What are some good secular arguments to refrain from pre-marital sex and/or condom use?

[Jen7]

I can only speak from personal experience, but when my wife said ‘yes’ when I asked her if she wanted to spend the rest of her life with me, then that was it. Right at that very moment we had comitted to each other. If she had said ‘But first I need some legal paperwork signed and you have to make a public declaration in front of lots of people so that it’ll be harder for you to back out’, then I might have had some second thoughts myself.

As it turns out, we did sign some papers because she was concerned about the legal position of future children. But there was just the two of us and two random witnesses.

Oh I forgot about the graces of the sacrament. And do I think THOSE make divorce less likely - you bet I do!

 

[Jen7]

But Jen, we both know that doesn’t work. One only has to check the divorce rates to see that. Are you really suggesting that a couple who are having a rough patch decide to stick it out because they signed some legal papers and had a party with some friends and relatives? C’mon…

I think it helps. I truly do. The more casual an agreement is the easier it is to break.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But Jen, we both know that doesn’t work. One only has to check the divorce rates to see that. Are you really suggesting that a couple who are having a rough patch decide to stick it out because they signed some legal papers and had a party with some friends and relatives? C’mon…

I think it helps. I truly do. The more casual an agreement is the easier it is to break.

‘Will you spend the rest of your life with me?’
‘Yes’.

I’m sorry but I don’t see that as a casual agreement.

 

[CathBoy1]

But different societies have different rules around who can be killed and when. In most of the world it is ‘murder’ to kill someone just because they are unlawfully in your house. In parts of the US, I understand, such killing is not a crime. Some societies execute people. Some people consider this murder. Some societies practice euthanasia. Some people consider this murder. Some societies sanction infanticide. Others consider this murder.

Really you’re just kind of dancing around here, I said murder in general I didn’t say a specific case and you’re naming off specific cases in which murder can be acceptable, but to clarify when I say murder in general I mean in cases in which everyone globally (for the most part so please don’t point towards some society where cannibalism is acceptable) would agree is wrong whether religious or not.

Our ancestors in non-human societies also tended to limit killing. There is no ‘natural law’ at work here in my view.

I believe that this specifically is natural law, you do not, therefore we must agree to disagree my friend.

 

[FiveLinden]

Really you’re just kind of dancing around here, I said murder in general I didn’t say a specific case and you’re naming off specific cases in which murder can be acceptable, but to clarify when I say murder in general I mean in cases in which everyone globally (for the most part so please don’t point towards some society where cannibalism is acceptable) would agree is wrong whether religious or not.

I know you have asked me not to cite exceptions to what you consider to be a universal rule so I won’t. But there are exceptions and this demonstrates that the ‘rule’ is not universal. Incidentally eating people is not the same as murdering them. In societies in which this has been practiced there are ways other than what you consider murder to obtain human-based food. War is the most common one.

 

[Freddy]

FiveLinden:

Our ancestors in non-human societies also tended to limit killing. There is no ‘natural law’ at work here in my view.

I believe that this specifically is natural law, you do not, therefore we must agree to disagree my friend.

There are quite a few things done in non-human societies, pre-human societies and actual.human societies that would come under that umbrella of ‘natural law’.

Do you really want that can of worms opened?

 

[Jen7]

Will you spend the rest of your life with me?’
‘Yes’.

I’m sorry but I don’t see that as a casual agreement.

I only mean casual in the sense of less-formal. There are literally no formalities tying them together. You seem to feel they don’t need formalities. If some folks don’t , then so be it. Their word is steel. Fantastic. But I don’t think everyone operates like that. INTJ’s and ISTJ’s aren’t the only people giving their word to people.

 

[historyfan81]

Not in condom use but jordan peterson and others make arguments for monogamy and are against hook-up culture

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Will you spend the rest of your life with me?’
‘Yes’.

I’m sorry but I don’t see that as a casual agreement.

I only mean casual in the sense of less-formal. There are literally no formalities tying them together. You seem to feel they don’t need formalities. If some folks don’t , then so be it. Their word is steel. Fantastic. But I don’t think everyone operates like that. INTJ’s and ISTJ’s aren’t the only people giving their word to people.

I don’t reject the idea that some people actually want (and possibly need) the formalities. But my point is that it’s definitely not required in order to allow sex between two comitted people.

 

[Jen7]

But my point is that it’s definitely not required in order to allow sex between two comitted people.

Well it IS required by the Church!!

And we can talk all day about why it might be advisable or not… but in the end regardless of opinion, we submit to the wisdom of God even when it surpasses our understanding.

 

[Bernoulli]

The best arguments would be above observable harm that you could demonstrate results from sex outside marriage. Let’s look at those.

Appealing to “observable harm” would also require a concept of natural law, or a similar framework, doesn’t it? After all, the harm is not in the observations themselves but their interpretations. You need a philosophy to understand what is “harm”, “healthy”, “benefit” and so on. One could claim these values are purely subjective, but that doesn’t lead anywhere.

 

[Freddy]

FiveLinden:

The best arguments would be above observable harm that you could demonstrate results from sex outside marriage. Let’s look at those.

Appealing to “observable harm” would also require a concept of natural law, or a similar framework, doesn’t it? After all, the harm is not in the observations themselves but their interpretations. You need a philosophy to understand what is “harm”, “healthy”, “benefit” and so on. One could claim these values are purely subjective, but that doesn’t lead anywhere.

It can’t be too difficult to determine harm. We may not agree but let’s find out.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

It can’t be too difficult to determine harm. We may not agree but let’s find out.

“Harm” can be rather hard to determine sometimes. Especially when we get into accepting some “harm” to prevent others.
Getting cut with a knife is harm, yet surgery to heal a ruptured spleen isn’t classed as harm.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It can’t be too difficult to determine harm. We may not agree but let’s find out.

“Harm” can be rather hard to determine sometimes. Especially when we get into accepting some “harm” to prevent others.
Getting cut with a knife is harm, yet surgery to heal a ruptured spleen isn’t classed as harm.

Well, there we go. If we examine each case then we can make a reasonable determination. I agree that simply saying ‘It’s harmful’ is useless. But if we tack on a ‘because…’ and fill in the ellipses then we should be able to reach an agreement.

 

[MatthewGerardJohn]

There’s a natural punishment of STDs and all that stuff, and the person may be responsible for an unplanned pregnancy, which can really throw off life plans and trajectory. Plus, one may be tempted by both Devil and man to get abortion. But take courage and do not be afraid to speak honestly the moral reasons behind why they are such evils. It is each of our responsibility to correct others when they see wrong, and, if we don’t, we are partly responsible for sins that come from that person’s ignorance. When we preach boldly, we honor and glorify God, and God is pleased and will not forget this, but will reward you in Heaven (and maybe also in this world as well) for your obedience to Him and His Word.

 

[Freddy]

There’s a natural punishment of STDs and all that stuff…

Totally agree with that. But…it does mean that you can discount that reason if there is zero danger of getting a std. And you can discount pregnancy as a reason as well if it’s impossible for the woman to get pregnant.

So there are good reasons to refrain. But not under all circumstances.

 

[redcatholic]

Back on my sinful non catholic days I can’t tell you how many times a condom broke.

 

[FiveLinden]

There’s a natural punishment of STDs and all that stuff, and the person may be responsible for an unplanned pregnancy, which can really throw off life plans and trajectory

I don’t think this counts as a secular argument to refrain from ‘pre-marital’ sex. And it could count as an argument in favour of solo sex. In my view Catholic arguments are strongest when argued from the Catholic, and not a material consequence point of view.

 

[FiveLinden]

Appealing to “observable harm” would also require a concept of natural law, or a similar framework, doesn’t it?

No, ‘Harm’ to me as one secularist anyway, is decided socially and not against a pre-existing framework either deduced from ‘the purpose of things in nature’ or from the existence of god(s). We decide what is right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, harmful or harmless.

Sex between people who are not married is a good example. Historically societies have varied widely in the degree of acceptability of this. They still do.

To provide a common ground for decisions, since the enlightenment and the gradual removal of religious thought from the public sphere, we have stressed ‘rights’ as an agreed basis for discussion. But these rights derive from our decisions not from anywhere else.

 

[Aulef]

What exactly is a secular argument?

The no religious arguments I know of are logical and philosophical