In thisthread, we’ve discussed the particular burdens placed on practicing Catholic heterosexuals to avoid sex before marriage, vis a vie the burden placed on homosexuals. I want to know, if you HAD TO pick, would you prefer a married life with one sexual partner for the rest of your life, or would you prefer to forego marriage along with any sex whatsoever.
Let’s imagine a world where everyone else is abiding by this rule. Every time you get to second base, the partner stops you and says “I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable telling my priest that I did this. You need to stop or marry me.” There is thus NO POSSIBLE WAY to even have oral sex without raping someone or marrying them. Let’s further suppose that if you get divorced, no one else will ever marry you for the rest of your life, so you’re pretty much cut off permanently.
I suppose if you’re already married and loving it, this is a pretty easy choice. Please avoid voting.
darn, married and like it … but I didnt see the instruction not to vote until after I voted …
However keep in mind that many people who are sexually neutral [take it or leave it] get married for companionship and tax/economic advantage as well … there is a major incentive economically to get married.
Nope. Marriage gets you one partner for life. Remember, even if you tried to have a poly or cheat on your spouse, no one would let you anyway. They’d all say “Marry me or you get nothing”. The whole world is perfectly virtuous.
Well am certain you could find a partner who equally would want the sex but not the hassle of living with your ass or having kids! So if marriage of convenience is in the rules, I suppose I would get the paperwork done.
For option 2, is masturbation still an option? (I assume it is, but could be wrong. If that’s not an option, hell, I’m going for the married-with-at-least-the-possibility-of-sex option).
Celibacy does not mean abstaining from sex. It means abstaining from marriage. Priests of the RC church take a vow of celibacy. It is this which prevents them from getting married. They can have a s much sex as they can get and not break that vow.
So, I think the OP meant chastity rather than celibacy.
The RCC requires chastity of all Christians. Chastity does not quite mean abstaining from sex; it means abstaining from sex with anyone you are not married too. Hence celibacy (according to the Church) does mean abstaining from all sex.
Back to the OP; can I at least marry another man or is this a world where marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples?
I find this quite offensive/problematic. I wouldn’t have this problem if the idea of moral righteousness hadn’t been brought in, but could you please explain what you find to be not “virtuous” about polygamy?
Because he meant “virtuous as defined by the particular moral system he is creating a hypothesis around”.
I mean, if the question was “if you had to chose, would you be a werewolf or a vampire?”, it’s not making any moral statement about zombies. Same deal here.
I think he would if he said “No, you can’t be a zombie, everyone in this hypothetical is virtuous.” It just struck me as a really odd and gratuitous judgment to bring in.
There is other things in the world besides sex. Of course if I was capable of getting any maybe I’d change my mind
Still in all I think a marriage for the sake of anything else but love is wrong. Now I know people marry for companionship, money, to have kids, and I’m not knocking that. That is their business, but as far as I’m concerned, sex is nice, but it’s not the end of the world if you can’t get any.
Life is full of places to find happiness, and if you’re beating yourself up over whether you get sex, don’t get sex, don’t get enough, etc etc, you’re too distracted to look for happiness elsewhere, and there is happiness all over.
