• 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
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.

Except that feelings are not, nor can they be, regulated by law. As such your analogy is apples and oranges. Even if you made a law that banned homosexual acts, homosexuality would still abound. That evidence is in the history books for all to see. You see, homosexuality is not an act. It is a state of being. The same as heterosexuality is a state of being for heterosexuals.
 
Except that feelings are not, nor can they be, regulated by law.

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.
 
Incorrect. There would be no laws against discrimination, PERIOD. Base it on race, age, gender, etc.... However, homosexuality is an afront to society in general and would be banned under the Morality laws.

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.


Ahhh, good times.
 
No it's not. Women and homosexuals are not human beings. Therefore one cannot discriminate against them.

Now science has also gone completely out the window. LOL
 
Women are property. .

LOLOLOL Only if they allow you to think so!

But no man is truly a man if he needs to own the woman. A real man earns her respect and she stays with him by choice.
 
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.

He has said previously that he supports govt-sponsored slavery (based on behavior, not race, gender, ethnicity, etc) and also, it should be obvious by now that science has no relevance in his arguments.
 
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.

You'd love living in Uganda.
 
As I just mentioned to Kal, that's called ADULTERY where I come from.

Even when a turkey baster is involved? Or other medical procedures?

Yowza! Now adultery doesnt even require to people to have sex.
 
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.

Is adoption immoral? How about step-kids....is it ok for them to live with you, like when the dad dies and mom marries another man? Or is that immoral too? Or just immoral for gays?
 
We're on the internet. You have no idea what I "think", nor should you presume to assume what I "think".

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.
 
And yet it is a part of the culture that you are associated with. .

To be fair, he has made it perfectly clear, elsewhere that there is little of our culture that he finds acceptable. At all.
 
To be fair, he has made it perfectly clear, elsewhere that there is little of our culture that he finds acceptable. At all.

It's called "Equal Opportunity Hater".
 
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.

Interesting
 
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.

This brings us back to the fact that in the past, you actually became angered when I claimed your self-created religion...which you have said you drew on and created from multiple sources...places you as the actual deity, since you created all His laws and precepts. Because as inventor, it places you as the ultimate Authority, and the 'deity' is just some figurehead. I mean, it's 'your cafeteria-plan' for the belief system.

So yes, you can kill on a whim, or justify your 'theocratic government's' doing so. I know such a world where everyone says and does and thinks exactly as we say so appeals to some people. That can even be done beneficently. Or punitively...as your system describes.
 
LOLOLOL Only if they allow you to think so! But no man is truly a man if he needs to own the woman. A real man earns her respect and she stays with him by choice.

A real woman understands that her place is not to be imposing her desires or thoughts onto the Man. In a proper society the only opportunity for the woman other than staying with Him is to return to her family (if they'll have her) or become indigent.

He has said previously that he supports govt-sponsored slavery (based on behavior, not race, gender, ethnicity, etc) and also, it should be obvious by now that science has no relevance in his arguments.

Science has no relevance in anything, so far as I'm concerned.

Even when a turkey baster is involved? Or other medical procedures?

Yowza! Now adultery doesnt even require to people to have sex.

Adultery requires sexual activity. Not medical procedures.

Is adoption immoral? How about step-kids....is it ok for them to live with you, like when the dad dies and mom marries another man? Or is that immoral too? Or just immoral for gays?

Adoption is fine, as are step-children.... In a HETEROSEXUAL couple's relationship. There is no situation in which it is proper for a homosexual couple to even exist, so there can be no situation where it is appropriate for them to be allowed to interact with children.

To be fair, he has made it perfectly clear, elsewhere that there is little of our culture that he finds acceptable. At all.

100% correct.

This brings us back to the fact that in the past, you actually became angered when I claimed your self-created religion...which you have said you drew on and created from multiple sources...places you as the actual deity, since you created all His laws and precepts. Because as inventor, it places you as the ultimate Authority, and the 'deity' is just some figurehead. I mean, it's 'your cafeteria-plan' for the belief system.

It is what I believe. Nothing is going to change that. So debating it would be a total waste of both of our time.

So yes, you can kill on a whim, or justify your 'theocratic government's' doing so. I know such a world where everyone says and does and thinks exactly as we say so appeals to some people. That can even be done beneficently. Or punitively...as your system describes.

Moralistic Government, not Theocratic. Who ever talked about being befeficent? Society's role is maintaining Law and Order. That makes it a punitive concept by definition.
 
Oh, I'm sorry. That just earned you a seat right beside sangha. Buh-bye.

Toodles! Your own words act as the only response needed. There is no justifying them to anyone but yourself.
 
:lol: Gotcha ya...

Young Tigger's 'tricks' were learned very early as a coping mechanism. He has made public his 'lifestory' regarding that. Whether or not he realizes that other people rise above their challenges without such bitterness, I dont know. Every person handles adversity differently. I know that I am glad I did not have to walk a mile in his shoes and am being very honest about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom