• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Legitimate and illegitimate laws

Gaudius

Gaudius

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
166
Reaction score
50
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Let Awayistan be a hypothetical country. Awayistan's authorities have approved a law stating that homosexual practice is to be punished by 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court of Awayistan has ruled that the anti-homo law is in accordance with the Constitution of Awayistan, and 95% of Awayistan's population support the law.
A homosexual person knocks on your door and begs on his knees that you hide him in your basement since he is in acute danger of being arrested by the Police, with subsequent large possibility of getting 20 years in a miserable prison. What will you think, and what will you do in such a situation (alternative 1, 2, 3 or 4)?


1) Homosexual practice is disgusting and destructive for the society, and he really deserves the punishment. I knock him down and bring him to the Police.

2) I do not agree that homosexual practice should be punished, but I accept the law as legitimate since the law has been correctly adopted in a democratic and constitutional manner and since it is supported by 95% of the people. I slam the door and do not let him in, and afterwards I call the Police so they easier can seize the law breaker.

3) A law stating punishment for voluntary activity between two human beings is never legitimate – no matter how many percentage of the population supporting the law and even if the law has been constitutionally correctly adopted. I will hide the homosexual man in my basement indefinitely, in the same way as some brave persons hid Jews during World War Two protecting them against the Nazis.

4) A law stating punishment for voluntary activity between two human beings is never legitimate – no matter how many percentage of the population supporting the law and even if the law has been constitutionally correctly adopted. But I am afraid of the Police; therefore I tell the man that he has my deepest sympathy, but I do not let him in. I do not call the Police after he has left.
 
3

If there is a law I think is so unjust that oppresses the liberties of my fellow man so horribly, then I would certainly act against it. I would act in the same manner if God himself came down and commanded such a law. I never comply with tyranny.
 
Chaotic Good
 
Gaudius said:
Let Awayistan be a hypothetical country. Awayistan's authorities have approved a law stating that homosexual practice is to be punished by 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court of Awayistan has ruled that the anti-homo law is in accordance with the Constitution of Awayistan, and 95% of Awayistan's population support the law.
A homosexual person knocks on your door and begs on his knees that you hide him in your basement since he is in acute danger of being arrested by the Police, with subsequent large possibility of getting 20 years in a miserable prison. What will you think, and what will you do in such a situation (alternative 1, 2, 3 or 4)?


1) Homosexual practice is disgusting and destructive for the society, and he really deserves the punishment. I knock him down and bring him to the Police.

2) I do not agree that homosexual practice should be punished, but I accept the law as legitimate since the law has been correctly adopted in a democratic and constitutional manner and since it is supported by 95% of the people. I slam the door and do not let him in, and afterwards I call the Police so they easier can seize the law breaker.

3) A law stating punishment for voluntary activity between two human beings is never legitimate – no matter how many percentage of the population supporting the law and even if the law has been constitutionally correctly adopted. I will hide the homosexual man in my basement indefinitely, in the same way as some brave persons hid Jews during World War Two protecting them against the Nazis.

4) A law stating punishment for voluntary activity between two human beings is never legitimate – no matter how many percentage of the population supporting the law and even if the law has been constitutionally correctly adopted. But I am afraid of the Police; therefore I tell the man that he has my deepest sympathy, but I do not let him in. I do not call the Police after he has left.
Click to expand...

If I had information on the whereabouts of an outlaw, I would probably call the police.
 
Gaudius said:
A homosexual person knocks on your door and begs on his knees that you hide him in your basement since he is in acute danger of being arrested by the Police, with subsequent large possibility of getting 20 years in a miserable prison. What will you think, and what will you do in such a situation (alternative 1, 2, 3 or 4)?


2) I do not agree that homosexual practice should be punished, but I accept the law as legitimate since the law has been correctly adopted in a democratic and constitutional manner and since it is supported by 95% of the people. I slam the door and do not let him in, and afterwards I call the Police so they easier can seize the law breaker.
Click to expand...
#2 except I would not call the police.

The fact is that homosexuality is a choice and as a choice the person can choose to stop it, and therefore they chose to be deviant and if they can avoid the police then I would not report them, but I like the criteria that was created in the laws of Russia that they must stay away from minor children.
 
JP Cusick said:
#2 except I would not call the police.

The fact is that homosexuality is a choice and as a choice the person can choose to stop it, and therefore they chose to be deviant and if they can avoid the police then I would not report them, but I like the criteria that was created in the laws of Russia that they must stay away from minor children.
Click to expand...

Can you show from a site that does not have religious or a specific agenda against homosexuals that it is a choice? Can you do that?
 
RAMOSS said:
Can you show from a site that does not have religious or a specific agenda against homosexuals that it is a choice? Can you do that?
Click to expand...
I will not even try to do such a thing and I resent the request.

I do not need any website to back up what I said, and if all you want is a website then screw you.

A human choice does not need any verification to suit the likes of your demand.
 
JP Cusick said:
I will not even try to do such a thing and I resent the request.

