is premarital sex bad? why?

[EasterJoy]

Oh, how trenchant this is.

And what a great irony, no? In an effort for women to declare their rights, they ended up, in a Machiavellian twist, playing right into the men’s (literal) hands.

The idea that the current state of marriage and the wide acceptance of extramarital sexual consort somehow benefits men is another con job. Many men may have thought so, but most live to realize what a great error that thinking was.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You do see the irony in this statement, I hope, BEL?

Incidentally, I’ve always found it curious that folks think that a particular degree is required to make a particular conclusion.

Imagine if you said: Donald Trump has a fake tan!
and I responded: Well, BEL, since you’ve been evaluating melanin in individuals since, what, 2003, you’re an expert or something?

I think we would all be justified in rolling our eyes, no?



This, I think, is very, very bad science.

Kind of like: I think you’ll find a lot of folks who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and never got cancer, so, you know, Dr. PR, your assertion that smoking is really unhealthy is clearly false!

Uh…yes, call me an elitist if you will, but I do believe you need a medical degree to make diagnosis. More to the point, it’s against medical ethics for real doctors to make proclamations like yours because it’s understood that it’s impossible to say things like that. And having done the hookup thing and knowing countless others who did too, I’ll take our anecdotes over your silly suppositions any day.

 

[MichaelP3]

You do see the irony in this statement, I hope, BEL?

Incidentally, I’ve always found it curious that folks think that a particular degree is required to make a particular conclusion.

Imagine if you said: Donald Trump has a fake tan!
and I responded: Well, BEL, since you’ve been evaluating melanin in individuals since, what, 2003, you’re an expert or something?

I think we would all be justified in rolling our eyes, no?



This, I think, is very, very bad science.

Kind of like: I think you’ll find a lot of folks who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and never got cancer, so, you know, Dr. PR, your assertion that smoking is really unhealthy is clearly false!

It seems like merger thinks Atheists are bad people. Well I just want to declare **Not all Christians believe that. **

 

[Rau]

…And having done the hookup thing and knowing countless others who did too…

As someone with a deal of experience of the hookup thing, do you judge it to be an experience better for a young person to have or to avoid?

 

[Rau]

It seems like merger thinks Atheists are bad people.

Michael, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[PRmerger]

Uh…yes, call me an elitist if you will, but I do believe you need a medical degree to make diagnosis.

Actually, this is far from correct.

Regardless of the above misinformed assertion, anyone with some some good discernment skills can make judgements and conclusions.

 

[PRmerger]

And having done the hookup thing and knowing countless others who did too, I’ll take our anecdotes over your silly suppositions any day.

[SIGN]“I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, honey and didn’t get cancer!” Checkmate, Science![/SIGN]

Anecdotal “I’m just fine, thank you very much” vs Logic and Science writ large.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think anyone said they weren’t committed. The charge is that they aren’t married and do not consider themselves *legally *bound in any way.

So if a couple are committed to each other but are not legally bound, then the sex is immoral. But if they sign some legal paperwork, then the sex is fine. Signing some paperwork doesn’t necessarily make you more committed. I speak from personal experience so you now have a minor problem. You can say that I wasn’t as committed to my partner before some documents were signed – which you can’t, or you can admit that some people can be just as committed to each other without autographing a piece of paper.

The Catholic Church does not recognize a common law marriage as a valid natural marriage–that is the category of marriage that is not between two baptized persons–even if a state might recognize the relationship as worthy of the benefits of civil marriage, because such a relationship suffers from a defect in the form necessary for a valid marriage.

So now it’s immoral if the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise it? This is getting more weird. I’m pretty certain that your church would not recognise my marriage so is the sex I have wrong? Simply because of that fact? As I said, I need something concrete to tell me if something is wrong. Having a religious organisation refusing to recognise the relationship I have with my wife doesn’t really make the grade.

So yes, the Church would consider that while such a couple had consummated their marriage, they had never ratified it.

Again, I could care less whether the Church considers me married or not.

This thread is talking about sexual relations between persons who do not consider themselves married to each other by their own definition as well as by the definition of the secular jurisdiction in which they live.

Extra marital sex means sex outside of marriage and you have spent most of your post describing the type of relationships which are not acceptable to your church as being married. That would include the relationship I have with my partner. So you are insisting that the sex we have is, ipso facto, wrong.

Notwithstanding that the lifetime commitment people make to each other is a lot more meaningful than some legal paperwork. But you want to insist that sex is a very bad thing until they sign said paperwork. Do you really think that some people breathe a sigh of relief when the marriage is made legal, as if to say: ‘Phew, now I can relax. Now I know you really meant it’. Would you accept your partner saying after the ceremony: ‘Well, looks like I’m really committed now’.

 

[PRmerger]

So if a couple are committed to each other but are not legally bound, then the sex is immoral. But if they sign some legal paperwork, then the sex is fine. Signing some paperwork doesn’t necessarily make you more committed. I speak from personal experience so you now have a minor problem. You can say that I wasn’t as committed to my partner before some documents were signed – which you can’t, or you can admit that some people can be just as committed to each other without autographing a piece of paper.

You are fully committed? Then sign on the dotted line!

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

You don’t think so?

Also, could you please answer the question as to whether you believe a concept can be harmed, or if only material beings can be harmed?

 

[Rau]

Just to confirm terminology - common law marriage means a de facto marriage…where the State essentially deems the parties married (at least for some purposes) by virtue of their behaviour, and despite the absence of the formalities prescribed by the State to establish a marriage.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

[SIGN]“I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, honey and didn’t get cancer!” Checkmate, Science![/SIGN]

Anecdotal “I’m just fine, thank you very much” vs Logic and Science writ large.

It must be nice to feel qualified to come to a conclusion and just call it science and logic. Where is the science that says women who like casual sex are medicating away problems? This statement isn’t even bad science or logic, it’s totally nonsensical. No mental health professional would ever make such a blanket statement, nor would they diagnose a problem on that one bit of information alone. What exactly makes you more qualified than doctors?

In the absence of specific data, all you can do is look around. Do a lot of normal, healthy people engage in or have a history of engaging in casual sex? Looks like it.

Keep in mind, it doesn’t have to have negative consequences to be immoral. You don’t have to justify your religious stances with science. And you shouldn’t, because even if it were a big problem, those consequences could be worked around and it would still be sinful.

 

[o_mlly]

So if a couple are committed to each other but are not legally bound, then the sex is immoral. But if they sign some legal paperwork, then the sex is fine. Signing some paperwork doesn’t necessarily make you more committed. I speak from personal experience so you now have a minor problem. You can say that I wasn’t as committed to my partner before some documents were signed – which you can’t, or you can admit that some people can be just as committed to each other without autographing a piece of paper.

Legality is mere formality. What one wills, I believe, is substantial – literally, what one stands under. While synchronizing one’s legal (apparent) beliefs for the community with one’s actual beliefs is always preferred one’s validity is still a matter of one’s own conscience. Be true to yourself.

So So now it’s immoral if the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise it? This is getting more weird. I’m pretty certain that your church would not recognise my marriage so is the sex I have wrong? Simply because of that fact? As I said, I need something concrete to tell me if something is wrong. Having a religious organisation refusing to recognise the relationship I have with my wife doesn’t really make the grade.

Your wife and you, like my wife and I, determine the sanctity of our marriage by the state of our wills. The church’s recognition of our marriage, as members of a community, is only important to those who desire to belong to that community in good standing: important for me, not for you.

So Again, I could care less whether the Church considers me married or not.

As a non-believer, the Church does and should recognize your marriage as real. And as a believer, my need for church affirmation, I trust, you understand is necessary for me. Like you, I could care less if the Buddhists found my marriage lacking in some respect and deemed it invalid.

So Extra marital sex means sex outside of marriage and you have spent most of your post describing the type of relationships which are not acceptable to your church as being married. That would include the relationship I have with my partner. So you are insisting that the sex we have is, ipso facto, wrong.

I do not think that the Catholic Church imposes on non-believers and, most certainly, on the non-baptized any moral standards beyond the natural law.
I’ve read many of your posts, and I believe Bradski to be searcher of the Truth. I also believe the “Hound of heaven” chases you without ceasing. If you are searching and He is chasing then the outcome is inevitable.

So Notwithstanding that the lifetime commitment people make to each other is a lot more meaningful than some legal paperwork. But you want to insist that sex is a very bad thing until they sign said paperwork. Do you really think that some people breathe a sigh of relief when the marriage is made legal, as if to say: ‘Phew, now I can relax. Now I know you really meant it’. Would you accept your partner saying after the ceremony: ‘Well, looks like I’m really committed now’.

Paper may cover rock. But one’s will always covers paper.

 

[pensmama87]

In the absence of specific data, all you can do is look around. Do a lot of normal, healthy people engage in or have a history of engaging in casual sex? Looks like it..

Some of this may depend on exactly how one defines casual sex, but AFAIK, having many casual sex partners can be a marker for mental health problems because it’s a high risk behavior, and normal, mentally healthy people tend not to engage in high risk behaviors. As a standalone, especially in this day and age, probably not so much as before, but no, it’s not widely regarded as a normal and healthy behavior, and I actually think the degree to which it occurs is vastly overstated. The people I do know who actually have had, say, 10+ partners (that I know of)? No, those are not the people I would consider models of healthy, normal, functioning adults - and there’s evidence of that besides their tangled love lives. People who have had 2-3 monogamous, long-term relationships that involved sex? They would probably fall under the “normal and healthy” umbrella, but to me that’s not hookup culture or “casual sex.”

I still think there’s the potential for harm (having been in that particular camp myself) but no, I don’t think that’s as damaging as having sex with someone you just met that day at a party over a few beers, and then repeating that several times a year for who knows how long.

There’s also the view, that you probably disagree with, that what you consider “normal and healthy” is not considered “normal and healthy” by more traditional people. One thing I have noticed since marrying and having children, and becoming more serious about the faith, is how “hard” many secular people are, and how much I have “softened” since then. I have a lot of respect for you as a poster and you are very fair-minded about religious people, but there are some viewpoints that you have expressed that would be evidence of that “hardness,” that are common (IME) among people my age who don’t have faith or don’t practice. The fact that they’re common doesn’t make them right, and academic disciplines are susceptible to fads.

As I said, though, I doubt you’ll agree.

 

[pianistclare]

One thing I have noticed since marrying and having children, and becoming more serious about the faith, is how “hard” many secular people are, and how much I have “softened” since then. I have a lot of respect for you as a poster and you are very fair-minded about religious people, but there are some viewpoints that you have expressed that would be evidence of that “hardness,” that are common (IME) among people my age who don’t have faith or don’t practice.

I think you’re on to something here.
I’ve found this to be so as well. And that “hardness” often comes from a gnawing disappointment that these free relationships didn’t ever lead to real happiness, real satisfaction, or a lasting relationship. One that they often, can’t admit, because they are convinced that they didn’t make any mistakes. They were just “doing their thing”.

 

[Bradski]

You are fully committed? Then sign on the dotted line! Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

O_mlly answers that question quite well.

Legality is mere formality. What one wills, I believe, is substantial – literally, what one stands under. While synchronizing one’s legal (apparent) beliefs for the community with one’s actual beliefs is always preferred one’s validity is still a matter of one’s own conscience. Be true to yourself.

And as I have said numerous times before (and this for the last time), fidelity is a two way street. Such things as promises can be discarded so the trust between two people will no longer exist. If I cheat on my wife, whether she knows it or not, our relationship would not be the same. It would not be as it was before. It would be broken. I would be lying to her either explicitly or implicitly and that is undoubtedly a bad thing. So something was good and now it is not. Harm has been done.

I do not think that the Catholic Church imposes on non-believers and, most certainly, on the non-baptized any moral standards beyond the natural law.

Slippery concept this. Now it’s simply natural law that determines if sex is good or bad. So if a couple in a lifetime relationship which the church doesn’t recognise as marriage has sex in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that a married couple would, then there is no difference as regards morality. Except that one couple is having sex within marriage and the other couple is indulging in sex outside the institution of marriage.

The question would seem to have been answered.

 

[pensmama87]

I think you’re on to something here.
I’ve found this to be so as well. And that “hardness” often comes from a gnawing disappointment that these free relationships didn’t ever lead to real happiness, real satisfaction, or a lasting relationship. One that they often, can’t admit, because they are convinced that they didn’t make any mistakes. They were just “doing their thing”.

Sorry Clare, I ended up deleting the post you quoted! I didn’t want to open too much more of a can of worms. But yes, that is my experience.

There have been many cultures over the centuries that have had almost “pet” vices - vices that were considered normal by a majority or at least a significant minority, and people who didn’t engage in it or spoke out against it were considered odd, at the least. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe that promiscuity could be one of today’s, even though I have heard it explained away as “different” from all the “repression” that came before. I don’t find those explanations particularly convincing.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m pretty certain that your church would not recognise my marriage so is the sex I have wrong? Simply because of that fact?

Simply because of a little old thing that’s a fact?

Really, Bradski?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Imagine an illegal immigrant who says regarding this election: “I’m pretty certain that your country would not recognize my right to vote here, so is my vote wrong? Simply because of that fact?”

Ummm…yeah. Simply because of that…fact.

 

[EasterJoy]

So if a couple are committed to each other but are not legally bound, then the sex is immoral. But if they sign some legal paperwork, then the sex is fine. Signing some paperwork doesn’t necessarily make you more committed. I speak from personal experience so you now have a minor problem. You can say that I wasn’t as committed to my partner before some documents were signed – which you can’t, or you can admit that some people can be just as committed to each other without autographing a piece of paper.

So now it’s immoral if the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise it? This is getting more weird. I’m pretty certain that your church would not recognise my marriage so is the sex I have wrong? Simply because of that fact? As I said, I need something concrete to tell me if something is wrong. Having a religious organisation refusing to recognise the relationship I have with my wife doesn’t really make the grade.

Again, I could care less whether the Church considers me married or not.

Extra marital sex means sex outside of marriage and you have spent most of your post describing the type of relationships which are not acceptable to your church as being married. That would include the relationship I have with my partner. So you are insisting that the sex we have is, ipso facto, wrong.

Notwithstanding that the lifetime commitment people make to each other is a lot more meaningful than some legal paperwork. But you want to insist that sex is a very bad thing until they sign said paperwork. Do you really think that some people breathe a sigh of relief when the marriage is made legal, as if to say: ‘Phew, now I can relax. Now I know you really meant it’. Would you accept your partner saying after the ceremony: ‘Well, looks like I’m really committed now’.

You speak very flippantly about “pieces of paper” and how meaningless they are. The courts are full of business partners who didn’t see a need for a “piece of paperwork,” and later their attorneys shake their heads at the foolishness of finding yourself in court paying legal fees because you and the other party in court assumed you had a binding agreement when you either had no such thing or each of you assumed a different agreement than the other one assumed or one of you just changed your mind and didn’t feel like honoring the commitment.

Marriage–legal marriage, marriage where there is explicit exchange of consent–is a real thing. Establishment of a common law marriage requires many years of living together as a married couple in order to exhibit what explicit words do…and who is it exhibited to? The rest of the community. If you don’t care about whether anyone else honors what you want to call a commitment, if you don’t care that no one else will be there for you when you object to your partner who abandons your commitment, if you don’t believe that many people DO feel as if their partner is really all-in because they are willing to clear their throats and actually say “I do” instead of hemming and hawing around and evading an answer…why are you even here?

I am tried to explain to you what the Catholic Church considers a marriage and what it does not, because you are posting on a Catholic forum. If you don’t care what the Catholic Church teaches or how it sees this issue, I fail to see why you are posting here at all. Do *you *know?

 

[o_mlly]

…Slippery concept this. Now it’s simply natural law that determines if sex is good or bad. So if a couple in a lifetime relationship which the church doesn’t recognise as marriage has sex in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that a married couple would, then there is no difference as regards morality. Except that one couple is having sex within marriage and the other couple is indulging in sex outside the institution of marriage. …

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of non-Catholic marriages which have no impediments and have civil recognition. If your de facto union is recognized as marriage by the state then the Church recognizes the public form as sufficient.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

 

[Bradski]

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of non-Catholic marriages which have no impediments and have civil recognition. If your de facto union is recognized as marriage by the state then the Church recognizes the public form as sufficient.

It seems the concept of marriage is the bone of contention.

If my partner and I make a lifetime committment to each other and decide that getting married is not required becuase we need nothing more than our committment to each other, then by any definition, at the time we make that committment, we are not married.

Yet, given enough time, the state will recognise it as a defacto relationship. If the state recognises it as such then, according to what you have said, the church will as well.

This is the odd part. The day we make the committment the union is not recognised by the state or by the church. Afte a period of time, it will be. So the sex we have when we make the committment is apparently wrong, and the sex we have after the state and the church deign to grant us the assumption that we are indeed a couple, is fine.

Now do you see any logic in that at all?