Is it legal to purposely draw a move by 3-fold repetition or perpetual checks?

Is it legal to draw a game that is in a lost position and material for you? Is it okay to draw a game by 3-fold repetition when your opponent has a forced mating sequence ready to be executed?

If it is okay to do so by putting yourself in a stalemate position, then this isn't wrong either, is it?

You mean 'yes, yes and no'?

Not only is it legal, it's probably your only option for not losing. If your opponent can begin a forced mating pattern and your only way to stop it is with a perpetual check, why would you not go for a draw over a loss?

Your opponent can't really say anything like "but I'm going to win," because you can just reply with his king is not safe enough that you were able to draw the game instead.

if your opponent has a forced mate then all the above things are not applicable. Your opponent has to find the right moves to win. If they lack the knowledge, skill, or just make a mistake its not your problem. The player obtaining the above mentioned draws are just following the rules. 

That was not my question. My question was:

If it is okay to do so by putting yourself in a stalemate position, then this isn't wrong either, is it?

sure why not? If your opponent falls for that trap then its their problem. You dont have to play the moves that lose automatically. to me thats an extension of good play. Chess is about your opponent making mistakes you  can try until the end for this to happen. I have been caught in them and stalemated my opponents in blitz with a few seconds on my clock due to playing fast. I can only blame myself.

If you are able to force a 3 move repetition, then your opponent didn't have a forced mating sequence.  He may have *almost" had a forced mating sequence, but if you are able to force a draw instead, well, that's evidence that he didn't have a forced mate.

There is a wiki page on this. You'll see several examples there of top players using 3 move repetition to their advantage - or failing to do so when they could have.  Fischer, Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker, Kasparov, etc.

Your goal is obviously to win the game (and in a tournament, to get the point).  If  you can't win the game, then your goal is to get a draw (and the 1/2 point).  It is *never* your job to make it easier on your opponent.  If he wants to beat you, he has to work at it. 

If you can't win, but you can force perpetual check, do it.  If you can't win, but  you can force a stalemate, do it.

Don't let these crybabies fool you, Panda. It is their job as your opponent to do 2 things:

(1) Checkmate your King; and

(2) protect their King.

If they are unable to perform either of these actions, then they have lost -- or at least, they have not won. This cry for some kind of code of ethics is the same as asking you to just let them win. If they want to play a game where you are supposed to "let them win", how about a game of Candyland or Chutes and Ladders? Obviously, such individuals are not grown up enough for the game of Chess.

It's not just okay, it's what you should do when you get a chance to do it in lost positions.

yes,yes,yes