The morality of casual sex

[The Alma Mater]

No, dear. That's not how love is made. You see, love usually comes before marriage.

You see, when a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a man love each other very much, they may decide they want to spend the rest of their life together. If they want to get married, this may involve marriage.

As for sex "only" being for procreation, sex has health benefits, relationship benefits, and research -- to get back to the thread topic suggest that -- "If casual sexual activity doesn’t violate your moral code, your sense of integrity, or the commitments you have made to yourself and/or others, then it’s probably not going to be a problem for you in terms of your psychological wellbeing."

So, if things are a problem for you, you personally shouldn't do them.

Unconditional love exists independently of circumstance. It is the love God has for humanity

Are married people adhering to a different religion than yours allowed to have sex, or is that always immoral because it is not marriage before your God ?

[The Free Joy State]

Unconditional love exists independently of circumstance. It is the love God has for humanity

Are married people adhering to a different religion than yours allowed to have sex, or is that always immoral because it is not marriage before your God ?

Fair question. After all, if they were not marrying "according to the sacrament" -- to quote the second part of the quote -- then would they be considered truly married by people who adhere to the hardline rightist interpretation?

And, surely, if one has to be a virgin to marry (according to all this fuss about not having had pre-marital sex) then anyone who wasn't a virgin (say, late converts or women who were raped) shouldn't be allowed to marry at all? Which would raise the question of whether rape victims should have to marry their rapists to save their families from shame...

EDIT: Or, alternatively, we could just decide to stay out of consenting adults' bedrooms -- after all, there's no Sex Police forcing people to have premarital sex or casual sex (so why have one enforcing the opposite) -- and save ourselves the trouble of working out the conversion rate for 50 shekels.

[The Alma Mater]

Which would raise the question of whether rape victims should have to marry their rapists to save their families from shame...

The Bible explicitly says yes.

[The Free Joy State]

Which would raise the question of whether rape victims should have to marry their rapists to save their families from shame...

The Bible explicitly says yes.

I know. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Turkey also planned -- I don't know if they've done it yet -- to introduce a bill letting the rapists of minors off if they married the victim. Here it is. So marriage would certainly be a recipe for "happiness" and "unconditional love" for the girls in those dreadful circumstances. *snorts sarcastically because any emoji would be too light*

[The Alma Mater]

Perhaps another angle:

Up until the 1950s (and even much later in some areas of the world) the Catholic Church actively advocated that being lefthanded was amoral. Primary use of "the sinister hand" was a sign one was in league with the devil. Lefthanded children attending Catholic schools were violently forced to stop using that hand with rulers slapping them.

Society told the Church to back off and adjust its morals.
It did. Incredibly fast as well; I doubt many young Catholics know that a mere 70 years ago lefthanded people were seen as morally equivalent to gays or to people who have casual sex.

So if we tell the Church to back off on this issue... will it ? Can we change the morals of the guiding light of the world once again ?

[The Alma Mater]

The Bible explicitly says yes.

I know. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Turkey also planned -- I don't know if they've done it yet -- to introduce a bill letting the rapists of minors off if they married the victim. Here it is. So marriage would certainly be a recipe for "happiness" and "unconditional love" for the girls in those dreadful circumstances. *snorts sarcastically because any emoji would be too light*

The scary thing that that rule is also in the Quran - meaning that officially more than half of the worlds population indeed believe girls marrying their rapists is the morally right thing to do.

The lesson ? Do not be a girl.

[Nakena]

I appreciate the sentiment.

With the single life comes many joys. While I am not married yet, I believe that the best years are yet to come regarding God's purpose for my life.

I can be nice. Sometimes. Besides if you believe thats your way, well perhaps it is. But who knows.

Not me, what they thought of me.

A fantasy.

I can feel ya. They didn wanted you, but an image of you they had created in their own perception.

[The Free Joy State]

I know. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Turkey also planned -- I don't know if they've done it yet -- to introduce a bill letting the rapists of minors off if they married the victim. Here it is. So marriage would certainly be a recipe for "happiness" and "unconditional love" for the girls in those dreadful circumstances. *snorts sarcastically because any emoji would be too light*

The scary thing that that rule is also in the Quran - meaning that officially more than half of the worlds population indeed believe girls marrying their rapists is the morally right thing to do.

The lesson ? Do not be a girl.

I'm more optimistic than that. While I know that there are literalists and hardline rightists, there are also religious liberals: 52% of Christians in the US are liberals, and only 19% of liberals are literalists.

Research of liberals who are Christian found that 64% would like to see abortion legal in all or most cases, 73% think homosexuality should be accepted, 66% strongly favour same-sex marriage, 33% believe in natural evolution (and a further 30% in guided evolution), and 69% think stronger environmental regulations are worth the cost.

The Bible can be interpreted to contradict all these things. But people are not automatons. Everyone can use their judgement to discern for themselves.

I admit my bias as a liberal person with beliefs and who supports all five precepts in the research (I support natural evolution, incidentally). Though I consider the fact there is anyone that believes a rape victim should be made to marry her rapist -- and a man in America made his teenage daughter do just that a few years ago (ref) -- to be absolutely and equally horrific, whether that's one girl or a million of them.

[Aikoriland]

I don't really consider casual sex to be immoral. It's just not something that I am into.

[The Holy Therns]

I don't have a problem with unconditional love. I just think that calling it that, and then saying it can only exist between married couples... well, that's QUITE OBVIOUSLY a condition.

Unconditional love does not exist only between married couples. It's a sacramental service to reciprocate God's unconditional love for us through our spouse. The other ways of doing so are holy orders and consecrated celibacy (For example, Opus Dei numeraries).

I can consent to a partner being there, but I certainly don't consent to God being involved in my bed.

[Ethel mermania]

Unconditional love does not exist only between married couples. It's a sacramental service to reciprocate God's unconditional love for us through our spouse. The other ways of doing so are holy orders and consecrated celibacy (For example, Opus Dei numeraries).

I can consent to a partner being there, but I certainly don't consent to God being involved in my bed.

If no one is calling for god in the bedroom, it just means y'all are doing it wrong.

<==== runs away.

[The Holy Therns]

I can consent to a partner being there, but I certainly don't consent to God being involved in my bed.

If no one is calling for god in the bedroom, it just means y'all are doing it wrong.

<==== runs away.

I'll hand you that one, but I doubt that's the basis for the Catholic position.

[Dogmeat]

And, indeed, marriage is not necessary for lovers to express unconditional love. If it were, then that love would be conditional.

Because that's how logic works.

Sacramental marriage is necessary for lovers to fully express unconditional love or the love God has for humanity through romance, as unconditional love is not just a feeling. It's a skill, a service, a gift. Unconditional love can exist without marriage but is expressed and achieved in the romantic form through one's marriage.

The way we express unconditional love for our friends and family, however, does not actually require the sacrament of marriage as it would in the case of eros or romance.

No it isn't. You're lying. A lifetime of love and romance is not diminished because no priest ever said a magic spell over it.

[Grinning Dragon]

Sacramental marriage is necessary for lovers to fully express unconditional love or the love God has for humanity through romance, as unconditional love is not just a feeling. It's a skill, a service, a gift. Unconditional love can exist without marriage but is expressed and achieved in the romantic form through one's marriage.

The way we express unconditional love for our friends and family, however, does not actually require the sacrament of marriage as it would in the case of eros or romance.

No it isn't. You're lying. A lifetime of love and romance is not diminished because no priest ever said a magic spell over it.

If the blessing was in Latin, a magic spell has been cast, as we all know from movies, if it's in Latin it's legit.

[The Holy Therns]

No, dear. That's not how love is made. You see, love usually comes before marriage.

You see, when a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a man love each other very much, they may decide they want to spend the rest of their life together. If they want to get married, this may involve marriage.

As for sex "only" being for procreation, sex has health benefits, relationship benefits, and research -- to get back to the thread topic suggest that -- "If casual sexual activity doesn’t violate your moral code, your sense of integrity, or the commitments you have made to yourself and/or others, then it’s probably not going to be a problem for you in terms of your psychological wellbeing."

So, if things are a problem for you, you personally shouldn't do them.

Unconditional love exists independently of circumstance. It is the love God has for humanity.

To completely express unconditional love through romance requires the sacrament of marriage and its consummation, post-marital coitus. That is to say it requires people to, "make love," in accordance with the figure of speech.

Well, if it requires something, it's not unconditional, is it?

[Neanderthaland]

It's true. She doesn't.

She digs big fletching stones eh?

"Baby, I'm going to paint your cave."

[Kernen]

I'm struggling to see the difference in sex with my fiance the day before we were married and sex the day after. It was more or less indistinguishable.

Well, that's because you consummated marriage before your wedding day. Marriage is a sacrament. Without that context, meaning disipates.

Then I need a divorce lawyer or twelve, because that puts me several marriages ahead of where I thought I was.

Were I stuck with my first partner forever, one of us would die before a month was out.

[Ethel mermania]

If no one is calling for god in the bedroom, it just means y'all are doing it wrong.

<==== runs away.

I'll hand you that one, but I doubt that's the basis for the Catholic position.

Sadly, no. Think about how much of a happier place the world would be if it were.

[Sundiata]

Unconditional love exists independently of circumstance. It is the love God has for humanity.

To completely express unconditional love through romance requires the sacrament of marriage and its consummation, post-marital coitus. That is to say it requires people to, "make love," in accordance with the figure of speech.

Well, if it requires something, it's not unconditional, is it?

No.

Unconditional love requires nothing; all people are already loved unconditionally by God. Unconditional love is God. To achieve its expression through romance, however, requires the sacrament of holy matrimony. Matrimony is a transition from the conditional love of one's romantic partner into the unconditional love of God.

Sex is no casual thing.

[Sundiata]

Well, that's because you consummated marriage before your wedding day. Marriage is a sacrament. Without that context, meaning disipates.

Then I need a divorce lawyer or twelve, because that puts me several marriages ahead of where I thought I was.

Were I stuck with my first partner forever, one of us would die before a month was out.

True love takes time.

[Sundiata]

Unconditional love exists independently of circumstance. It is the love God has for humanity.

Unconditional love exists whether or not people don't believe in God. Unless you are saying atheist parents do not feel unconditional love for their children.

To completely express unconditional love through romance requires the sacrament of marriage and its consummation, post-marital coitus. That is to say it requires people to, "make love," in accordance with the figure of speech.

I want a citation -- not the Bible, not a holy book, not anything written by a single Theologian and nothing from Opus Dei -- I want an accredited study (not that crock from the Institute of Family Studies you tried wheeling out earlier). Otherwise it ain't true.

And -- as for the unconditional love of marriage -- a couple married as virgins in holy sacrament, where one party starts beating the living shit out of the other -- is that "unconditional love"? The kind you claim automatically and can only come from a marriage?

Is the love of two unmarried equals -- who respect each other and sleep together and where neither harms the other -- wrong, while that where one married party beats the other a wonderful blessed union.

Tell me, Sundiata. What does your conscience say?

Unconditional love is not only realized through marriage, the necessity of marriage only applies to romantic love. It's the realization of that unconditional (God's) love through romance which requires marriage. Friends can love unconditionally, doesn't require marriage. Family can love unconditionally, doesn't require marriage.

[The Free Joy State]

Unconditional love exists whether or not people don't believe in God. Unless you are saying atheist parents do not feel unconditional love for their children.


I want a citation -- not the Bible, not a holy book, not anything written by a single Theologian and nothing from Opus Dei -- I want an accredited study (not that crock from the Institute of Family Studies you tried wheeling out earlier). Otherwise it ain't true.

