• 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!

Why sex between consenting adults could justifiably be illegal

Ovid

Ovid

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
298
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
In some cases I would say that society would be perfectly justified in regulating the sexual behavior of adults, whether they consent or not, given many degenerative affects it has on greater society.

For one the modern notion that everyone has an automatic "right" to have physical relations and procreate is rather nonsensical; in most historical societies which were successful, "adulthood" was not defined by mere physical age, but by demonstration of character and virtue. In some native American tribes for example, a man was only allowed to court a woman if he'd proven his worth in hunt or on the battlefield.

I'd say that society could therefore be justified in requiring a moral competency test for those who wish to engage in sexual relations to make sure they're worthy of it and caring for any potential children that result, they would also have to demonstrate an appreciation of sex and human bonding on a higher level, like that of poets such as Ovid, rather than let low-class individuals who effectively have to "pay" for sex like any mercenary transaction (whether married or not) indulge in it.

The reality would be that many marriages and relationships of course would be declared illegitimate, and many children would have to be removed by the state and placed in the homes of more productive people - since many people aren't morally competent enough , but ideally procreation should be encouraged in the virtuous, and discouraged in the non-virtuous, as this would solve many of the societal problems that modern consumerist society has created, by enabling those not intellectually more morally competent to hold a job at McDonald's to produce life and engage in sexual relationships they aren't capable of aesthetically appreciating.
 
Ovid said:
In some cases I would say that society would be perfectly justified in regulating the sexual behavior of adults, whether they consent or not, given many degenerative affects it has on greater society.

For one the modern notion that everyone has an automatic "right" to have physical relations and procreate is rather nonsensical; in most historical societies which were successful, "adulthood" was not defined by mere physical age, but by demonstration of character and virtue. In some native American tribes for example, a man was only allowed to court a woman if he'd proven his worth in hunt or on the battlefield.

I'd say that society could therefore be justified in requiring a moral competency test for those who wish to engage in sexual relations to make sure they're worthy of it and caring for any potential children that result, they would also have to demonstrate an appreciation of sex and human bonding on a higher level, like that of poets such as Ovid, rather than let low-class individuals who effectively have to "pay" for sex like any mercenary transaction (whether married or not) indulge in it.

The reality would be that many marriages and relationships of course would be declared illegitimate, and many children would have to be removed by the state and placed in the homes of more productive people - since many people aren't morally competent enough , but ideally procreation should be encouraged in the virtuous, and discouraged in the non-virtuous, as this would solve many of the societal problems that modern consumerist society has created, by enabling those not intellectually more morally competent to hold a job at McDonald's to produce life and engage in sexual relationships they aren't capable of aesthetically appreciating.
Click to expand...

In a word.

No.

john-cleese-no.gif
 
Jetboogieman said:
In a word.

No.

john-cleese-no.gif
Click to expand...
I don't care if people agree with me, I'd force my views on people by sword or gunpolnt if I had the might to, as it's the only right I need.
 
Ovid said:
In some cases I would say that society would be perfectly justified in regulating the sexual behavior of adults, whether they consent or not, given many degenerative affects it has on greater society.

For one the modern notion that everyone has an automatic "right" to have physical relations and procreate is rather nonsensical; in most historical societies which were successful, "adulthood" was not defined by mere physical age, but by demonstration of character and virtue. In some native American tribes for example, a man was only allowed to court a woman if he'd proven his worth in hunt or on the battlefield.

I'd say that society could therefore be justified in requiring a moral competency test for those who wish to engage in sexual relations to make sure they're worthy of it and caring for any potential children that result, they would also have to demonstrate an appreciation of sex and human bonding on a higher level, like that of poets such as Ovid, rather than let low-class individuals who effectively have to "pay" for sex like any mercenary transaction (whether married or not) indulge in it.

The reality would be that many marriages and relationships of course would be declared illegitimate, and many children would have to be removed by the state and placed in the homes of more productive people - since many people aren't morally competent enough , but ideally procreation should be encouraged in the virtuous, and discouraged in the non-virtuous, as this would solve many of the societal problems that modern consumerist society has created, by enabling those not intellectually more morally competent to hold a job at McDonald's to produce life and engage in sexual relationships they aren't capable of aesthetically appreciating.
Click to expand...
Sure, under an authoritarian dictatorship. Free nations don't contemplate such nonsense. :roll:
 
So what kind of weapons are allowed to kill the animal?

Oh, and can we play a song instead? I can't write a poem for ****, but I can play a few instruments.
 
Ovid said:
A free nation is that which promotes virtue rather than vice, as vice is the ultimate slaver, not man.
Click to expand...

You've already proved yourself wrong, too late to turn back the clock.
 
