Posted on 07/20/2006 10:13:56 AM PDT by SmithL
oh PUH-lease.
I can't speak for the Almighty as so many of you here can. I can tell you that certainly, if Mr. Jefferson was correct, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among other unalianable rights come from the Creator. The right to privacy must certainly exist or there would be no liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So whether it's fornication, chess, or other activities that do not infringe on the rights of others, the right to privacy is a guaranteed right.
Keep your Bible out of my bedroom and I'll keep my moral compass out of yours. We'll all have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness then.
This is the fundamental error in your thinking. Fornication is not a "private sin." In fact, there is no such thing as "private sin." All sins harm people besides the ones directly involved.
First, consider that society is simply the collection of individuals who comprise it, so when one individual member of society is diminished, society must necessarily be diminished.
But the harmful effects of fornication go beyond the individuals involved.
Consider that children are best raised by their natural parents in a committed, exclusive, lifetime relationship, and that copulation is ordered towards procreation and child-rearing. So the act of copulation connotes a lifetime commitment between the partners. Sexual partners who have no intention of a lifetime commitment are lying to each other with their bodies.
The effect of living with this lie is to dissociate in the minds of those involved the natural connection between copulation and marriage. The consequences for the children of such people are manifested in abortion and broken homes, the further effects of which on society are obvious.
Finally, people who live together are setting a bad public example, which is harmful to children and adults alike.
_____________________________________________________________
Now, you can play the police-in-my-bedroom card if you like, but recognizing the above does not logically entail a police state. Not every sin should be criminalized because we're all sinners, and we'd all be in jail if all sins were criminalized. But grave evils should be criminalized when the benefit to society of criminalization exceeds the harm caused by criminalization.
In this case, there is no harm caused to society by criminalizing cohabitation. Such a law does not necessitate "cameras in the bedroom," just proof that two people of the opposite sex share a common legal address. And the benefit to society is a reduction in the above mentioned evils.
God has given us the right to "shack up?"
"-- In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all men . . . are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage. --"
Anyone wishing to can go here and see what Scalia actually wrote:
http;//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-1
Suffice it to say, you've taken it totally out of context.
Bull.. --- Anyone that goes there will find I quoted Scalia in order, in context.
Regarding the idea of inalienable rights, a case can be made for them. However, it would seem that they would be limited to things such as Scalia mentioned. Namely, activities that have a long historical basis in Western Judeo-Christian society.
Like our "unalienable rights" to life, liberty, or property? --- How weird that you can deny them.
Anyone can come along at any point and assert an inalienable right to do anything. Do you expect to ratify every demand?
I expect a jury to decide the law & the facts in a case -- and if necessary, a supreme court to see that constitutional justice was upheld by the juries decision.
Take the marriage issue for example. Suppose four men assert that they have an unenumerated, inalienable right to marry the "partner" of their choosing. One wants to marry a woman, one wants to marry another man, one wants to marry a horse, and one wants to marry a kitchen table.
Good grief. Imagine what you want, but don't expect me to comment on your weird suppositions.
It's been a tradition in our society for thousands of years for men to marry women. Not only have such pairings been accepted, but they have been the norm, and have been considered good things to be celebrated. Not just recently, but throughout our history. That cannot be said of a man marrying another man, a horse, or a kitchen table. So one could make a defensible case that people have a right to marry a partner of the opposite sex as some sort of historically understood aspect of our civilization.
Whatever.
There are many problems with a wide-open interpretation of the 9th Amendment. As the potential demands for rights are unlimited, who is to limit them?
Our constitution and common law place limits on individual behavior. The Law of the Land is supreme over that common law.
Ultimately, the court will, but is that preferable to a legislature? At least we elect the legislature. What happens when people make conflicting rights claims?
We take the issue before a jury of our peers. Then we appeal to higher courts to insure that justice was done. -- We do ~not~ allow legislators to write laws that ignore due process. -- Nor do we allow courts to ignore that same due process.
You see the problems this creates.
Yes, I do. I see you insisting that 'cohabitation' rights be limited. -- In effect people like you are the problem.
It's a matter or prudence, not intrinsic evil.
As a matter of prudential judgment, lawmakers at times decriminalize intrinsic evils (like blasphemy) and criminalize acts that are not intrinsically evil (like failure to wear a motorcycle helmet).
Sorry, but I can't take you seriously after your out-of-context quote from Scalia. Why didn't you post the sentences that came AFTER the quote you provided? Because it made clear that he was taking the opposite position from the one you alleged. All anyone need do is go to the link I provided and see that I'm right about this.
Allowing women to vote would indeed have been a traumatic decision if it had come about due to federal judges violating their oath of office and forcibly imposing female suffrage on the states via judicial fiat.
Luckily, it didn't happen that way. It happened via the legislative branch and a constitutional amendment, as provided for in the Constitution itself.
Nonetheless, sins should not equate to crimes. Sins should be dealt with through the churches, crimes through the elected government. The question is how far do you take religious moral teachings and convert them into secular laws?
Consider that children are best raised by their natural parents in a committed, exclusive, lifetime relationship, and that copulation is ordered towards procreation and child-rearing.
Nevertheless, copulation took place tens of thousands of years before Christianity or Judaism. It took place and children were reared long before our current Christian moral structure. But today, people simply do not get together and marry simply to "copulate" for the purpose of procreation. Sex is a part of the love the two have for each other regardless of whether they want children or not. And that sex may take many forms, none of which is the business of anyone but those two.
So the act of copulation connotes a lifetime commitment between the partners. Sexual partners who have no intention of a lifetime commitment are lying to each other with their bodies.
Not so. They are simply recognizing that sex is a part of the relationship they have, not the entire relationship. And what you are doing here is stating a moral position that the state should definitely remain out of.
The effect of living with this lie is to dissociate in the minds of those involved the natural connection between copulation and marriage. The consequences for the children of such people are manifested in abortion and broken homes, the further effects of which on society are obvious.
Perhaps, but conjecture is all that is. Marriage today is not frequently for the creation of children. Animals do that. Humans and human marriage is much more. Marriage is a serious thing, and two people should not commit to it initially for anything other than a desire to spend the rest of their lives together. Sex is natural and as I said before, has been around a lot longer than any religion.
Finally, people who live together are setting a bad public example, which is harmful to children and adults alike.
There are thousands of bad examples around. It is not the place of the state to legislate against bad examples.
Now, you can play the police-in-my-bedroom card if you like, but recognizing the above does not logically entail a police state. Not every sin should be criminalized because we're all sinners, and we'd all be in jail if all sins were criminalized. But grave evils should be criminalized when the benefit to society of criminalization exceeds the harm caused by criminalization.
And I submit that the 6 million couples living outside of marriage do not in any way cause the 50 to 60 percent divorce rate or the millions of children of divorced parents. The state should step in when an act directly causes harm, such as crying fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
In this case, there is no harm caused to society by criminalizing cohabitation. Such a law does not necessitate "cameras in the bedroom," just proof that two people of the opposite sex share a common legal address.
You don't restrict freedom because the law causes no harm to society. You restrict a freedom because it leads to a direct harm to others. You have demonstrated no such harm. In fact, your law would drive love underground. Your law would simply lead to a lot more one night stands. You forget the law of unintended consequences.
God has given us the physical ability to murder whoever we please.
In other words, physical ability does not correspond to moral licaity.
Who is the government to take that away?
Who is the government to criminalize any evil?
The purpose of the State is to promote the common good. Criminalizing various evils falls under that principle.
We've certainly come a long way from the time when Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the least dangerous branch. He assumed the courts would operate only within the bounds of the Constitution. If they did that, they'd be about as busy as the Maytag repairman. Hamilton also assumed a populace that understood the Constitution and respected its jurisdictional boundaries.
I doubt that Hamilton (or Madison, or Jefferson...) envisioned this:
Hey judge! I wanna sodomize my boyfriend! Wait, scratch that...I wanna sodomize five boyfriends. I want you to make this a federal issue and get rid of my state's anti-sodomy law.
Hey Judge! They just passed an ordinance in my county against serving alcoholic beverages in strip clubs. I'm real pissed off about it. I thought about campaigning to have the commissioners repeal the law, but I might lose. So I want you to declare federal hegemony over my county and get rid of that law for me. I'm sure I have a constitutional right to drink booze while simultaneously watching a girl strip nekked up there on a stage. I can't find it actually written out in the Constitution, but I think it's in one of them auras or whatever that surrounds it. Anyway, get rid of that law for me.
Is that you, Hillary?
Good decision, another blow against the nanny staters and big government loving social conservatives. :)
But they often do. Murder and theft are sins. Should they not be considered crimes?
Sins should be dealt with through the churches, crimes through the elected government.
Murder is a sin, so should we legalize murder?
The question is how far do you take religious moral teachings and convert them into secular laws?
What I presented to you was a natural law argument in favor of the criminalization of fornication. I didn't appeal to divine revelation of any kind. My argument was purely "secular," or based on truths knowable to everyone.
Consider that children are best raised by their natural parents in a committed, exclusive, lifetime relationship, and that copulation is ordered towards procreation and child-rearing.
Nevertheless, copulation took place tens of thousands of years before Christianity or Judaism. It took place and children were reared long before our current Christian moral structure.
Is your point that monogomy has not always been normative? It has. Polygamy and polyandry are the exceptions that prove the rule.
But today, people simply do not get together and marry simply to "copulate" for the purpose of procreation.
Right. They perversely divorce the tangential pleasurable aspect of the act from its fundamental procreative purpose in a analogous manner to binging and purging. It's a lie on top of the lie of cohabitation.
"I love you baby, just not enough to marry you."
"I love you baby, but not enough to have children with you."
Sex is a part of the love the two have for each other regardless of whether they want children or not.
The act says, "I love you, but not enough to have children with you. But I'm willing to use your body as a means of mutual masturbation."
And that sex may take many forms, none of which is the business of anyone but those two.
Why is it their business alone? They are habituating themselves to treating the opposite sex as a means to an end. The consequences to society of this mindset are all around us.
So the act of copulation connotes a lifetime commitment between the partners. Sexual partners who have no intention of a lifetime commitment are lying to each other with their bodies.
Not so. They are simply recognizing that sex is a part of the relationship they have, not the entire relationship.
How is induced sterility in intercourse different from mutual masturbation? It isn't. It's as fundamentally disordered as mutual masturbation, or binging and purging.
Look at it another way. If intercourse was not pleasurable, none of us would be here today. Therefore, pleasure is not the primary end of intercourse, but it is of secondary importance, just as the pleasurable nature of eating is of secondary importance to the primary purpose of eating, which is nutrition. To divorce the secondary pleasurable nature of the act from its primary purpose is perverse, just as gluttony and purging is perverse.
And what you are doing here is stating a moral position that the state should definitely remain out of.
Why? The purpose of the State is to promote the common good. And fornication harms society.
The consequences for the children of such people are manifested in abortion and broken homes, the further effects of which on society are obvious.
Perhaps, but conjecture is all that is.
Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
Marriage today is not frequently for the creation of children.
Have you just demonstrated that "the effect of living with this lie is to dissociate in the minds of those involved the natural connection between copulation and marriage"?
Animals do that.
Dogs try to hump people's legs because it feels good. When people engage in artificially induced sterile intercourse, they're behaving like the above mentioned dog.
Humans and human marriage is much more.
More than bringing forth new human life? What more noble human act is there in life?
Marriage is a serious thing, and two people should not commit to it initially for anything other than a desire to spend the rest of their lives together.
Then two men could get "married." Or three men. Or three men, two women and my dog.
Finally, people who live together are setting a bad public example, which is harmful to children and adults alike.
There are thousands of bad examples around. It is not the place of the state to legislate against bad examples.
When the matter is grave enough, it is. And this is grave matter.
And I submit that the 6 million couples living outside of marriage do not in any way cause the 50 to 60 percent divorce rate or the millions of children of divorced parents.
Researchers from Pennsylvania State University find “it has been consistently shown that, compared to spouses who did not cohabit, spouses who cohabit before marriage have higher rates of marital separation and divorce.”3 Sociologists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison report, “Recent national studies in Canada, Sweden, and the United States found that cohabitation increased, rather than decreased, the risk of marital dissolution.”4 This was also found to be true in the Netherlands.5The CDC also reports that couples who cohabitate break up more often than married couples. This stands to reason.A leading researcher on cohabitation from the University of Victoria, British Columbia, reports:
Contrary to conventional wisdom that living together before marriage will screen out poor matches and therefore improve subsequent marital stability, there is considerable empirical evidence demonstrating that premarital cohabitation is associated with lowered marital stability.6
The state should step in when an act directly causes harm, such as crying fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
So in principle, the guy who encourages him shouldn't be arrested as an accessory?
In this case, there is no harm caused to society by criminalizing cohabitation. Such a law does not necessitate "cameras in the bedroom," just proof that two people of the opposite sex share a common legal address.
You don't restrict freedom because the law causes no harm to society.
I didn't say that. I said that an evil act may be criminalized if the harm to society of criminalizing the act is less than the harm caused to society of decriminalizing the act.
You restrict a freedom because it leads to a direct harm to others. You have demonstrated no such harm. In fact, your law would drive love underground.
Since when does a lie constitute love?
"I love you baby, I just don't want to marry you. I am willing to use you as a means of masturbation for an indefinite period, however."
Love is a choice, specifically, willing the highest and greatest good for the other. What you describe as love is simple selfishness.
Your law would simply lead to a lot more one night stands. You forget the law of unintended consequences.
That may be true. But shacking up is simply a string of one-nighters. So it's hard to argue that such a law would increase the overall incidences of fornication.
Thank you. Good response.
Is that you, Hillary?
That would be the Preamble to the Constitution (which explains the purpose of the document), as well as the belief of every significant political philosopher since Aristotle.
An ideal form of government must concern itself with the common good (1279a18-22).If you can think of another more sensible first principle of government, let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.