is premarital sex bad? why?

[Rau]

…All agreed. But there seems to be some confusion over the term ‘obligation’. In this context is doesn’t imply compulsion. It doesn’t mean that you have to return the money. The obligation is a sense that you should return the money not that you must. Generally, people will do what they feel is the right thing to do. Quite often, the ‘obligation’ is then passed on so that the person getting the money back will feel an obligation to do the same thing if he finds some money. And then we call these acts moral.

Obligation must mean more than a “sense” about what should be done. Is an obligation not a duty? Has one not failed in some objective sense if he chooses to retain the money when the alternative course (return it) was available? The “sense” that you are describing may well reflect or align with the moral course of action - but it’s a sense that may arise entirely absent any notions of “what comes around goes around”.

I agree obligation is not “compulsion” - there is no enforcer on the scene - we have the capability to act otherwise. It is a duty (owed to others - but why?). And it is more than a mere sense. Perhaps that “sense” is something which gives a hint as to our duty?

 

[inocente]

I think dating is the process to get to know one another. If you sleep before it still doesn’t guarantee it will work. You don’t want to have extra baggage. Not saying it won’t work but marriage is better. It’s not like marriage will work either but do things God’s way and have faith it should work out very well

You’re the person who started this thread, and the CAF search says this was your last post six days ago.

I think you’ve given the best answer to your question on the whole thread, because it’s what you think is the right thing to do.

Imho always follow your own conscience, because when you don’t you always sin since “everything that does not come from faith is sin” - Romans 14.

 

[Bradski]

Really? Morality is as we do? Morality is what the majority are OK with at the time? Or what each of us is individually OK with?

Allow me to take one step back if I may. I should have specified that I was referring to altruism. Which covers a whole gamut of moral ‘rules’, but may not include them all.

As altruism is innate and is observable throughout nature then it is entirely natural. A lot of people at various times have observed it and encouraged it, but they were commenting on a way of acting that is hard wired.

You may as well recommend hunger as being a good thing to encourage eating (and claim it as a Christian concept while you’re at it).

 

[Bradski]

I agree obligation is not “compulsion” - there is no enforcer on the scene - we have the capability to act otherwise. It is a duty (owed to others - but why?). And it is more than a mere sense. Perhaps that “sense” is something which gives a hint as to our duty?

A sense of obligation? A sense of duty? A sense of fair play? I think that they all amount to the same thing. At it’s crudest: ‘scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’. But it’s often a simple repayment of a kindness.

Keep passing it on and the world is a better place.

 

[o_mlly]

…You are quite right. There are reasons why extra marital sex could be bad. But to say that the reasons are applicable in all cases and at all times is absurd…

Under what circumstances would extra-marital sex be good?

 

[Rau]

A sense of obligation? A sense of duty? A sense of fair play? I think that they all amount to the same thing. At it’s crudest: ‘scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’. But it’s often a simple repayment of a kindness.

Keep passing it on and the world is a better place.

Not “sense of duty” - we experience a sense that…we have a duty. And we do. The duty is the thing, not the “sense” of it. There is objective failure in ignoring the duty, no? And the money is to be returned regardless of whether a good deed in return is on the cards. [And regardless of whether we might put it toward a cancer cure, but it’s owner will blow it on booze.]

 

[Bradski]

Under what circumstances would extra-marital sex be good?

That’s not the question. The question is whether it is bad in all circumstances.

 

[Rau]

That’s not the question. The question is whether it is bad in all circumstances.

Waddya reckon?

 

[Bradski]

Not “sense of duty” - we experience a sense that…we have a duty. And we do. The duty is the thing, not the “sense” of it. There is objective failure in ignoring the duty, no?

Yes. There is a risk of a failire of the system.

 

[Bradski]

Waddya reckon?

Lets say a couple has been together in a comitted relationship for decades. Is the sex they have somehow wrong? Does the fact that they are not married make it bad in some way?

 

[Rosebud77]

But repressing sexual urges is not a good thing. Repression is often used by psychologists as a big criticism of Catholicism. The* Imitation of Christ* also makes it clear that merely avoiding sin is a bad thing unless we uproot it from within us. It’s only with God’s help that we can successfully deal with a strong sexual drive that is present in our society today. I think it is better to give into this type of sin than repressing it. Being contrite by condemning the strong sex drive within us is key.

Imitation of Christ as others have said is a book for monastics who have a totally different set of values where eg sex is concerned which you have completely misunderstood…

A Life Vow of Chastity is what he is speaking of,. Not casual sex in a lay setting. When there may well be marriage ahead…
Saying NO and living a chaste life in any setting through choice is NOT repression. why listen to lay psychs?

Give in to sin? Shaking my old grey head here… NEVER

Be not conformed to this world…

 

[Rau]

Lets say a couple has been together in a comitted relationship for decades. Is the sex they have somehow wrong? Does the fact that they are not married make it bad in some way?

Sounds like marriage!

Actually, I mis-read the question to be referring to adulterous acts!

 

[goout]

…
There appears to be some mysterious access Christians have to answers to moral problems that atheists do not have. They believe in a Moral Law (mustn’t forget the upper case!) and therefore there must be a Moral Lawgiver and therefore…well, therefore what? It seems to be suggested that Christians then have access to what ought to be done as opposed to just, well I don’t know, expressing a personal opinion.

So sex outside marriage is wrong. Look, it says here and here and it taught there and Jesus said it (or more accurately was reported to have said it) and so it must be right. As opposed to the atheists who have to work these things out themselves. You know, give concrete, real life, relevant reasons for something being right or wrong. To look for actual consequences of a given act. Which, wouldn’t you know, Catholics seem to do as well and there have been numerous examples in this thread. So what’s the difference in how we approach problems?

It turns out that there is none. Except for the fact that Catholics have a limited set of specific moral rules that they are meant to follow and which they can declare to be inherently correct, such as extra marital sex. But even in a case such as that, Catholics are required to give concrete, real life, relevant reasons for it being wrong. Otherwise anyone who simply makes an appeal to authority is simply going to be ignored. Hence the concrete, real life reasons given for not indulging in premarital sex and for disallowing SSM and for not playing with your own genitalia.

As Blue Eyed Lady mentioned, Sam Harris is of the belief that we can determine what is right or wrong by straightforward reasonable arguments. Should we use drones? Is factory farming acceptable? Should medical marijuana be available? I can’t recall seeing any of these problems being addressed in the bible. I can’t recall Jesus talking about the acceptable number of chickens per square metre. So how do Catholics differ to atheists in their approach to these problems? The simple answer is: They don’t. A Catholic is fully justified in saying that we ought not to direct an air strike at a hospital or we ought not to pack a hundred chooks into a one metre square pen. As is an atheist. But for a Catholic to baldly state that his ‘ought’ carries more weight than an atheist ‘ought’ simply because he believes in a Moral Lawgiver is frankly absurd.

So please point me to the standard of reference for determining the morality of factory farming.

You have one. How do you determine what we ‘ought’ to do and how will it differ from how I approach the same problem?

Brad.
You’re on a Catholic forum where Catholics go on all day proposing specific moral precepts sourced in God. For you to ask for a moral stand on this forum is laughable. I for one will opt not to waste time addressing it.

You can solve this problem for yourself by hitching up your pants, taking a stand, and telling us what it is that atheists propose for a moral society.

It’s very easy for atheists to come here and attack the good all day long, while at the same time throwing up their hands professing belief in nothing.
Strikes me as cowardice and ill will.

 

[goout]

That’s not the question. The question is whether it is bad in all circumstances.

Yes, extra marital sex is bad in all circumstances.

Extra marital sex acts are not ordered to the good of human existence and flourishing.

That’s a statement of morality Brad. It’s a specific evaluation and it’s based on the observance of an objective good.

It’s expressed in the Catholic Catechism and in many other documents and teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Naya is ostracized.

Except, this doesn’t happen.

(And we know from sociology, current events as well as history, that oh-so-many times bad actions result in NO BAD consequences.)

Does this make her neglect good?

Is it only based on consequences?

 

[EasterJoy]

I think dating is the process to get to know one another. If you sleep before it still doesn’t guarantee it will work. You don’t want to have extra baggage. Not saying it won’t work but marriage is better. It’s not like marriage will work either but do things God’s way and have faith it should work out very well

Do things God’s way, and the obedience that keeps you near Him will give you life, whereas the stubbornness in which you would have had to defy Him will leave you to your own unhappy judgment.

More to the point in a secular setting: You have the authority to decide that “as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Jos. 24:15) That is reason enough.

There are even Catholics out there who will try to sway someone they are dating with arguments that imply that the right to bodily integrity is not absolute, that a person has to have some argument that convinces their dating partner before they have a right to withhold sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you marry, you promise that you will give your body to your spouse. Otherwise, no one has a right to expect you to have to come up with some reason to refuse to have sex with them. They do not have the right to conclude that you do not love them, that you are selfish, that you have a warped view of sex, or any of the rest.

All those arguments are a big con, and a con that most adults, religious or not, knew was a con not even a hundred years ago! All this business about “harming ourselves by repressing our biological function of sex” and “having sex is what people do when they truly love each other” and that it is “selfish” (!!??!!) to even hope your spouse will not have fallen into sexual sin before you marry each other and whatnot is nothing else but an excuse for pressuring someone who has unassailable principled reasons for refusal to engage in extramarital sex to give in and agree to it, anyway.

There is NEVER a necessity to engage in extramarital sex. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. They may be lying to themselves, too, I do not mean that they are consciously running a con on you. Their thinking is mired in a lie, though. They are certainly either deceived, deceiving or both. Do not let yourself be made to feel like a “prude” because you are not drawn into this lie with them.

Even in a totally secular setting, there is an increasing awareness that this right to bodily integrity is real and supersedes all the “biological urges” and other arguments in the world. Stick up for it, always, even among non-believers. The secular world needs for people to take that right back for themselves–that is, the right to say, “no, we are not married and I do not need to give any reason to refuse to have sex with you”–very desperately. Even a prostitute has the right to refuse to have sex, and owes no one any excuse. Every person who has not promised their bodies in marriage has that right. (The person who has promised his or her body in marriage can still legitimately refuse to engage in marital relations on occasion, but does owe his or her spouse a reason for refusal.)

 

[EasterJoy]

Lets say a couple has been together in a comitted relationship for decades. Is the sex they have somehow wrong? Does the fact that they are not married make it bad in some way?

It makes it bad that they have chosen to consummate their relationship but refuse to ratify it. They are normalizing extramarital sex and pretending that the formal exchange of consent between a man and a woman prior to entering into a sexual relationship is an unnecessary exercise.

I am not saying that informal exchange of consent has no reality to it, but that this world we live in where consent is becoming more and more something that a person in a “committed” relationship is not being given the social standing to refuse. If there is an expectation, it is that sexual intimacy is expected *prior to *the exchange of formal binding consent. The right to refuse to have sex is being undermined and questioned. People who refuse to have sex before marriage are becoming the social pariahs–what does that say? It says that the right to refuse to have sex prior to marriage is being eroded by the expectation that formal consent isn’t necessary. That means that people are increasingly being subjected to the expectation that they are expected by society to extend the benefits of marriage to a prospective spouse before that person has made a commitment.

That is a bad sociological trend, but it is very real. The feminists are going so far as to call the prevailing expectation that has resulted a “rape culture.” They mean that the absolute right to refuse to have sex without any need for excuse has been denied to unmarried persons, and they are quite correct about that.

 

[EasterJoy]

The feminists are going so far as to call the prevailing expectation that has resulted a “rape culture.” They mean that the absolute right to refuse to have sex without any need for excuse has been denied to unmarried persons, and they are quite correct about that.

Some feminists would extend the right to refuse sex* without reason *to married couples, rather than recognizing that married persons sometimes have just cause to refuse to have marital relations, but this is unjust. How can someone promise their bodies, expect fidelity and promise their spouse the prospect of marital relations confined to marriage and yet refuse to give what they promised without any legitimate factor excusing them from what they promised?

 

[Bradski]

Brad.
You’re on a Catholic forum where Catholics go on all day proposing specific moral precepts sourced in God. For you to ask for a moral stand on this forum is laughable. I for one will opt not to waste time addressing it.

You can solve this problem for yourself by hitching up your pants, taking a stand, and telling us what it is that atheists propose for a moral society.

It’s very easy for atheists to come here and attack the good all day long, while at the same time throwing up their hands professing belief in nothing.
Strikes me as cowardice and ill will.

So how does this work again? You ask for a moral problem so that you can specifiy how you evaluate it…

Where are the standards? You can ask me a number of moral questions to which I will provide specific moral evaluations.

…and when a rather simple problem is proffered ypu get on your high horse and accuse me of ill will and cowardice. I take offence very rarely, but you are pushing my good will somewhat.

Notwithstanding that you obviously haven’t taken aboard what I have been discussing for the last umpteen posts.

Perhaps I should give you a problem that is covered by what the church teaches so it’s easier for you.

 

[goout]

So how does this work again? You ask for a moral problem so that you can specifiy how you evaluate it…

…and when a rather simple problem is proffered ypu get on your high horse and accuse me of ill will and cowardice. I take offence very rarely, but you are pushing my good will somewhat.

Notwithstanding that you obviously haven’t taken aboard what I have been discussing for the last umpteen posts.

Perhaps I should give you a problem that is covered by what the church teaches so it’s easier for you.

Brad, let’s be honest.
Your assertion that your questions go unaddressed are just patently laughable.

The Church has very well defined morality.
You attack it pretty consistently, while proposing vague alternatives of morality based on popular opinion and vague notions of well being, which cannot be disputed because they are vague.
So, that’s good for you I suppose. It allows you to sink your teeth in to something while avoiding being bitten yourself.

I call hypocrisy.