|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Dec 30, 2017 11:02:14 GMT -5
So apparently artificial insemination doesn't exist then? Because I always thought that it did, and that it was an alternative way of reproduction that didn't involve having sex... Artificial insemination...if it still exists. Apparently it doesn't exist anymore going by some of the posts in this thread. It's developed in the same way self driving cars are. Nowhere near public ready. Really? I thought that it's been available to the public for decades now... So apparently artificial insemination doesn't exist then? Because I always thought that it did, and that it was an alternative way of reproduction that didn't involve having sex... Artificial insemination...if it still exists. Apparently it doesn't exist anymore going by some of the posts in this thread. It isn't guaranteed to work and the costs are really high for some people. Fair enough...although if sex was outlawed it would possibly allow scientists to focus on perfecting artificial insemination. You keep asking for arguments about why sex should be outlawed but haven't given a good reason for why it SHOULD other than "because it's gross." You also conveniently ignored eJm's point about stronger sex education helping to curb diseases and such. Because it spreads STD's, unwanted pregnancy, and the overpopulation of the earth. That, plus I read an article a while back explaning how science has proven that, when aroused, people instincivelly take more risks and are more willing to take part in risky sexual behaviour...in other words, they don't think rationally, they think with their genitals. Therefore, it has been scientifically PROVEN that human beings can't be trusted to be safe sexually - no amount of sex education can overwrite that. Not only that, but there is also the whole murky subject of consent. People seem to think that consent is a simple thing that means 'anyone who is an adult who consents to sex can legally have sex', but that isn't true, becuase not all adults can legally give consent under the law...at least that's how I understand it anyway. Oh...This thread is serious. No. Here's why: 1. Reproduction 2. It's fun and brings people closer together 3. Cartels/gangs would start killing people over the black market porn trade 4. Soul/RnB/Rap and many other genres take big hits to their musical content 5. My wife no longer has any power to make me mow the lawn, it get's completely unmanageable 6. Attitude Era loving YouTube commenters gain even more ammo 7. My wife leaves me because of the lawn 8. Finally, all animals have a primal desire to spread their genetics going forward. It's what drives them to reproduce, most people have a natural desire to do this. Take away this desire and why does anyone want to have children? Without their natural desire to nurture and raise children there's no desire to do so. We start producing people on an as-needed basis for specific roles because no ones having kids just because. We're ants now. Do you want to be an ant OP? 1. The world is overpopulated and terrible as it is. Adoption is always an option... 2. That's subjective. 3. If sexual desire was eliminated, then there wouldn't be a need for porn to exist...besides, porn is already technically illegal anyway. 8. And this is a bad thing why? By taking away this so-called 'natural desire' to have children, it would mean that overpopulation wouldn't be a thing, no unwanted children through accidental pregnancy would be born and there would be less homeless people due to a smaller world population...so why is that bad exactly? Reading the replies, I find it kind of odd that nobody has come up with any arguments as to why sex shouldn't be outlawed. I've seen plenty of arguments in this thread. Outlawing sex and eliminating sexual desire are two separate things. While the first one can technically be done by creating a new law, the second would require physical and mental adjustments to any and all humans on this damn planet. And if sex became illegal, don't be surprised if sexual desire got worse, either because people would be having less sex or out of spite. That would cost a shitload of time, research and money. China's had something sorta like this for years. It's been controversial. So you really do want sex to be illegal?Yes, we do.Well I wasn't talking about anything like China's one child policy or whatever it is currently...I was thinking that anyone who wanted to have children would have to apply, but it would be a 100% acceptance rate and nobody would be turned away. Not really...as I said before, I'm being hypothetical. I often think that life would be far easier and simpler if sex and sexual desire didn't exist, and that's where I'm approaching all of this from. No we don't. Explain how every individual person on the planet needs sex to survive...
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Dec 30, 2017 11:07:28 GMT -5
Also, because this thread is already bonkers, let's get into how morally repugnant it is to just take away sexual desire from everyone. Even if, for some reason, you thought it was better for the world you are taking away people's ability to make their own choices about sex. See, now this is a fair point. I'd have to think about the moral and ethical ramifications of the whole thing before I could answer this. Also, if artificial insemination is the answer to procreating now that sex has been outlawed, from where are you getting the sperm? Because if it's still through the male providing a sample, and if there isn't a biological issue preventing normal pregnancy... why not just have sex? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't biological issues/same sex couples wanting children aside from adoption why artificial insemination is necessary in the first place? If you're forcing everyone to have kids this way solely because "sex is illegal", you're gonna be wasting trillions of dollars and causing mass confusion and frustration here. Well I was thinking that you'd extract the sperm via the testicles using a syringe or something, then do a bunch of tests on the sperm to make sure there are no STD's. You ask 'why not just have sex', well it would be to avoid STD's, mainly. You wouldn't want a child to be born with AIDS or herpes or other STD's would you?