And -- as for the unconditional love of marriage -- a couple married as virgins in holy sacrament, where one party starts beating the living shit out of the other -- is that "unconditional love"? The kind you claim automatically and can only come from a marriage?

Is the love of two unmarried equals -- who respect each other and sleep together and where neither harms the other -- wrong, while that where one married party beats the other a wonderful blessed union.

Tell me, Sundiata. What does your conscience say?

Unconditional love is not only realized through marriage, the necessity of marriage only applies to romantic love. It's the realization of that unconditional (God's) love through romance which requires marriage. Friends can love unconditionally, doesn't require marriage. Family can love unconditionally, doesn't require marriage.

You missed the most important part of the question, Sundiata. And I want it answered.

I don't want that cop-out answer you keep giving. I want you to answer me this:

1. Is a marital relationship -- where two people marry as virgins -- where one party starts beating the shit out of the other one with unconditional love, simply because they married? Would a marriage where the man raped his wife be one with unconditional love? As you insist repeatedly that "unconditional love in romance is only realised through marriage", it seems pertinent to ask
2. Can a relationship between two people who are unmarried and in a relationship together -- one where they have sex, value the other as equals and respect one another, have lived together for years, would die to protect the other and would never harm the other -- never have unconditional love, in your consideration.

I want your answer. And if your mean to chant that same thing all over again, kindly don't.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Unconditional love exists whether or not people don't believe in God. Unless you are saying atheist parents do not feel unconditional love for their children.


I want a citation -- not the Bible, not a holy book, not anything written by a single Theologian and nothing from Opus Dei -- I want an accredited study (not that crock from the Institute of Family Studies you tried wheeling out earlier). Otherwise it ain't true.

And -- as for the unconditional love of marriage -- a couple married as virgins in holy sacrament, where one party starts beating the living shit out of the other -- is that "unconditional love"? The kind you claim automatically and can only come from a marriage?

Is the love of two unmarried equals -- who respect each other and sleep together and where neither harms the other -- wrong, while that where one married party beats the other a wonderful blessed union.

Tell me, Sundiata. What does your conscience say?

Unconditional love is not only realized through marriage, the necessity of marriage only applies to romantic love. It's the realization of that unconditional (God's) love through romance which requires marriage. Friends can love unconditionally, doesn't require marriage. Family can love unconditionally, doesn't require marriage.

Nah. Marriage does not make your love stronger or better than being in the exact same relationship sans paperwork and church acceptance.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Then I need a divorce lawyer or twelve, because that puts me several marriages ahead of where I thought I was.

Were I stuck with my first partner forever, one of us would die before a month was out.

True love takes time.

To suggest that when people have irreconcilable differences they should just tough it out and hope it resolves for the sake of "true love" is what ends up getting people abused or killed.

[The Free Joy State]

True love takes time.

To suggest that when people have irreconcilable differences they should just tough it out and hope it resolves for the sake of "true love" is what ends up getting people abused or killed.

Not "true love"; for that's only the carrot to keep the miserable striving in a marriage that cannot work, and behind them, the stick: the "Will of God". It's basically the same message wherever people are taught it is noble to sublimate their will and suffer silently in this life:

"To be loyal to Heavenly Father, to truly love Him and obey Him, you must keep sweet no matter what. If your feelings can be disturbed and you simply need more of the spirit of God to have and earn more of that sweet spirit, you must pay the price. The price is sacrifice. Set aside any feeling or thought that disturbs the spirit of God."... “If you are keeping sweet no matter what, you are a person ready to give up your own will and just obey the priesthood over you. In order to Keep Sweet, it requires the sacrifice of our feelings.”

Oh, just in case anyone happened to find themselves nodding along with all that -- that was the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doctrine of "Keep Sweet" -- and Warren Jeffs, the man who spoke those words, is in jail now.