Right to privacy on sexual matters

[Peter_J]

OK I was putting this off, but I fear the longer I wait the more I’ll get onto tangents from the topic (i.e. the supposed “right to privacy” in the US Constitution being used over the last few decades to strike down laws pertaining to sexual practices). So here goes but keep in mind this is hastily written.

**Second question: **If you do believe there’s a right to privacy in the Constitution, why does the narrative about it keep changing?

For one thing there’s the fact that the Griswold decision in '65 only applied to contraception for sexual intercourse. But the Lawrence decision in '03 said that, according to their reading of the Constitution, States also couldn’t tell the couple what “sexual acts” were legally permissible.

And then there’s also the question of *which *couples enjoy the right to privacy. If you believe Griswold, the Constitution grants it specifically to married couples; but just a few years later SCOTUS disagreed with its earlier self and extended it to unmarried couples. Then when Lawrence came out we learned that this same Constitution actually extends it to same-gender couples, as it turns out. And then finally we have the fact that Justice O’Connor turned all that completely on it head: according to her the Constitution *does *give States the power to decide whether the right to privacy extends to alternative sex acts, but it just cannot decide differently for same-gender couples than for anyone else.

P.S. I wonder if anyone of the liberal persuasion (Padres or Thorolf are you reading this?) would be willing to say at this point that the real reason the narrative kept changing is that SCOTUS justices were actually influenced by their own (liberal-Protestant) views on morality.

 

[Peter_J]

OK I was putting this off, but I fear the longer I wait the more I’ll get onto tangents from the topic (i.e. the supposed “right to privacy” in the US Constitution being used over the last few decades to strike down laws pertaining to sexual practices). So here goes but keep in mind this is hastily written.

**Second question: **If you do believe there’s a right to privacy in the Constitution, why does the narrative about it keep changing?

For one thing there’s the fact that the Griswold decision in '65 only applied to contraception for sexual intercourse. But the Lawrence decision in '03 said that, according to their reading of the Constitution, States also couldn’t tell the couple what “sexual acts” were legally permissible.

And then there’s also the question of *which *couples enjoy the right to privacy. If you believe Griswold, the Constitution grants it specifically to married couples; but just a few years later SCOTUS disagreed with its earlier self and extended it to unmarried couples. Then when Lawrence came out we learned that this same Constitution actually extends it to same-gender couples, as it turns out. And then finally we have the fact that Justice O’Connor turned all that completely on its head: according to her the Constitution *does *give states the power to decide whether the right to privacy extends to alternative sex acts, but states just cannot decide differently for same-gender couples than for anyone else.

P.S. I wonder if anyone of the liberal persuasion (Padres or Thorolf are you reading this?) would be willing to say at this point that the real reason the narrative kept changing is that SCOTUS justices were actually influenced by their own (liberal-Protestant) views on morality.

 

[steve93]

OK I was putting this off, but I fear the longer I wait the more I’ll get onto tangents from the topic (i.e. the supposed “right to privacy” in the US Constitution being used over the last few decades to strike down laws pertaining to sexual practices). So here goes but keep in mind this is hastily written.

**Second question: **If you do believe there’s a right to privacy in the Constitution, why does the narrative about it keep changing?

For one thing there’s the fact that the Griswold decision in '65 only applied to contraception for sexual intercourse. But the Lawrence decision in '03 said that, according to their reading of the Constitution, States also couldn’t tell the couple what “sexual acts” were legally permissible.

And then there’s also the question of *which *couples enjoy the right to privacy. If you believe Griswold, the Constitution grants it specifically to married couples; but just a few years later SCOTUS disagreed with its earlier self and extended it to unmarried couples. Then when Lawrence came out we learned that this same Constitution actually extends it to same-gender couples, as it turns out. And then finally we have the fact that Justice O’Connor turned all that completely on its head: according to her the Constitution *does *give states the power to decide whether the right to privacy extends to alternative sex acts, but states just cannot decide differently for same-gender couples than for anyone else.

P.S. I wonder if anyone of the liberal persuasion (Padres or Thorolf are you reading this?) would be willing to say at this point that the real reason the narrative kept changing is that SCOTUS justices were actually influenced by their own (liberal-Protestant) views on morality.

I’m saying that government intrusion into private matters is a significant concern, especially in the
US.
Obviously certain sexual acts are wrong and degrading. But what business it that of the governments? None.

I don’t know what Protestant views you speaking of, since the court has no Protestants on it.

 

[Cimachol]

I’m saying that government intrusion into private matters is a significant concern, especially in the
US.
Obviously certain sexual acts are wrong and degrading. But what business it that of the governments? None.

