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.
JimG said:
So Catholics can believe that murder is truly wrong, but if someone else has a different belief, murder is okay for them?
Click to expand...
Most people believe that murder is wrong, but it is self evident that a lot of people do not
 
thewanderer said:
Not to turn this into a debate about moral relativsm or anything… but each action is either moral or immoral, of course different circumstances can make a difference as to whether a particular action is moral or not, but, I’m sorry, its impossible for an action to be both moral and immoral at the same time. Regardless of any individuals belief about it, the reality is that it is either moral or its not. 🤷
Click to expand...
Not true. It depends on your own morality. People can and do have conflicting moral codes.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Most people believe that murder is wrong, but it is self evident that a lot of people do not
Click to expand...
But the point is that, in reality, one of those two sets of people are incorrect. In reality, either it is wrong or it is right. It can’t be both. Obviously people can have different opinions about whether or not it is wrong, but their contrary opinions cannot, in reality, both be true. I’m sorry, but thats just the way it is. Nobody is denying that people have different opinions as to whether or not sex outside of marriage is always wrong. They are instead explaining their opinion (and the Church’s) on the matter and correctly stating that in reality it cannot be both morally ok and morally wrong to do such. Contradictory opinions about reality do not make the reality itself contradictory.
 
thewanderer said:
But the point is that, in reality, one of those two sets of people are incorrect. In reality, either it is wrong or it is right. It can’t be both. Obviously people can have different opinions about whether or not it is wrong, but their contrary opinions cannot, in reality, both be true. I’m sorry, but thats just the way it is. Nobody is denying that people have different opinions as to whether or not sex outside of marriage is always wrong. They are instead explaining their opinion (and the Church’s) on the matter and correctly stating that in reality it cannot be both morally ok and morally wrong to do such. Contradictory opinions about reality do not make the reality itself contradictory.
Click to expand...
Morality is by definition subjective. Two people can hold different moralities on a position. They are not ‘opinions’ on morality.

Something can be both morally right and wrong.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Morality is by definition subjective. Two people can hold different moralities on a position. They are not ‘opinions’ on morality.

Something can be both morally right and wrong.
Click to expand...
Then the disagreement here comes not from real disagreement but from equivocation, a disagreement in the use of terms. When I speak of an opinion about morality I am speaking about what you call “morality”. We’re still talking on the level of people’s personal ideas about which actions are permissible and which actions are impermissible. In order for you to hold the idea that the permissibility in reality of an action depends solely upon the perception of the person means that, essentially, you hold that there is nothing which is in itself impermissible, and what makes it impermissible is merely a persons perception of that action and its relation to reality. In other words, this kind of moral reletevism boils down to saying that morality is not something that exists in reality, but rather simply in a person’s thoughts and perceptions, hence the reason why your definition of morality corresponds to my “opinions about morality” and your opinion about morality happens to be that there is no action which is actually immoral (using my definition). In other words, nothing is still actually both moral and immoral (again, speaking about in reality as opposed to in people’s opinions) 🤷
 
Marie_Graham said:
Here is what is said :

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

1 Corinthians 7:1-40

I agree that there must be a pre-relationship courtship that may last several month without sex but once you truly feel in love and want to be with that person forever, I truly have a hard time understanding how it is immoral to have sex before marriage.
Click to expand...
Once you truly love the person and want to be together forever, you have a wedding ceremony, and then you consummate the marriage with sex.

If you have sex before the wedding ceremony, you are basically saying that the commitment of love doesn’t really matter to you.

Lean on the Church’s understanding, and her 2,000 years of experience in this matter - get married before you start to have sex - in this way, the love and commitment precede the sexual relationship, and keep it in its right place. 🙂
 
Aprilfloyd is wrong. Please don’t quote his posts or respond directly to him. I’ve seen his posts in other threads, and his incorrect opinions on how reality works just upset people.
 
Soren_Itenu said:
Aprilfloyd is wrong. Please don’t quote his posts or respond directly to him. I’ve seen his posts in other threads, and his incorrect opinions on how reality works just upset people.
Click to expand...
haha, my last post was just to help show that if we use the same terminology instead of getting caught up in equivocation he actually does agree with us that in reality each action is either morally permissible or not morally permissible, but never both, because when you translate his opinion over into our terminology he is saying that nothing is in itself immoral, thus making it moral for anyone to act upon their own personal opinion about what is and is not morally permissible rather than anything being either moral or immoral, it is always moral, though it may be contrary to a persons beliefs about morality causing them guilt.
 
thewanderer said:
Then the disagreement here comes not from real disagreement but from equivocation, a disagreement in the use of terms. When I speak of an opinion about morality I am speaking about what you call “morality”. We’re still talking on the level of people’s personal ideas about which actions are permissible and which actions are impermissible. In order for you to hold the idea that the permissibility in reality of an action depends solely upon the perception of the person means that, essentially, you hold that there is nothing which is in itself impermissible, and what makes it impermissible is merely a persons perception of that action and its relation to reality. In other words, this kind of moral reletevism boils down to saying that morality is not something that exists in reality, but rather simply in a person’s thoughts and perceptions, hence the reason why your definition of morality corresponds to my “opinions about morality” and your opinion about morality happens to be that there is no action which is actually immoral (using my definition). In other words, nothing is still actually both moral and immoral (again, speaking about in reality as opposed to in people’s opinions) 🤷
Click to expand...
I disagree with your view and also you are putting words in my mouth.

To argue about permission, one only has to look at our legal systems to ascertain that,
 
aprilfloyd said:
I disagree with your view and also you are putting words in my mouth.

To argue about permission, one only has to look at our legal systems to ascertain that,
Click to expand...
Nope, I am translating them. Permission as I speak about it has nothing to do with the legal system. 🤷

Its impossible to have actual discussions if people equivocate, it is silly to try and have a discussion with someone while at the same time refusing to use a common definition. I have just translated your position into words as most people on CAF tend to use them, that way we can have an actual comparison between your opinion and ours about this topic. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
Nope, I am translating them. Permission as I speak about it has nothing to do with the legal system. 🤷

Its impossible to have actual discussions if people equivocate, it is silly to try and have a discussion with someone while at the same time refusing to use a common definition. I have just translated your position into words as most people on CAF tend to use them, that way we can have an actual comparison between your opinion and ours about this topic. 🤷
Click to expand...
Different people have different moral codes
 
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...
Even in that case, the children would have grandparents who are physically related to them, whereas in sex without marriage, there are no grandparents in the equation; the children are essentially orphans.
 
jmcrae said:
Even in that case, the children would have grandparents who are physically related to them, whereas in sex without marriage, there are no grandparents in the equation; the children are essentially orphans.
Click to expand...
I’m not following. How do babies born out of wedlock not have grandparents?
 
JackieMom said:
I’m not following. How do babies born out of wedlock not have grandparents?
Click to expand...
Technically of course they would, but the grandparents wouldn’t normally be aware of the child’s existence; the child would become a ward of the state in most cases.
 
No, the marriage status of the parents is not a factor in declaring a child a ward of the state. Which century are you living in? Children are only removed from their parentswhen there is evidence of abuse and neglect. A child of unmarried parents is not an orphan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top