I do not need any website to back up what I said, and if all you want is a website then screw you.

A human choice does not need any verification to suit the likes of your demand.
Click to expand...
So Rather than be able to support your claim with an unbiased source, you 'get insulted' and go for a personal attack. I see. That does not make it look like you can support your claim.

It appears you can not show that it is a 'choice'.
 
RAMOSS said:
So Rather than be able to support your claim with an unbiased source, you 'get insulted' and go for a personal attack. I see. That does not make it look like you can support your claim.

It appears you can not show that it is a 'choice'.
Click to expand...
The thing is that you are not saying whether you see it as a choice or not, as all you want is some link as some kind of authority figure to tell us what it is.

For me I do not have a mommy or daddy watching over my shoulders and I can make my own decisions and I have no need for any link to anywhere.

You want some link or website to tell you what you are going to believe or not believe then you go get your own link as I am not your fetcher boy.

You need some other source to tell you anything then that is not my concern.

My claim is supported by me, and you have not given any position of your own.
 
JP Cusick said:
The thing is that you are not saying whether you see it as a choice or not, as all you want is some link as some kind of authority figure to tell us what it is.

For me I do not have a mommy or daddy watching over my shoulders and I can make my own decisions and I have no need for any link to anywhere.

You want some link or website to tell you what you are going to believe or not believe then you go get your own link as I am not your fetcher boy.

You need some other source to tell you anything then that is not my concern.

My claim is supported by me, and you have not given any position of your own.
Click to expand...

Ah, more faux indignant verbosity, yet, you are not able to show what you say has a basis in fact. You can not show it is truth, or anything more than your opinion.

Perhaps sometime you will have more support for your claim besides 'Because I said so'. Somehow, I don't think that will happen
 
I think legitimate or illegitimate are the wrong terms here. The law is obviously legitimate, as it has been passed legitimately and withstood constitutional scrutiny. But it is also immoral and unjust and, for that reason, I would be willing to help the individual. However, not enough information has been given here for anyone to give an informed answer. The correct response for any individual should depend on two additional factors, what are the consequences to you should you be caught helping? and what are the chances you would be caught helping? Without that information, we don't know what the risk and consequences of helping are, so how can we form an opinion? Of course I would help the individual if it costs me nothing and I take on no risk. But I would not help them at great risk of losing my life. I'm interested in helping the person, but I'm not to risk my life to help them.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah, more faux indignant verbosity, yet, you are not able to show what you say has a basis in fact. You can not show it is truth, or anything more than your opinion.

Perhaps sometime you will have more support for your claim besides 'Because I said so'. Somehow, I don't think that will happen
Click to expand...
At least I do say so, and I do stand behind what I do say, while in fact you have said nothing and you are standing behind nothing.

The fact is that sex of any kind must be between two consenting adults, and if one of the participants did not make a consenting choice then we call the other person as committing rape.

I understood the topic to be about consenting adults, and not about homosexuals who rape other people who have no choice.

So I confess that it is not a choice when it is done by force.
 
I am guided by my own morality, not laws created by politicians. If there is a law I disagree with, and I think I can get away with it, I will disobey that law and follow my own conscience.
 
JP Cusick said:
At least I do say so, and I do stand behind what I do say, while in fact you have said nothing and you are standing behind nothing.

The fact is that sex of any kind must be between two consenting adults, and if one of the participants did not make a consenting choice then we call the other person as committing rape.

I understood the topic to be about consenting adults, and not about homosexuals who rape other people who have no choice.

So I confess that it is not a choice when it is done by force.
Click to expand...


It's amazing that you are such a fanatstic mind reader, where you know my positions better than I do. How amazing.
 
BrewerBob said:
I am guided by my own morality, not laws created by politicians. If there is a law I disagree with, and I think I can get away with it, I will disobey that law and follow my own conscience.
Click to expand...
I do believe the point is that the law means police action as in they use brute force to enforce the laws, and that makes disobeying the law as a more dangerous thing to do.

If our morality and our conscience is only based on - if we can get away with disobeying it - then that is not based on much.

Since the OP is talking about homosexuality and not just laws about speeding or paying taxes then it may yet get very complicated.

The laws today are trying to insist that homosexuality be accepted in every place as if it were healthy and normal, and they are indoctrinating that into the schools and onto TV programing, and any resistance is being viewed as anti-social and even as hatred and it is being forced onto the population.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah, more faux indignant verbosity, yet, you are not able to show what you say has a basis in fact. You can not show it is truth, or anything more than your opinion.

Perhaps sometime you will have more support for your claim besides 'Because I said so'. Somehow, I don't think that will happen
Click to expand...

Perhaps he thinks he knows about that "fact" because he is bisexual and chose to be straight. That seems to be the case with many people who think homosexuality is a choice.
 
Hard Truth said:
Perhaps he thinks he knows about that "fact" because he is bisexual and chose to be straight. That seems to be the case with many people who think homosexuality is a choice.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that doesnt' mean they aren't attracted to the same gender, they just don't act on it.
 