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Dec 30, 2017 11:08:10 GMT -5
Under this new law would all kinds of sex be outlawed? What about butt stuff?
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Dec 30, 2017 11:13:50 GMT -5
1. Porn isn't illegal. Some people may it unsavory, but you're not breaking the law by logging on to Pornhub or whatever, lol.
2. If there's a 100% acceptance rate, why bother applying? Also, if you have to apply every time you want to have sex, who's going to manage the Mount Everest of documents this would result in?
3. If your goal is to manage overpopulation, banning sex isn't really going to accomplish it. Barring accidental pregnancy, which saying "don't ever do it" is such an overreaction as there's already plenty of methods to minimize the risk, not every person who has sex is intending to get someone pregnant at the time. Assuming it's a 1:1 thing isn't remotely realistic.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,444
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Dec 30, 2017 11:19:11 GMT -5
1. Porn isn't illegal. Some people may it unsavory, but you're not breaking the law by logging on to Pornhub or whatever, lol. 2. If there's a 100% acceptance rate, why bother applying? Also, if you have to apply every time you want to have sex, who's going to manage the Mount Everest of documents this would result in? 3. If your goal is to manage overpopulation, banning sex isn't really going to accomplish it. Barring accidental pregnancy, which saying "don't ever do it" is such an overreaction as there's already plenty of methods to minimize the risk, not every person who has sex is intending to get someone pregnant at the time. Assuming it's a 1:1 thing isn't remotely realistic. Also, saying "don't ever do it" is pretty much the worst way to prevent accidental pregnancies, STDs etc.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Dec 30, 2017 11:25:38 GMT -5
Under this new law would all kinds of sex be outlawed? What about butt stuff?(Language)
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Dec 30, 2017 11:31:07 GMT -5
oh shit this thread was serious. just... oh man. I think this board has finally jumped the shark.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 30, 2017 11:53:08 GMT -5
No I for one believe it should be legal, regulated and taxed. How would you regulate and tax sex? I believe that's known as prostitution.
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Dec 30, 2017 11:55:48 GMT -5
1. Porn isn't illegal. Some people may it unsavory, but you're not breaking the law by logging on to Pornhub or whatever, lol. 2. If there's a 100% acceptance rate, why bother applying? Also, if you have to apply every time you want to have sex, who's going to manage the Mount Everest of documents this would result in? 3. If your goal is to manage overpopulation, banning sex isn't really going to accomplish it. Barring accidental pregnancy, which saying "don't ever do it" is such an overreaction as there's already plenty of methods to minimize the risk, not every person who has sex is intending to get someone pregnant at the time. Assuming it's a 1:1 thing isn't remotely realistic. 1. I'm pretty sure it is to an extent, I know it's a grey area though. 2. Just to keep track of things. And who said you needed a 'Mount Everest' of documents anyway? 3. It wasn't just about overpopulation, it was about STD's as well. 1. Porn isn't illegal. Some people may it unsavory, but you're not breaking the law by logging on to Pornhub or whatever, lol. 2. If there's a 100% acceptance rate, why bother applying? Also, if you have to apply every time you want to have sex, who's going to manage the Mount Everest of documents this would result in? 3. If your goal is to manage overpopulation, banning sex isn't really going to accomplish it. Barring accidental pregnancy, which saying "don't ever do it" is such an overreaction as there's already plenty of methods to minimize the risk, not every person who has sex is intending to get someone pregnant at the time. Assuming it's a 1:1 thing isn't remotely realistic. Also, saying "don't ever do it" is pretty much the worst way to prevent accidental pregnancies, STDs etc. How so? oh shit this thread was serious. just... oh man. I think this board has finally jumped the shark. Well I'm serious in the sense that I wanted to have a discussion about whether or not outlawing sex would be a positive thing for society, but as I said before, it's all purely hypothetical...I don't want to literally outlaw sex you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 11:56:29 GMT -5
oh shit this thread was serious. just... oh man. I think this board has finally jumped the shark. The fact that it's serious makes it more magnificent.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Dec 30, 2017 12:03:22 GMT -5
Also, saying "don't ever do it" is pretty much the worst way to prevent accidental pregnancies, STDs etc. How so? Because it’s human nature to want to do a lot of the things we’re told not to do. And I’m pretty sure if children/teenagers are given actual facts about protection whilst having sex, then they’re more likely to actually practice safe sex when they eventually do.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,444
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Dec 30, 2017 12:22:26 GMT -5
Because it’s human nature to want to do a lot of the things we’re told not to do. And I’m pretty sure if children/teenagers are given actual facts about protection whilst having sex, then they’re more likely to actually practice safe sex when they eventually do. Not sure if this might cross over the board ruels, however... It's in the stats, the states who provide the most education have the lowest rates of these things, those that teach abstinence have the highest. There are whole institutions that tell people not to do it ever, I was raised Catholic. They have rules about not doing it, they're meant to be kicked out of something they dedicate their whole lives to, told they can't devote their lives to their God, a pretty big deal. Still happens, it just leads to more horrific circumstances, coverups for those in power etc.
