The immaculate misconception

[Warrenton]

I participated in several threads dealing with the catholic concept of “proper sexuality”. I understand that this is the official catholic position, and I do not wish to argue against it

Where to begin? By observing that the post starts with the writer’s promise not to argue against the Catholic moral position, but then goes on to do just that in the most jeering and lewd manner? No, too obvious.

Let’s start here:

You believe what you believe. It is no skin off my nose. Just keep your opinion to yourself.

The basic freedom of speech always seems to elude libertines. I refuse to curtail my right to expression because some crybabies can’t handle what I’m saying. If they are that frail, they are too frail for the sexual escapades they encourage, and should check into an asylum where no disquieting voices intrude past the padded walls.

Than there is this:

What “harm” can possibly come out of having two people express their love and commitment to each other…They say that openly accepted gay sex will lead to adolescents to accept that lifestyle (we all know that being around tall people will also cause you to become tall.

How touching that the writer warms to his topic with the ever-vernal invocation of “love.” What do we learn from this rhetorical flourish? Either that the writer lacks the power of the stated conviction, namely, that any perversion is licit as long as it is hidden, or that the writer implicitly recognizes some kind of morality based on “love.”

In the interest of time, let’s take the high road and stick with option A. If tolerance of homosexuality does not lead to more of the same activity, what does the writer imagine homosexuals are seeking acceptance for? It is not the freedom to spread their views more broadly in society? This kind of thinking shows a profound misunderstanding of how democratic society works. But, and here is the funny part, the writer intuits the truth because the whole premise of the thread is that Catholics’ ability to teach morality ought to be limited!

As the writer might have said “we all know that hanging around moral people makes you more moral, right?”

The writer then makes a foray into history:

from time immemorial the conservatives were complaining and moaning about the deteriorating “morals” - in each and every generation; remember Cicero’s “O tempora, o mores?”.

Cicero’s point was not that society would disappear, but that it would become a tyranny because people would be too morally degraded to object. The reason Cicero continued to be read was because events proved him right. Roman society did fall under the sway of violent potentates, and then a military dictatorship, and all lost freedom.

Why stop at bad history? How about gratuitous insults:

members of the older generation are not able to practise sex any more, so they spend their energy complaining about what the younger ones can do.

A remark so puerile might be expected from a schoolboy of the most petulant variety, or a shut-in.

And sheer misconception (maybe not so immaculate) about their own era - when people did the same things, but also practised the worst kind of “sin” of all, the hypocrisy of silence.

This had to come, and frankly, I was surprised that the writer was able to restrain the urge to trot this bromide out until so late into the diatribe. The last allocution of the most notorious criminal is always to accuse the judge of hypocrisy. The Nazis said it at Nuremburg, Charles Manson says it at his parole hearings.

If setting up a standard that one has difficulty in fulfilling be hypocritical, then naming oneself “Spock” and churning out such a an illogical paean to depravity is a self indictment.

The conclusion appeals to the “world as it as.”

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you.

You face it first, Tyro.

Visit the foster families where live the children of “the oldest profession” you extoll. They struggle to learn what comes easily to other children because their ability to reason was retarded by the environment of promiscuity and self abuse of all kinds into which they were born.

Go to the prisons, see the end to which the men, sexualised too early, have come. See the conditions they live in, watch their acts, then tell me how wonderful the “highest expression of brotherly love” is, as you put it.

Consider the powerful. Are going to respect the public treasury, or equity, of honesty, if they are habituated to doing what they want, when they want, with whomever they can seduce or bribe? Having habituated themselves to using other people for pleasure who thinks they will use self restraint and not coercion?

The writer says none of this concerns us! Is the country more solvent, stronger, safer, than it was when basic morality was at least respected, if not always followed? The debt alone should be enough to prove the fact. Won’t we have to pay these debts? Who doesn’t lock the doors to home and car? Isn’t it our goods and families we must guard?

I don’t know how this sarcastic, mocking thread passed muster. The writer probably considers it a joke. Since the person seems to like Latin, here’s a quote for “Spock” that is more apt than Cicero’s:

Quid rides? De te fabula narratur.

 

[tonyrey]

The original post is a ridiculous bunch of nonsense about harmless sex.

Fifty million infants cut apart with wires, sucked into jars and trucked away to biomedical waste facilities where there body parts are burned. 40% of children in the USA born into homes without fathers. AIDS. 25% of men in the USA addicted to porn.

Need we go on? All a result of supposedly harmless sex outside of marriage.

It’s all part of Spock’s incessant and unending attempt to redefine right and wrong, good and evil, in favor of his own behavior. Well, I ain’t buying and respectfully request that those who agree with him stay the hell away from my daughters.

-Tim-

Trenchant and incontrovertibly true! :clapping:

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Harm? Hmmm, ok let’s see. Where should I start?

How about the scare most of my friends had in college when they found out a man who was HIV positive was trying to sleep with as many women as he could for the purpose of infecting them? His opinion: “I’m not going down alone.” Criminal charges were brought against him but sadly for some of those girls (and some of their male partners) will live with that for the rest of their lives.

Most of them just thought they were having “innocent, harmless, fun.” I warned three of my friends away from him because I could tell he didn’t care about them. But I was told to stop being such a “prude” and that sex was “natural.”

Don’t like that example? Ok, let’s go with the fact I knew a woman had an STD and refused to tell her sexual partners for YEARS. When it came to light this happened and we asked her why she didn’t say anything. She said she was “sorry” but she was too “embarrassed.”

Another example of harm? How about all the 2 AM phone calls I have taken from my girl friends over the years while they sobbed to me. Most of them were heartbroken because they had fallen in love with someone that just wanted some “fun.” They honestly believed they could have a relationship without facing any consequences. These aren’t dumb girls.

You can sit there an say there is no “harm” but I can tell you I’ve spent my life cleaning up all the broken hearts casual sex has left in its wake. I cannot tell you a single success story where someone navigated casual sex without someone getting hurt.

Maybe I have dumb friends, maybe they are too emotional. But I don’t think so…I think they are fairly normal but decided to drink the kool-aid and believe they can do whatever they like without consequences.

I was very lucky. I was raised in a good Catholic home. I won’t lie to you, part of my getting through my teenage years without having sex was because I knew my life wouldn’t be worth living if my parents caught me. But having survived those years and most of my 20s I can say…there is a point to the Catholic teachings.

Your examples were painful to read. The man who wanted to infect others with HIV is particularly despicable.

Those are good examples of harm, but I think the cause of the harm is not the sex itself, but the dishonesty. Regardless of how right or wrong premarital sex is, there will be dishonest practitioners of premarital sex who do immense harm to others. Similarly, regardless of how right or wrong Catholicism is, there will be individual Catholics who do immense harm to others.

Everything has consequences. Whenever you open yourself up to someone sexually or emotionally, there is the possibility of great pain. Some pain is probably inevitable. I cannot tell you a single success story where someone navigated marriage without someone getting hurt. Even in successful marriages, there are moments of pain. The question is whether the good outweighs the bad. With marriage, like with premarital sex, sometimes the bad outweighs the good and sometimes the good outweighs the bad.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Are you willing to get married to anyone who will not promise to be faithful?

Does the harm done to children by unfaithful spouses matter?

When a partner dishonestly sneaks behind the other partner’s back, that can do immense harm to the other person and to their children. But this does not refute Spock’s point that sex outside marriage need not be harmful. Premarital sex might still be a harmless form of sex outside marriage. Also, you don’t show that it is wrong to have sex with someone other than the person you married if you do so honestly. If two married couples who don’t have any diseases want to experiment sexually with each other, I don’t see how that would harm the children.

Masturbation does promote premature ejaculation, which does affect marriages.

I think masturbation actually improves marriages. If someone knows how to please themselves sexually, they will be better able to show their partner how to please them. The only way I’ve heard of that masturbation can promote premature ejaculation is if someone tries to masturbate to orgasm as quickly as possible. If children are not taught that masturbation is a shameful activity, I think they will be less likely to rush to get it over with as soon as possible, and more likely to take their time and enjoy it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But married men live a longer than single men and much longer than ‘gay’ men. That would seem like pretty good evidence that free sex is not harmless as far as lifespan.

People with better social support tend to live longer, so it makes sense that married men live longer than single men.

And yes, sadly, gay men do not live as long as straight men. But this does not show that the sex is the cause. I think the real harm is caused by those who say that homosexuality is evil. Imagine how it would feel if most people you knew thought that you were evil. That’s something that drives many gay people to suicide. If society was accepting of homosexuality, many needless deaths would be avoided. When children are taught that homosexuality is evil, they will treat gay children as inferior and taunt them mercilessly. They will even taunt those perceived as gay. In middle school, I was perceived as gay, and taunted endlessly because of it. It drove me to depression. I know there are many who had it far worse, some of whom committed suicide. Alindawyl’s post shows the unimaginable tragedy of suicide, not just for the individual, but for everyone who loved them.

I was specific, but here it goes again. Suicide. And I speak from experience. My brother-in-law, in 1995 in his closed bedroom, put a gun to his temple and ventilated his skull all over the wall. Try telling my in-laws, my wife… heck, try telling ME that his action only affected him. It affected all of us.

My in-laws had to shut down their business for a week while dealing with the situation and their grief. My wife went into a severe depression which lasted for years.

Think of the clients of my in-laws’ business who were impacted by not receiving product on time that week. Think of the customers of those clients who were unable to buy certain meals because the restaurant was short on or out of a particular product for a brief time. I’m sure at least one server was yelled at by someone who couldn’t get the meal they wanted that day, which of course would negatively impact that server’s day. A server who didn’t even know my brother-in-law and who had no idea she was being yelled at because someone killed himself.

My brother-in-law’s employer had to find someone to replace him with no notice.

I’m sure there’s plenty more if I gave it additional thought.

Suicide happens over thirty thousand times in this country every year. And then there’s the estimated ten people who try and fail to kill themselves for every successful suicide. Stopping someone before they can do it is good, but there’s still the knowledge of what that person is dealing with, the mental heartache and worry for a friend or relative, the cost for psychological treatment…

I can’t speak for her parents, but my wife still cries about her brother sometimes despite it having happened over 15 years ago.

We cannot ignore the profound effects our actions have on others. The things we say about homosexuality can have consequences far greater than we realize.

 

[mark_a]

We cannot ignore the profound effects our actions have on others.

That’s about as Catholic a statement that can be made.

 

[Nate13]

@OP
“Since we can never fully understand the relationship and impact by which society and the people that live in it affect each other, we therefore should act as if it doesn’t exist.”

Does that sum up your view?

You know you have asked for proof of something that borders on unprovable except possibly by correlation. I doubt you would even accept proof by correlation though would you as something with any weight? If so I need to start drinking wine haha.

 

[mark_a]

When a partner dishonestly sneaks behind the other partner’s back, that can do immense harm to the other person and to their children. But this does not refute Spock’s point that sex outside marriage need not be harmful. Premarital sex might still be a harmless form of sex outside marriage. Also, you don’t show that it is wrong to have sex with someone other than the person you married if you do so honestly. If two married couples who don’t have any diseases want to experiment sexually with each other, I don’t see how that would harm the children.

So I’ll ask you the question- Are you willing to marry a man who will not be faithful to you?

If children are not taught that masturbation is a shameful activity, I think they will be less likely to rush to get it over with as soon as possible, and more likely to take their time and enjoy it.

I can hear it now, “Brittney, be sure to take your time while **********, mommy loves you!!”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

That’s about as Catholic a statement that can be made.

Then that makes me wonder what a lot of Catholics who talk about homosexuality are thinking. Is convincing gay people not to have sex with the person they love more important than preventing them from being driven to suicide?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… man is a moral being in this fallen world , good and evil exist here , moral and natural evils exist , one must be rather brave to deny it really , the natural law is simply how man is meant to naturally behave , but violations of the moral law governing man are not always sinful in themselves , man may not know it is morally evil and unless man has the intention to consent and indulge evil thoughts in his mind and evil desires in his heart and the matter is not gravely sinful in gods eyes and meets the conditions of full consent, full knowlege ( and is a sinful matter – especially a serious one ) – then the sin is just a mistake and not sinful at all , this is why some sins are sins and some are not …

… not all laws are man made – very important this , man made laws when violated are not oft evil and sinful at all , a lot of confusion comes because man has made endless laws i thinks , man must behave naturally and that is all the natural law is about , if man does not behave naturally he harms himself , others and creation , he does , no doubts about it …

… man can and does clearly choose good or evil continuously when he is conscious – call it any name you like but it always comes back to good or evil , you maY GET CONFUSED BECAUSE ALL IN MANS MIND IS ALWAYS CLASSIFIED AS GOOD AND / or evil , but only certain laws are the natural law for man , man is governed by the laws of physics and laws of nature and it is no different than another laws of physics applied to mans moral behaviour this naural law , you can argue all you like but it is , if man tries to defy the laws of physics he has harm , if man disobeys the natural law he has harm …

… and indeed for man violations of the natural law not only cause all evils for men such as all sicknesses , diseases and illnesses and ultimately death but also all natural evils , they woul exist but man would be protected from them if he had not fallen , one cannot deny good and evil exist , and if they do one needs laws and rules , and that is why we have no end of laws and rules here …

… man is not a moral being in reality in my opine and good and evil do not exist there either , but in reality man is only able to do gods will which is love and has no conscience as he does not need one and preternatural gifts enable him to quickly solve any of the miniscule probs he needs to , and he has no knowledge of good and evil ,man is sinless and pefect in reality and needs no laws …

… but here in this delusion – fallen world , man needs laws or there is total chaos and anarchy and mans world falls apart , so the belief there is no natural law and anything goes has its basis in reality , but in reality it works , in this fallen delusion world it does not , sin or evil is the cause of all mans problems full stop , we have to think and accept it , that is all …

… science and medicine will eventually figure out and recognise sin and evil are the cause of all our problems – give them time and they will , in the meantime just think a little harder and you might just see it is right , and not so unreasonable and unrealistic as you may have first thought dear friends …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[Warrenton]

We cannot ignore the profound effects our actions have on others. The things we say about homosexuality can have consequences far greater than we realize.

Translation into plain English: Promiscuity is fine because it’s harmless, but saying things that bother other people is profoundly dangerous, especially if we’re talking about other people doing bad things.

There’s a morality criminal can get behind.

 

[promethius]

Then that makes me wonder what a lot of Catholics who talk about homosexuality are thinking. Is convincing gay people not to have sex with the person they love more important than preventing them from being driven to suicide?

chuckle Not having sex leads to suicide? I’m going to try that line next time I’m at the bar and feeling frisky!

“Hey baby, I’m feeling so frisky that I need sex or I’m going to commit suicide, you’ve GOT to help me!”

:ROLLEYES:

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

chuckle Not having sex leads to suicide? I’m going to try that line next time I’m at the bar and feeling frisky!

“Hey baby, I’m feeling so frisky that I need sex or I’m going to commit suicide, you’ve GOT to help me!”

:ROLLEYES:

:clapping::extrahappy:

 

[Warrenton]

But this does not refute Spock’s point that sex outside marriage need not be harmful.

The Catholic starts from the opposite side of the spectrum as Spock. Spock proposes us Catholics to take the issue of sex in isolation. As crudely as he can get away with, he asks: “Is it theoretically possible that a sexual act has no wider consequences than the two people engaged in the act, and that the act be completely pleasurable, and that the people are unmarried to each other?”

This is nonsensical in Catholic eyes, because we start by taking people as they are. We put sex in the context of disease, lying, power, coercion, ignorance, fear, lust, perversity, and the whole gamut of emotion people experience. To us, Spock’s premise is not different than trying to justify murder on the basis that the victim could be a potential Hitler.
Yes, it’s possible the victim could be Hitler, but human experience has demonstrated that more often than not, the victim is someone’s beloeved mother, or little child.

One thing we Catholics want from our atheists is hard edged reality. Atheists are the ones who have always said we believers create a fantasy land of love and peace. Now some so-called atheist comes along and has the brass to suggest that this world is even more benign heaven, that it is a place where boys and boys and girls and boys never lie, and just want to share “more happy, happy love.” He calls himself Spock, but he should have called himself Keats, and even that would have been a stretch. It’s totally ludicrous.

He should lose his atheist membership for this kind of thing.

Premarital sex might still be a harmless form of sex outside marriage.

This bit was confusing. Is not premarital sex always “pre” marriage?

Also, you don’t show that it is wrong to have sex with someone other than the person you married if you do so honestly.

Other than that it’s wrong to bring someone else into sin that could endanger their soul?

If two married couples who don’t have any diseases want to experiment sexually with each other, I don’t see how that would harm the children.

I was not exactly certain what you were trying to express. From the context, I presume you are suggesting the “Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice” scenario. Catholics do not mind Fred and Wilma experimenting with each other, as long as they leave Barney and Betty out of it.

Here we leave the realm that atheists will be able to accept. They may as well stop reading here.

Catholics can not experiment in the way I think Anevil suggests because to do so would break the vow we make at marriage. Only free people can bind themselves with a vow. That promise symbolizes freedom more than any other a layperson makes. Convicts, children and slaves are all not free to marry. People in a state of mortal sin cannot make a vow because they also are not free. In fact, they are slaves. There is only one thing they can do to obtain freedom, and in the atheist’s case, it is the only thing he will not do. That is why the vow of an atheist is worth less than nothing. It a pledge of collateral he does not even own.

For the same reason, a Catholic cannot “honestly” commit adultery, as these atheists suggest. To do so is a fundemental denial of our freedom, purchased by the blood of Christ. It is tantamount to selling oneself into slavery, and is a lie.

 

[Warrenton]

chuckle Not having sex leads to suicide? I’m going to try that line next time I’m at the bar and feeling frisky!

“Hey baby, I’m feeling so frisky that I need sex or I’m going to commit suicide, you’ve GOT to help me!”

:ROLLEYES:

I can hear the Righteous Brothers singing!

 

[Spock]

I was specific, but here it goes again. Suicide.

Somehow I was under the impression that sex and suicide are a little different, even though there is a wonderful French phrase to describe orgasm: “la morte douce” (sweet death). You remind me of the student who was asked to describe the presidency of Washington, and who was totally ignorant about it. So she said: “Washington was a great president. But even greater was Lincoln, who…”. (In the OP I already asked not to try to bring up “emotional hurt”, since that is subjective, and it is either there, or not there.)

If you’re willing to dismiss as irrelevant the obvious negative impact on others in the case of suicide, then it’s no wonder you dismiss as irrelevant the less obvious negative impact on others in the case of promiscuity or masturbation or contraception.

So, what about “Washington”?

The basic scenario depicts people who honestly love each other, who wish to express that love, and during that act they do not “drag” anyone else into the situation. They simply are not ready to procreate at that moment, so they take active measures against it - either by positive contraception, or by bypassing the usual, intravaginal intercourse. If it so happens, that a conception occurs, they are willing to accept that, and do not wish to seek abortion. I hope this is clear enough…

 

[Spock]

If trying to coerce others to conform with your version of morality is wrong then all government is wrong.

We need to agree on “morality” first, and that might be impossible. But I will offer mine: “Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a certain society in a certain time”. Some of it is “written” or codified, others are not. One does not have to agree with all of it.

I assume your thinking is not that guilt is bad but what they are guilty over is something they should not be.

You got it.

So you’re not going to follow radical libertarianism all the way down.

Of course not. Yes, children are actually “forced” into a “mold” by their parents and by the surroundings. Yes, this is brainwashing in the strictest sense. But it is a necessity, since children have no critical skills at that age.

But it seems a cycle that in a society’s ascendency it has more strict morals, as it grows it loosens them, and it soon fails.

A correlation, perhaps. How does it lead to causation?

You are defining morality in a certain way. But if yours is the standard I would have to say a parent molesting their child in their private bedroom does not effect me. But I’m not going to call that moral.

Since the children are unable to consent, you are in a wholly different ballpark than the proposed arrangement in the OP. Are you interested in the real scenario that I am asking about?

 

[Spock]

Now you see one, at least for the sex outside marriage:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602354

The safety of usual contraception is about 95% per year in practical use, therefore the probability of an unwanted pregnancy is high during a sexual active life, likely between 10% and 50%. If you have sex without the promise and intent to stay together for a long time, probability is much higher that the women will have an abortion, so will consent and order to kill a human being, while the man is at least an enabler regarding the killing.

I went and read it, but it does not address the point. Contraception can be “piled up”, or simply avoided with non-vaginal intercourse. Your argument is about failed contraception, which is not the issue here.

That of course is no problem, if you engage only in sexual activity with someone you intend to stay together with for decades and with someone you are ready to have children with. But the difference between that and marriage if the promise is realy serious is limited, so it is sensible to make the promise official and serious.

What does “ready to have children” have to do with anything? And why choose the “official” method? There are some political and economical reasons, for sure, but getting a “paper” does not add anything to the quality of the relationship.

Regarding masturbation i can offer, that by getting the impression that sex is primarily for enjoyment, that then the discipline to avoid engaging in a life style that has a high probability to result in the killing of a human being is harder to maintain.

It is obvious that sex does not need to include even the possibility of conception, or the possibility can be reduced by multiple layers of contraception (pill + condom + female condom will reduce the risk to almost nil). But let’s say that the couple is willing to accept the possible pregnancy and in that “unfortunate” event is willing to carry the pregnancy to term. Where is your argument then? And I have no idea what is your argument against masturbation per se. There is no reason to assume that masturbating leads to “murder” even if one accepts your definition of “zygote = full human being” - especially before implantation.

Always behave in a way, that could set the rules for everybody to behave.

That is sheer nonsense. The idea of “one size fits all” is ridiculous.

Regarding female homosexuality i currently can offer no arguments, that rely on purely wordly reasoning.

I am glad to see that you do not try to avoid the question. /triple cheers for your honesty.

Regarding contraception inside marriage its the same.

Answered above. If the couple is willing to accept the failure of contraception and does not choose abortion, then your whole argument collapses.

 

[Spock]

I don’t agree with your attempt to sanctify hedonism. But i must congratulate you for making me laugh by your choice of title “The immaculate misconception”. I suppose i should not have found it funny; but i did.

I am not sanctifying or even advocating “hedonsim”. I am simply arguing that there are no secular arguments against “sex for pleasure” in those times when people are not ready (for whatever reason) to accept a child in their life and do not want to forego the pleasure part. If a couple chooses to abstain, it is their business. I would feel sorry for them, but I am a firm believer of one (and only one) positive “right” - the “right to make mistakes” (or the “right to stupidity”).

I am happy I gave you a chuckle. The expression is not mine, unfortunately, Allen Sherman came up with it in his superb book about the Americal Sex Revolution: “The Rape of the APE*” (where APE* is the abbrevation of Americal Puritan Ethics).

 

[Spock]

Harm? Hmmm, ok let’s see. Where should I start?

EvilAtheist has answered it perfectly. No need to add anything.