Hard Truth said:
Perhaps he thinks he knows about that "fact" because he is bisexual and chose to be straight. That seems to be the case with many people who think homosexuality is a choice.
Click to expand...
Actually my own understanding comes from the criminal justice system, because they have people who go in-and-out of jails over and over again so we try to find out what is wrong with them and seek out the reason for people who keep doing wrong. As like so many Prostitutes say that they have no choice and they can not stop being a prostitute, and drug users who say that they have no choice as they can not stop their drugs. Even things like assault and battery the criminals tell that they have no choice because they can not control their anger. A corporate thief can not choose to stop their greed or their criminal competition. And there is no end to deviants who claim that they do not have a choice.

There is some element of truth in that those people really are trapped in their own mentality and do not have the power to make their own choices.

As such there have been attempts at giving shelter to Prostitutes trying to help them stop, and drug treatment, and half-way houses, and reform school, prison programs which teach corrections, and the one (1) thing that is told to every person is that yes they do have a choice, because having choices is the true empowerment for all people.

Whenever a person claims that they have no choice then they are saying that they feel trapped and locked in and powerless to choose, and when a person runs out of choices then that is when they start committing suicide or other self destructive behavior.

This is why in homosexuality there is a high level of suicide because they feel that they have no choice.

The most realistic definition of freedom and liberty is to have choices, so any person who can not choose is thereby a true prisoner of whatever holds them.
 
CrabCake said:
I think legitimate or illegitimate are the wrong terms here. The law is obviously legitimate, as it has been passed legitimately and withstood constitutional scrutiny. But it is also immoral and unjust and, for that reason, I would be willing to help the individual. However, not enough information has been given here for anyone to give an informed answer. The correct response for any individual should depend on two additional factors, what are the consequences to you should you be caught helping? and what are the chances you would be caught helping? Without that information, we don't know what the risk and consequences of helping are, so how can we form an opinion? Of course I would help the individual if it costs me nothing and I take on no risk. But I would not help them at great risk of losing my life. I'm interested in helping the person, but I'm not to risk my life to help them.
Click to expand...
I agree that these two questions are very important when deciding which alternative to choose, and I believe that alternative 3 or 4 are the ones to choose between.

I do not believe that any law is legitimate if it violates an already legitimately assigned permission/licence. Nature has given the individual human being licence to decide over his own body (as long as he does not violate the similar of others), and it is meaningless to claim that licences/permissions assigned by nature is illegitimate, as explained by Rational Gaudism , Section 4.
 
The idea of locking up men who like to have sex with other men in a big house full of similar types to stop them doing it whilst giving them nothing else to do is the most silly thing ever. Really the stupidest silliest idea ever!

And if you a decent human being you let the shirt lifter in and hide him because he does no harm and should be entitled to live his life.

I don't take that much notice of the speed limit either. The law is not holy.
 
We are governed by consent that seems to have been forgotten. People think a law automatically makes people criminals aside from sense and rationality.

Consider this if there was a law against breathing would you be a criminal? Once we lose respect for the pointless and malicious use of criminality and the persecution of victimless crimes then there is a disconnect between the government and the people, the laws lose the citizens respect as do the police. America particularly is in one hell of a state with this.
 
Gaudius said:
Let Awayistan be a hypothetical country. Awayistan's authorities have approved a law stating that homosexual practice is to be punished by 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court of Awayistan has ruled that the anti-homo law is in accordance with the Constitution of Awayistan, and 95% of Awayistan's population support the law.
A homosexual person knocks on your door and begs on his knees that you hide him in your basement since he is in acute danger of being arrested by the Police, with subsequent large possibility of getting 20 years in a miserable prison. What will you think, and what will you do in such a situation (alternative 1, 2, 3 or 4)?


1) Homosexual practice is disgusting and destructive for the society, and he really deserves the punishment. I knock him down and bring him to the Police.

2) I do not agree that homosexual practice should be punished, but I accept the law as legitimate since the law has been correctly adopted in a democratic and constitutional manner and since it is supported by 95% of the people. I slam the door and do not let him in, and afterwards I call the Police so they easier can seize the law breaker.

3) A law stating punishment for voluntary activity between two human beings is never legitimate – no matter how many percentage of the population supporting the law and even if the law has been constitutionally correctly adopted. I will hide the homosexual man in my basement indefinitely, in the same way as some brave persons hid Jews during World War Two protecting them against the Nazis.

4) A law stating punishment for voluntary activity between two human beings is never legitimate – no matter how many percentage of the population supporting the law and even if the law has been constitutionally correctly adopted. But I am afraid of the Police; therefore I tell the man that he has my deepest sympathy, but I do not let him in. I do not call the Police after he has left.
Click to expand...
I would go with option 5. Such a law is not stupid just because it legislates against something that isn't harmful in any way. But it's also impossible to enforce.

It's about like outlawing witchcraft. You are either going to have to go by the accusations of others or a confession.

And since in this forum many people don't understand what homosexuality is a backward country that passes such a draconian law wouldn't have the first clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom