Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sexuality Topic Revised

CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 6:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.

I agree on a personal level. But would society as a whole be better suited to make social and intellectual advances if given limitations on specific desires or actions? Human rights apply no matter where you live, hence the term 'human' not 'civil'. People are allowed to do anything on a human level but certain societies provide structure for the advancement of certain things. Perhaps if people were ordered to abstain until they were adults, more adults would be better equipped for say technological advances. (think geek stereotype)
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

True love is such a relative and sketchy thing. I thought my first gf was my true love, at least until two weeks later when I broke up with her because she was fvcking annoying. Abstinence till marriage is a good concept, but near impossible to regulate/enforce outside of a totalitarian regime.

Generally, it doesn't matter if it does or not. America is stuck with it.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Remove the Age of Consent and especially the Marriageable Age. Abstinence would be much easier, for girls at first, then boys.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:43:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would love it if everyone did that, but the issue would be what is "True love"?

But, yes, crime would drop significantly if there was a better father presence in most households.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:04:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think society as a whole would definitely benefit from abstinence until age 21 or something of that sort. Would i ever want to be a part of that society? HeII no
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:57:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 6:04:13 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I think society as a whole would definitely benefit from abstinence until age 21 or something of that sort. Would i ever want to be a part of that society? HeII no

Ha. No. If you let girls marry (13+) then you aren't wasting money educating them for careers they won't go into; instead, they will be at home being a home maker. This also deprives boys (13+) from having sex early on, and can instead focus on their education and careers.

Removing the Age of Consent is the first step to going back to a system of courting.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:10:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

Mirza speaks the truth.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:02:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster,
Why? Forgive me for not buying into any religious reasons for this.
and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to,
LOL, actually, it's the opposite. People are forced to reject it in specific societies.
not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.
I've given reasonable thought and I don't think that anybody, especially an armed gang of self-styled rulers, ought to be able to violate my right to privacy.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:04:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 6:18:51 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.

I agree on a personal level. But would society as a whole be better suited to make social and intellectual advances if given limitations on specific desires or actions? Human rights apply no matter where you live, hence the term 'human' not 'civil'. People are allowed to do anything on a human level but certain societies provide structure for the advancement of certain things. Perhaps if people were ordered to abstain until they were adults, more adults would be better equipped for say technological advances. (think geek stereotype)

The existence of Iran disproves your case . . .
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:04:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 1:37:24 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

True love is such a relative and sketchy thing. I thought my first gf was my true love, at least until two weeks later when I broke up with her because she was fvcking annoying.
You're nice, lol.
Abstinence till marriage is a good concept, but near impossible to regulate/enforce outside of a totalitarian regime.

Generally, it doesn't matter if it does or not. America is stuck with it.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:23:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 11:02:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster,
Why? Forgive me for not buying into any religious reasons for this.
The 40% out of wedlock birthrate comes to mind.
and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to,
LOL, actually, it's the opposite. People are forced to reject it in specific societies.
Religious people will obviously disagree. And thats where our two Muslim friends are coming from.
not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.
I've given reasonable thought and I don't think that anybody, especially an armed gang of self-styled rulers, ought to be able to violate my right to privacy.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:32:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 1:23:32 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/16/2012 11:02:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster,
Why? Forgive me for not buying into any religious reasons for this.
The 40% out of wedlock birthrate comes to mind.
Who cares about this? That's right. Only religious people. Marriage is nothing but a social construct.
and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to,
LOL, actually, it's the opposite. People are forced to reject it in specific societies.
Religious people will obviously disagree. And thats where our two Muslim friends are coming from.
I don't see how you can disagree with this. It is neither rejected nor adovcated in the U.S., while Iran explicitly rejects it.
not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.
I've given reasonable thought and I don't think that anybody, especially an armed gang of self-styled rulers, ought to be able to violate my right to privacy.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 9:39:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 11:04:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:18:51 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.

