Whence the statist mentality?

[Dr.Who]

You are simply wrong. Most people who haven't read Roe v. Wade don't know that in it the justices (with reasoning so shakey that it has even been criticized by pro-abortionists) "created" two "rights" - first, the "right" to privacy, and then leveraged that to a "right" to abortion. I personally support the creation of a carefully delineated, uncorrupted right to privacy by constitutional amendment, but there is no such right in the constitution now.

Setting aside R v W...


The constitution is not a list of rights but instead is a list of limits on the fed to restrict our rights. Your right to privacy exist and is God given long before the constitution was written. The government can only infringe on your right to privacy, for example when it searches your home, when it first follows due process and gets a search warrant. If you did not have a right to privacy then it would not need to get the warrant.

More generally, you have the right to do absolutely anything at all until your right is restricted by the government for a compelling reason. The constitution limits how the government will restrict your rights and gives the gov various powers.

 

[Rick]

There most certainly is a right to privacy. Yes people can invent and squeeze new "rights" out of it but it still exist.

Yes women do have a right to keep their medical experiences private - that right simply does not outweigh the right of another person to not be killed.

What happens in your home is clearly protected under your right to privacy unless you are violating someone else's right. That is why there is such a thing as search warrants.

Therefore, I assert again that what two people do privately in their home is protected under the right to privacy unless it is harming someone. Does private gay sex harm someone?

My basic problem is that you unnecessarily drag in "privacy" into a claim to a right to sexual practices. (Puhlese don't get into a line of confusion conflating the two from the mere fact that such acts are usually done in private.) A properly-construed right to privacy shouldn't be confused with other things - it means that information about you needn't be disclosed.)

 

[Dr.Who]

My basic problem is that you unnecessarily drag in "privacy" into a claim to a right to sexual practices. (Puhlese don't get into a line of confusion conflating the two from the mere fact that such acts are usually done in private.) A properly-construed right to privacy shouldn't be confused with other things - it means that information about you needn't be disclosed.)

Privacy is a lot more than information. It includes what you think, feel, do, and more.

If you don't like connecting privacy with sexuality then lets just say that people have a right to have sex with who they want based on freedom of association.

I don't care why one recognized that who you partner with is nobodies business but yours except when it interferes with others rights ( I brought up the privacy aspect of it because when it is in private it does not interfere with others rights. when done in public one might find a reason to object).

And why do I connect sexual rights to statism. Because for a great many people sexual rights are the only issue they care about. They must realize that statism is a threat to all rights and not just to property rights.