|
|
Frosty
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,800
|
Post by Frosty on Dec 30, 2017 12:43:52 GMT -5
Sex is needed for the continuation of our species. There are an equal number of wanted pregnancies, non-contractions of STDs/STIs, and consentual encounters as there are examples of the inverse. This is in relation to our current levels of sex education, so imagine if those levels improved.
In my view, it's wrong to impose one's will onto others. I would hope that the problems of policing procreation are apparent to everyone.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,269
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 30, 2017 12:51:29 GMT -5
1. Porn isn't illegal. Some people may it unsavory, but you're not breaking the law by logging on to Pornhub or whatever, lol. 2. If there's a 100% acceptance rate, why bother applying? Also, if you have to apply every time you want to have sex, who's going to manage the Mount Everest of documents this would result in? 3. If your goal is to manage overpopulation, banning sex isn't really going to accomplish it. Barring accidental pregnancy, which saying "don't ever do it" is such an overreaction as there's already plenty of methods to minimize the risk, not every person who has sex is intending to get someone pregnant at the time. Assuming it's a 1:1 thing isn't remotely realistic. 1. I'm pretty sure it is to an extent, I know it's a grey area though. 2. Just to keep track of things. And who said you needed a 'Mount Everest' of documents anyway? 3. It wasn't just about overpopulation, it was about STD's as well. Also, saying "don't ever do it" is pretty much the worst way to prevent accidental pregnancies, STDs etc. How so? oh shit this thread was serious. just... oh man. I think this board has finally jumped the shark. Well I'm serious in the sense that I wanted to have a discussion about whether or not outlawing sex would be a positive thing for society, but as I said before, it's all purely hypothetical...I don't want to literally outlaw sex you know. Well, it wouldn't be. End thread. Then burn it and bury it.
|
|
Big Poppa Pumpkin
Dennis Stamp
I'll be in the back polishing............ my belt.
Posts: 4,987
|
Post by Big Poppa Pumpkin on Dec 30, 2017 12:53:01 GMT -5
Well I was thinking that you'd extract the sperm via the testicles using a syringe or something
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 13:09:36 GMT -5
Going to word this very carefully so as to not break any rules.
I'm very religious, full time minister. I don't believe in sex before marriage. I'm single, so I'm not sexually active. I choose to do this and live this way.
I don't for one second think forcing anyone to live that way would help anyone or anything, as mentioned, enforcing things leads to resentment and build up of tension.
All the negatives the OP mentions are because of lack of education. Not just sex ed either, social education, learning what precautions to take in all areas and so on, knowing that just because you WANT to do something, doesn't mean you should at that time necessarily.
You don't ban driving because some people drive over the limit and crash. You educate them on the dangers of speeding and drink driving.
You don't stop serving seafood just because a few restaurants have probably made people ill over time, you give restaurants hygiene ratings so people know what to avoid.
The OP hasn't given a reason yet as to why this dystopian approach would be better than educating people.
|
|
City Duck
Ozymandius
MAMMA MIA! CRUISERLICIOUS!
GIIIGIIIGIIIGIIIGIGI
Posts: 60,742
|
Post by City Duck on Dec 30, 2017 13:41:30 GMT -5
I don't think my body was fully prepared for this to be a serious thread, let alone one that suggests contaminating the planet's air supply with mind-altering toxins and syringing people in the balls.
STI testing, condoms, and sexual education are extremely good and pure things.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Dec 30, 2017 13:48:57 GMT -5
My understanding is that states that teach abstinence only sex ed generally have higher risk of teen pregnancies and STIs.
Forcing abstinence only will not only not help any of the problems you are apparently trying to solve with this absurd hypothetical situation, but actual make them worse.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,972
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 30, 2017 13:53:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 13:57:04 GMT -5
All I know is, trying to make something illegal that already isn't frowned upon by society (like breaking the law, murder, etc.) yields bad things.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The temperance movements that yielded the 18th Amendment resulted in not only horrible things, but pretty much killed the legitimacy that anti-alcohol groups had whatsoever.
|
|