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

[Janus]

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.

It is always, always better for the state not to be involved. You cannot claim that there are times when we need the state, but these are not them. Why? Because once the state has its iron grip on power over some aspects of our lives, it is near impossible to pry loose that grip. Once freedom is last it is difficult to win back.

For example the fact that you ask the question, “Who is going to marry people then?” Why, the Church, of course. The fact that the state approves of and recognizes your marriage means nothing. The only approval that Catholics should care about is that of the Church.

And your question of public morals can be dealt with by eliminating the “public” (i.e. the property which government claims ownership over). As it exists today, there will always be a competition for the limited public resources available, and excluded groups always feel as though the government is discriminating against them. When a street is shut down for a parade, two things happen: 1) the street’s legitimate function is suspended and 2) one particular group is given a monopoly over speech at the given time. The freedom of expression in all forms always comes down to the issue of property. We need to move in the direction of complete divestment, so that all currently public property is sold to private entrepreneurs. In this way, every time you entered private space you would know exactly what to expect. Shutting down a road for a controversial parade would not be a question of “free speech” but rather a question of private property and contract – i.e. should the business operating the road rent its space to this group or not?

I would also like to point out that whenever these gay parades occur, they are done with the sanction of the state. The state is always and everywhere, the number one aggressor against private property. Furthermore, the state’s tendency to equate itself with the highest authority means that good Catholics find their loyalty torn between the One True Church and and a monopoly of force that very often seeks to undermine the morals of our faith. It’s one thing to love one’s country, it’s quite another to love the state.

 

[goofyjim]

It is always, always better for the state not to be involved. You cannot claim that there are times when we need the state, but these are not them. Why? Because once the state has its iron grip on power over some aspects of our lives, it is near impossible to pry loose that grip. Once freedom is last it is difficult to win back.

For example the fact that you ask the question, “Who is going to marry people then?” Why, the Church, of course. The fact that the state approves of and recognizes your marriage means nothing. The only approval that Catholics should care about is that of the Church.

And your question of public morals can be dealt with by eliminating the “public” (i.e. the property which government claims ownership over). As it exists today, there will always be a competition for the limited public resources available, and excluded groups always feel as though the government is discriminating against them. When a street is shut down for a parade, two things happen: 1) the street’s legitimate function is suspended and 2) one particular group is given a monopoly over speech at the given time. The freedom of expression in all forms always comes down to the issue of property. We need to move in the direction of complete divestment, so that all currently public property is sold to private entrepreneurs. In this way, every time you entered private space you would know exactly what to expect. Shutting down a road for a controversial parade would not be a question of “free speech” but rather a question of private property and contract – i.e. should the business operating the road rent its space to this group or not?

I would also like to point out that whenever these gay parades occur, they are done with the sanction of the state. The state is always and everywhere, the number one aggressor against private property. Furthermore, the state’s tendency to equate itself with the highest authority means that good Catholics find their loyalty torn between the One True Church and and a monopoly of force that very often seeks to undermine the morals of our faith. It’s one thing to love one’s country, it’s quite another to love the state.

Other parades are done with the sanction of the state, why can’t a gay parade be? If you shut them down you are restricting free speech only to certain groups.

 

[Janus]

Other parades are done with the sanction of the state, why can’t a gay parade be? If you shut them down you are restricting free speech only to certain groups.

I’m not suggesting we deny permits to gay groups. I’m saying, we should end “public” ownership of the streets, and therefore my tax dollars won’t go toward supporting any of these groups. With complete public ownership, any parades on private avenues that I support I could give money to, and any parades I don’t support I could shun.

I want the state out of business, not in our business.

 

[Steve40]

The statement is incorrect because the state has the God given responsibility to uphold the dignity of sexual relations with regard to moral law.

The meaning of being human is directly related to the meaning in the sexual act. When the act is distorted all humanity is degraded. The state may not be able effectively enforce laws against sexual perversion, but they should enact these laws just to uphold human dignity.

Along with the meaning of being human being degraded there are health risks associated with use of the sexual act in some unnatural ways. Sodomy is unhealthy either between a man and women or a man and a man. I agree with outlawing of any sodomy just for human health reasons alone but the degredation of the meaning of humanity also occurs here.

 

[mozart-250]

The state only has an interest in criminalizing a certain activity if there is a victim. Now private sexual activity between consenting adults, does not have individual victims, but one can argue that there are indirect victims (children of divorce resulting from adulterous affairs, more costs to the state for child support, health issues with the spread of disease, etc).

