Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation"

J. Finnis
{"title":"Law, Morality, and \"Sexual Orientation\"","authors":"J. Finnis","doi":"10.4324/9781315243375-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I During the past thirty years there has emerged a standard form of legal regulation of sexual conduct. This \"standard modern position\" has two limbs. On the one hand, the state is not authorised to, and does not, make it a punishable offence for adult consenting persons to engage, in private, in immoral sexual acts (for example, homosexual acts). On the other hand, states do have the authority to discourage, say, homosexual conduct and \"orientation\" (i.e. overtly manifested active willingness to engage in homosexual conduct). And typically, though not universally, they do so. That is to say, they maintain various criminal and administrative laws and policies which have as part of their purpose the discouraging of such conduct. Many of these laws, regulations, and policies discriminate (i.e. distinguish) between heterosexual and homosexual conduct adversely to the latter. The concern of the standard modern position itself is not with inclinations but entirely with certain decisions to express or manifest deliberate promotion of, or readiness to engage in, homosexual activity/conduct, including promotion of forms of life (e.g. purportedly marital cohabitation) which both encourage such activity and present it as a valid or acceptable alternative to the committed heterosexual union which the state recognises as marriage. Subject only to the written or unwritten constitutional requirement of freedom of discussion of ideas, the state laws and state policies which I have outlined are intended to discourage decisions which are thus deliberately oriented towards homosexual conduct and are manifested in public ways. The standard modern position considers that the state's proper responsibility for upholding true worth (morality) is a responsibility subsidiary (auxiliary) to the primary responsibility of parents and non-political voluntary associations. This conception of the proper role of government has been taken to exclude the state from assuming a directly parental disciplinary role in relation to consenting adults. That role was one","PeriodicalId":82192,"journal":{"name":"Notre Dame journal of law, ethics & public policy","volume":"9 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"97","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notre Dame journal of law, ethics & public policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315243375-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 97

Abstract

I During the past thirty years there has emerged a standard form of legal regulation of sexual conduct. This "standard modern position" has two limbs. On the one hand, the state is not authorised to, and does not, make it a punishable offence for adult consenting persons to engage, in private, in immoral sexual acts (for example, homosexual acts). On the other hand, states do have the authority to discourage, say, homosexual conduct and "orientation" (i.e. overtly manifested active willingness to engage in homosexual conduct). And typically, though not universally, they do so. That is to say, they maintain various criminal and administrative laws and policies which have as part of their purpose the discouraging of such conduct. Many of these laws, regulations, and policies discriminate (i.e. distinguish) between heterosexual and homosexual conduct adversely to the latter. The concern of the standard modern position itself is not with inclinations but entirely with certain decisions to express or manifest deliberate promotion of, or readiness to engage in, homosexual activity/conduct, including promotion of forms of life (e.g. purportedly marital cohabitation) which both encourage such activity and present it as a valid or acceptable alternative to the committed heterosexual union which the state recognises as marriage. Subject only to the written or unwritten constitutional requirement of freedom of discussion of ideas, the state laws and state policies which I have outlined are intended to discourage decisions which are thus deliberately oriented towards homosexual conduct and are manifested in public ways. The standard modern position considers that the state's proper responsibility for upholding true worth (morality) is a responsibility subsidiary (auxiliary) to the primary responsibility of parents and non-political voluntary associations. This conception of the proper role of government has been taken to exclude the state from assuming a directly parental disciplinary role in relation to consenting adults. That role was one
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律、道德与“性取向”
在过去的三十年里,出现了一种规范性行为的标准形式。这种“标准的现代体位”有两个分支。一方面,国家没有被授权,也没有将同意的成年人私下从事不道德的性行为(例如同性恋行为)定为应受惩罚的罪行。另一方面,各州确实有权阻止同性恋行为和“取向”(即公开表现出积极参与同性恋行为的意愿)。通常情况下,尽管不是普遍情况,他们会这样做。也就是说,它们维持各种刑事和行政法律和政策,其目的之一就是阻止这种行为。许多这样的法律、法规和政策歧视(即区分)异性恋和同性恋行为,对后者不利。标准现代立场本身所关注的不是倾向,而是完全与某些决定有关,即表达或表明有意促进或准备参与同性恋活动/行为,包括促进既鼓励此类活动,又将其呈现为有效或可接受的异性恋联盟(国家承认为婚姻)的生活形式(例如所谓的婚姻同居)。我所概述的州法律和州政策,仅受宪法关于自由讨论思想的成文或不成文要求的约束,旨在阻止那些因此故意倾向于同性恋行为并以公开方式表现出来的决定。标准的现代立场认为,国家维护真正价值(道德)的适当责任是父母和非政治自愿组织的主要责任的附属责任。这种关于政府适当角色的概念被用来排除国家在与同意的成年人有关的问题上承担直接的父母管教角色。这个角色是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
On Aristotelian Criminal Law: A Reply to Duff Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation" Jobs in a Free Country A View from the Farm The Ethics of the Unsaid in the Sphere of Human Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1