Should politics involve intimate personal choices?

Question

Before gay and abortion consumend 90 percent of politics was it boring? WHO CARES WHAT "YOU" PREFER IN YOUR PRIVATE LIFE? Can anyone believe we have come so far as we want the government to view our bedrooms for activity? Morals, FUEY! We have found out those who tout the loudest have the least. Let every person decide there own acceptance of what is right for them!!!! POLITICS GET TO THE REAL BUSINESS AT HAND, DEBT, WAR, AND TAXES!!!

Someone always trying to "add" between the lines. Nothing said about your choices out side of "intimate" defined as BEDROOM choices, how do you get Martin Luther King Jr involed in bedroom issues? Next time buy No Line bifocals.

Answer 1

It always has. The so-called 'personal lives' of public figures, particularly political figures, have always been of great public interest. On the practical side, in countries with an aristocracy, personal choices can directly affect lineage, and the ability to pass on power/title through a family.

In the US, I agree that personal lives/choices should be private in most cases, but there are definite exceptions.

If a person is in the public eye BECAUSE they preach, dictate, counsel, or impose 'morality,' particularly if it is their job to do so,and they fail to meet their own standards, then their hypocrisy is of public interest, and should be exposed.

In the case of a minister/preacher/ priest, ostensibly a moral guide and guardian, and especially one who not only uses his moral authority to make money, but as a political platform from which to support political candidates, his moral failures are fair game.

The same applies to private citizens. If a person who makes political choices, or is an activist because of their sexual preferences, puts their personal choices into the public arena for the purpose of supporting or criticizing public leaders or figures, or legislation, then they invite public scutiny.

Also, bear in mind, some people's sexual proclivites quite literally break laws. Pedophilia and bestiality are illegal. As are some acts between consenting adults, for that matter. We won't get past the public turmoil over such things until our laws reflect and balance the realities of our society.

I agree with you, in an ideal civilization, our sex lives would not be an issue, for the most part. We wouldn't be hung up on religion, for one thing, and wouldn't be having to deal with people who felt they had the right to dictate sexual choices to others.

Answer 2

Some people used to argue that deciding not to hire, serve, or rent to blacks was a "personal choice" and that people who opposed racial discrimination were trying to "legislate morals." Actually, Dr. Martin Luther King, a Christian minister, used the moral authority of his religion to shame America into giving all its citizens greater rights. We honor him every January. I'm glad we do!

So your attempt to invoke some broad principle is logically flawed.

If you have an opinion on gay issues or abortion, then just argue that. I might even agree with you! :)

PS Personal insults are always a signal that I struck a nerve!

Where do abortions take place? In a bedroom? Where would incest or a polygamous marriage take place? The bedroom, under your definition.

While we're at it, what was Dr. King's opinion on abortion and same-sex marriage?

My comments stand.

Answer 3

For too many years now, people have been basing their vote on moral issues like abortion and gay rights rather than sound abilities of the candidate. As a result, we have a congress which is now split between liberals and conservatives, with no moderates as a buffer.
This congress has been selected to shape American society and not properly run the affairs of the country. A congress that has been elected to settle moral issues has no ability to manage the country's affairs when we are at war. I believe Bush easily led the congress into the war in Iraq simply because war was out of the realm of the congress' experience.
As you, I look to elect federal officials who can properly manage the affairs of the country, balance the budget, and streamline the government. We will not have a congress capable of accomplishing those goals until we stop electing people based on moral issues.

Answer 4

Historically, all sorts of laws have crossed the line into ones private life. The abolition of alcohol being one of the more obvious examples. Historically there have been tons of laws: discouraging divorce, regulating birth control, regulating sexual activities (both homosexual and heterosexual), forbidding the personal choice of 'polygamous marriage', etc. Taxes are also considered by many people to infringe on 'private life'... after all, taxes represent hours and days of your personal work which government feels entitled to take from you and spend as they wish. If you pay 20% in taxes (a relatively low percentage in our society) that means the government has taken all of your work from January and February and spent it according to government preferences rather than your private preferences.

Answer 5

Politicians should never try and force their sometimes prejudice ideals onto the public without the public supporting them. politicians today realize that rouhgly 50% of the population will react positively to their opinions on personal choices, like abortion, so they push these issues. In America, the people have the voice and if the people want to pass legislation on certain personal choices it is their choice, but politicians should not push legislation on personal choices if their is not a majority(2/3) of people who want it. So to directly answer your question, politicians today are only responding to a large group of the population and it is up to the people to rid the political scene of what some believe to be peronal choices.

Answer 6

Hurrah for a good question and your intelligent comments! I'm Republican but do believe the Libertarians have a lot going for their philosophy.

To try to legalize morality is futile. People are going to do what people are going to do one way or another. It's wrong to stuff anyone into a closet because we disagree with their lifestyle. We don't have to associate with people whose morals repulse us but we shouldn't deny them the freedom to run their own lives and benefit from or suffer from the consequences.

Answer 7

You are wrong. It doesn't matter that some people have failed to practice what they preach. We need good and sound laws in our society, as opposed to the notion of liberals who want to throw them out the window, altogether.

It is far better to vote for people who stand for the right thing.

Answer 8

I know and I'm tired of it. Abortion and gay marriage aren't big issues. The war in Iraq is and the debt are important issues but thanks to social conservatives we skip over important things and listen to them whine about abortion and gay marriage.

Answer 9

Amen to that sister!

Answer 10

ok i disagree