Right to privacy on sexual matters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
Hi all. I want to preface this by saying that I realize that “right to privacy” has been applied to other matters (including abortion) but I’d like to leave that aside for this thread. (In particular, if anyone wishes to start a discussion about abortion, please start a new thread rather than using this one.)

That being said, I have two questions about the history of this principle, but I’ll just start with the small one.

**First question: **I always hear about the supposed “right to privacy” in the US Constitution being used over the last few decades to strike down anti-contraception and anti-sodomy laws … but do states have the power to make laws against masturbation, and if not when did they lose that power?
 
I believe that laws have to be enforceable; either local, state or federal.
 
Yes…just like the 10 commandments…they in themselves do not offer Salvation.
 
I believe the supposedly proposed “anti-masturbation” laws are simply attempts by feminist politicians to make a “tit-for-tat” (if you’ll pardon that expression) statement in the face of what they regard as supposedly onerous pro-life regulations proposed by male politicians – the “good for the goose, good for the gander” type of thing. Not intended to be serious.
 
Why on earth should m_. be a crime?
Has anyone ever gotten pregnant from it?
Has anyone ever caught a disease from themselves?
Has anyone used it to cheat their taxes?
Give themselves political asylum?

Absurd government over reach.
 
Who cares about the constitution? I don’t want laws against any of those things, and I’m sure many Americans wouldn’t either. If the courts or anyone is making sure they don’t happen, I’d support it.
 
steve93 said:
Why on earth should m_. be a crime?
Has anyone ever gotten pregnant from it?
Has anyone ever caught a disease from themselves?
Has anyone used it to cheat their taxes?
Give themselves political asylum?

Absurd government over reach.
Click to expand...
Because it’s a mortal sin if committed freely, deliberately and in full knowledge (according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Saint Pope John Paul II said, “I put my Apostolic Authority on this work” -the Catechism)

Other mortal sins are against the law too,
Such as murder, theft,

If one dies unrepentant, or without confessing masturbation that was deliberate, freely committed and in full knowledge, that person dies in mortal sin and is doomed to be tortured in Hell for all eternity

The point the OP raised is, if mortal sins were declared against the law, it might discourage people from mortally sinning
 
MaryHelp777 said:
If one dies unrepentant, or without confessing masturbation that was deliberate, freely committed and in full knowledge, that person dies in mortal sin and is doomed to be tortured in Hell for all eternity
Click to expand...
Wow…from your lips to God’s ear. :rolleyes:
 
MaryHelp777 said:
Because it’s a mortal sin if committed freely, deliberately and in full knowledge (according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Saint Pope John Paul II said, “I put my Apostolic Authority on this work” -the Catechism)

Other mortal sins are against the law too,
Such as murder, theft,

If one dies unrepentant, or without confessing masturbation that was deliberate, freely committed and in full knowledge, that person dies in mortal sin and is doomed to be tortured in Hell for all eternity

The point the OP raised is, if mortal sins were declared against the law, it might discourage people from mortally sinning
Click to expand...
How on earth would this be enforced? Spies situated in every possible location? Drilling pin holes in the walls?

I swear, the only people who would vote for such an insane thing would be nut case

Protestants from the deep south, likely in Greenville. The exact kind of people who

probably got married in basically arranged ( read, parents sent them to southern kjv cult

hack bridal, uhm, I mean “bible”, “college”) marriages when they were young and never

had to deal with even temporary abstinence but somehow think they are in a position to

instruct the unmarried in the hard-to-find-a-conservative-spouse north east.

Rant complete.
 
Tim_D said:
Wow…from your lips to God’s ear. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think we’re getting pretty far off topic, but to be fair the idea of having laws against mortal sins is not unique to MH777. In fact, it was advocated by St. Thomas Aquinas. (At least I think it was, I’m a little rusty. I definitely know that he advocated the death penalty for “obstinate heretics”.)

And even the USA wasn’t always tolerant towards some people, such as Catholics. Some might say those days are coming back. :o

Edit: I would note though that Aquinas lived in a very different period. I like to think that if he had lived today he would have embraced Vatican II.
 
Peter_J said:
I think we’re getting pretty far off topic, but to be fair the idea of having laws against mortal sins is not unique to MH777.
Click to expand...
As a practical matter - I think we know that the law is not about to reflect in all details the tenets of any religion.

It is going to reflect those tenets that are held by the majority to be in the best interests of the society.
 
Rau said:
As a practical matter - I think we know that the law is not about to reflect in all details the tenets of any religion.

It is going to reflect those tenets that are held by the majority to be in the best interests of the society.
Click to expand...
Majority in this case being Protestant.
 
By the way the opening post was about the supposed “right to privacy” in the US Constitution being used over the last few decades to strike down laws pertaining to sexual practices, not “if mortal sins were declared against the law, it might discourage people from mortally sinning”.
 
Peter_J said:
By the way the opening post was about the supposed “right to privacy” in the US Constitution being used over the last few decades to strike down laws pertaining to sexual practices, not “if mortal sins were declared against the law, it might discourage people from mortally sinning”.
Click to expand...
I suspect we would assert certain rights as existing regardless of their mention in the Constitution. Inclusion in the constitution is a means to limit legislative or executive Lattitude.
 
Rau said:
That ma also be a reality. If it’s an unacceptable one - change countries.
Click to expand...
Heh. 🙂

My Grandfather used to say that if atheists don’t like things in America they should move to a country founded by atheists. (I wonder what he would have thought of Aquinas’ death penalty for obstinate heretics idea.)
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I believe the supposedly proposed “anti-masturbation” laws are simply attempts by feminist politicians to make a “tit-for-tat” (if you’ll pardon that expression) statement in the face of what they regard as supposedly onerous pro-life regulations proposed by male politicians – the “good for the goose, good for the gander” type of thing. Not intended to be serious.
Click to expand...
So only men are capable of m_? This makes no sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top