Now my question is how does sexuality correlate with the morals of society. I realize this is a Catholic forum so I expect Catholic answers. I don’t really want Catholic answers, I want answers that can challenge secular view points.
Sexuality is an attribute of each human person. How we are to conduct ourselves can be discerned easily enough. Start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you don’t own one, you can access it online. After that, read Theology of the Body. Once you’ve read and digested both, you will be able t answer any honest questions. It will not help you combat ridicule from the devil’s advocates. Those types are best ignored. Animals have urges and procreate at will naturally as a function of the preservation of the species. Man, in his depravity has figured out a way to detach the natural function from the intended outcome of reproduction to preserve our own species. Man and woman are designed by God with great love and care, ordered to go forth and multiply as well as to be good stewards of the rest of creation. Humans are made in the image and likeness of God and each human person therefore has innate dignity. We are called to respect our own bodies and those of others as well. Fornicating in and of itself with any human person at hand is depravity., showing great disrespect of our own persons and those we abuse. Learn more about our beautiful Catholic faith and you will be able to answer questions and live more joyfully in God’s grace.
A simple question to ask that is non-religious is: “Who decides when you have sex?” Any person who understands the risks should act responsibly for their own health as well as the health of those they’ve had sex with.
Before I begin this discussion let me make it clear: I personally see no argument between science and faith. I personally have no problem with evolution as long as we see God as the first mover. So I do not want this to sound like a faith versus science statement.
Having said that: The majority of people who do not believe in God accept Darwin’s Theory of The Survival of the Fittest.
So to make the argument concerning morality to a non-believer let us look at the human specie and how the human specie is going to flourish if all teaching of morality is dispensed with.
The human child does not mature for 16 or so years and is in need of responsible adults to train them to survive in an uncaring world.
When sexual ecstasy is the greatest good that a society yearns for, the desires of adults take precedent over the the needs of children.
A female that moves from one male to another will give birth to males who do not know to or care about parenting as they grow older or the female will give birth to females who will not know or understand how to bond with a permanent male.
A male who moves from one woman to another will not be interested in caring for another male’s child. It takes a moral man to be ultraistic enough to care for another male’s offspring.
Children whose father and mother live for sexual fulfillment will be abandoned as their parents move from one partner to an other.
A society of adults who wish to escape the responsibilities of parenthood will cease having children.
I won’t bother about going into the sexually transmitted diseases that destroy both males, females and their off-spring.
In time such a society will either die out or will, in one way or another, develop a new set of morals. The fittest of such a society will use their intellect and figure out what will be necessary for survival and a different set of morals will be imposed on the sexual excesses that destroys the young.
How long can humans keep multiplying? There are already more than twice as many people on earth as when I was born a little over 50 years ago (from about 3 billion to over 7 billion). Should we multiply to 11 billion in the next 40 years? Can there ever be too many people on earth?
I guess the only other alternative would be for people to have less sex and therefore fewer children. I know that it would be very difficult where I live to have twice as many people as there are now. People are already being asked to cut back on their water usage where I live, so I doubt that we could support twice as many people here.
I’ll take a look at Theology of the Body along with Christopher West’s commentary. I don’t think the Catechism is really of much help in this situation given the fact that the Catechism is made for Church followers. But thank you for the advice.
The response to this would be STD’s are a risk people take. You may take precautions but the risk is still there. For many the risk is worth it. It’s the same with alcohol. Drinking alcohol in moderation is ok. Start drinking a lot and you run the risk of disease.
To answer your simple question, the non-religious will simply state, I do. I decide when and with who to have sex with. As long as both sides are consensual what is the problem?
No saying I don’t agree with you just plain devil’s advocate so we may be better at responding to the world.
Now I completely understand that point, the issue here is that in a society that accepts anti-contraceptives the chance of children is very small. For many people the plan B pill is still not considered abortion. Also that argument isn’t so much should promiscuity be accepted but should only people who are fit to be parents be allowed to be promiscuous. Also the risk of bearing children is nonexistent with homosexuals and sterile people.
First off the fact that we are created in God’s image should be considered very important. Since we are like God we can also create. We are able to produce so much more food in a much smaller area. As we continue to create we should be able to learn how the Earth may support more people.
Also this is talking about getting people getting pregnant and having more children. The question is how can we explain, in a secular sense, the wrong with promiscuity.
I don’t want an STD. I don’t want to transmit an STD. And I want to be a responsible person. A friend of mine will have genital herpes for the rest of his life because his live-in partner sort of left that part out. I don’t want to dehumanize anyone. The whole point of the Women’s Liberation Movement was this: men - all men - are male chauvenist pigs. We only view women as sex objects. And even married men will kick the woman to the curb if he finds another, more attractive one, or he just “gets tired” of the relationship for some reason. Animals are more intelligent about sex than people. Too bad we’re supposed to be, and are, more intelligent than animals.
Why should I inflict anything on myself or others that is unnecessary?
And where were most feminists as women became more and more exploited as the years passed?
The title should not include the word morality if any realistic view of morality is desired. It is too much “extreme individualism” which poisons society. Or “radical individualism” as Pope Benedict put it. We are living through a period of tribalism that is reinforced by the media daily. That is why I don’t listen to the mass media. The radio in my car stays off. I watch a little TV, but don’t own one. The city newspapers are dripping with wrong messages, so I don’t buy them. I get the highlights, and the details I need from civil and reliable sources, like the CDC. I lived through the current attack on morality and watched the poison drip into the veins of the Body of Christ for decades.
For non-Catholics, I suggest a starting place for morality. I see where things are going, and read journals and other non-mass media publications. It’s as plain as day. The outlines for the next phases - it’s always multi-level - are forming.
If no basis for morality can be found regarding human sexuality then things will continue as they are. And to use a saying: “Today’s not your day. Tomorrow’s not looking very good either.” For those who know what I’m talking about, they realize that good decisions need to be made daily and the desire to make bad ones resisted. This means doing and not doing, as appropriate.
I’m sure you’re smart enough to think of a way to reach people on a non-religious level. It can be done, but it requires work and study. The reference I’m making is simple: if you don’t have a way to determine good actions from bad regarding sexual activity then you’ll just keep doing what you’re doing and still accept the consequences in exchange for temporary pleasure.
Question 1: What is the source of morality? Good or bad?