IMHO private sexual activity between consenting adults could be criminalized by the state because of indirect victimhood and cost to society. Whether it is prudent to do so is another issue.

Here we get into issues such as the support such regulation would receive by the general population, how such regulations would be enforced, the cost of regulation versus the benefits, priorities in allocating scarce law enforcement resources, etc.

When you examine these issues, it becomes clear that private sexual activity between consenting adults should not be criminalized in our culture. It is just not prudent to do so (although one might argue that unenforcable and unenforced laws have some value). However, this statement is culture dependent. It might be prudent to do so in other cultures under other scenarios.

 

[fix]

Does alcohol have any societal effects?

Sure, that is it why it is highly regulated by law.

Look what prohibition did.

Alcohol is morally neutral. Banning it is not necessary.

And, yes, the two are related. There has to be a line.

Great, then we agree the state has an interest in regulating conduct including sexual conduct.

 

[Scarecrow]

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.

Communism has nothing to do with it. Democracy doesn’t mean allowing public health threats to run rampant.

 

[Janus]

The statement is incorrect because the state has the God given responsibility to uphold the dignity of sexual relations with regard to moral law.

And what happens when the state does exactly the opposite, and legitimizes all manner of sexual perversity by enshrining it in law and creating new positive rights?

The state is only benefial if it is doing our bidding, one might say, and we have no guarantee of that. It comes down to a matter of might makes right.

Furthermore, I would see the state should do no one’s bidding. Do we take seriously the negative rights of life, liberty and property? If we do, we cannot claim that government action taken against citizens for actions that do not infringe on those rights is legitimate. State action that does so violates those individuals’ God-given rights.

Great, then we agree the state has an interest in regulating conduct including sexual conduct.

Only if you don’t believe in the previously listed rights. Of course, as soon as you deny the existence of these negative rights, you grant the state all manner of power.

 

[fix]

And what happens when the state does exactly the opposite, and legitimizes all manner of sexual perversity by enshrining it in law and creating new positive rights?

Bad things happen. That is why the civil law should not contradict natural law.

The state is only benefial if it is doing our bidding, one might say, and we have no guarantee of that. It comes down to a matter of might makes right.

Not true. The state has authority from the Creator. That authority should not be abused.

Furthermore, I would see the state should do no one’s bidding.

It is not about doing one’s personal bidding.

Do we take seriously the negative rights of life, liberty and property? If we do, we cannot claim that government action taken against citizens for actions that do not infringe on those rights is legitimate. State action that does so violates those individuals’ God-given rights.

What are you saying?

Only if you don’t believe in the previously listed rights. Of course, as soon as you deny the existence of these negative rights, you grant the state all manner of power.

Not following you. Rights, conditional or absolute, are not created by man. In short, there is no right to do what is wrong as in violating the natural law.

 

[Janus]

Bad things happen. That is why the civil law should not contradict natural law.

Saying it shouldn’t contradict the natural law doesn’t mean that it won’t.

Not true. The state has authority from the Creator. That authority should not be abused.

Of course, the state shouldn’t abuse whatever power it has, but that doesn’t mean it won’t. It’s not enough to stand around saying something shouldn’t happen. The propensity of the state is to increase its power beyond any reasonable limit.

It was the Catholic libertarian Lord Acton who famously pronounced, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It is not about doing one’s personal bidding.

The Church’s bidding, then.

What separates the state from other institutions/organizations? One thing: force. The state claims a monopoly on legitimate force, which it uses to coerce people into doing all manner of things.

Now, I don’t think that, even in the interest of saving souls, we should be coercing people into being good people. Morality enforced at the point of a gun is no morality at all; even the Lord granted us free will with the knowledge that we would almost immediately turn against him. Should the state claim powers even the Lord himself does not use?

What are you saying?

Do you believe in the right to life, liberty and property? Natural rights given to us by God?

In the absence of the violation of one of these rights, the state has no authority to do anything. Consensual sex, no matter how perverse, does not violate these rights.

Not following you. Rights, conditional or absolute, are not created by man. In short, there is no right to do what is wrong as in violating the natural law.

That doesn’t make any sense. Just because it is immoral to do something doesn’t mean that you can’t exercise your free will.

 

[fix]

Saying it shouldn’t contradict the natural law doesn’t mean that it won’t.

Right, that means Catholics need to be in the arena of ideas stating what is true and influencing people for the good.

Of course, the state shouldn’t abuse whatever power it has, but that doesn’t mean it won’t. It’s not enough to stand around saying something shouldn’t happen. The propensity of the state is to increase its power beyond any reasonable limit.

But, that is what is happening now that lawmakers do not grasp the natural law.

It was the Catholic libertarian Lord Acton who famously pronounced, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

That is true. The State’s power needs to be infused with moral truth.

The Church’s bidding, then.

The Church has no temporal power. She proposes what is true.

What separates the state from other institutions/organizations? One thing: force. The state claims a monopoly on legitimate force, which it uses to coerce people into doing all manner of things.

And that is needed at times.

Now, I don’t think that, even in the interest of saving souls, we should be coercing people into being good people. Morality enforced at the point of a gun is no morality at all; even the Lord granted us free will with the knowledge that we would almost immediately turn against him. Should the state claim powers even the Lord himself does not use?

But, it is not about forcing people to be good. It is about not allowing serious vice to infect society. I would agree with you if the enforcement was worse than the crime, but I see the opposite today.

Do you believe in the right to life, liberty and property? Natural rights given to us by God?

Yes.

In the absence of the violation of one of these rights, the state has no authority to do anything. Consensual sex, no matter how perverse, does not violate these rights.

Disagree. There is no freedom to act in a perverse way. What you seem to be calling the right to liberty is not true liberty but a type of license.

That doesn’t make any sense. Just because it is immoral to do something doesn’t mean that you can’t exercise your free will.

But, that freedom is misused does not make it it right. It would be like claiming one has a “right” to drink poison. There is no such right.

 

[Janus]

Right, that means Catholics need to be in the arena of ideas stating what is true and influencing people for the good.

Yes, influencing people for the good, but not coercing them.

But, that is what is happening now that lawmakers do not grasp the natural law.

Even if lawmakers grasped the natural law, they are still human. Is there something inherent to legislators that somehow makes them impervious to sin?

That is true. The State’s power needs to be infused with moral truth.

That is not enough. Power corrupts. No matter how Catholic or pure someone claims to be, give them the sort of power that our government has, and they become incredibly susceptible to corruption. Moral truth is not enough. Even in nominally Catholic countries today and in years past, the state has been far from perfect. If we can’t trust the state, where can we trust it? Nowhere.

The Church has no temporal power. She proposes what is true.

Exactly, the Church itself does not claim the very authority that you want to give to a secular institution.

And that is needed at times.

Force is only legitimate in self-defense. In all other situations of force, the person using it is an aggressor (and therefore a sinner).

But, it is not about forcing people to be good. It is about not allowing serious vice to infect society. I would agree with you if the enforcement was worse than the crime, but I see the opposite today.

No, it is about forcing people to be good. If someone has two choices and the government makes one illegal, they can claim that they haven’t technically forced the person to do something, but in actuality they have.

Have you no respect for free will? If humans do not have the freedom to choose between good and evil, what good are our “good” actions?

Disagree. There is no freedom to act in a perverse way. What you seem to be calling the right to liberty is not true liberty but a type of license.

The Lord gave Adam and Eve the freedom to eat the fruit and disobey Him. Is this not acting in a perverse way?

You seem to be confused. If you agree that humans have these natural rights, then to initiate force against someone who has violated no one else’s rights is illegitimate. It’s really very simple. I think you agree with these maxims:

1. Humans have natural rights to life, liberty, and property
2. Force when not done in self-defense is aggression, and therefore illegitimate

Now, if someone hasn’t aggressed against your rights, you have no right to violate theirs. On the subject of consensual sex or drug use or whatever, the actions being taken by the “law-breaker” do not violate someone else’s rights.

But, that freedom is misused does not make it it right. It would be like claiming one has a “right” to drink poison. There is no such right.

Did not Adam and Eve poison themselves with the fruit? Did not God allow them to do this?

In the absence of a choice to do evil, free will is an illusion and we merely become robots.

 

[Steve40]

And what happens when the state does exactly the opposite, and legitimizes all manner of sexual perversity by enshrining it in law and creating new positive rights?

The state is only benefial if it is doing our bidding, one might say, and we have no guarantee of that. It comes down to a matter of might makes right.

Furthermore, I would see the state should do no one’s bidding. Do we take seriously the negative rights of life, liberty and property? If we do, we cannot claim that government action taken against citizens for actions that do not infringe on those rights is legitimate. State action that does so violates those individuals’ God-given rights.

Only if you don’t believe in the previously listed rights. Of course, as soon as you deny the existence of these negative rights, you grant the state all manner of power.

The state better Damm well do God’s bidding. If not, God believes in term limits and the state and society will not stand the test of time. God will take their country and give it to someone else. Maybe Mexico, perhaps?

 

[fix]

…s been far from perfect. If we can’t trust the state, where can we trust it? Nowhere.

Exactly, the Church itself does not claim the very authority that you want to give to a secular institution.

Force is only legitimate in self-defense. In all other situations of force, the person using it is an aggressor (and therefore a sinner).

No, it is about forcing people to be good. If someone has two choices and the government makes one illegal, they can claim that they haven’t technically forced the person to do something, but in actuality they have.

Have you no respect for free will? If humans do not have the freedom to choose between good and evil, what good are our “good” actions?

The Lord gave Adam and Eve the freedom to eat the fruit and disobey Him. Is this not acting in a perverse way?

You seem to be confused. If you agree that humans have these natural rights, then to initiate force against someone who has violated no one else’s rights is illegitimate. It’s really very simple. I think you agree with these maxims:

1. Humans have natural rights to life, liberty, and property
2. Force when not done in self-defense is aggression, and therefore illegitimate

Now, if someone hasn’t aggressed against your rights, you have no right to violate theirs. On the subject of consensual sex or drug use or whatever, the actions being taken by the “law-breaker” do not violate someone else’s rights.

Did not Adam and Eve poison themselves with the fruit? Did not God allow them to do this?

In the absence of a choice to do evil, free will is an illusion and we merely become robots.

I think Pope Leo said it best:

St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: “Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.”(3) “Everything,” he says, "is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.’ "(4) Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term “wise man” was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue…

From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law…

If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals…

 

[pprimeau1976]

You will find many opinions on this, but I don’t think you will find one all-encompassing church teaching like you would find on something like the trinity.

I notice you said what goes on between consenting adults. I assume that you mean two consenting adults in the context of marriage. When it comes anything outside of marriage, the state does have the right to interfere because if they don’t they will only have to deal with the reprecussions.

Public Health Reasons:
The state needs to be concerned about STD’s, since it is a no-brainer that people who are sexually promiscuous will more likely be carriers of STD’s. And, if the state provides public healthcare, it would be in their best interests to be concerned about this.

Paternity Testing:
It’s pretty easy to figure out who the mother is, and not so easy to figure out who the father is. If the state does not “interfere” in some way after the fact, they will after the fact via family courts.

 

[cynic]

Then if we are ‘slaves to sin’ then how do we have free will? How are we really accountable for anything.

 

[fix]

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended asgood. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects–the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful–and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a “rational” animal implies that he is always reasoning…

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty…

…In man’s free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments…
LIBERTAS

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l...ments/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

 

[cynic]

Then how do you differentiate between those who refrain from evil in their personal lives out of fear of going jail, and those who do so because they love God etc.? Do you really think homosexual acts, fornication etc done in private should be punished with jail time? Then there’s the issue of what actually is considered immoral, against natural law. Would listening to rock music be punished with a fine, would eating too much, would swearing, how far do you want to take it.

 

[fix]

An act is immoral if it violates natural or divine law. That an immoral act is committed in private does not diminish the fact that it still offends God, for no sin, private or otherwise, escapes His omniscience. Not even our most intimate thoughts are unknown to Him.

In civil society, it behooves the state to punish immoral acts – including those practiced privately – that harm the common good and disturb the social order. Homosexuality, incest, and other sexual abnormalities undermine the family, which is the basis of society.

To sustain that it is not a legitimate state interest to punish homosexual acts that are practiced privately is tantamount to affirming that it is not in the state’s interest to protect the family and, therefore, the common good.

Moreover, when the state’s condoning of such immoral acts is codified into positive law, the latter breaks with natural and divine law. In so doing, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, positive law perverts itself.14 In breaking with the eternal law, the state establishes a new atheistic standard of “morality.”
Are We Still “One Nation Under God”?

 

[cynic]

that argument rests on the basis that homosexual acts, ie what a minority do in private, acts as a threat to the family. If the state doesn’t stick it’s nose in and throw the perverst in jail, then suddenly the family is in danger.