• 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!

Whos business is it?

Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 15.9%
  • No

    Votes: 37 84.1%

  • Total voters
    44
Of course not. Of course this is no reason to allow anyone (heteros included) to get married.

I know everyone was thinking it, but I hate one sided poles like this.

No, I am not debating this again. Many other threads cover the gambit, this one will make no difference or change anyones views.

Whoa calm down bro, no one's talking about marriage, we're talking about trading a gallon of milk for a few brews.
 
It depends if they do it in public or private........

Ahh so if I want to exchange my 2-stroke, you can prime my pump in the garage and it's just between us, but if you help mow my lawn then the neighbor can watch?
 
So if someone is "damning themselves to hell" by performing "unnatural acts" the government should have the right to "save them from themselves?"

I'm sure some people who believes in hell and know what "unnatural acts" are would believe that. I would support their rights to vote for legislation (or representatives who support those legislation) that support their beliefs. Since I don't believe in hell, and my views regarding sex (or maybe by "unnatural acts" you refer to something else) is pretty loose, I would like my rights to votes for legislation that is in line with my morality and views. It's called a democratic process.
 
A difference in information will be present in any transaction, and will lead to one party having an advantage over the other. Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it. No one isn't consenting, its still none of the government's business.

This is a ridiculous arguement. "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" can be taken to mean outright lies or deliberate mis-information. Taken to its extreme conclusion, it means that a fraudster should be blameless in any fraudulent scheme because the fraud victim should know that there are risk of frauds when they enter into any transactions. That's really a good arguement for non-government intervention. :roll:




And one person having unprotected sex with another can lead to that person's unsuspecting spouse dying of aids. Does that give the government the right to interfere in people's sex lives?


If there's a way to prevent such spread that brings more benefits than harm, it should. Too many women in Asia and Africa are getting aids through their husbands. But there's no easy way to write a law, and enforce it, in such a way that would not produce more harm (in terms of intrusion into personal privacy and cost of enforcement) than benefits so the government is left to interfere only at the fridge, by paying for educational programme for safe sex, encourage more screening and giving out free condoms.
 
Last edited:
The thought of Gordon Brown watching us shagging does stimulate me, its a pity god and his all seeing eye is a load of bollock, he could have watched us libs perform, and used it to educate the conservatives:)
 
This is a ridiculous arguement. "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" can be taken to mean outright lies or deliberate mis-information. Taken to its extreme conclusion, it means that a fraudster should be blameless in any fraudulent scheme because the fraud victim should know that there are risk of frauds when they enter into any transactions. That's really a good arguement for non-government intervention.

Well, anyone who would take "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" to mean outright lies clearly just doesn't have a mastery of the English language.

If I promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, I am obligated to give you a working unicycle if I take your money. If promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, but give you an empty box that claims to contain a unicycle instead, that is fraud.

I am not obligated to tell you that my competitor across the street is selling the exact same model for $15. That is a difference in information, and is ostensibly not fraud. I don't know why this distinction should be unclear to anyone.

If there's a way to prevent such spread that brings more benefits than harm, it should.

If consenting adults choose to take risks, they should be allowed to take risks. Its no one's damn business.
 
It's the government business if there's a contract involved, and marriage is a contract.
 
Well, anyone who would take "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" to mean outright lies clearly just doesn't have a mastery of the English language.

Because you are the Arbiter of the English Language and can say what constitute a mastery of the language? :roll:

If I promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, I am obligated to give you a working unicycle if I take your money. If promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, but give you an empty box that claims to contain a unicycle instead, that is fraud.

Why are you "obligated"? As you said: "Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it." If you enter into a transaction to buy a bicycle and pay before you have the bicycle in your hands, and turns out it's an empty box, well, you're an adult, you took the risk to pay before the see the bicycle and that it's working properly yourself. That's what my dad always say. He would never pay before he has made sure he's going to get what he paid for, and making all sort of backups to make sure that people don't cheat him because he doesn't trust anyone. He gets that way because he lived in a war torn country where there was no law (i.e. government) to resort to. Fraud is to be expected, not something out of the ordinary. To his way of thinking, people are always out to get as much as they can get, as they should be, so you have to look after your own interest. Anyone who doesn't are fools. He's a pure capitalist as a result of his experiences.


And Who/what should make you fulfill your "obligation"?

I am not obligated to tell you that my competitor across the street is selling the exact same model for $15. That is a difference in information, and is ostensibly not fraud. I don't know why this distinction should be unclear to anyone.

Maybe you didn't read clearly, I said: "Taken to its extreme conclusion".

"A difference in information... [that] will lead to one party having an advantage over the other" is vague and broad. You might have that distinction in your mind, but I don't read your mind, so I don't know where you want to subjectively draw the line. You have problems with fraud, but others don't, and for those, "free market principles" include allowing people to be defrauded if they are stupid enough to be taken in.


If consenting adults choose to take risks, they should be allowed to take risks. Its no one's damn business.


Tell that to the women who got AIDs from their unfaithful husbands. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Because you are the Arbiter of the English Language and can say what constitute a mastery of the language?

I suppose I am. For example, I suppose to some, "I'm not interested, please stop calling" could be taken to mean "I would love to purchase some vinyl siding from you, but I just need more convincing, why don't you call me tomorrow around dinnertime?"

