THE EDITOR, Sir:IT IS FOOLISH of us not to recognize that the private actions of individuals impact upon the distribution of state resources and thus upon the quality of life enjoyed by others. Smoking, drinking, promiscuous sex all have adverse impact upon the health systems and do drain public funds. How then can we say that the state should have no say in bedroom activities?
If a law represents the condensation of the moral convictions of a people (or a majority in a democracy) then to argue that a repeal of such a law doesn't send contradictory messages is simply disingenuous at best or thoughtless at worst.
A change in law represents a repositioning of sorts, a change in perspectives held a reneging of previous convictions. When you change a law you argue that there is a radical re-alignment of social forces and prescription for human behaviour.
A law, however, only creates a framework within which certain social actions and activities can be encouraged or denied ascendancy. Respect, tolerance and human rights observation can be encouraged through the law, but they cannot be legislated into the hearts and lives of people.
Political, moral or sexual pluralism doesn't mean that there are not universal, objective and timeless or absolute moral values. Social agents may enter a debate about the content of these values but we cannot deny their existence, as long as conscience continues to have its writ in our hearts. And if these absolute moral values still obtain, then the state has as much right as any other agency to take a position on them, if indeed they have consequences on the grand social welfare.
I am, etc.,
RYAN PALMER
roppalmer@hotmail.com
England
