Modern morality can go play on the railway track. It’s based on Kant’s philosophy rooted in agnosticism and subjectivism, but taken even more out of context and headed much more on the relativist side as well. The result is that:
- There’s nothing objective, which means things are what we see them. Objective qualities are an abstraction lost on people. This breeds even more egocentrism.
- There’s nothing objective, meaning there are no moral rules binding on all. This means we can essentially make the rules for ourselves. That means we can make it good to do what feels good to us.
- There’s nothing absolute, so no nagging reminders of there being one Truth.
However, the reality is that there is objective existence, that there is absolute Truth (the Truth is ultimately God, that means the Truth is a person). The world is lost.
Now, how much do we need to care about their, “that’s not done anymore,” or, “that’s from the fourties,” or whatever else?
As for me, I don’t get the whole sexual thing. I mean, sure, I feel awfully lonely sometimes when passing the flower stall or the city park gate and thinking there’s no girl to get it for or go there with, but the whole focus on sex? There are so many things to do together and so many bodily needs - including more pressing ones. If cohabitation goes… I wouldn’t be a formalist about sharing rooms or something like that, but I don’t like any try-before-buy attitudes or the false-obligation inflicted by peer pressure (as in if you don’t have sex because you’re Catholic, at least still live together, blaah). Some things are best reserved for marriage. Besides, temptations come to everyone. You never know what may happen.
As for the sinfulness of cohabitation, it doesn’t always have to include premarital sexual relations. Sometimes it feels to me like people make a bigger thing out of cohabitation than out of premarital sex. Let me state that cohabitation is largely a social thing, causing largely a social outrage, whereas premarital sexual relations are the real sin there.