I certainly don’t think the government should be looking into people’s windows to try to figure out what they might be doing in bed. Nevertheless, I can imagine scenarios where such laws might play a useful role, particularly if no-fault divorce laws are not present:

1. John and Jane are married. Traditional sexual intercourse is expected to occur within a marriage, but soon after their marriage begins, Jane learns that John expects her to submit to acts of a more degrading nature. The fact that he is pressuring her to do something illegal gives her very good grounds for divorce.
2. John and Jane are divorced. They have one child from their marriage. John has moved on to a new partner who shares his interest in degrading sexual activities. Jane wishes to avoid exposing their child to this environment and wants full custody. John’s pattern of behavior gives the court good reason to take Jane’s request very seriously.
3. John and Jane are married, have a child and are equally fond of degrading sexual activity. Their child is traumatized when he walks in and sees his father doing something very unnatural to his mother. He confides in a relative about this. The relative has grounds to seek legal intervention to protect the child.

The fact is, if John and Jane are both into such behavior and keep it between themselves, the government will never find out about it. There are, however, situations where such laws might be useful for protecting spouses or children.

 

[Rau]

I certainly don’t think the government should be looking into people’s windows to try to figure out what they might be doing in bed. Nevertheless, I can imagine scenarios where such laws might play a useful role, particularly if no-fault divorce laws are not present:

1. John and Jane are married. Traditional sexual intercourse is expected to occur within a marriage, but soon after their marriage begins, Jane learns that John expects her to submit to acts of a more degrading nature. The fact that he is pressuring her to do something illegal gives her very good grounds for divorce.
2. John and Jane are divorced. They have one child from their marriage. John has moved on to a new partner who shares his interest in degrading sexual activities. Jane wishes to avoid exposing their child to this environment and wants full custody. John’s pattern of behavior gives the court good reason to take Jane’s request very seriously.
3. John and Jane are married, have a child and are equally fond of degrading sexual activity. Their child is traumatized when he walks in and sees his father doing something very unnatural to his mother. He confides in a relative about this. The relative has grounds to seek legal intervention to protect the child.

The fact is, if John and Jane are both into such behavior and keep it between themselves, the government will never find out about it. There are, however, situations where such laws might be useful for protecting spouses or children.

1. And perhaps divorce for this reason alone is a dumb idea.
2. And perhaps exposing children to any sexual activity if the parents is enough to pique the interest of the child welfare authorities.
3. Ditto.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m not even sure what this thread is about.

 

[Cimachol]

1. And perhaps divorce for this reason alone is a dumb idea.

Not necessarily, if the spouse is particularly persistent and adamant about his disordered wishes. Particularly in a situation where one spouse is dependent on the financial support of the other, one might feel pressured to comply with such requests, unless the law provides some protection. The aforementioned laws help establish that, if divorce is the only solution, the spouse that demanded illegal sexual activity is in the wrong.

Even within a Catholic marriage, the revelation that a spouse expected perverted sexual behavior to be part of the marriage could be grounds for annulment. I don’t think wanting to not be married to a pervert is “dumb.”

1. And perhaps exposing children to any sexual activity if the parents is enough to pique the interest of the child welfare authorities.

1. Ditto.

Kids walking in on parents having normal sex at some point in their lives is pretty common. In a Today pole, 45 percent of couples admitted that their kids had caught them in the act at some point. Not a very scientific study, but a reflection that it does happen. And when it does, depending on the situation and the questions asked by the kid, the parents might have to explain on some way that sex is a normal part of marriage. Hopefully they aren’t telling their kids that various abnormal behaviors a normal part of marriage.

 

[Cimachol]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I’m not even sure what this thread is about.

I believe it is about the question of whether laws against various sexual behaviors violate an indivifual’s right to privacy, and whether such laws serve any purpose in society.

 

[Rau]

Not necessarily, if the spouse is particularly persistent and adamant about his disordered wishes. Particularly in a situation where one spouse is dependent on the financial support of the other, one might feel pressured to comply with such requests, unless the law provides some protection. The aforementioned laws help establish that, if divorce is the only solution, the spouse that demanded illegal sexual activity is in the wrong.

Even within a Catholic marriage, the revelation that a spouse expected perverted sexual behavior to be part of the marriage could be grounds for annulment. I don’t think wanting to not be married to a pervert is “dumb.”

Kids walking in on parents having normal sex at some point in their lives is pretty common. In a Today pole, 45 percent of couples admitted that their kids had caught them in the act at some point. Not a very scientific study, but a reflection that it does happen. And when it does, depending on the situation and the questions asked by the kid, the parents might have to explain on some way that sex is a normal part of marriage. Hopefully they aren’t telling their kids that various abnormal behaviors a normal part of marriage.

Sorry, this is as absurd as it gets.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, this is as absurd as it gets.

Don’t say that, it feels like tempting fate.

 

[Cimachol]

Sorry, this is as absurd as it gets.

What? That spouses shouldn’t be pressured into immoral exual activity under threat of losing their rights as a spouse, or that kids should be shielded from sexual abuse? Or that society has a role to play in protecting the family unit?

Maybe this is just too much for you to comprehend at this stage in your faith journey. Keep and open heart and an open mind and perhaps your undertaking will increase.

 

[Rau]

What? That spouses shouldn’t be pressured into immoral exual activity under threat of losing their rights as a spouse, or that kids should be shielded from sexual abuse? Or that society has a role to play in protecting the family unit?

No - the proposition that laws governing the mutually acceptable and private sexual behaviour between husband and wife in the marital bedroom could be usefully introduced into present day society.

Maybe this is just too much for you to comprehend at this stage in your faith journey. Keep and open heart and an open mind and perhaps your undertaking will increase.

Please keep your personal assessment of the status of my faith journey to yourself and I’ll show you the same courtesy.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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?

The legal right to privacy has its basis in the 9th and 4th Amendments to the Constitution.

The state draws its legitimate authority from the consent of the individuals who live together in a society. The individual only has the right to use force in defense of life, liberty, and property. Therefore the state may only use force in defense of life, liberty and property. Since masturbation only affects the individual and does not affect the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, the state has no right to use the force of law against it.

 

[Peter_J]

The legal right to privacy has its basis in the 9th and 4th Amendments to the Constitution.

The state draws its legitimate authority from the consent of the individuals who live together in a society. The individual only has the right to use force in defense of life, liberty, and property. Therefore the state may only use force in defense of life, liberty and property. Since masturbation only affects the individual and does not affect the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, the state has no right to use the force of law against it.

That sounds like a good description of SCOTUS says now, but they changed their story repeatedly.

To me it would be a lot easier to believe if it had been a one and done. Ie if one SCOTUS decision had invented the right to privacy and said who it applied to, the end.

 

[Cimachol]

No - the proposition that laws governing the mutually acceptable and private sexual behaviour between husband and wife in the marital bedroom could be usefully introduced into present day society.

Please keep your personal assessment of the status of my faith journey to yourself and I’ll show you the same courtesy.

Seems to me you have written off mine as absurd.

 

[steve93]

I certainly don’t think the government should be looking into people’s windows to try to figure out what they might be doing in bed. Nevertheless, I can imagine scenarios where such laws might play a useful role, particularly if no-fault divorce laws are not present:

1. John and Jane are married. Traditional sexual intercourse is expected to occur within a marriage, but soon after their marriage begins, Jane learns that John expects her to submit to acts of a more degrading nature. The fact that he is pressuring her to do something illegal gives her very good grounds for divorce.
2. John and Jane are divorced. They have one child from their marriage. John has moved on to a new partner who shares his interest in degrading sexual activities. Jane wishes to avoid exposing their child to this environment and wants full custody. John’s pattern of behavior gives the court good reason to take Jane’s request very seriously.
3. John and Jane are married, have a child and are equally fond of degrading sexual activity. Their child is traumatized when he walks in and sees his father doing something very unnatural to his mother. He confides in a relative about this. The relative has grounds to seek legal intervention to protect the child.

The fact is, if John and Jane are both into such behavior and keep it between themselves, the government will never find out about it. There are, however, situations where such laws might be useful for protecting spouses or children.

NO NO NO! I was saying that m_ is wrong because it degrades oneself. I was Not referring to someone degrading somebody ELSE. I meant degrading as an adjective, not as a verb. Good grief, of course mistreating ones wife is wrong! Any man who could possibly remain aroused knowing he was hurting his wife is depraved beyond repair.

 

[Cimachol]

NO NO NO! I was saying that m_ is wrong because it degrades oneself. I was Not referring to someone degrading somebody ELSE. I meant degrading as an adjective, not as a verb. Good grief, of course mistreating ones wife is wrong! Any man who could possibly remain aroused knowing he was hurting his wife is depraved beyond repair.

What I’m saying is that, even if laws against various sexual behaviors are going to be unenforceable under normal circumstances, having them in place can set a boundary that offers recourse in the types of situations I’ve described.

Under one set of laws, the wife who doesn’t want to comply with her husband’s disordered desires has at least some higher ground under the law – he wants something that is illegal; she doesn’t. If he’s going to walk away from his obligations as a husband because she won’t comply, he’s going to pay the price. OTOH, if she won’t engage in any sexual activity at all, he has grounds for an annulment.

Under another set of laws, what he wants and what she wants are seen as neutral, just a matter of taste. If they can’t come to an agreement, it’s no more her fault than his as far as the law is concerned.

My feeling is that legally defining certain behaviors as abnormal allows for a standard to be applied to protect the dignity of the spouses, and in some cases, the safety of children.

 

[Peter_J]

Seems to me you have written off mine as absurd.

I realize this is addressed to Rau, but to throw my two cents in I don’t care whether your ideas are “absurd” or not, I’m just not interested.

 

[Cimachol]

I realize this is addressed to Rau, but to throw my two cents in I don’t care whether your ideas are “absurd” or not, I’m just not interested.

Then don’t start threads on these topics. Otherwise people might express their opinions.