We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Public Sex Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2150
Description[?]:
| A bill to legalise public sexual intercourse. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Current: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Proposed: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:25:39, November 27, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Public Sex Act |
| Message | Two questions: 1. Why ban it? 2. What gives you the right to ban it? |
| Date | 17:29:19, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Public Sex Act |
| Message | 1. Based on personal preference. 2. The fact that we, as government, have the ability to act on the part of our electorate as we see fit. As this is a democratic society, the electorate will judge us on our actions during the elections. |
| Date | 20:41:47, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Optimates Party | To | Debating the Public Sex Act |
| Message | 1. This is one of the actions that cause a basic deteriorization of society's bonds, and trivializes and degrades the intimate relations between two people. This also is a double standard. Why should it be perfectly leagal to watch people copulate in public, but if a person peeks into another person's house through a window to see the same thing its an invasion of privacy, and arrest the perp as a Peeping Tom and/or stalker. 2. Personal preference and personal moral reasons as well. |
| Date | 21:33:22, November 27, 2005 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Public Sex Act |
| Message | Allow me to give you a scenario. A young boy sees a couple passionately (And a little violently) engaging in intercourse in a local park. They watch with interest. As this is a young boy, and they see the woman 'Enjoying' this, they therefore think this is what should be done to women. This is not a far-fetched scenario, it is well-documented. I find this kind of psuedo-'progressive' morality disgusting and badly thought-through. |
| Date | 22:32:30, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Public Sex Act |
| Message | ISP that only happens in societies where the youth is not properly educated if left ignorant on the subject except out in public yes things like that can happen however if we take the proper precautions to educate the youth on such subjects we can give them the proper light to see such acts in. |
| Date | 09:18:50, November 28, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Public Sex Act |
| Message | "1. Based on personal preference." Oh good, the mighty Prog Con gods decide the policy of the nation on a whim. "2. The fact that we, as government, have the ability to act on the part of our electorate as we see fit. As this is a democratic society, the electorate will judge us on our actions during the elections." If the majority say, "We should persecute all minorities" does this make it right? "1. This is one of the actions that cause a basic deteriorization of society's bonds, and trivializes and degrades the intimate relations between two people. This also is a double standard. Why should it be perfectly leagal to watch people copulate in public, but if a person peeks into another person's house through a window to see the same thing its an invasion of privacy, and arrest the perp as a Peeping Tom and/or stalker." For the first part, again, this you imposing your values on other people. What gives you this right? For the second part, if people have sex in public, they clearly don't care whether anyone sees them and so if people do, its not a violation of their privacy as by the act, they have forefeited it. If people have sex indoors, they retain their right to privacy, something not to be violated. "2. Personal preference and personal moral reasons as well." You impose your values on the people. If the Pantians believe we should all be Pantian and they gain the majority, why do they get the power to force the rest of us to be Pantian? And what happened to smaller government? "A young boy sees a couple passionately (And a little violently) engaging in intercourse in a local park. They watch with interest. As this is a young boy, and they see the woman 'Enjoying' this, they therefore think this is what should be done to women." Firstly, a young boy sees a man violently slaughter fifteen random, faceless guards on television. He watches with interest. He sees the hero as a powerful figure and a role model. Does he start to think this is how people should be treated? Secondly, is this a case of rape? If so, the young boy should be well informed enough to recognise it and report it. If this is a case of consensual sex, he will quickly find that women aren't all the same in the bedroom (or park as the case may be) and with his testicles kicked in from being a creep, he will find it hard to procreate in any case. "This is not a far-fetched scenario, it is well-documented. I find this kind of psuedo-'progressive' morality disgusting and badly thought-through." Actually, I think you will find it is our party's amorality, as you will find that if you think beyond what youve had imposed on you that all morality is subjective and thus should have no basis in an objective legal system, that allows us to be comfortable with this. I also think you will be hard pressed to find a documented case of such a scenario, hence why you decided to make one up. OOC: Time for an OOC example and while its not a perfect example, it is an example of this so-called "pseudo-'progressive' morality". Denmark removed all censorship from Danish television. To quote http://libertus.net/censor/pcontrov.html , "In 1967 erotic material in Denmark was removed from the obscenity statute. This resulted in sex crimes in Denmark which had been stable from 1958 to 1966 decreasing by 25 percent in 1967, 13 percent in 1968 and 30.5 percent in 1969." IC: Stop treating people like idiots. Its the government's bubble wrapping of the population that stops them from empowering themselves and being capable of running of their own lives. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 112 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 162 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 68 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Religion, like capitalism, will perish in the end. We estimate the complete Terra-wide extinction of Hosianism as a religious belief by the year 4409, and in Dorvik by 4398." - Friedrich Pfeiffer, former Dorvish politician |