• 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!

Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans

Ditto on the Heinlein. :mrgreen: Reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Friday" in your early teens will have that effect. That's probably why I really wouldn't much care if polygamy was legalized, but I've learned to keep my thoughts on that subject to myself around my fellow Southern Baptists.

My first Heinlein book was "Stranger in a Strange Land", which weirded me out enough in the last half to sort of ease the persuasive effect he might have had. I saw the polygamy in "The Moon is a Harth Mistress" as more about people adapting to their environment than of having become a more universally desirable society.
Then again, I read those two in my late teens, not early teens.
 
What surprised me about it is that on almost every issue, women are more on the socially conservative side than men are. The only exceptions are the top three, plus the death penalty, plus birth outside of marriage.

I suspect that is due to the protective maternal instinct. We don't consistently act on those beliefs, but I think they are underlying instinctive urges.
 
Thanks Goshin!

And for the record (again) on a different subject,....

I believe that our sexuality is largely genetic. That goes for every one of us,... So for me to go hating on someone because they are gay,... in my way of thinking that would be the same as hating them because they have downs, or are left handed, or have red hair.

That doesn't mean that I don't find some of the stories and images 'repulsive.'

I do.

But I try to temper my reactions with the fact that they can no more help their sexuality than I can.

That is a rather enlightened position, Chuz.
 
My first Heinlein book was "Stranger in a Strange Land", which weirded me out enough in the last half to sort of ease the persuasive effect he might have had. I saw the polygamy in "The Moon is a Harth Mistress" as more about people adapting to their environment than of having become a more universally desirable society.
Then again, I read those two in my late teens, not early teens.


"Stranger" was, in a word, "strange". :mrgreen: Not my favorite Heinlein, even though it was huge in the 60's.

I couldn't read "To sail beyond the sunset." That book seemed to me to be proof that RAH was starting to suffer senility and letting his oddities and fetishes get the better of him. I tossed it about halfway through.
 
Actually I was going to mention you. :mrgreen:

There are people who are not particularly religious, or not religious at all, who may stand on either side of any of these issues. I won't deny that religious beliefs play a role for the majority, but not entirely by a long shot.

I personally know people who are about as religious as a bootscraper, who for whatever reason abhor homosexuality so vehemently that they make me look like a liberal pansy. :mrgreen:

It works the other way, too. I happen to be very religious, however, I do not allow my religion to over rule science and facts when it comes to making decisions on some of these issues. It's not about how religious someone is; it's about what they do with their religiousness.
 
It does absolutely baffle me that someone could consider adultery acceptable but be morally opposed to polygamy. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Why? From a moral standpoint, if I give my word to be faithful to one, or to several, or am one of several to give my word to one to be faithful, and I am not, I am still acting immorally. Polygamy and adultery are entirely unrelated.
 
I see your point and agree; however, if we assume that the reason for choosing to end one's own life is to end "suffering", is it safe to assume that ANY suicide victim is attempting to do this? Whether for mental illness or terminal physical illness? I just don't see how only 15% of the people polled can feel that one is morally acceptable and nearly 50% can feel the other is acceptable. Could this be a case of "the ends justifying the means" or is it vice versa?

I think that in most cases, suicide is morally unacceptable, but can see how doctor assisted suicide can be acceptable in certain cases. Suicide is usually brought about by a temporary emotion or condition, with permanent consequences not just for the actor, but painful ones for everyone close to them. With a certain illnesses, though, the condition is not temporary, and all the victim has ahead of them is pain and then death, so if they want to cut the pain out of the equation, I can see how that would be justifiable. It's still a loss to those close to the person, but the loss would have happened anyways.

Hope that helped clear things up.
 
Why? From a moral standpoint, if I give my word to be faithful to one, or to several, or am one of several to give my word to one to be faithful, and I am not, I am still acting immorally. Polygamy and adultery are entirely unrelated.

I'm talking about the people who think polygamy is wrong, but adultery is acceptable. In what possible sense is being unfaithful to one better than being faithful to several?
 
I would like to see a partner study done on these results to see if the people would use the government and which one Federal or State to ban said issue. Granted some of these issues should be left up to the states and others the government as a whole has no business being in.
 
I would like to see a partner study done on these results to see if the people would use the government and which one Federal or State to ban said issue. Granted some of these issues should be left up to the states and others the government as a whole has no business being in.


Frankly I think adultery ought to be a crime. Not a felony, no.... but first-offense CDV is a misdemeanor crime, and being smacked upside the face isn't nearly as painful as being cheated on by someone who swore oaths to be faithful to you.

While we're on the subject, alienation of affections should probably be a crime or tort too. Or at least a cause for divorce considered equal to adultery and violence, as it is a breach of contract at the very least. If your spouse cuts you off capriciously for no particular reason they will explain, and refuses to seek medical or theraputic treatment to remedy the problem, what does that lead to? Well, it frequently leads to either adultery or divorce. Some people even use it that way: 1. Cut spouse off 2. Catch spouse in adultery 3. Sue for divorce and get the lion's share due to the adultery...even though you caused it. Neither man nor woman should defraud their spouse of intimacy for anything but serious medical reasons, and those medical reasons should be seen to as soon as possible. Withholding sex for control purposes is a reprehensible habit, turning what is supposed to be a mutually-desired intimacy into a "doggie-biscuit"; withholding sex long-term to punish your partner is stupid and hateful (if you hate them that much, do them a favor: LEAVE!)

Pardon my rant. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Frankly I think adultery ought to be a crime. Not a felony, no.... but first-offense CDV is a misdemeanor crime, and being smacked upside the face isn't nearly as painful as being cheated on by someone who swore oaths to be faithful to you.

While we're on the subject, alienation of affections should probably be a crime or tort too. Or at least a cause for divorce considered equal to adultery and violence, as it is a breach of contract at the very least. If your spouse cuts you off capriciously for no particular reason they will explain, and refuses to seek medical or theraputic treatment to remedy the problem, what does that lead to? Well, it frequently leads to either adultery or divorce. Some people even use it that way: 1. Cut spouse off 2. Catch spouse in adultery 3. Sue for divorce and get the lion's share due to the adultery...even though you caused it. Neither man nor woman should defraud their spouse of intimacy for anything but serious medical reasons, and those medical reasons should be seen to as soon as possible. Withholding sex for control purposes is a reprehensible habit, turning what is supposed to be a mutually-desired intimacy into a "doggie-biscuit"; withholding sex long-term to punish your partner is stupid and hateful (if you hate them that much, do them a favor: LEAVE!)

Pardon my rant. :mrgreen:

Dunno about other states, but adultery is a crime in Virginia. It's hardly ever enforced, though.
 
Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans



Some interesting findings in here.

I'm most surprised by the number of Americans who consider polygamy acceptable-- one in ten men and one in twenty women. Independents are twice as likely to accept polygamy than either Democrats or Republicans-- one of the few issues in which Independents do not fall neatly between the two major parties.

I'm also disappointed by the very high numbers in favor of divorce and the very low numbers in favor of cloning.

interesting thanks
I also find it weird the low numbers in support of pologamy vs gay marriage, divorce, premartial sex

I wonder if thats because when people think of it, they think FORCED pologamy? Pologamy with MINORS? Im thinink they do but i could be wrong. That type of pologamy im of course againsts.

My opinion on normal pologamy is the same as gay marriage. Im fine with it because its none of my freakin buisness as long as its consenting adults who are trying to marry.
 
I'm talking about the people who think polygamy is wrong, but adultery is acceptable. In what possible sense is being unfaithful to one better than being faithful to several?

I'll just give my 2 cents on it. I think the difference between polygamy and adultery is that with polygamy you have marriage vows between multiple partners. Adultery is breaking of marriage vows and sleeping with another person. In polygamy one is married to multiple people, with adultery they are married to someone but cheat on them. Technically speaking, polygamy is not cheating, nor is it breaking marriage vows because one is married to multiple people. The difference lies within the construct of marital sex and extra-marital sex. When someone commits adultery they chose to break marriage vows, when one commits polygamy they extend marriage vows to multiple people. I wonder if polygamy would only apply to men having more than one wife, what about women having more then one husband?
 
Last edited:
Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans



Some interesting findings in here.

I'm most surprised by the number of Americans who consider polygamy acceptable-- one in ten men and one in twenty women. Independents are twice as likely to accept polygamy than either Democrats or Republicans-- one of the few issues in which Independents do not fall neatly between the two major parties.

I'm also disappointed by the very high numbers in favor of divorce and the very low numbers in favor of cloning.

May I ask, animal or human, or both? And why?
 
May I ask, animal or human, or both? And why?

Both, though i don't support human cloning until the technology improves. The reason I'm so staunchly in favor of cloning is that it will give us valuable insight into the function of genetics versus environment, and will contribute to the development of effective genetic engineering of both animals and humans. It will allow us to improve our species.
 
Both, though i don't support human cloning until the technology improves. The reason I'm so staunchly in favor of cloning is that it will give us valuable insight into the function of genetics versus environment, and will contribute to the development of effective genetic engineering of both animals and humans. It will allow us to improve our species.

Even if all of that weren't true, I'm not really sure why anyone would be morally against it.
 
Even if all of that weren't true, I'm not really sure why anyone would be morally against it.


Partly because a lot of people don't know what cloning actually is. All they know about cloning comes from movies. You could write what they know about actual cloning on the back of an already-used chinese fortune-cookie paper, and not even have to write small.
 
Even if all of that weren't true, I'm not really sure why anyone would be morally against it.

A lot of people were actually against the face transplant when the first one was done a few years ago (using a cadaver face, on a Frenchwoman who had been mauled by a pit bull).
The reasons offered were ludicrous, based in fantasy.
"She'll look just like the dead person! People will get her confused with the dead person. pretty soon everybody will just be able to get a face transplant, look like someone else, and change their identity. it's a slippery slope."

Stupid crap like that.

Since then, there have been many more successful face transplants.
Donor tissue (ie, facial skin, which is pliable, obviously, not stiff like a plastic halloween mask) is placed over the existing muscle and bone structure of the recipient, so of course they don't look anything like the donor.
And even if they did, who cares? They get their life back, and that's what matters.
 
People always think about the "what if they cloned hitler" argument when they decide to oppose human cloning.

I would oppose it now simply because the technlogy isn't refined enough and there are lots of problems with clones as of yet.
 
People always think about the "what if they cloned hitler" argument when they decide to oppose human cloning.

Isn't there a movie about that or something? (I'd look it up if I weren't feeling lazy)
 
Isn't there a movie about that or something? (I'd look it up if I weren't feeling lazy)

What if they did clone Hitler?
He wouldn't even look much like Hitler, for starters, seeing as how this is an entirely different era.
He also wouldn't be Hitler, any more than Hitler's hypothetical identical twin brother would be Hitler.
He'd be an entirely different person, who would have to be taught about Hitler in school, just like the rest of us.

What if they cloned Jesus, for that matter (assuming there was such a historical personage, and assuming the Shroud of Turin was actually his burial shroud, and they could get some of his DNA out of it)?
He'd just be another guy.
He might end up being a cabdriver or working in a restaurant or a convenience store.
He'd probably be discriminated against in airports for looking like a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
What if they did clone Hitler?
He wouldn't even look much like Hitler, for starters, seeing as how this is an entirely different era.
He also wouldn't be Hitler, any more than Hitler's hypothetical identical twin brother would be Hitler.
He'd be an entirely different person, who would have to be taught about Hitler in school, just like the rest of us.

What if they cloned Jesus, for that matter (assuming there was such a historical personage, and assuming the Shroud of Turin was actually his burial shroud, and they could get some of his DNA out of it)?
He'd just be another guy.
He might end up being a cabdriver or working in a restaurant or a convenience store.
He'd probably be discriminated against in airports for looking like a terrorist.

Vinyard. Jesus' clone would definitely be able to get a job at a vinyard. Teh whole water to wine thing would be great for that.
 
Vinyard. Jesus' clone would definitely be able to get a job at a vinyard. Teh whole water to wine thing would be great for that.

Now I'm imagining Jesus's clone as a slightly swarthier version of Paul Giamatti's character in Sideways.
 
Back
Top Bottom