What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state

[Orionthehunter]

This is a question that has inherent bias for these reasons:

It tries to build sanctity around the bedroom, a sanctity that most people only give to people who are married.

It uses the words “consenting” and “adults” to imply the conduct is “victimless.”

It doesn’t describe the particular act so as to give prominence to the words “private”, “bedroom”, “consenting”, and “adults”.

Thus, the Church’s position is “Ask a better question, get out of the vague hypotheticals and be specific, and don’t try to hide your question under the cover of the place where great holiness occurs between sacrementally married couples.”

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I think this statement is true. There are somethings that are morally wrong that the state should NOT try to police, because it would mean intruding on people’s privacy. The state can make public manifestations of such private immoral activities illegal, like gay marriage, or marriage between closely related people (brother-sister). What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is more the business of the Church, to teach what is acceptable sexual behavior (between husband and wife, as long as it’s not abusive) and what is disordered (incest, homosexual acts). As well, the state can make the sale of things like condoms and contraceptives(unless it’s a medication needed for something else, and the main intent is not to make someone sterile) illegal, but they can’t really make condom use illegal, because that would mean spying on people having sex.

 

[goofyjim]

That would be opinion. The conscience has to be an informed conscience.

Isn’t what happens in the bedroom God’s business? As mainusch pointed out, “The Church, however, does indeed have an inherent interest in persuading its members that they must abstain from sexual sin.”

(Sorry, I don’t know how to double-quote)

I would assume God already knows, but the question at hand is whether or not it is the business of the state. It is not.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

This is a question that has inherent bias for these reasons:

It tries to build sanctity around the bedroom, a sanctity that most people only give to people who are married.

It uses the words “consenting” and “adults” to imply the conduct is “victimless.”

It doesn’t describe the particular act so as to give prominence to the words “private”, “bedroom”, “consenting”, and “adults”.

Thus, the Church’s position is “Ask a better question, get out of the vague hypotheticals and be specific, and don’t try to hide your question under the cover of the place where great holiness occurs between sacrementally married couples.”

Hi, are these comments directed at me? If yes then *please *read the other posts are made to undertand fully what I’m asking for and why I created this thread.

 

[timotheos]

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

To me, this assertion can be nothing more than a tough-sounding opinion. What is “the state” anyway, other than a sovereign political entity with governing types ranging from dictatorship to democracy? The state decides for itself what its business is. Rules and laws will be based upon the judgement (or whims) of the person or people in power. I suppose some states could choose to put videocameras in every bedroom if they wanted, or conversely, allow any sort of behavior in public places if they wanted.

Discuss please! What’s the Catholic understanding of this sentence?

If the state did choose this stance, I guess I might put it in the very-general vein of “render unto Caesar”, but with the hope that our government will continue to allow me the freedom to call people’s attention to the universal truth that is centered in Christ and His Church.

-Tim

 

[goofyjim]

To me, this assertion can be nothing more than a tough-sounding opinion. What is “the state” anyway, other than a sovereign political entity with governing types ranging from dictatorship to democracy? The state decides for itself what its business is. Rules and laws will be based upon the judgement (or whims) of the person or people in power. I suppose some states could choose to put videocameras in every bedroom if they wanted, or conversely, allow any sort of behavior in public places if they wanted.

If the state did choose this stance, I guess I might put it in the very-general vein of “render unto Caesar”, but with the hope that our government will continue to allow me the freedom to call people’s attention to the universal truth that is centered in Christ and His Church.

-Tim

No government I vote for will put video cameras in my bedroom. I’ll break the camera.

 

[timotheos]

No government I vote for will put video cameras in my bedroom. I’ll break the camera.

The kind of government to which I was alluding in this example would probably not have any use for voting .

Let’s hope it never happens here, for the sake of the dignity of the individual.

-Tim

 

[goofyjim]

The kind of government to which I was alluding in this example would probably not have any use for voting .

Let’s hope it never happens here, for the sake of the dignity of the individual.

-Tim

Besides if they did put what in I might deliberately do something lewd before breaking it.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I suppose some states could choose to put videocameras in every bedroom if they wanted, or conversely, allow any sort of behavior in public places if they wanted.

That’s not necessary. They don’t have to invade people’s privacy in order to make something like that illegal. Drugs may be illegal but our houses and every dark corner are not monitored to make sure no one is taking drugs.

 

[goofyjim]

That’s not necessary. They don’t have to invade people’s privacy in order to make something like that illegal. Drugs may be illegal but our houses and every dark corner are not monitored to make sure no one is taking drugs.

Drugs should be illegal. Sex between two consenting adults should not.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

That’s not necessary. They don’t have to invade people’s privacy in order to make something like that illegal. Drugs may be illegal but our houses and every dark corner are not monitored to make sure no one is taking drugs.

I suppose you have a point, but drugs are something that people will do in public more often, I hope, than people are willing to have sex in public. Sex is intrinsically a private act. Doing drugs is often a social activity. I guess certain kinds of sex between consenting adults could be made illegal, but it would be kind of a silly law, if you could only arrest people who did it in public, and that happens very rarely. Having sex in a public place is already illegal, I thought.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Drugs should be illegal. Sex between two consenting adults should not.

Why? Is it because one is socially accepted and the other is not?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Hi, are these comments directed at me? If yes then *please *read the other posts are made to undertand fully what I’m asking for and why I created this thread.

I think that my answer addresses you question. I’m assuming that you get asked this question in this format. I wanted to say that it is in how they ask the question that they have stacked the question in their favor.

 

[mdgspencer]

There are cases where the state has been involved. For example, there are laws against bigamy. In the Philippines too for example adultery is against the law and someone can be arrested for this. People have also mentioned sodomy laws, whice were in effect until a few decades ago in the U.S. Since it has become legalized, we have been having a disaster in the West, including persecution of Christians for speaking against it.and now as the next step following this polygamy may be legalized in Canada and elsewhere. However, the context where I have heard this said involved contaception. I believe the artificial birth control devices were once illegal though I am not sure. Whether or not they should be I don’t know, though the state would have the right to do that if it involved a problem for society as a whole, for example, if the birth control pill caused breast cancer.

 

[goofyjim]

There are cases where the state has been involved. For example, there are laws against bigamy. In the Philippines too for example adultery is against the law and someone can be arrested for this. People have also mentioned sodomy laws, whice were in effect until a few decades ago in the U.S. Since it has become legalized, we have been having a disaster in the West, including persecution of Christians for speaking against it.and now as the next step following this polygamy may be legalized in Canada and elsewhere. However, the context where I have heard this said involved contaception. I believe the artificial birth control devices were once illegal though I am not sure. Whether or not they should be I don’t know, though the state would have the right to do that if it involved a problem for society as a whole, for example, if the birth control pill caused breast cancer.

You simply cannot take everything that is immoral and make it illegal. If you did we would have to all lock ourselves up and throw away the key.

 

[Janus]

While it may seem like a good idea to regulate private sexual idea, it certainly is not. First and foremost, if the people who have given consent, it’s simply arrogant and unjust to allege that we have the right to punish them.

Second, whatever limited power we may wish to attribute to the state, it will take and increase. Oftentimes it will use its power in ways we find reprehensible. When people claim that it is the business of the state, they are imaging their will as the state’s will. However, with the current trend in this country, same-sex “marriage” will soon be sanctioned by law. Will polygamy soon follow? (I don’t see how it couldn’t.) When the state was on our side, it was regulating behavior as we saw appropriate. But soon, gay sex and all sorts of other deviant behavior will be legally protected and considered normal.

It is always a dangerous idea to give the state power that it may one day use against us. Any victory we may feel in the passing of a ban on illegitimate sexual activity or marriage can be turned on its head later on. The best course of action is to get the state completely out of the marriage/sexuality business; it should only be concerned with protecting the lives and property of its citizens against aggression. Besides, the only blessing on our behavior we should care about is that of the Church.

 

[mdgspencer]

Perhaps you are right about it being better right now about keeping the state out of such business under current circumstances, when it may be hostile to traditional morals. Of course the state can never entirely keep out of the sexuality business. Who is going to marry people then? There are other matters the state has to stay in, as when it comes to the rights of offspring. Still, the question exists then about what has such importance to society or the individuals involved so that the state is obliged to intervene. And in fact the state should be involved in public morals, unless say you think, for example, that groups should be allowed to have parades in your town when the people go naked, as in fact has happened during gay pride marches and of course otherwise. So I think such principles are obvious, though saying what things have such importance to society or the individuals involved is another matter.

 

[Scarecrow]

In my opinion, the state has every right to regulate sexual behavior since it is a method of regulating threats to public health and safety through the mass spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS, Hep A,B,C and other diseases that are quickly becoming rampant.

 

[goofyjim]

In my opinion, the state has every right to regulate sexual behavior since it is a method of regulating threats to public health and safety through the mass spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS, Hep A,B,C and other diseases that are quickly becoming rampant.

Welcome to the police state. What is this communist Russia? The individuals have to accept the consequences of their own actions but it should not be policed by the state, otherwise you will have the government wasting time breaking into every bedroom in the country. Ridiculous.

 

[a_cermak]

Laws against bigamy are more likely to be prosecuting by looking through court records, not peeping in bedrooms. Bigamy is being married 2 or more times under the laws of the state(s). For instance, if you get married once with a marriage license and register it and so on and then religiously marry other another person (sans license or registration) then you are not committing bigamy (this is what most plural marriage folks do in the US).

At one time there were adultery laws, but they were largely unenforceable and more of a nuisance than anything.

Incest, as long as it doesn’t involve a legally recognized marriage, is also just about impossible to enforce and frankly, not in society’s interest to do so. Yes, the offspring may have more genetic difficulties (though that’s not a dead cert, they just wind up with more recessive genes because of the lack of genetic diversity), but unless we are prepared as a state to prevent people with known genetic deformities to have children, I think we can let the incest people alone.

Most states simply don’t have the resources to police every facet of people’s lives. I think the current decision, to only have laws on the books that affect cases of lack of consent, underage (kind of the same), and sex in inappropriate places, is practical. The Church, obviously has her own teachings, but does not rely on the state to bring her sinners. She’s quite capable of getting them on her own.