I agree on a personal level. But would society as a whole be better suited to make social and intellectual advances if given limitations on specific desires or actions? Human rights apply no matter where you live, hence the term 'human' not 'civil'. People are allowed to do anything on a human level but certain societies provide structure for the advancement of certain things. Perhaps if people were ordered to abstain until they were adults, more adults would be better equipped for say technological advances. (think geek stereotype)

The existence of Iran disproves your case . . .

We don't know what state Iran would be if their society was any different than it is now, we can only speculate.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 9:41:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 11:02:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster,
Why? Forgive me for not buying into any religious reasons for this.

This really doesn't have to do with religion. I'm talking about a temporary governmental interference specifically for certain societal advances, be it within secular or sacred contexts.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 10:30:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 1:32:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/17/2012 1:23:32 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/16/2012 11:02:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:01:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love? Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage. Fornication is a disaster,
Why? Forgive me for not buying into any religious reasons for this.
The 40% out of wedlock birthrate comes to mind.
Who cares about this? That's right. Only religious people. Marriage is nothing but a social construct
The fact 78% of prison inmates come from single mothers comes to mind now.

http://inkarcerated.intrasun.tcnj.edu...
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:02:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:37:36 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
How would society as a whole benefit from abstinence until true love?

The only way one's sex life affects others is when procreation and costs are involved. If people choose to have children but can't support them, society takes on that burden. The same applies to STDs for which tax payers are responsible for some funding, including preventative funding (like giving birth control and condoms treatment via Planned Parenthood, etc.). I suppose less people with unwanted pregnancies and STDs benefits society on a cost-benefit analysis.

However, suppressed sexuality can also harm society in certain ways. That's for sure.

Or conversely, how would 'free-sex' benefit society as a whole?

There are a ton of health benefits from sex, so conversely those who have sex can be expected to lead happier and healthier lives. There's also the right to privacy and freedom aspects that others have touched upon. Sexual repression is bad and evolution has hard-wired most of us to care significantly about sex. It's not only a cultural thing as Mirza would have you believe.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:04:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's no such thing as "society as a whole."
Individual benefits are the only benefits.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:06:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage.

That's your opinion.

Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

You have zero first-hand experience with sex. While it's true you can have an opinion on things you haven't experienced (for instance, I haven't experienced murder first-hand though I know it's wrong), you also haven't experienced the benefits of sex and all of the ways sex can be experienced in a healthy, safe and mature manner. Sex is not always a disaster and you have zero evidence of that or any reason to believe it. It's also completely hypocritical to sit there and say society shapes positive views on sex, when all of your negative views are shaped ENTIRELY by your society since you have never even experienced it. You may have given it thought but those who give it thought and experience it probably have a much more relevant and pertinent perspective. There are pros and cons to sex just like every other thing in the world.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 11:31:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:06:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
That's your opinion.
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

You have zero first-hand experience with sex.
I also have zero experience with alcohol or other heavy drugs. That doesn't make my opinion less supported by facts.

While it's true you can have an opinion on things you haven't experienced (for instance, I haven't experienced murder first-hand though I know it's wrong), you also haven't experienced the benefits of sex and all of the ways sex can be experienced in a healthy, safe and mature manner.
Of course it can, but my argument doesn't say that sex is never good. I think it is a healthy habit in a good relationship. I'm essentially saying that sex, in general, before marriage is a disaster. The feeling might be good, but so what? If it helps creating a mess in societies, it's bad.

Sex is not always a disaster and you have zero evidence of that or any reason to believe it.
Indeed, which is why I never said that, thank you very much.

It's also completely hypocritical to sit there and say society shapes positive views on sex, when all of your negative views are shaped ENTIRELY by your society since you have never even experienced it.
I have never lived in a society where premarital sex was entirely frowned upon, and I've always been encouraged to find a girlfriend and whatnot. I reject based on all the facts I've gathered about the consequences.

You may have given it thought but those who give it thought and experience it probably have a much more relevant and pertinent perspective. There are pros and cons to sex just like every other thing in the world.
So you make an entire response talking about the fact that sex can be beneficial. It's a red herring, because I never said sex isn't beneficial or that it is bad. I don't think any reasonable person will claim that sex is inherently bad. But premarital sex is negative, and the benefits are not close to the harms.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:48:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:06:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage.

