Does a government have the right to tell its people what they can and can't do in the bedroom?

Question

As long as it's consensual and doesn't cause harm to either person, does the government have any right to tell people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or does the government have a moral responsibility to set down limits?

Answer 1

U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick upheld Georgia's law against oral and anal sex, under which Hardwick had been arrested. Most states, however, including Georgia have repealed their sodomy laws. In fact, Georgia's own Supreme Court struck down the state's so-called sodomy law, noting, "We cannot think of any other activity that reasonable persons would rank as more private and more deserving of protection from government interference than consensual, private, adult sexual activity."

So the answer is, "Yes," but most of the time they won't and shouldn't. It is up to us as conscientious voters to make sure that remains true.

Answer 2

Yes and No. No they don't have a right to say what goes on in the bedroom. Yes they have a moral responsibility to set limits on certain things. There used to be privacy even in the bedroom. Not any more. Since certain agendas have become full blown, then the government has an obligation to step in. If for example, if two adult people want to have sex in the privacy of their home or apartment, well that is their priveledge.

The problem comes in when an adult is having sex with those under age of consent established by each state. Even though the act maybe consentual, it is still wrong and the government should stop it.

The moral aspect is wrong too say two of the same gender. If it is in their home then it should be ok but they shouldn't broadcast their relationship and expect acceptance.

This is only my opinion.

Answer 3

Wazwonder's comment about Bowers is right... but a few years too late. Bowers was overruled by the "Texas Sodomy Case" Lawrence v. Texas, in which Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, DID find a substantive due process right to some form of bedroom privacy, regardless of the gender of those persons in the bedroom.
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102#opinion1)

There ARE sodomy laws on the books; they're probably all unconstiutional now under Lawrence.
Separation of Church and State has nothign to do with it; no one has argued that laws banning gay sex are unconstitutional under the First Amendment Establishment Clause because those laws do not "establish a Religion..." But the theory is there -- it may be against what some people view as God's will if two gay people are together, but does that mean it should be the government's position, too? No. The government needs to articulate a reason to invade privacy in that way. And there was no good reason, at least according to the Lawrence court.

Answer 4

The question is one of the Right to Privacy which is an inference from the right to be secure in ones person and effects Constitutionally. Hence the Right to Privacy is a Legal theory subject to interpretation!

However the only bar is the counter question of the interest for National Security. Thus if my person papers and effects are promoting revolt then the National interest prevails.

The connection may seem far fetched but there are some Right Wingers who infer their religious views as in the interest of Nationalism and so would like to dictate your privacy in just such a context!

Answer 5

I don't think there is anything immoral in the phrase consenting adults, but i think most people would be shocked to learn the following

1) Buggery is illegal in the UK (despite having a consentual age for gay sex, but hey that about sums up our government)

2) It is illegal for homosexual sex to take place in a hotel room!!

3) Lesbian sex does not exist as bodily fluids must be exchanged before they are willing to accept it as sex (how can you tell that the majority of the government are men)

In my opinion the government have a moral responsability to protet the underage and the non consenting adults. In society today, that job is big enough without them interfering with the people who are happy together!!

I have two question to add to this!

1) In this day and age of proposed equal opportunities why do all sexual restrictions seem to target same sex couples and does anyone really care or even pay attention to the above listed laws!!!!??????

2) Why did the government set a consentual age for a sexual act which they outlawed?

Answer 6

The government has set down limits but they only apply outside your private residence or if somebody gets hurts and reports you. These are called crimes against nature. Most states only allow the missionary position as being legal. Everything else is a crime against nature (that's how we phrase it in NC). It is all based on what the general public feels is morally and ethically acceptable to them at that time and in that location. What is accepted in Miami might not be accepted in Idaho. That is what most laws are based on and that is why they are different from state to state.

Answer 7

What are you driving at ? It depends - I can't just say yes - You can't murder in the bedroom - it can say that but if you 'sleep' /other bedroom activities well that's down to you.

The Government is far too prescriptive generally and maybe that'll be next with their surveillance - they should be fought all the way with their invasions of people's privacy.

I for one don't trust them to know where I go and what I do in my car.

Answer 8

The government does not have the right to tell consenting adults what they can and can not do under the sheets. But because our government was formed with the influence of Christian morals and values, they feel that it is their duty to enforce those morals and values on people who otherwise would not cooperate.

So, yet another example of the government overstepping its boundaries to infringe on the rights of it's citizens.

Answer 9

No, unless it is against the law. In addition to consensual and not harming the other person there some likely age issues, etc. Generally, consenting adults can do what they want if they aren't harming the other(s).

Answer 10

They need to get off people's backs. All the guilt they pour onto British people, they blame us for everything that happens to ourselves, to the nation, to the world. They need to stop attempting to distract us from the real issues by trying to make us feel responsible. The US must feel the same, as if the people's of the world think we are all Madonna and millionaires. It's all relative. Politicians think they can distract us with guilt so we don't see that they have'nt been doing the job we so handsomely have paid them to do all these years.