Ovid said:
A free nation is that which promotes virtue rather than vice, as vice is the ultimate slaver, not man.
Click to expand...

Did you eat more philosophy books and come back back to vomit the nonsensical ideas all over the forum again?
 
Carjosse said:
Did you eat more philosophy books and come back back to vomit the nonsensical ideas all over the forum again?
Click to expand...

Apparently so.
 
Ovid said:
A free nation is that which promotes virtue rather than vice, as vice is the ultimate slaver, not man.
Click to expand...

And your vice is authoritarian control. So your idea is dismissed as your vice
 
Ovid said:
In some cases I would say that society would be perfectly justified in regulating the sexual behavior of adults, whether they consent or not, given many degenerative affects it has on greater society.

For one the modern notion that everyone has an automatic "right" to have physical relations and procreate is rather nonsensical; in most historical societies which were successful, "adulthood" was not defined by mere physical age, but by demonstration of character and virtue. In some native American tribes for example, a man was only allowed to court a woman if he'd proven his worth in hunt or on the battlefield.

I'd say that society could therefore be justified in requiring a moral competency test for those who wish to engage in sexual relations to make sure they're worthy of it and caring for any potential children that result, they would also have to demonstrate an appreciation of sex and human bonding on a higher level, like that of poets such as Ovid, rather than let low-class individuals who effectively have to "pay" for sex like any mercenary transaction (whether married or not) indulge in it.

The reality would be that many marriages and relationships of course would be declared illegitimate, and many children would have to be removed by the state and placed in the homes of more productive people - since many people aren't morally competent enough , but ideally procreation should be encouraged in the virtuous, and discouraged in the non-virtuous, as this would solve many of the societal problems that modern consumerist society has created, by enabling those not intellectually more morally competent to hold a job at McDonald's to produce life and engage in sexual relationships they aren't capable of aesthetically appreciating.
Click to expand...

The people aren't trustworthy enough to raise their own children... but the government is trustworthy enough to raise the children of total strangers which they have no particular attachment toward.

If the people themselves aren't motivated enough to care the state has even less reason to do so.
 
Ovid said:
In some cases I would say that society would be perfectly justified in regulating the sexual behavior of adults, whether they consent or not, given many degenerative affects it has on greater society.

For one the modern notion that everyone has an automatic "right" to have physical relations and procreate is rather nonsensical; in most historical societies which were successful, "adulthood" was not defined by mere physical age, but by demonstration of character and virtue. In some native American tribes for example, a man was only allowed to court a woman if he'd proven his worth in hunt or on the battlefield.

I'd say that society could therefore be justified in requiring a moral competency test for those who wish to engage in sexual relations to make sure they're worthy of it and caring for any potential children that result, they would also have to demonstrate an appreciation of sex and human bonding on a higher level, like that of poets such as Ovid, rather than let low-class individuals who effectively have to "pay" for sex like any mercenary transaction (whether married or not) indulge in it.

The reality would be that many marriages and relationships of course would be declared illegitimate, and many children would have to be removed by the state and placed in the homes of more productive people - since many people aren't morally competent enough , but ideally procreation should be encouraged in the virtuous, and discouraged in the non-virtuous, as this would solve many of the societal problems that modern consumerist society has created, by enabling those not intellectually more morally competent to hold a job at McDonald's to produce life and engage in sexual relationships they aren't capable of aesthetically appreciating.
Click to expand...

Wow!

Are you proposing forced sterilization of the undesirables?
 
Why are you people responding to someone that's been BANNED?
 
Dragonfly said:
Why are you people responding to someone that's been BANNED?
Click to expand...

Only three posters responded after the original Poster was banned. Of them only one actually addressed the original Poster directly, not the subject of the original Post. Simply because the original Poster is banned it does not mean that the topic is not worthy of discussion or response. Usually it is the poster's methods and words that got them banned, not the subject, and maybe not even the thread being responded to that got him/her banned.
 
Dragonfly said:
Why are you people responding to someone that's been BANNED?
Click to expand...

I find myself in agreement with maquiscat, that it's the topic that drives the discourse. For all those that were put off and immediately rejected the OP's post, please search for the definition of 'animal husbandry'. What really separates us (humans) from other life forms?
 
Rexedgar said:
I find myself in agreement with maquiscat, that it's the topic that drives the discourse. For all those that were put off and immediately rejected the OP's post, please search for the definition of 'animal husbandry'. What really separates us (humans) from other life forms?
Click to expand...

The OP is absurd on every single level of insanity.

There's no reason to "discuss" any of it.
 
Dragonfly said:
The OP is absurd on every single level of insanity.

There's no reason to "discuss" any of it.
Click to expand...

Because you say so? This is a 'open' forum, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom