Is sex before marriage truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marie_Graham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kensho said:
Look at it this way. You could get a hold of a package of unblessed communion wafers and eat them, arguing that they are no different from the blessed wafers, but the fact remains that without the sacrament for which they were intended, there’s nothing there but physical matter and human sentiment. Sex outside the sacrament of marriage is the same. We believe that God is literally present in His sacraments and that they literally change what is merely physical into the spiritual made tangible.
Click to expand...
This is such a good analogy!
 
I know how hard it can be to accept when every single secular teaching on sex is that it’s pushed as natual and happens when you ‘feel in love’ and ‘ready’.
If you were to say: “I’m not having sex 'till marriage.” you’ll get looks like you’ve grown another head. It’s like saying: “I’ve decided to start flying.”

But the truth is, Yes it’s always a mortal sin, and yes, you can control yourself and NOT have sex until marriage.

I got married at 21 years old, still a virgin - my husband married me at 24, still a virgin.
Was it difficult? Of course!
But it absolutely possible.

It was even more difficult when I became engaged; but we figured, ‘hey we’ve abstained so far - might as well keep it up until our wedding night.’ 😉

Peace,
~PetiteFoi
 
Ok, first, I just want to say that I understand where you are coming from. I am engaged to be married to a wonderful man. We love each other deeply and it would take something astronomical to prevent us from marrying this fall. I truly understand that for a couple whose relationship has developed to the point that they’re ready to get married their relationship (emotions, trust in each other, security, etc) have developed to a point where they are ready for sex. They really have. I mean, its not like two people are like friends up until their wedding and then all of a sudden are ready for sex. There is a gradual deepening and maturing of the relationship that readies them for marriage such that in just about all aspects they are ready to give themselves fully to each other before they actually marry. So a lot of the problems that come along with sex outside of marriage have been removed in their situation. Because of this it makes it very tempting for them to think there is no real reason to wait, their relationship has deepened, their getting married in a few months anyway etc etc. However, having said that, there is still something missing. What is missing is that irrevocable and unconditional vow to commit oneself to the other. And that is no small matter.

I just want to preface this by saying that when I tell you not to have sex before marriage I am not just saying it because the Church says so, but rather, because from my understanding and experience of reality I am so completely convinced of this fact that it doesn’t matter if I suddenly became an atheist tomorrow, I would still be convinced that noone should have sex unless they have first made an explicit, irrevocable and unconditional commitment to the other. This is both because it is uncharitable to both people involved as well as being uncharitable to any childrren they may conceive.

Its uncharitable to the couple involved because the complete gift of self involved in sex is so deep, it opens oneself up to the other completely, one becomes completely naked and vulnerable, both in body, mind, and soul, before the other with immense potential for harm and pain to be inflicted on oneself if the other ever turns away from you. It is extremely uncharitable to ask someone, especially someone you truly love, to ask them for this complete gift of self without first giving them a binding promise of commitment. To do otherwise is essentially to tell them “I want you to open yourself up for me and become completely vulnerable before me such that me ever turning awway from you will cause you immense pain, harm, and heartache, and I want you to do this without me making a binding and unconditional promise that I will never leave you and will remain commited to you forever”. How unbelievably selfish is that demand!! If one truly understood the depth of self-giving, and the importance and dignity every single person deserves as a person, then how could one ever ask that of anyone, especially someone they love so dearly, without first making an explicit and binding commitment to them? They deserve better, You deserve better.

Secondly, this also effects any children that are conceived. Even if you use the pill or super conservative NFP there is still a chance that a child will be conceived. When you engage in sex before marriage you are essentially saying to any children you might conceive " I know that having a stable family is extremely important to your emotional health, development, and well-being, but I’m going to take a chance that you might come into existence without bothering to make an explicit and binding commitment to ensure that you will actually have the stable and loving home which you so badly need and deserve". Again, when you begin to look at what is really going on here it is actually incredibally selfish. Your own poor defenseless future children, would you really take a risk to bring them into existence without first ensuring not only that you personally make an explicit and binding commitment to establish a loving and stable home for them which they so desperately need and deserve but that their other parent also makes this same commitment?

While many, many aspects that are so important and necessary for a loving sexual relationship are in place once a couple have decided to get married, they are not all there, and it is actually incredibally selfish to not wait for that last and extremely important aspect, the binding and unconditional commitment of one spouse to the other. Without this, sex is always selfish, and so always immoral.
 
Is sex before marriage truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?

YES :sad_yes:
 
PennyinCanada said:
Let’s say we could wave a magic wand and have everyone on the planet have sex with only their spouse. Do you know what would happen?

We would wipe out teen pregnancy and all the abortions. That is not a small matter.

We wouldn’t have single parent families (OK, some, because spouses die) that mostly make up the people living in poverty. That is not a small matter. Who wouldn’t want to see a decrease in poverty?

We would wipe out all of the sexually transmitted diseases, which has exploded since people could take the pill and have sex, without concern of pregnancy. AIDS would no longer be a problem. Sterility from sexually transmitted diseases would be gone, and also some cancers. How huge is that?

All of these ‘curses’ on society would be wiped out because of a single commandment obeyed. What does that tell you? God’s design brings blessing upon individuals, families, and nations. To disregard this commandment brings chaos, destruction, illnesses, poverty, broken families.
Click to expand...
👍
 
thewanderer said:
Ok, first, I just want to say that I understand where you are coming from. I am engaged to be married to a wonderful man. We love each other deeply and it would take something astronomical to prevent us from marrying this fall. I truly understand that for a couple whose relationship has developed to the point that they’re ready to get married their relationship (emotions, trust in each other, security, etc) have developed to a point where they are ready for sex. They really have. I mean, its not like two people are like friends up until their wedding and then all of a sudden are ready for sex. There is a gradual deepening and maturing of the relationship that readies them for marriage such that in just about all aspects they are ready to give themselves fully to each other before they actually marry. So a lot of the problems that come along with sex outside of marriage have been removed in their situation. Because of this it makes it very tempting for them to think there is no real reason to wait, their relationship has deepened, their getting married in a few months anyway etc etc. However, having said that, there is still something missing. What is missing is that irrevocable and unconditional vow to commit oneself to the other. And that is no small matter.

I just want to preface this by saying that when I tell you not to have sex before marriage I am not just saying it because the Church says so, but rather, because from my understanding and experience of reality I am so completely convinced of this fact that it doesn’t matter if I suddenly became an atheist tomorrow, I would still be convinced that noone should have sex unless they have first made an explicit, irrevocable and unconditional commitment to the other. This is both because it is uncharitable to both people involved as well as being uncharitable to any childrren they may conceive.

Its uncharitable to the couple involved because the complete gift of self involved in sex is so deep, it opens oneself up to the other completely, one becomes completely naked and vulnerable, both in body, mind, and soul, before the other with immense potential for harm and pain to be inflicted on oneself if the other ever turns away from you. It is extremely uncharitable to ask someone, especially someone you truly love, to ask them for this complete gift of self without first giving them a binding promise of commitment. To do otherwise is essentially to tell them “I want you to open yourself up for me and become completely vulnerable before me such that me ever turning awway from you will cause you immense pain, harm, and heartache, and I want you to do this without me making a binding and unconditional promise that I will never leave you and will remain commited to you forever”. How unbelievably selfish is that demand!! If one truly understood the depth of self-giving, and the importance and dignity every single person deserves as a person, then how could one ever ask that of anyone, especially someone they love so dearly, without first making an explicit and binding commitment to them? They deserve better, You deserve better.

Secondly, this also effects any children that are conceived. Even if you use the pill or super conservative NFP there is still a chance that a child will be conceived. When you engage in sex before marriage you are essentially saying to any children you might conceive " I know that having a stable family is extremely important to your emotional health, development, and well-being, but I’m going to take a chance that you might come into existence without bothering to make an explicit and binding commitment to ensure that you will actually have the stable and loving home which you so badly need and deserve". Again, when you begin to look at what is really going on here it is actually incredibally selfish. Your own poor defenseless future children, would you really take a risk to bring them into existence without first ensuring not only that you personally make an explicit and binding commitment to establish a loving and stable home for them which they so desperately need and deserve but that their other parent also makes this same commitment?

While many, many aspects that are so important and necessary for a loving sexual relationship are in place once a couple have decided to get married, they are not all there, and it is actually incredibally selfish to not wait for that last and extremely important aspect, the binding and unconditional commitment of one spouse to the other. Without this, sex is always selfish, and so always immoral.
Click to expand...
The “loving and stable home” argument does not hold water. Being married in the Catholic Church with God’s full blessings does not garantee such a home for children to live in. What is the divorce/separation rate among Catholics married in the Church? Even if the spouses stay together, there is no garantee of a “loving and stable home” either if the parents are dysfunctional, immature, selfish, self-centered, have borderline personalities, are alcoholics etc. God’s plan is awesome on paper, in real life, not so much.
 
Robertanthony said:
The “loving and stable home” argument does not hold water. Being married in the Catholic Church with God’s full blessings does not garantee such a home for children to live in. What is the divorce/separation rate among Catholics married in the Church? Even if the spouses stay together, there is no garantee of a “loving and stable home” either if the parents are dysfunctional, immature, selfish, self-centered, have borderline personalities, are alcoholics etc. God’s plan is awesome on paper, in real life, not so much.
Click to expand...
There are no garantees, you are right.

But it is the best apporoach by far, and the “loving and stable home” argument still holds on a general level.

As others have discussed, if you look at the association between poverty (and any other socioeconomic measures) and marital status, the relationship is startling. A mum and dad in a linelong marriage is the bets possible environment for children, and as a foundation for society in general.

God’s plan is awsome…not just on paper, but in real life for those who cooperate with Him in living it.
 
Robertanthony said:
The “loving and stable home” argument does not hold water. Being married in the Catholic Church with God’s full blessings does not garantee such a home for children to live in. What is the divorce/separation rate among Catholics married in the Church? Even if the spouses stay together, there is no garantee of a “loving and stable home” either if the parents are dysfunctional, immature, selfish, self-centered, have borderline personalities, are alcoholics etc. God’s plan is awesome on paper, in real life, not so much.
Click to expand...
What you’re pointing out is that people are sinners. Ask any young woman that if given a choice, would she prefer to be married or single when pregnant, I can guess the answer would be married.

Certainly having sex while dating makes those sober and weighty decisions on whether or not a person is a good life partner and possibly good parent very difficult. Having sex clouds the judgement and people marry and find out 10 years later that they didn’t have a brain when they made that decision. Having sex before it’s time will do that. If the divorce/separation rate among Catholics is no better than the general public, it’s because they acted like the general public before marriage by having sex and contracepting. It’s a time to be sober and discerning and not throwing in hormones that dull the brain. It’s like asking someone who had too much to drink to make good decisions. They’ve hampered their ability to do so, by their own choice.
 
Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament is a physical expression of a spiritual reality. The wedding, with the vows and the blessings, is the spiritual part. Sex is the physical part. Having sex outside of marriage, therefore, is essentially committing sacrilege.

Bonus: you renew your vows every time you and your spouse have sex. 👍
 
Robertanthony said:
The “loving and stable home” argument does not hold water. Being married in the Catholic Church with God’s full blessings does not garantee such a home for children to live in. What is the divorce/separation rate among Catholics married in the Church? Even if the spouses stay together, there is no garantee of a “loving and stable home” either if the parents are dysfunctional, immature, selfish, self-centered, have borderline personalities, are alcoholics etc. God’s plan is awesome on paper, in real life, not so much.
Click to expand...
haha, I knew someone would bring that up, and its not just an objection for the kids loving and stable home, it is just as much of an objection to my first point. Here’s the thing though. My argument isn’t at all based on marriage somehow magically keeping families together or ensure that they always love each other. Its based on the fact that to ask (or force in the case of children) someone to put themselves in a position where you have an unbelievable capacity for causing them untold damage, without making a binding and irrevocable promise to do all that you can to ensure that you do not end up harming them is selfish. Whether or not you end up keeping that promise is another thing, and failing to keep such a promis is, of course, also extremely selfish, but that doesn’t matter to the point that I am making because that comes from a seperate action which takes place after the original action I am talking about. Asking or forcing another person to place themselves in an unbelievably vulnerable position where you have the capacity to cause them untold harm is unbelievably selfish without first making a binding and unconditional promise to them that you will not hurt them. Their human dignity demands that level of security and commitment.
 
PennyinCanada said:
We would wipe out teen pregnancy and all the abortions.
Click to expand...
Teen pregnancies yes, but this is not true about abortions, let alone all abortions. Married women have abortions too.

On the other hand, TheWanderer is so very right when she says:
Even if you use the pill or super conservative NFP there is still a chance that a child will be conceived. When you engage in sex before marriage you are essentially saying to any children you might conceive " I know that having a stable family is extremely important to your emotional health, development, and well-being, but I’m going to take a chance that you might come into existence without bothering to make an explicit and binding commitment to ensure that you will actually have the stable and loving home which you so badly need and deserve". Again, when you begin to look at what is really going on here it is actually incredibally selfish. Your own poor defenseless future children, would you really take a risk to bring them into existence without first ensuring not only that you personally make an explicit and binding commitment to establish a loving and stable home for them which they so desperately need and deserve but that their other parent also makes this same commitment?
Click to expand...
There are real cases of people who are 100% sure that they want to spend their life together and to get married, but when an unplanned pregnancy occurs, one of them gets scared and leaves. Or one of them (or both) think about aborting the child, because they feel unprepared. Marriage changes things, because it has this psychological effect of solidifying the commitment, the new status of both partners, their self-confidence and safety as real spouses. It’s not like the yesterday they were free to leave and today they are caught in a trap: it’s that yesterday they were incompletely committed and today they are fully committed.
 
Is sex before marriage truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Click to expand...
Is (premeditated murder) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Is (abortion) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Is (rape) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Is (mortal sin of your choice) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?

I’m not sure why it’s a difficult question.
 
vames said:
Teen pregnancies yes, but this is not true about abortions, let alone all abortions. Married women have abortions too.
Click to expand...
Yep. Married women account for about 15% of abortions. More than half have had a previous live birth.

And yes, of course premarital sex is always wrong, no matter how deaperately a couple wishes it weren’t. I remember those days!
 
Gordon_Sims said:
Is (premeditated murder) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Is (abortion) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Is (rape) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?
Is (mortal sin of your choice) truly immoral in EVERY SINGLE circumstance?

I’m not sure why it’s a difficult question.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how you can equate sex with murder and rape. Can you explain.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I don’t understand how you can equate sex with murder and rape. Can you explain.
Click to expand...
He is not equating sex with murder and rape. He is equating fornication with murder and rape in the sense that all three are mortal sins, not that all three are of equal seriousness.
 
Kensho said:
He is not equating sex with murder and rape. He is equating fornication with murder and rape in the sense that all three are mortal sins, not that all three are of equal seriousness.
Click to expand...
*Fornication * carries a religious overtone and I don’t think that it is helpful term to use, in the context of consensual sex between two adults. IMO the Church is being overly judgemental here. I have said before, I don’t understand why any religion wishes to get involved or make judgement on what is a private affair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top