NationStates Jolt Archive

People seem to be debating all kinds of things on this forum, and in the world in general. But I don't see where the debate ends and the legislation begins. What of all this do you people actually want to make into laws, or try to prevent/force people to do?

I've seen people saying that Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. But what does that mean? Do you mean that they simply shouldn't call it marriage, but should have all the rights of a legally married couple? Or do you mean that they should have certain rights restricted, such as the right to adopt children?

I've seen people condemning homosexuality. What do you mean? Should we make laws against men fraternizing with each other? Should homosexual sex be outlawed everywhere? Or do you just want to express your disapproval of the lifestyle itself?

I've seen people who argue about abortion. Doesn't this have to do with a conflict between the right to live and the right to do with one's own body as one wishes? What about women who were raped? Are you going to deny them an abortion because the bastard child of a criminal conceived against the mother's will has a right to live? What about the women who try to have abortions in atmospheres where abortion is illegal and end up mutilating themselves and/or the baby? What will you do about them?

I've seen people debating about euthanasia. If I have the right to live, don't I have the right to die, too? If I'm in pain, isn't it my choice whether to continue living or not? How do you reconcile the right to self-determination with making suicide, and/or assisted suicide, illegal?

There seem to be people who want to ban the practice of certain religions. (I would be hard pressed to come up with an example of someone saying as much, but it has nevertheless been my impression.) Do you seriously want to create an all Catholic / Evangelist / Muslim / whatever nation? How would you enforce it? How can you justify keeping the children born in such a nation there if they're going to be growing up without an actual choice of what religion they follow?

I've seen people suggest that self-mutilation, and even piercings and tattoos should be banned. Why? Do you actually want to make a law about it? What about S/M? Would that be illegal too? How do you plan to enforce it?

For that matter, how do any of you plan to enforce any of the things I've mentioned here, assuming the answer to "do you want to make it law" was "yes"?

Please, I require much clarification, because as I hope I have made clear, I feel that if you really do want to make laws out of this, that I am in danger of having my rights denied me, which is something I can never accept. Are you trying to take away my rights?

I suggest you break this into several different topics -- few will want to tackle something as unfocused as this.

A)Gay Marriage-I'm for it, can't see any logical reason against it
B)Abortion-I'm pro responsibility. I think people should be held accountable for their actions. If you have consensual sex, you should face the consequences. If you are raped, an abortion should be available.
C)Euthanasia-tricky subject. I think it should be used only in extreme circumstances. Very tough to legislate.
D)Even though it's not directly in the constitution, I'm all about separation of church and state. The problem is, too many leftists fight the wrong battles, ie "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Instead of getting it removed, just make saying the pledge voluntary(which is isn't, at least in my high school).
E)Self mutilation to a point is ok. Tattoos, piercings are perfectly fine. However, self-mutiliation to the point where you are no longer able to support yourself isn't right(ie taking a leg off, having so many piercings that you can't move properly without the ring attached to your nose ripping your nuts off).

I hope I helped you somewhat.

I assume they would plan to enforce these laws the same way all others laws are enforced. I.E. make it illegal and arrest anyone who does it. As far as all of your questions go, each person has a different opinion of how far they would like to take things. E.g. some people are fine with gay marriage, while others ...fuck it, I couldn't be bothered replying properly.

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

You can't enforce bigotry with legislation.

My sig pretty well covers my opinion on these things. One persons rights end where anothers begin. Beyond that, leave everyone else alone and let them do as they please.

What about S/M? Would that be illegal too? How do you plan to enforce it?
The only one I really need to address given the fact I'm libertarian. I have no problem what people do in their private lives but I draw the line at distributing things like snuff films, even if the participants were willing, which would be rather hard to prove after the fact.

dont start with this bigotry thing again. gay does not equal bigotry. see the earlier thread

Let individuals have their fun. If it doesn't hurt someone else, it should be something you get to do.

On the other token, let's regulate and police the hell out of businesses and the government, because if your decision impacts someone else, it had damn better be a good one. If it hurts, make it illegal. Like for-profit layoffs, and CEO's deciding what the company will do independent of the workers themselves.

dont start with this bigotry thing again. gay does not equal bigotry. see the earlier thread
I am well aware that the words "gay" and "bigotry" are inequlivalent, I was actually referring to the overall social authoritarianism the first poster was talking about.

I will be so bold as to say that it is rather bigoted to want to control the private/sexual lives of individuals. Not just in the case of gay rights, but when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, alternative lifestyles, and whatever else was addressed in the first post. Trying to take control of other people's personal decisions is bigoted in my opinion unless there is a clear infringement on the life of another.

snip

I hope I helped you somewhat.
Thanks for your contribution, Rarne. I find a lot of your views refreshing. I'm not going to suggest that you're utterly wrong, but I do have a couple of questions about a couple of these.

C)Euthanasia-tricky subject. I think it should be used only in extreme circumstances. Very tough to legislate.
Why only in extreme circumstances? Granted, a lot of people would be upset if we let every depressed teen in the world go to a doctor and say "Kill me now, doc!" but what about those who aren't mentally ill? Or even those who are mentally ill but still legally responsible for themselves? Can we keep them in this world against their own will? What moral guideline can tell us where to draw the line?

E)Self mutilation to a point is ok. Tattoos, piercings are perfectly fine. However, self-mutiliation to the point where you are no longer able to support yourself isn't right(ie taking a leg off, having so many piercings that you can't move properly without the ring attached to your nose ripping your nuts off).
You mean support yourself financially? What if you're willing to live with the consequences of such a mutilation, which may include the loss of your ability to support yourself? And your second example seems a bit ambiguous. It doesn't seem to prevent a person from supporting themselves. So I ask again, where do you draw the line? Do we have a moral or ethic that we can all agree on that defines it?

I don't really think people here do want to take away rights or pass the majority of what you mentioned as law. Beyond the massive and long-winded debates that those kind of proposals would inspire, they are kind of extremist viewpoints that aren't popular enough to pass easily.

Mostly, when you read the opinions here, you're seeing one of the miracles of the Internet: completely honest opinions from people who are guaranteed anonymity. When you don't have to look someone in the eye and risk looking stupid in a debate, you are liable to say whatever you like, and that is a lot of what you see here. Naturally, there is intellectual debate and well-thought out opinions here too, but you have to really look for them.

I am well aware that the words "gay" and "bigotry" are inequlivalent, I was actually referring to the overall social authoritarianism the first poster was talking about.

I will be so bold as to say that it is rather bigoted to want to control the private/sexual lives of individuals. Not just in the case of gay rights, but when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, alternative lifestyles, and whatever else was addressed in the first post. Trying to take control of other people's personal decisions is bigoted in my opinion unless there is a clear infringement on the life of another.
Thank you, Passive Cookies. Your last sentence contains, in ideal, the ethic I was trying to illustrate with this thread. It seems to me that too many people are trying to force their beliefs down each others throats lately. In politics, in popular culture, and in this forum alike. So, I pose to all you out there who want to make all said above illegal or whatnot: What ever happened to "live and let live"?

What ever happened to "live and let live"?
What happened was the religious right picked up their bibles and started making legislation based on "morality". This of course will backfire as soon as they realize morality is not consistant for everyone.