That's your opinion.

It's not merely an opinion but is the best choice one can make. Premarital sex is not good.


Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

You have zero first-hand experience with sex. While it's true you can have an opinion on things you haven't experienced (for instance, I haven't experienced murder first-hand though I know it's wrong), you also haven't experienced the benefits of sex and all of the ways sex can be experienced in a healthy, safe and mature manner. Sex is not always a disaster and you have zero evidence of that or any reason to believe it. It's also completely hypocritical to sit there and say society shapes positive views on sex, when all of your negative views are shaped ENTIRELY by your society since you have never even experienced it. You may have given it thought but those who give it thought and experience it probably have a much more relevant and pertinent perspective. There are pros and cons to sex just like every other thing in the world.

Actually there is absolutely no negative effects of sex if one is in a faithful marriage and both people married to each other as virgins. That is an incredible advantage. Premarital sex is what is a disaster not sex in general
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 4:12:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 11:06:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage.

That's your opinion.

Undoubtedly, such thinking would lose the culture war. No free health care for your STD's.

Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

You have zero first-hand experience with sex.

Good to know you sleep around. Gotta get experienece before you can make a rational decision! BTW, what is suicide like?

While it's true you can have an opinion on things you haven't experienced (for instance, I haven't experienced murder first-hand though I know it's wrong), you also haven't experienced the benefits of sex and all of the ways sex can be experienced in a healthy, safe and mature manner. Sex is not always a disaster and you have zero evidence of that or any reason to believe it.

People who think premarital sex is OK will lose the culture war. Unless they are thieves and wants the government to steal from the winning culture to get their STD medicine, or support single parents so their children can grow up to be criminals or spread those same ideals you are envoking.

It's also completely hypocritical to sit there and say society shapes positive views on sex, when all of your negative views are shaped ENTIRELY by your society since you have never even experienced it. You may have given it thought but those who give it thought and experience it probably have a much more relevant and pertinent perspective. There are pros and cons to sex just like every other thing in the world.

Right. Let's take away the right to life, see how that turns out. After all, nobody has experienced anarchy, right? You are arguing stupidly, claiming a sort of hidden knowledge that is incaccessable to... virgins? What?
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:32:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 4:12:52 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/17/2012 11:06:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:08:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
Free sex benefits society by allowing for a meaningful right to privacy.
Nonsense. The question technically asks which one would be better by choice, not force. That would be abstinence until marriage.

That's your opinion.

Undoubtedly, such thinking would lose the culture war. No free health care for your STD's.

The 'culture war'? I'm baffled. I've never heard of such a conflict.

No free healthcare? Health care is never free. Free health care doesn't exist.

Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

You have zero first-hand experience with sex.

Good to know you sleep around. Gotta get experienece before you can make a rational decision! BTW, what is suicide like?

To commit suicide implies that said person is dead, so this really is just a really weak assertion; almost a straw man.

The closest thing I can think of is parasuicide, which I am a former victim of. It's not pretty. Don't joke around about it.
While it's true you can have an opinion on things you haven't experienced (for instance, I haven't experienced murder first-hand though I know it's wrong), you also haven't experienced the benefits of sex and all of the ways sex can be experienced in a healthy, safe and mature manner. Sex is not always a disaster and you have zero evidence of that or any reason to believe it.

People who think premarital sex is OK will lose the culture war. Unless they are thieves and wants the government to steal from the winning culture to get their STD medicine, or support single parents so their children can grow up to be criminals or spread those same ideals you are envoking.

What does 'premarital' sex have to do with anything? Being married does not constitute that said couple is ready to have a child. I've met scores of married couples who were completely incompetent to have children and had post-marital, unprotected sex and suffered due to their ignorance. Marriage means close to nothing in terms to the success of parenthood. Single parents? Many single parents exist BECAUSE of marriage. 50% of first marriages in the USA end in divorce. The term 'marriage' is meaningless. What more matters is the will of the parents, of which marriage doesn't seem to be a factor.

Culture war? What culture war are we talking of? Progressive and liberal values vs traditional family values? Family values? Do you honestly believe those exist? Father comes home from work and smokes his tobacco pipe, pats son on head for doing decent on a test, family dinner, lectures his kids on the "evils of the homosexuals and their 'gay agenda'," assigns obligatory Bible study, gathers around the TV to watch Full House or Seinfeld, gets out board games, do you ACTUALLY believe that exists? NO, that doesn't exist.

'Steal from the winning culture'? How are they "stealing" from a culture that is ostensibly "winning"? How are they "winning" Winning by 'per capita income'? The 'winners' are blue states, which have the highest per capita income and per household income, and seem to be doing pretty well. Look at them numbers! Numbers everywhere! Both liberals and conservatives (for the most part) follow the law. I see it in households of different mindsets; the difference is that liberals always re-analyze and question the validity of the law while the conservatives act like the law is a mandate written in stone tablet that ought never been changed.

Personally, if I was a father, I wouldn't encourage my kid to have sex but I know that it's more than likely (if not inevitable) that he is going to have sex and there is close to nothing I can do as a father to prevent it. Instituting 'family values' and 'abstinence' will not prevent kids from screwing. If anything, it only makes them more curious to the topic of sex. Their libido is much stronger than the crap your pastor tells you. I'd encourage my son, should the occasion rise, to be protected. Carry condoms in your wallet, you bastard love-child of mine. Promoting contraception does not encourage sex; it encourages that act of not bring a human being into this insipid world without have a plan, which is more of a lesson in common sense and moral wellness rather than sex solely.

My neighbor was 'abstinent'. She had some 'family values' as a kid, but it didn't stop her from experiencing the world for herself. She was a crack-addict, married, and didn't want a child but was brainwashed in High School that it's "A OKAY" to have unprotected sex when you're 'married'. Unfortunately, she caught some of the bad side of the world, and what I've learned is that there is nothing miraculous about giving birth to a crack-addicted baby.

'Grow up to be criminals'? So anyone who grows up under an open-minded household is destined to become a ne'er-do-well? Where the hell does your dogmatic logic come from? This is completely irrational. If anything, it's the conservative right who likes to criminalize sound and sane behavior that is of the norm of the hoi polloi. They make criminals out of people doing things that our founding fathers would die for in order to ensure their right to do. Prostitution, drugs; all 'crimes' that really aren't crimes at all.
It's also completely hypocritical to sit there and say society shapes positive views on sex, when all of your negative views are shaped ENTIRELY by your society since you have never even experienced it. You may have given it thought but those who give it thought and experience it probably have a much more relevant and pertinent perspective. There are pros and cons to sex just like every other thing in the world.


Right. Let's take away the right to life, see how that turns out. After all, nobody has experienced anarchy, right? You are arguing stupidly, claiming a sort of hidden knowledge that is incaccessable to... virgins? What?

You are ignoring the fact that your negative views were shaped solely by your surrounding environment. I used to believe the same crap you do; that sex was 'bad', until I had sex for the first time and realize it's taken too seriously by the right wing. Protected sex is fine; it happens and it will continue happening and it's rate of which it occurs will never fall. People want to have sex. You're not going to cull the masses. This 'culture war' is a joke of yours, there is no 'culture war'; the war has been over since education and enlightenment era thinking took over.
turn down for h'what
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:49:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sex is pretty awesome. More sex is awesomer. By the transitive property, maximum sex solves everything.

But really, bros and girls: if people would be less repressive about sexuality, I think it'd be way better. Not only would we not have to worry about stupid stuff like slut-shaming (which is just stupid, making people feel bad because you're a stuck-up douchecanoe), but we probably don't have to worry about people screwing all the time. If good old-fashioned detective work on drug decriminalization has taught us anything, it's that taking away the moral and criminal penalties actually drops abuse and binging. Maybe if peeps stopped viewing extramarital sex a moral crime worthy of [x --> infinity] shame, we wouldn't have the problem of people looking for crazier and crazier ways to get off. I mean, when external circumstances aren't generous, you haven't much choice but to turn inward and let your cravings simmer. Mmmmmm. But hey, guys--if you want to involve secular or divine power in the intimate domain of the sexual in the form of the criminalization of every form of sexual expression not explicitly permitted by those power structures, it's cool. I'm sure people appreciate being treated like criminals because you're a prude, brah.

