Libertarians Join Liberals in Challenging Sodomy Law

NYTimes ^ | March 19, 2003 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[ThinkDifferent]

If it is established that you've contracted the ebola virus, is it prudent to let you travel about the country?

Of course not. In that case I would be committing assault on anyone I came in proximity to. That doesn't negate my ownership of my body any more than laws prohibiting me from punching somebody in the face. It's also entirely irrelevant to the question of organ sales, which do not involve harm to nonconsenting individuals.

[Zack Nguyen]

I didn't ask how you can tell evil from good. I asked why some people are good and others are not.

[ThinkDifferent]

I can tell you that a society with no self-policing = tyranny

What do you mean by "self-policing" in this context?

[Zack Nguyen]

How do you make absolute moral judgements? By what criteria? What higher law beyond the individual do you adhere to?

[jimt]

Very well then - by holding to a libertarian philosophy, these people find it difficult or impossible to make absolute moral judgements.

That statement is demonstrably untrue.

Murder, rape, robbery, burglary, fraud are ALL morally wrong. Moreover, they violate some else's rights and are thus the fit subject of law. BTW, I consider abortion murder.

I personally find homosexual relations immoral. It's bad for the people who engage in it, in my opinion. But no one's rights are being violated. Thus it's NOT a fit subject of law.

There's no problem making absolute moral judgements holding to a libertarian philosophy.

[Zack Nguyen]

I can't seem to find where Christ instructed us to enforce his will by violence or threat thereof. In fact, in one instance, he told us to bug off and he would handle it.

That is incorrect. Consider Romans 13: 1-7. Government is given "the sword" that is an offensive instrument of force and violence, to coerce certain types of behavior in pursuance of justice and protection of the weak.

[Zack Nguyen]

There's no problem making absolute moral judgements holding to a libertarian philosophy.

I'm afraid there is. Libertarians do not call upon anything higher than the individual in their moral reasoning. That isn't good enough. Our laws much reference something higher than ourselves to be consistent. Otherwise what I believe is no better than what you believe. In addition, libertarians hold ot a Rights of Man argument that, in their reasoning, has nothing to back it up.

[freeeee]

Here was your question:

Why do you believe that some people are good and others bad

I believe that some are good and some are bad because I observe, through their actions, good and bad people. Hence they both exist. That's why I believe some are good and some are bad. And that was the question.

I asked why some people are good and others are not.

That's a new question. In my opinion, the combined effects of genetics and environment/upbringing unique to each individual cause a development of a set of morals or lack thereof.

[jimt]

Which has nothing to do with judicially legislating sodomy "rights".

Wow, the convolution in that thinking is breathtaking !

Declaring a law null and void is not "legislating".

People committing sodomy are not violating anybody's rights, so you have no grounds for legally restricting them.

...the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

[Protagoras]

What higher law beyond the individual do you adhere to?

God, you?

[Roscoe]

Declaring a law null and void is not "legislating".

That's how judicial legislation works. Read a book.

[Zack Nguyen]

Really? So evil is genetic/envirnmental/social? Why then do you call it "evil", since nothing in that description gives ultimate responsiblity to the individual?

[Zack Nguyen]

I do as well. That is why I cannot hold to the specious libertarian argument that government is not fit to coerce certain types of behavior from its citizens.

[Protagoras]

Ok, I see where you were going.

[Roscoe]

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

[freeeee]

Romans 13: 1-7. Government is given "the sword" that is an offensive instrument of force and violence

Jesus gave Romans the sword?

[Zack Nguyen]

People committing sodomy are not violating anybody's rights, so you have no grounds for legally restricting them.

They are most certainly violating my rights, because private sin is publicly championed. Homosexuals bring their attitudes to the public square, not to mention my pocket book, and the coarsening of our culture effects the life of myself and my family.

[Zack Nguyen]

Jesus gave government the sword.

[jimt]

That isn't good enough.

All you're saying is that if I don't agree with your religious views, I can't make moral judgements, because morals MUST come from YOUR God.

Nice try. I don't buy it. And I'm not convinced your pipeline to God is any better than mine. Care to show me why yours is better ?

Morals can also be established by other means - harm to one's self, or another, for instance. This doesn't require ANY religious belief - just a little thinking.

[jimt]

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:...

Slavery laws in effect in 1791...

So what?