own sex.
Click to expand...

A person doesn't have to have sex in order to be gay or straight. Virgins can be straight or gay.

I'm sure you know this. It's just that people will believe anything to rationalize their inability to adhere to their own moral code. It's why this nation is circling the drain
 
Kal'Stang said:
That would be the wrong definition of homsexuality. It is simply two people of the same gender being attracted to each other. The act of sex has nothing to do with attraction.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of being attracted to a member of the same sex is disgusting beyond belief, but so long as the individual doesn't act on that thought it's not homosexuality, it's merely insanity. Just as my desire to punch whichever moron in my building left the security door open all night last night doesn't qualify as assault or battery because I haven't committed the act as of yet.
 
Tigger said:
When confronted with any view that even disagrees with my own, I ignore it. Always have and always will.
Click to expand...

Real men don't run away or hide. They confront challenges.

You know this. I am certain of that.
 
Tigger said:
Welcome to the Ignore List. Enjoy your stay, it's permanent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom