Liberty and Sex (Part 2)

In the last entry, we asked if it was the business of government to put limits on our sex lives. Another way to ask this question is, are there ever any times when sexual behavior affects people other than the ones directly involved in it and even society as a whole?

One obvious example of sexual behavior affecting others is when a child is produced that the parents are unable to support. This happens especially in cases when the parents are not married. In these cases, it becomes necessary for the other members of society to pay for the child's support. This requires government to violate the right to acquire and possess property, one of the three basic rights that political society was established to protect. In discussing this, Blackstone says that if a woman has a child out of wedlock and she is able to support it, then there is no punishment for this behavior under common law. If, however, the woman is not able to support the child, then there is a punishment. So, under common law, the woman has a large area of personal choice without interference from government up to the point that her behavior starts affecting others. At that point, it is considered appropriate for government to step in and limit her choices.

Another way in which sexual behavior can affect others is when it results in a sexually transmitted disease. It was recently reported that one in four teenagers has a sexually transmitted disease. Someone is quoted in the article as saying that the rate is one in two among a group in society that has less access to health care. The implication, I think, is that society has an obligation to provide health care to these teenagers in order to prevent the spread of this kind of disease. From the perspective of liberty, however, it would make more sense to say that the best way to prevent the spread of these diseases is to discourage the teenagers from engaging in this kind of behavior, rather than making the rest of society pay for their medical care so that they can continue to engage in it. There was another article in the paper recently about a Santeria priest who was denied the right to sacrifice goats in his home, because the city in which he lives has an ordinance against it. The purpose of the ordinance is to prevent the spread of disease. If it is a valid goal of society to prevent the spread of disease in a case like this, I cannot think of any reason why this principle would not apply to behavior that is likely to spread a sexually transmitted disease as well.

If, then, it is to the general advantage of society to limit behavior that is likely to lead to the spread of disease and certain kinds of sexual behavior are likely to lead to the spread of disease, then it is reasonable for government to place limits on those kinds of behavior. If it is a valid goal of government to protect the right of property and certain kinds of sexual behavior make it necessary for people to support the children of others as well as their own, or to pay for their medical care, then it is reasonable for government to place limits on that kind of behavior as well. If, therefore, people are to live in a free society, it may well be necessary for government to tell people with whom they may or may not have sex.

We are now ready to consider the question of sex with animals, but that will have to wait until the next entry.