In my arbitration, I have arbitrarily decided that these people have not yet mastered the English language.

Why are you "obligated"? As you said: "Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it." If you enter into a transaction to buy a bicycle and pay before you have the bicycle in your hands, and turns out it's an empty box, well, you're an adult, you took the risk to pay before the see the bicycle and that it's working properly yourself.

Because that is the whole point of consenting adults voluntarily entering into an agreement. If I consent to give someone $30 in exchange for a unicycle, they need to give me their unicycle in exchange for my $30. If they take my money without giving me the unicycle, it becomes an issue of non-consent.

Fraud is to be expected, not something out of the ordinary. To his way of thinking, people are always out to get as much as they can get, as they should be, so you have to look after your own interest. Anyone who doesn't are fools. He's a pure capitalist as a result of his experiences.

Well, be that as it may, deliberately defaulting on promises made as part of a transaction is fraud. Not giving someone every piece of information that could possibly be useful to them is not.

And Who/what should make you fulfill your "obligation"?

As soon as it becomes an issue of non-consent, it should be a matter of law, and not before.

Maybe you didn't read clearly, I said: "Taken to its extreme conclusion".

"A difference in information... [that] will lead to one party having an advantage over the other" is vague and broad. You might have that distinction in your mind, but I don't read your mind, so I don't know where you want to subjectively draw the line. You have problems with fraud, but others don't, and for those, "free market principles" include allowing people to be defrauded if they are stupid enough to be taken in.

I don't think it is necessary to read my mind. I have been quite clear about the distinction I am making, which is consent vs non-consent.

As long as both parties follow the contractual obligations they consented to to the letter, its none of the governments business. If one person tries to keep someone's capital/labour/other value without fulfilling their own obligation, that is fraud.

It doesn't seem like a terribly subjective line to me.

Tell that to the women who got AIDs from their unfaithful husbands.

That was a risk she chose to take. Its none of the government's business.
 
I am a firm believer in the right to privacy when it comes to the exchange of precious body fluids.

I will make one exception though, pedofilia:smash:
 
If two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange fluids, is it any of the governments business?

No..

....But public order is.. Homo parades is not necessary, nor is homosexuality in public(its anti-educational).
Homosexual marriage is the business of the church, and homosexual recognition under law is the business of the people residing in the state.
 
I suppose I am. For example, I suppose to some, "I'm not interested, please stop calling" could be taken to mean "I would love to purchase some vinyl siding from you, but I just need more convincing, why don't you call me tomorrow around dinnertime?"

In my arbitration, I have arbitrarily decided that these people have not yet mastered the English language.

You are a victim of conceit.


Because that is the whole point of consenting adults voluntarily entering into an agreement. If I consent to give someone $30 in exchange for a unicycle, they need to give me their unicycle in exchange for my $30. If they take my money without giving me the unicycle, it becomes an issue of non-consent.

Nobody forces you to give the money without first making sure that you will get what you paid for. That's the risk you took when you paid the money first. You consented to give over the money before you received the goods.


Well, be that as it may, deliberately defaulting on promises made as part of a transaction is fraud. Not giving someone every piece of information that could possibly be useful to them is not.

Contrary to your belief, "not giving someone every piece of information that could possibly be useful to them" could be fraud. For example: failure to disclose relevant information in your insurance or other legal papers is considered to be fraud.


As soon as it becomes an issue of non-consent, it should be a matter of law, and not before.

There is no "non-consent" because there is no force involved.


I don't think it is necessary to read my mind. I have been quite clear about the distinction I am making, which is consent vs non-consent.

"Consent" and "non-consent" are the terms you just picked up and use according to your subjective standard. :roll:

See above. My ideas are quite different. They are subjective to each of us.

As long as both parties follow the contractual obligations they consented to to the letter, its none of the governments business. If one person tries to keep someone's capital/labour/other value without fulfilling their own obligation, that is fraud.

It doesn't seem like a terribly subjective line to me.

I'm sure it doesn't seem that way to you or you would not think your arguement is so great.

Let me lay it out for you:

Some extreme anarchists may think people should be free to do whatever they want, even engage in violence, so they say: people can fight for themselves, what business is it of the government to interfere with personal dispute?

Some people might have a problem with violence but think fraud is just a risk in business so they say: People can look out for their own interest, what business is it of the government to interfere in private business, except when there is violence involved?

Some people (like you, I assume) might have a problem with fraud and violence, but that people knowingly taking advantage of each other is just part of business so they say: People can think for themselves, what business is it of the government to interfere in private transactions, except in cases of fraud and violence?

Some people have problems with all of the above, and feel that sometimes government have to interfere to correct certain injustice (what are the injustices? Again it's subjective).

There are all sorts of ideas about what the government can/should interfere in private transactions. Yours is just one of them, and so it's subjective.

That was a risk she chose to take. Its none of the government's business.

She didn't choose to sleep with someone who had AIDs. She chose to sleep with her husband whom she didn't know were unfaithful. She didn't know the risk.

Your callousness is really something.
 
Hey TM, that's great, but suppose instead of exchanging fluids, two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange pokemon cards instead, or to exchange casserole recipes. Now whose business is it?

That's just wrong and it could completely destroy our entire society - the casserole recipes not the pokemon. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom