Is it Constitutional to make /force a Free Human to Consent to sexual relations, Yes or No?
154570
No, there is nothing in the Constitution that says one person can make another person consent to sexual relations. \n\nQuite the contrary, the constitution gives us the right to be free in many, many ways.\n\nIf you're having sex with someone that doesn't want to have sex with you you're committing rape.
814979
The only way a man can legally have sex (by Biblical standards) is to do it in the institution of marriage. All other sexual encounters outside of marriage is sin. Promiscuous sex is not condoned by God. We have many in this country that are living together, having sex, families, etc. without being married. The Bible clearly defines this activity as an abomination. Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook, but you asked. I am 60 years old, and I have been married to the same woman for 35 years, and have never had sex with anyone else. God's rules work if you let them. I am proud of marriage, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Thank you for asking - it allowed me to respond!!
225383
The higher purpose in permitting it is to affirm that every person should shall have full jurisdiction over what happens inside the boundaries of his/her body.  Therefore by permitting it we are acknowledging that the freedom of a person to control their own body is more important than other considerations.  However we are not endorsing the choices they make as "good".  We are merely choosing not to intervene forcefully in a person's excersise of thier soverign rights over their body.  In this light, persuasion and dialog become the tools of those who wish to stop the practice, not the threat of imprisonment or execution by the government (there are people out there who believe that it is murder and should be punished with death).  \n\nYour second question becomes irrelavent unless you believe that you or the government has a role in determining how a person should be permitted to exersise control over what goes on inside thier body.\n\nHuman sacrifice is ritualistic religious killing of a person in order to gain some favor with a God that they fear, in hopes that they will be granted some sort of boon from their god, such as good weather or reprieve from a plague.  I don't see how anyone would have an abortion to please God, but fervently religious people NEVER fail to surpirse me!
97750
They actually never made it criminal to begin with. Why should it be? Two consenting adults agree to have sex, then one gives the other a gift. Why should a government care?
979620
You miss a point in that norms have changed since the time of Oscar Wilde; homosexul sex is no longer an offence, and neither is anal sex between heterosexuals.  As sexual deviancy is presumably not defined under statute - I'd love to see the draftsman try - it will be left to the man on the clapham omnibus, or as he is now referred to the reasonable person.  Given that society has shifted in its outlook, the judiciary must do the same.  \n\nFurthermore, the church, state and juduciary are necessarily kept separate so that one does not overly influence the other - look at laws which the Government has brought in, only for the Judiciary to define in its own way as soon as its given the chance.  The only person who straddles the state and juduciary is the Lord Chancellor, a political appt to the Judiciary.\n\nTo say that no - one has ever been cured of a menal heath problem is incorrect and sensationalist.  The issue here is whether sexual deviancy is a mental health issue - this depends on the sexual behaviour, and an examination of the individual to discover the reasons for that behaviour. \n\nMental health professionals take their job seriously, there is little chance of infiltration by Opus Dei, the KKK, the Keystone Cops or any other body you care to mention.  \n\nAs to your question, the norm is whatever society decides it is at the time.  Who is society?  We are - the reasonable person in the street, the imaginary person the law considers when trying a case.
928989
Yes, the law is the law. Unless the law has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.\n\nIntimate sexaul relationships between consenting adults cannot be made criminal conduct. US Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas (2003). See link below for the full text of the opinion.\n\nSo, Oklahoma may still have sodomy laws on the books. But they are unconstitutional as applied to consenting adults, and thus cannot be enforced.
127727
I think what two consenting adults do is no one else's business.  If they want to get married and be miserable just like straight people, more power to them!
842522
I totally agree with you.  Whoever you pick to love, somebody's gonna object to them.  As long as you've picked another adult and there's no abuse, what is the problem for anyone else?  There should be none.  We should all be able to make our choices.  Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are to be found in the Declaration of Independence, not the laboratory!
1114971
Wow Marcell, You have really demonstrated what is wrong with conservatives. So I assume you mean that giving gays like myself the right to marry is a "special right" because we didnt have that right before. Wow. I think its likely you would be quoting mythology in all your arguments. My firmly held belief is that you cannot explain things rationally to people who believe in an invisible man in the sky who sees everything they do and is waiting to smite them if they step out of line. Its just nonsense, and the sooner more people reject this mythological hysteria about virgin babies and magic boats that hold millions of animals and prophets falling from the sky, the sooner people will adopt reason in its place. But whether or not people are willing to question their dogma, I'm still going to fight for a womans right to choose, for full rights and inclusion for gays, etc. I'm not going to let someones silly mythologies and superstitions stop me...
885442
As a fiscal conservative I think is an intrusion of the federal government to decide what sexual act is illegal. What goes behind closed doors between consenting adults is nobody's business. Who is the government to decide that butt-fucking is wrong?
731414
I like it....a great thought experiment!\nWhich is more important to the people who are, for instance, willing to vote for a *constitutional amendment* for godsake to restrict freedoms in this country by saying we as a nation claim that the pursuit of domestic happiness must occur only between people with the appropriately different genitals.  The kinds of genitals that can together make babies. sometimes unwanted babies. Those folks want to make pursuit of happiness restricted.  Okay.  I'd love to see the poll numbers on how many of them would also like to have "the right to life" of the fetus trump the "right to liberty" of the adult female.  It's doubtlessly true that if gay marriage were legal everywhere and rights and equal status were conveyed to gay couples, then there would be more newly 'appropriate' homes for kids saved from being aborted by those heterosexual breeding pairs conservatives would like to limit marriage rights to.\nBut of course, the folks who tend to vehemently oppose abortion likely wouldn't be too pleased with gay couples getting babies to raise.  \nWhat's interesting, really, is how many non-conservative types are against gay marriage but against limiting abortion rights.  So, the right of someone to end a pregnancy falls under her rights to privacy and control over her body, but the right of someone to fall in love with and pledge to be partner to another person is subject to government approval.  I understand all the 'get the government off my body" stuff in the abortion wars, but the anti-gay-marriage thing for non-conservatives seems to me mostly about an 'eww' factor.
113952
Whoa, cowboy...just a point of order here, to keep someone out of trouble.  The whole "over 16" thing may be true in some states, but nobody here should think it applies in California.\n\nBecause it ain't so.\n\nIn California, you must be 18 and older to legally have sex.  Does not matter who consents to what.  End of story.\n\nMy apologies to the asker...this is not an answer to the original question and I probably should be made to forfeit two points just for doing it.\n\nOkay, let's look at the question:\n\nHmph.  Does not say what I thought it did.  In court, this question would be responded to with this; "Objection.  Assumes facts not in evidence."\n\nIn other words, the asker of this question is stating as fact that a man who sleeps with another man's wife (with her consent) can be charged (with what we do not know, but we'll assume a crime).  Therein lies the "fact" which is not in evidence yet.\n\nIn California, it never will be.  Two consenting adults can do doggone near anything they want to in California...the more I think of it, when it comes to sex they *can* do anything they want, as long as both (all?) agree.  \n\nSo the question, at least in my state, is flawed.  It states that a man can be charged for humping someone else's wife and that isn't true.  Therefore, a woman wouldn't be charged with humping someone's husband for the same reason...it's legal in this state.\n\nEven further, now that I think about it:\n\nIf we're talking about legally married spouses, then it's probable that someone could legally have sex at an age less than 18 in this state.  You can't legally marry until you are 18 OR with...umm...something... parental permission or emancipation, I think.  If you're emancipated, you can have sex as far as I know.  Not sure about the parental permission for marriage equalling the right to hump.\n\nBizarre question.\n\nEven more bizzare answer.
879532
It should be banned. It amounts to intrusion into the personal freedom. An American citizen could file a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court urging it to protect his Fundamental Right of Freedom to think and decide under the Bill of Rights provisions of the American Constitution.
112305
Sex is LEGAL worldwide between two consenting adults. The MORAL ideas differ in every part of every country.
97189
There is authority in the Bill of Rights to protect you from forced consent to certain things (search and seizure, quartering troops, etc).  But anything else is up for argument.
407622
Wow! Are you American? That kind of thinking isn't allowed here. What do you think this is a free country? Seriously  states do make these decisions didn't you know prostitution is legal in Nevada? But i do agree the government takes too much control of peoples rights you would think what goes on between two consenting adults is there decision...but there are allot of issue more pressing where the government takes control of peoples rights. How about imminent domain?
422901
First of all, the Constitution does NOT guarantee the "pursuit (or persuit) of happiness".  That expression appears in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  On substance, I doubt very much time and energy is spent in enforcing laws relating to prostitution in relation to other offenses. Finally, will you admit to any role for morality in criminal law?  I mean, take laws relating to age of consent -- why is consensual sex illegal for, say, 15 year olds but not 16 year olds?  In other words, how do you draw a line?