>Death by firing squad?
Ho ho ho Stardust, way to demonstrate your complete lack of political bias! You had best screenshot your phone for everyone.
The point being they're trying to have a law that covers what is seen as a social positive, without offering an incentive for moral policing.
It's attempt to control false positives. It's hardly a bad thing, the way it's worded.
What do you think the specific social benefit of casual sex is?
"Oh no, indonesian teenagers will no longer be able to have lots of casual sex!!!"
And, so? So what? It's their country. We don't have such laws here.
If the upcoming intelligentsia in Indonesia all emigrate, it will be a failed policy. If they all end up in long term relationships and have a new generation of intelligent kids, it will be a win.
And, again, who cares. It's a foreign country. Let's watch and see what happens, rather than pre-judge the outcome of their decision.
Yes, which is exactly why we have "net zero" targets, good observation. Oh, that isn't what you meant ? hahahha
By the way, you can look at real world data and find fairly conclusive evidence that people who have sex within the bounds of a committed relationship for the purpose of procreation - and stay together - have children with better outcomes. Casual sex tends to ruin peoples ability to remain in committed relationships. It is just a fact of the matter, whether they justify it from religious grounds or not means little to the realities of human behaviour.
Expand