I mean, shoot, man. In primitive societies, sex was considered to be a kind of public good. The lack of distinct property theories meant that sex/sexual partners were a kind of communal thing, and people got some of their 'Asabiyya from a socio-erotic bond. :P Then we got all propertied up, and bros be like "YO MAN STEP OFF MY GURL". The rest, as you might suspect, is historizzle.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:53:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 8:49:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Sex is pretty awesome. More sex is awesomer. By the transitive property, maximum sex solves everything.

But really, bros and girls: if people would be less repressive about sexuality, I think it'd be way better. Not only would we not have to worry about stupid stuff like slut-shaming (which is just stupid, making people feel bad because you're a stuck-up douchecanoe), but we probably don't have to worry about people screwing all the time. If good old-fashioned detective work on drug decriminalization has taught us anything, it's that taking away the moral and criminal penalties actually drops abuse and binging. Maybe if peeps stopped viewing extramarital sex a moral crime worthy of [x --> infinity] shame, we wouldn't have the problem of people looking for crazier and crazier ways to get off. I mean, when external circumstances aren't generous, you haven't much choice but to turn inward and let your cravings simmer. Mmmmmm. But hey, guys--if you want to involve secular or divine power in the intimate domain of the sexual in the form of the criminalization of every form of sexual expression not explicitly permitted by those power structures, it's cool. I'm sure people appreciate being treated like criminals because you're a prude, brah.

I mean, shoot, man. In primitive societies, sex was considered to be a kind of public good. The lack of distinct property theories meant that sex/sexual partners were a kind of communal thing, and people got some of their 'Asabiyya from a socio-erotic bond. :P Then we got all propertied up, and bros be like "YO MAN STEP OFF MY GURL". The rest, as you might suspect, is historizzle.

Yes, it's a damn good day.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:54:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Alright Aaronroy, would you be interested in debating: "Fornication has done more harm than good"? You seem you have a few nice arguments, why not use them in debate?
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 9:12:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Part 1

At 4/17/2012 8:32:35 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 4/17/2012 4:12:52 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/17/2012 11:06:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
That's your opinion.

Undoubtedly, such thinking would lose the culture war. No free health care for your STD's.

The 'culture war'? I'm baffled. I've never heard of such a conflict.

No free healthcare? Health care is never free. Free health care doesn't exist.

It's the conflict of competing cultural values in the United States. Of course, conservative/Christian culture promotes hard work and the creation of wealth, while liberal culture is in itself a parasite of the former. I'm simply pointing out that while you may have a slap happy life without a wife, it is unlikely that a generation of people like you will keep up with the better culture, the conservative one, without the intervention of the government, namely stupid progressive laws.

Fornication is a disaster, and anyone supporting it do it because their society taught them to, not because they ever gave any reasonable thought to it.

You have zero first-hand experience with sex.

Good to know you sleep around. Gotta get experienece before you can make a rational decision! BTW, what is suicide like?

To commit suicide implies that said person is dead, so this really is just a really weak assertion; almost a straw man.

The closest thing I can think of is parasuicide, which I am a former victim of. It's not pretty. Don't joke around about it.

Read what she wrote. Then read what I wrote. Then read what she wrote again, and read what I wrote, again. They are both pathetic assertions with lack of argumentation.

While it's true you can ... a disaster and you have zero evidence of that or any reason to believe it.

People who think premarital sex is OK will lose the culture war. Unless they are thieves and wants the government to steal from the winning culture to get their STD medicine, or support single parents so their children can grow up to be criminals or spread those same ideals you are envoking.

What does 'premarital' sex have to do with anything? Being married does not constitute that said couple is ready to have a child. I've met scores of married couples who were completely incompetent to have children and had post-marital, unprotected sex and suffered due to their ignorance. Marriage means close to nothing in terms to the success of parenthood. Single parents? Many single parents exist BECAUSE of marriage. 50% of first marriages in the USA end in divorce. The term 'marriage' is meaningless. What more matters is the will of the parents, of which marriage doesn't seem to be a factor.

