• 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

Dragonfly said:
The OP is absurd on every single level of insanity.

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

i've always thought this subforum would function a lot better and encourage more intelligent posters to participate if a basic level of civility was enforced. That would rule out threads like this
 
countryboy said:
Sure, under an authoritarian dictatorship. Free nations don't contemplate such nonsense. :roll:
Click to expand...

No we just want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because of religious objections to abortion.
 
iguanaman said:
No we just want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because of religious objections to abortion.
Click to expand...

Complete mischaracterization. Can libs ever be intellectually honest?
 
countryboy said:
Complete mischaracterization.
Click to expand...

Is it though?

Besides some... alleged Libertarians... Religious Conservatives are the vast majority of folks who are pushing in every legal way possible for bans and curbs on abortion and abortion access.

So I fail to see how else it can be characterized any other way really.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Is it though?

Besides some... alleged Libertarians... Religious Conservatives are the vast majority of folks who are pushing in every legal way possible for bans and curbs on abortion and abortion access.

So I fail to see how else it can be characterized any other way really.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all surprised. The mind of a leftist is extremely narrow. :shrug:
 
countryboy said:
I'm not at all surprised. The mind of a leftist is extremely narrow. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Jetboogie isn't a 'leftist'. My god, you're as bad as the Clintonites that accused a known Trump critic of being Alt-Right for saying something mean about Hillary Clinton.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Jetboogie isn't a 'leftist'. My god, you're as bad as the Clintonites that accused a known Trump critic of being Alt-Right for saying something mean about Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Of course he's a leftist, don't be ridiculous. :roll:
 
countryboy said:
I'm not at all surprised. The mind of a leftist is extremely narrow. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Simple yes or no question, opposition to abortion is primarily driven by the religious concerns of Social Conservatives?
 
countryboy said:
Complete mischaracterization. Can libs ever be intellectually honest?
Click to expand...

Can you? Swear to God that you have no religious feelings toward abortion and that the holy spirit is a myth that does not exist.
 
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...

Opposable thumbs (save primates)
An absurdly large cerebrum
The ability to reason.

And to answer the OP as free beings we are free to choose who we associate and the manner in which we associate. That would include who and when and how we choose to have sexual relations.
 
Last edited:
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...

If people had the common sense to use common sense there'd be no need for common sense!
 
EvaPeron said:
If people had the common sense to use common sense there'd be no need for common sense!
Click to expand...
Logan's Law #4: Common sense isn't. Neither is friendly fire.
 
You sound like a social conservative.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The arguments for this would overlap considerably with the arguments for making vaccinations mandatory, particularly where both involve the spread of disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom