Sexual Morality


#1

Since my last thread got moved I’ll rephrase the question.

I’m trying to better understand non-Catholic sexual morality.

In your Protestant denomination what do you believe when it comes to sexual morality?

Pornography? Moral or immoral?
Premarital sex? Moral or immoral?
Homosexuality? Moral or immoral?
Violent sexual roleplay? Moral or immoral?

Please help me understand your view of sexual morality.

When I was Protestant (primarily attended the United Church) there seemed to be little to no restrictions when it came to sexuality. Homosexuality was celebrated, premarital sex was not discouraged and in fact was considered normal and good… pornography was frowned upon.

But I realize my experience was limited so I’d like to learn more about what Protestant denominations teach about these things.


#2

For many…if not most Friends, human sexuality is something we consider very seriously.

Friends believe that the Light of God indwells each of us and is a True Guide.

To answer your question…any sexual activity that is manipulative and exploitive to another who also bears the Image of God is wrong. Even those sexual activities within a marriage can be wrong, if expoitive and manipulative.

We believe that each of us must live in accordance with conscience in community as we explore and consider how others view sexuality. No voice is denied as we seek to Hear “that of God” within one another.

In some Yearly Meetings this has separated us as we have witnessed the Life of God in our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and cannot deny their witness to Truth in their lives.

Love demands we seek the welfare of others even before ourselves. Those gay and lesbian Friends are not denied a full voice and participation in the Life of the Meeting as they too are able to bring ministry and speak to “that of God” in each of us.

Not all Meetings feel this way…especially those meetings that ally themselves with Evangelical Friends International and Conservative Friends Yearly Meetings. It is an ongoing question Friends seek to answer on how to repsond to each other as bearers of the Divine Image.


#3

Very interesting. :slight_smile: Thank you.


#4

Pornography? Moral or immoral?
Premarital sex? Moral or immoral?
Homosexuality? Moral or immoral?
Violent sexual roleplay? Moral or immoral?

All sinful in need of confession and absolution.


#5

Yes, this is the Catholic position. :slight_smile:


#6

[quote="nickybr38, post:5, topic:298960"]
Yes, this is the Catholic position. :)

[/quote]

As is the LCMS position.


#7

Neat! :slight_smile: I’d wager the Mormon’s, JW’s and Anglicans share a similar position as well but none have chimed in yet.


#8

The LDS believe that premarital sex, homosexuality, and especially pornography is wrong, and demeaning to the soul.

Violent sexual roleplay has never, to my knowledge, been discussed in the LDS church. As far as I’m aware, as long as it’s consensual and within marriage alone, it would be okay. An LDS friend of mine and her husband do practice BDSM and they both have temple recommends, so I’m assuming it’s “kosher”, so to speak.

If anyone still practicing in the LDS church feels like correcting me (and possibly has the sources to back it up instead of just personal opinion), then please do. I’m doing my best to be as fair as possible here :slight_smile:


#9
  1. Immoral
  2. Immoral
  3. Immoral (if practiced)
  4. Immoral

#10

Im not christian, but we have no problem with them as long as they are consentual.


#11

Episcopalian.

I would echo what Publisher said, I can’t improve on it. Of course, without the specifically Friends stuff.


#12

I’m not in a protestant denomination as the OP stated, but I do qualify as a non Catholic so if you’re interested in this atheists persepctive:

Pornography

  • no issue with literatue. Film and pictures maybe, I have some serious concerns about the backoffice of the industry, exploitation and so on.

Homemade adult material for each other to enjoy - no problem.

Premarital sex

  • it wasn’t for me, but I wouldn’t dream of imposing what was right for me, on another woman or couple. It’s up to them to explore their relationship and come to a consentual agreement. I’d be happy to explain why I don’t think it’s a good idea personally if asked though.

Homosexuality

  • no issue with it what so ever. I’m a strong supporter of gay marriage for example.

Violent sexual roleplay

  • if it’s consentual, hey, what’s not to like. It wouldn’t be for me personally, but again I don’t feel I have any business telling another couple how to run their sexlife.

Sarah x :slight_smile:


#13

Why is it that if one finds a certain behavior objectional, or in this case immoral, it is viewed as an impostion upon those who practice it? The Catholic Church is accused of this all the time. It opposes gay marriage, therefore it is accused of “imposing its morals” upon homosexuals.

Just a question. What is your opinion of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)? Now apparently, the only way these folks can satisfy themselves sexually is through young boys. So what about their feelings, their needs. If we stand against it are we the bad guys who wish to impose our will?

I guess my real question comes down to this. Is there any sexual activity against which you would stand and say “This isn’t right”?


#14

[quote="nickybr38, post:1, topic:298960"]

Violent sexual roleplay? Moral or immoral?

[/quote]

wait Christians find this immoral? i had never heard that


#15

I never mentioned the Catholic Church. I was talking from a personal persepctive as per the question :shrug:

Premarital sex was not right for me, or my husband. I would never impose what was right for me, personally, on anyone else. It’s up to them to decide what’s right for them and what’s wrong. If they wish to have sex before marriage, I neither care, judge, condemn, support or oppose. It’s entirely up to them, as consenting adults. However as I said, I’d be happy to explain if asked why it wasn’t right for me, and if something hit a chord with them, again, it’s up to them what they do about that. I have no role to play in other peoples private sexlife.

In the same vein, no-one, in my view, has the right to condemn any adult for consentual activity engaged in with another adult of age and free and able to consent, which is the equivolent of trying to impose their morality on others. I support the Christian Churches right to express their opinion on gay marriage for example, but I totally oppose any measures any Church of any faith would take to impose their version of morality on the legislature, and have gay marriages denied in civil law for no other reason than they think it’s immoral. That, I am totally opposed to.

Just a question. What is your opinion of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)? Now apparently, the only way these folks can satisfy themselves sexually is through young boys. So what about their feelings, their needs. If we stand against it are we the bad guys who wish to impose our will?

I guess my real question comes down to this. Is there any sexual activity against which you would stand and say “This isn’t right”?

Yes, there is, and it includes pedophilia, but this is totally off topic.

Sarah x :slight_smile:


#16

Yes - at least within Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church actually has a very mature view of human sexuality. One might argue it stems from a myth tale though (i.e. Adam and Eve).

Ideally, the Catholic conception of sex would be total male and female equality and predicated on “giving” or “sharing” yourself with your spouse.

Within the Catholic view the domination/submission fetish involved in heterosexual (or homosexual too) sex stems from Adam and Eve passing on Original Sin to us.

I think it’s fair to say the vast majority of heterosexual sex involves the fetish of one being dominate and the other being submissive. But maybe it’s instinctual or something? I mean… dogs will hump your leg to show dominance.

The standard response is that children can not consent.

I took a political philosophy course a couple years ago. We learned about “positive freedom” vs “negative freedom.”

Libertarians are supposed to be the harbingers of negative freedom. One can look negative and positive freedom up on the internet if they’re not familiar with them.

I bring this up because the Republicans and Democrats basically share with religion the idea of “positive freedom” that freedom comes from internal means: from self realization, and that a larger community must prescribe how that is obtained and if in fact the individual is free. Therefore, a person in prison behind bars can be free.

Basically what I’m saying is that Democrats and European liberals (like their conservative counterparts) basically impose their morals on others and engage in indoctrination of the young. Just like religion. Frankly, I regard the Republican Party and Democratic Party as essentially religions, and judging by their conventions/rallies, and blood splattered wars, they are full of zealots within their political religions.

The only difference between them and traditional religions are that they have no rituals and they don’t refer to a God or gods.


#17

Forgot to say that concept of freedom as “negative freedom” is simply about freedom from external forces and government coercion.


#18

The issue with NAMBLA is that children are not mature enough to provide informed consent. They are easily victimized by adults.

Pederasty is not related to homosexuality in any way. It is hard to know exact statistics, but it is generally accepted in mental health circles that the incidence of heterosexual pedophilia is higher as a percentage of the population than homosexual.


#19

If true… I wonder how those statistics are acquired? Both the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church seemed to have men primarily targeting boys. In the case of the Boy Scouts there were no girls. But in the Church there were - and are - plenty of girls.

Also… would you know if there is a specifically heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA?

I’m not suggesting homosexuals are pedophiles. But certainly - judging from NAMBLA’s title - there are homosexuals as well as heterosexuals that are pedophiles.

One other thing… the male homosexual community has the terms “Bears” and “Twinks.” In the case of the latter you clearly have adult gay males that are like many heterosexual males that have a thing for youthful, possibly teenage looks, for those they desire.


#20

I didn’t mean to start a whole NAMBLA thing here. I was using it strictly as an example, (and a poor example as it turns out, due to the consent issue) in order to determine the extent of atheistgirl’s tolerance for disordered sexual behavior. When would she say “okay, this destroys human dignity and should not happen”?

She gave me her answer. It seems that consent is the key to being ok or not ok, not the particular behavior itself. I’m certainly open to correction if I got the wrong impression.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.