The divorce rate is so high because the propagation of youth culture by progressive laws that treat everybody equally, when in fact, they are anything but. Remove the age of consent, divorce rates go down, youth culture goes away (a bit).

Premarital sex leads to STD's (Death) or out of wed-lock births (criminals) or the lack of desire to get married (no supply of the next generation). Its not just about having children.


Culture war? What culture war are we talking of? Progressive and liberal values vs traditional family values? Family values? Do you honestly believe those exist? Father comes home from work and smokes his tobacco pipe, pats son on head for doing decent on a test, family dinner, lectures his kids on the "evils of the homosexuals and their 'gay agenda'," assigns obligatory Bible study, gathers around the TV to watch Full House or Seinfeld, gets out board games, do you ACTUALLY believe that exists? NO, that doesn't exist.

Running out of character space. Refer above. Also, you are thinking of the nuclear family. Its the progressive's fault, I tell you!

'Steal from the winning culture'? How are they "stealing" from a culture that is ostensibly "winning"? How are they "winning" Winning by 'per capita income'? The 'winners' are blue states, which have the highest per capita income and per household income, and seem to be doing pretty well. Look at them numbers! Numbers everywhere! Both liberals and conservatives (for the most part) follow the law. I see it in households of different mindsets; the difference is that liberals always re-analyze and question the validity of the law while the conservatives act like the law is a mandate written in stone tablet that ought never been changed.

It's not just the law, its the motivation to work hard. The ones who work the hardest get more income = have more kids = fuel the culture war. In the 19th century, when there were no progressive laws, nearly everyone in America was very religious. They effectively won the culture war. Remove all social and progressive economic laws, and the conservative culture will win.

Personally, if I was a father, I wouldn't encourage my kid to have sex but I know that it's more than likely (if not inevitable) that he is going to have sex and there is close to nothing I can do as a father to prevent it. Instituting 'family values' and 'abstinence' will not prevent kids from screwing. If anything, it only makes them more curious to the topic of sex. Their libido is much stronger than the crap your pastor tells you. I'd encourage my son, should the occasion rise, to be protected. Carry condoms in your wallet, you bastard love-child of mine. Promoting contraception does not encourage sex; it encourages that act of not bring a human being into this insipid world without have a plan, which is more of a lesson in common sense and moral wellness rather than sex solely.

Remove age of consent, ???, PROFIT

My neighbor was 'abstinent'. She had some 'family values' as a kid, but it didn't stop her from experiencing the world for herself. She was a crack-addict, married, and didn't want a child but was brainwashed in High School that it's "A OKAY" to have unprotected sex when you're 'married'. Unfortunately, she caught some of the bad side of the world, and what I've learned is that there is nothing miraculous about giving birth to a crack-addicted baby.


'Grow up to be criminals'? So anyone who grows up under an open-minded household is destined to become a ne'er-do-well? Where the hell does your dogmatic logic come from? This is completely irrational. If anything, it's the conservative right who likes to criminalize sound and sane behavior that is of the norm of the hoi polloi. They make criminals out of people doing things that our founding fathers would die for in order to ensure their right to do. Prostitution, drugs; all 'crimes' that really aren't crimes at all.
It's also completely hypocritical to sit there and say society shapes positive views on sex, when all of your negative views are shaped ENTIRELY by your society since you have never even experienced it. You may have given it thought but those who give it thought and experience it probably have a much more relevant and pertinent perspective. There are pros and cons to sex just like every other thing in the world.


Right. Let's take away the right to life, see how that turns out. After all, nobody has experienced anarchy, right? You are arguing stupidly, claiming a sort of hidden knowledge that is incaccessable to... virgins? What?

You are ignoring the fact that your negative views were shaped solely by your surrounding environment. I used to believe the same crap you do; that sex was 'bad', until I had sex for the first time and realize it's taken too seriously by the right wing. Protected sex is fine; it happens and it will continue happening and it's rate of which it occurs will never fall. People want to have sex. You're not going to cull the masses. This 'culture war' is a joke of yours, the
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP