Could the Women's March Trigger a Global Movement for Rights?

[Astronuc]

...but this then beggs the question of even the accuracy of the mantra that men should have no say in the reproductive health of women: since Planned Parenthood services men, then men have a direct interest in whether or not it should be funded. Perhaps if women instead of trying to exclude men from the conversation included them and emphasized that it serves both, that would help the cause.

I think there are plenty of women who would like to have that conversation.

We seem to live in a world in which 'the conversation' gets overwhelmed by conflicting ideologies or perspectives, e.g., democrat vs republican, or right vs left, or labor vs management, theist vs atheist, something vs nonsomething or alt-something.

United we stand, divided we fall/fail.

 

[Evo]

I think there are plenty of women who would like to have that conversation.

We seem to live in a world in which 'the conversation' gets overwhelmed by conflicting ideologies or perspectives, e.g., democrat vs republican, or right vs left, or labor vs management, theist vs atheist, something vs nonsomething or alt-something.

United we stand, divided we fall/fail.

There are many states that are making it impossible for women to get abortions, I do not want to make this an abortion thread, but but this needs to be shown . This is what is happening.

Texas lawmaker who introduced bill criminalizing abortion: Women should be more ‘personally responsible’ for sex

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-gop-lawmaker-who-introduced-anti-abortion-bill-women-should-be-more-personally-responsible-for-sex-170549535.html

Texas Lawmaker: Jail Time For Abortions Would Make Women ‘More Personally Responsible’ For Sex

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abortion-abolition-bill-texas_us_5887aad1e4b0b481c76b6543

The platform also defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and homosexuality as “a chosen behavior,” and it calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

 

[john101]

if men could get pregnant abortions would be had at macdonalds without appointments and contraception dispensed in gumball machines

re men and living longer. The solution is stronger unions and better workplace safety.

 

[Evo]

if men could get pregnant abortions would be had at macdonalds without appointments and contraception dispensed in gumball machines

re men and living longer.

The solution is stronger unions and better workplace safety.

Not sure what that means.

 

[john101]

It means I make an assumption about why men have a lower life expectancy in response to someone complaining that men have shorter lives than women.

I don't know why men live shorter lives. However, people uniting to improve conditions, whatever that may be, is a good idea.

 

[Evo]

It means I make an assumption about why men have a lower life expectancy in response to someone complaining that men have shorter lives than women.

I don't know why men live shorter lives. However, people uniting to improve conditions, whatever that may be, is a good idea.

Not much shorter, despite doing much more foolish things in their younger years (no sources will be furnished)

According to data compiled by the Social Security Administration:

• A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 84.3.
• A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 86.6.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Look, I'm pro choice and in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but there is a lot of false sexism used in many arguments about it. No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health!", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments. My level of sympathy for people who need my vote drops substantially when they try to exclude me from the conversation.

When has prostate health been a controversial topic or been threatened? When have men as a group been systematically oppressed?

I think a better question for Russ is when have women tried to push for legislation requiring men to have regular prostate exams? Or anything similar. I have never felt any need to tell women to get their laws off my body because I haven't ever seen them trying to put any laws on it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/female-legislators-unveil-male-ejaculation-bill/

 

[russ_watters]

I think a better question for Russ is when have women tried to push for legislation requiring men to have regular prostate exams? Or anything similar. I have never felt any need to tell women to get their laws off my body because I haven't ever seen them trying to put any laws on it.

It's the same issue: no, in a democracy, you can't say that. Everyone gets a vote and "get your laws off my body" doesn't work. In fact, it is a sexist statement itself, saying that men shouldn't be allowed to vote!

Not specifically about sexism, but there are already laws about personal conduct that not everyone agrees with, but everyone has to follow. Seat belt laws, product safety laws, parenting laws, drug laws, etc.

Not that i think it is necessarily relevant, but there are anti-men-sexist laws or practices out there, specifically regarding reproduction and child care, especially having to do with divorce. Divorce proceedings are slanted toward women, particularly when it comes to custody and money. And regarding abortion itself, men (fathers, I mean) already have no say in whether women get an abortion or whether the men have to pay for the child care. A woman who chooses to have an abortion because she's not ready to have kids is pragmatic and caring. A man who expresses the same sentiment is a sexist and potential deadbeat. While some women say "get your laws of my body", they are saying it in the context of defending a current law that is already biased in their favor!

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's the same issue: no, in a democracy, you can't say that.

It is precisely because it is a democracy that you can say that. You are permitted to object to any law you find objectionable and seek to get it changed.

You are equally permitted to object to proposed laws, and, the striking down of laws that are in place that you approve of. "Get your laws off my body," is a perfectly good objection to a law you find too invasive in that regard: too invasive in controlling what you do with your body.

Look, I'm pro choice and in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but there is a lot of false sexism used in many arguments about it.

Do you mean 'false allegations of sexism?' I'm not aware of anything that could be called, "false sexism."

No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health!", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments.

You really need to answer the question of whether or not you have found female lawmakers to be making laws about your prostate health, or anything similar. When you admit they have not been, then you will have the explanation for why "No one is ever heard saying 'No woman should have a say over my prostate health!' "

 

[russ_watters]

It is precisely because it is a democracy that you can say that. You are permitted to object to any law you find objectionable and seek to get it changed.

You read the first part too literally and missed the second, zooby. It wasn't a statement about freedom of speech it was a statement about democracy itself: about voting. In a democracy, everyone who isn't a criminal or too young gets a vote. So the statement that men should not have a vote is undemocratic in the most basic way.

Do you mean 'false allegations of sexism?' I'm not aware of anything that could be called, "false sexism."

That's what those signs/slogans are, referred to above. They are literally false statements about how democracy works, made to sound like they are fighting against sexism. Essentially, the claim is that it is sexist for men to write/vote on laws about women, and therefore men should not be allowed to vote on such laws. Again, that is literally not how democracy works. Hopefully you are aware of it on the signs women carry at marches, but people have also literally said those things about/to legistlators:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/19/4-problems-with-telling-men-to-shut-up-on-womens-issues/

You really need to answer the question of whether or not you have found female lawmakers to be making laws about your prostate health, or anything similar. When you admit they have not been, then you will have the explanation for why "No one is ever heard saying 'No woman should have a say over my prostate health!' "

Huh? Open your mind to it: As the link says, the possibilities and absurdities are endless. Even if there weren't a specific example of exactly that (Barbra Boxter; prostate cancer) in the link above (I almost wish there wasn't), you can't possibly be unaware of the many examples I gave previously about types of laws that impact men. It is quite a deep rabbit hole the article goes down with the logic. Indeed, any law that has a "women only" component has a corresponding male impact, even if it is only money. For example: if men can't vote about abortion/contraception, then women shouldn't be able to vote about making men pay for those things that they have nothing to do with. Right next to a woman holding a sign that says "get your laws of my body" a man should hold up a sign that says "fine: then get your body off my money". Fair trade?

That makes the issue of women saying men shouldn't vote on female issues even worse: It isn't just anti-democratic and sexist, it is also biologically false, economically exploitive and hypocritical.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Here is the question I would ask the American members of this forum. Why do you think that the strongest push to defund Planned Parenthood (by which I mean to cut off federal or state funding to Planned Parenthood) comes from the Republican Party, and more specifically from white, conservative, male Republicans? And why specifically Planned Parenthood?

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

 

[Astronuc]

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

There are various reasons among: some don't want to their taxes to spent supporting PP, some oppose birth control (contraception), and others oppose abortion. Some perhaps equate PP with feminism, to which they object.

 

[bob012345]

Women’s Marches: Millions of protesters around the country vow to resist Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4def62-dfdf-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html

I must say I am really surprised (in a good way) to see such massive numbers in the Women's March in DC and all over the world (100k in just my small state capitol). There are marches in what must be thousands of sister cities and all the photos I've seen show impressive numbers. Could this start a "Women's Spring"?

My goal for this thread is to discuss what might come from the start of the movement for Women's rights (and marginalized groups) in general. Also how Trump will deal with this pressure.

ps. the election is over, so let's cut the heat out of our words and try to be analytical.

But to answer your question, what pressure? It's laughable, how many of these people actually voted last November? If they had Hillary would be president now. They have no power but to make noise.

 

[Astronuc]

It's laughable, how many of these people actually voted last November?

Probably most voted, and they will vote again.

 

[bob012345]

Here is the question I would ask the American members of this forum. Why do you think that the strongest push to defund Planned Parenthood (by which I mean to cut off federal or state funding to Planned Parenthood) comes from the Republican Party, and more specifically from white, conservative, male Republicans? And why specifically Planned Parenthood?

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

Mainly abortion but also distrust that non abortion funds will get diverted. There is also a belief that providing birth control services implies a morally neutral view on sexual behavior which is counter to Conservative values. Planned Parenthood is an anathema to many Conservatives. Here, Trump is unusual in that he praised the non-abortion aspect of PP before the election.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Mainly abortion but also distrust that non abortion funds will get diverted. There is also a belief that providing birth control services implies a morally neutral view on sexual behavior which is counter to Conservative values. Planned Parenthood is an anathema to many Conservatives.
Here, Trump is unusual in that he praised the non-abortion aspect of PP before the election.

You see, that is the thing that gets to me about conservative legislators -- why do they feel that it is the job of the government to arbitrate morality, particularly on sexual morality? To quote Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (father of the current prime minister), "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

 

[russ_watters]

Here is the question I would ask the American members of this forum. Why do you think that the strongest push to defund Planned Parenthood (by which I mean to cut off federal or state funding to Planned Parenthood) comes from the Republican Party, and more specifically from white, conservative, male Republicans? [snip]

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

As far as I can tell, it is almost exclusively an abortion issue. And it isn't just about providing or funding for abortions; pro-life people don't like that Planned Parenthood even talks about abortions. That's why separating funding wouldn't solve "the problem" for pro lifers and wouldn't change their opposition to PP.

And why specifically Planned Parenthood?

It's big.

You see, that is the thing that gets to me about conservative legislators -- why do they feel that it is the job of the government to arbitrate morality, particularly on sexual morality? To quote Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (father of the current prime minister), "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

:boggle: Most of what legislators from all sides do is legislate morality. It's a core function of government. Everything that falls under criminal law is about morality, from murder to insider trading. Even the removal of legislation on morality is legislating morality. Liberal legislators (and liberal people) don't actually oppose legislating morality, they just support legislating a different (less strict) morality than conservatives.

And that is such a thoughtless/BS slogan (as most soundybte-ready slogans are): If a guy was carving-up his girlfriend in their bedroom or running a Ponzi scheme from his laptop while in bed, I'm pretty sure Trudeau would care.

 

[bob012345]

Well,

You see, that is the thing that gets to me about conservative legislators -- why do they feel that it is the job of the government to arbitrate morality, particularly on sexual morality? To quote Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (father of the current prime minister), "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Well, do you try to use government to promote your ideas about social values and justice? I think they believe they are working for the overall good of society, not just because they want to control people's sexual behavior.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Well,

Well, do you try to use government to promote your ideas about social values and justice? I think they believe they are working for the overall good of society, not just because they want to control people's sexual behavior.

I want the government to promote ideas that can tangibly improve the lives of the people the government is trying to represent (e.g. ending discrimination against minority ethnic groups, promoting economic development, etc.) which is undeniably for the overall good of society. Social conservatives are frankly wrong to believe that controlling sexual behaviour in the absence of science-based proper sex education that is free of religious rhetoric is to the overall benefit of society.

Again, that's my view on this topic.

 

[bob012345]

I want the government to promote ideas that can tangibly improve the lives of the people the government is trying to represent (e.g. ending discrimination against minority ethnic groups, promoting economic development, etc.) which is undeniably for the overall good of society. Social conservatives are frankly wrong to believe that controlling sexual behaviour in the absence of science-based proper sex education that is free of religious rhetoric is to the overall benefit of society.

Again, that's my view on this topic.

Many non-religious Conservatives would argue the state should promote abstention from casual sex.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Many non-religious Conservatives would argue the state should promote abstention from casual sex.

I'm sure many would, but promotion of abstinence is frankly a lost cause. People are going to have sex one way or the other (as they have for as long as humans have existed on this planet), and IMHO, conservatives should give up on this battle.

The sensible thing is for the state to provide (a) children with comprehensive sex education, so that they will grow up and be able to make sensible decisions with respect to sexual health, and (b) provide ready access to birth control. Planned Parenthood, even though it is not a part of the state, provides (b) and also has contributed to (a), and should continue to do so.

Otherwise, the state has no place in legislating sexual morality.

[I should also add that by defunding Planned Parenthood, the government is also potentially limiting the options available for married women and men in terms of access to birth control. ]

 

[russ_watters]

I want the government to promote ideas that can tangibly improve the lives of the people the government is trying to represent (e.g. ending discrimination against minority ethnic groups, promoting economic development, etc.) which is undeniably for the overall good of society.

And don't you agree that that's a moral imperative?

Social conservatives are frankly wrong to believe that controlling sexual behaviour in the absence of science-based proper sex education that is free of religious rhetoric is to the overall benefit of society.

Well, your opinion and theirs, but still: don't you agree that those things are issues of morality either way?
[note: this isn't a place to argue your personal view of law/morality. But we can discuss the framing of the question.]

Otherwise, the state has no place in legislating sexual morality.

"Otherwise". So really, you recognize that you are proposing legislations on morality, so it isn't that "the state should not legislate morality", it's that the state should legislate morality the way you see it. That's fine, but you should not frame the question disingenuously.

 

[bob012345]

I'm sure many would, but promotion of abstinence is frankly a lost cause. People are going to have sex one way or the other (as they have for as long as humans have existed on this planet), and IMHO, conservatives should give up on this battle.

The sensible thing is for the state to provide (a) children with comprehensive sex education, so that they will grow up and be able to make sensible decisions with respect to sexual health, and (b) provide ready access to birth control. Planned Parenthood, even though it is not a part of the state, provides (b) and also has contributed to (a), and should continue to do so.

Otherwise, the state has no place in legislating sexual morality.

[I should also add that by defunding Planned Parenthood, the government is also potentially limiting the options available for married women and men in terms of access to birth control. ]

What do you mean by 'one way or another'? People can and many do control themselves with regards to sexual partners. But the greater culture puts young people at a disadvantage by propagating the illusion that there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Morality and moral codes, religious or not, were not invented in Western Christian cultures. Many cultures are shocked by the Western looseness of sexuality.

 

[StatGuy2000]

And don't you agree that that's a moral imperative?

It depends on what you mean by "moral imperative". From my vantage point, I see it as a matter of self-interest -- if a (democratic) government promotes ideas that are based on rationality and reason and that tangibly improves the lives of people as I mentioned above, that would mean that (a) they are far more likely to collect more tax revenue (due to greater economic growth and thus more tax revenues flowing into government coffers), and (b) the government is more likely to stay in power by being re-elected.

Well, your opinion and theirs, but still: don't you agree that those things are issues of morality either way?
[note: this isn't a place to argue your personal view of law/morality. But we can discuss the framing of the question.]

I see it as an issue of effective versus ineffective policy; I don't particularly like the very mention of "morality" in the context of laws and government.

"Otherwise". So really, you recognize that you are proposing legislations on morality, so it isn't that "the state should not legislate morality", it's that the state should legislate morality the way you see it. That's fine, but you should not frame the question disingenuously.

I'm afraid you are misrepresenting my stance on the question involved. I see it as the following: it is not the purpose of the state to legislate or set laws on individual sexual behaviour. I see (consensual) sexuality as inherently a private matter between individuals or groups of individuals, and the state has no business in regulating or legislating on this matter, with the obvious exception of instances of non-consent.

What is the state's business is ensuring equitable access to public health for all its citizens.

 

[StatGuy2000]

What do you mean by 'one way or another'? People can and many do control themselves with regards to sexual partners. But the greater culture puts young people at a disadvantage by propagating the illusion that there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Morality and moral codes, religious or not, were not invented in Western Christian cultures. Many cultures are shocked by the Western looseness of sexuality.

Let me disclose up front that I see nothing wrong at all with casual sex, so long as the sexual activity is safe and consensual. I see sexuality as fundamentally a natural and healthy thing for people to engage in, and I don't see any real benefit in society to try to bottle up or repress it. Again, that's my views on this.

I should also note that American culture, from my viewpoint, is frankly contradictory, if not outright hypocritical, with respect to sexuality overall.

 

[russ_watters]

I see it as an issue of effective versus ineffective policy; I don't particularly like the very mention of "morality" in the context of laws and government.
...
What is the state's business is ensuring equitable access to public health for all its citizens.

What it appears to me is that you are using the language and definition of "morality" while trying to avoid using the word itself. Let me ask you this: is murder immoral?

 

[zoobyshoe]

:boggle: Most of what legislators from all sides do is legislate morality. It's a core function of government. Everything that falls under criminal law is about morality, from murder to insider trading. Even the removal of legislation on morality is legislating morality. Liberal legislators (and liberal people) don't actually oppose legislating morality, they just support legislating a different (less strict) morality than conservatives.

I'm working on a response to your last post to me, but I want to address what you say here right away. Laws are not about morality, and shouldn't be, due to the separation of church and state. Laws are about maintaining order. The law against murder, for example, is purely practical. There is nothing in it that requires you to hold human life sacred, or to even have any moral ideas about human life at all. It merely requires that you not kill anyone. Insider trading is the same: you are not required to have any moral qualms about taking unfair advantage of knowledge others don't have. All that is required is that you don't engage in insider trading.

You must be aware of this crazy lawsuit from a couple years ago:

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/nebraska-woman-sues-every-homosexual-on-the-planet

It was dismissed because courts and lawmakers aren't in the business of deciding what is or isn't sinful. In other words, they don't legislate morality.

 

[StatGuy2000]

What it appears to me is that you are using the language and definition of "morality" while trying to avoid using the word itself. Let me ask you this: is murder immoral?

Your question is context-dependent. If someone pre-meditatively kills an individual, then it is certainly illegal (as killing people is harmful to public safety and basic order if permitted), but there are circumstances when killing people is justified (for example, in the case of self-defense where someone's life is in danger otherwise).

And as zoobyshoe has already posted in post #98, laws are not about morality, it is about maintaining order within society.

 

[russ_watters]

If someone pre-meditatively kills an individual, then it is certainly illegal ...

You didn't answer my question. I know murder is illegal (by definition): I asked if you think murder is immoral.

Definition/word switch problem notwithstanding: I used the word "murder" and you substituted the word "kill". There is no context confusion: I meant murder.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You didn't answer my question. I know murder is illegal (by definition): I asked if you think murder is immoral.

Definition/word switch problem notwithstanding: I used the word "murder" and you substituted the word "kill". There is no context confusion: I meant murder.

The problem here is that "murder" is a legal term, not a moral term. I substituted the word "kill" because whether someone committed murder is up to the legal system to deal with. As I stated earlier, there are circumstances when it is perfectly justified for an individual to kill another individual (e.g. in self-defense). Such an individual could still be charged with murder, so it is up to the courts to determine whether that charge essentially "sticks" (through dismissal by judge, through acquittal by the jury, etc.)

 

[russ_watters]

The problem here is that "murder" is a legal term, not a moral term.

So what? Are you saying there is no context where you would describe murder/killing as "immoral"?

I substituted the word "kill" because whether someone committed murder is up to the legal system to deal with. As I stated earlier, there are circumstances when it is perfectly justified for an individual to kill another individual (e.g. in self-defense).

1. We're discussing the legal system, that's why we need to use the legal word.
2. I'm asking about your view of unjustified killing, which is why bringing up justified killing is inappropriate.

It's really a simple question, StatGuy. If the answer is that you don't believe such an animal as "morality" even exists, so be it, but if the answer is that you just don't want to admit you recognize that legislation of morality is inherent to government, this seems like a silly game to play.

However, even if you don't think such a thing as "morality" exists, most people do and even bait-and-switching the wording doesn't change the issue. You used a number of words that are synonymous with "moral", such as "equitable" and even "self interest". You only (so far) have applied "morality" to government actions you don't like despite the fact that their motivations can be described in exactly the same terms you use instead.

 

[StatGuy2000]

So what? Are you saying there is no context where you would describe murder/killing as "immoral"?

1. We're discussing the legal system, that's why we need to use the legal word.
2. I'm asking about your view of unjustified killing, which is why bringing up justified killing is inappropriate.

It's really a simple question, StatGuy. If the answer is that you don't believe such an animal as "morality" even exists, so be it, but if the answer is that you just don't want to admit you recognize that legislation of morality is inherent to government, this seems like a silly game to play.

However, even if you don't think such a thing as "morality" exists, most people do and even bait-and-switching the wording doesn't change the issue. You used a number of words that are synonymous with "moral", such as "equitable" and even "self interest". You only (so far) have applied "morality" to government actions you don't like despite the fact that their motivations can be described in exactly the same terms you use instead.

In the previous posts in this thread, I have specifically stated that the government has no business in legislating sexual morality, and that is the context I have kept to. I do not want to get into a debate about the existence of morality or not, because that is a philosophical debate, and as a moderator, you are well aware that such discussion goes against the rules of PF.

You asked a question regarding murder and whether it is immoral -- I answered the way I did, and I stand by my answers.

 

[russ_watters]

Laws are not about morality, and shouldn't be, due to the separation of church and state.

Oh, my god, no. My sister is an atheist and she is a very moral person. The fact that many people derive their morality from religion (or even the historical fact that our laws were based on religious morality) doesn't mean morality is a strictly religious thing.

The law against murder, for example, is purely practical.

Nonsense. The law trips over its feet all the time to promote morality over practicality. It's written into the Constitution and Declaration of Independence that the purpose of government is to do right by its people. It is so disheartening to see this. You're an American, aren't you?[edit: actually, wait -- are you Canadian?] This is the very reason this country exists!

There is nothing in it that requires you to hold human life sacred, or to even have any moral ideas about human life at all. It merely requires that you not kill anyone. Insider trading is the same: you are not required to have any moral qualms about taking unfair advantage of knowledge others don't have. All that is required is that you don't engage in insider trading.

We're not talking about the people who follow or don't follow the laws, we're talking about why the laws were written.

You must be aware of this crazy lawsuit from a couple years ago:
http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/nebraska-woman-sues-every-homosexual-on-the-planet
It was dismissed because courts and lawmakers aren't in the business of deciding what is or isn't sinful. In other words, they don't legislate morality.

I wasn't aware of it, no. But what it tells me is that you are letting the crazy extreme dominate your understanding and pull it away from reality.

 

[russ_watters]

In the previous posts in this thread, I have specifically stated that the government has no business in legislating sexual morality, and that is the context I have kept to. I do not want to get into a debate about the existence of morality or not, because that is a philosophical debate, and as a moderator, you are well aware that such discussion goes against the rules of PF.

You asked a question regarding murder and whether it is immoral -- I answered the way I did, and I stand by my answers.

Actually, you omitted the word "sexual" previously, but so be it. I'm not asking for a debate of if morality exists, I just want to know what your opinion is on it in order to be able to explain how the reality works for the government in a context/wording that you'll understand based on your usage of the concept. I find it silly that you don't want to answer the questions asked, but so be it: I can't force you to answer a question you don't want to answer.