I really think that on this board, the morality structure he is describing–no pre- or extra-marital sex of any kind–is as exotic and farfetched as werewolves and zombies. So “virtuous” can be understood to mean “virtuous to people that buy into this whole exotic belief system that of course you don’t share”. I mean, if you read his “virtuous” there as reflecting his own sincere values, it means he thinks that adult pre-marital sex–as well as poly arrangements–are non-virtuous, and, again, that’s a pretty exotic view, I think for most Americans.
I’d choose no marriage, no sex. I have no desire for marriage, much less marriage in a world where marriage boils down to “I want a hole to screw, and this is the only way to get one. That doesn’t mean I actually like you.”
Interesting. Because oddly enough, everyone else seemed to grasp Chessic Sense’s meaning, making your continued objections quite gratuitous.
I’m celibate now–with aspects of it’s not really a choice. I wouldn’t get married simply to have sex, and my ideas of what benefits I’d get from marriage are probably skewed, but I’d pick partnership over eternal loneliness anyday.
(Please no reminders from those in miserable partnerships that there are worse things than eternal loneliness.)
Same here. In fact I’d probably take marriage with no sex over being single and having sex.
ETA: Although on second thought, that would be a pretty fucked up marriage.
Do we get to choose our partner (and vice versa; it has to be mutual, after all), or is one assigned to us?
I want to know what happened to all the hookers? Won’t anyone think of the hookers? They fuck for our freedom!
My god, I’d choose “anything with sex” over “anything else without sex,” even if that "anything’ was something like prison. I couldn’t live without sex.
In this scenario, they either don’t exist or are all instantly detected and killed, apparently. One of the implications of the OP is that there is zero personal freedom when it comes to sex, and all people are under 24 hour surveillance. Or universal mind control.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
<mod>
Due to circumstances in the OP’s life preventing him from coming back and concluding this thread properly, he has asked that he be allowed to resurrect this zombie thread.
It will be allowed upon the proper payment of braaaaaaaaaains!
Chessic Sense, have at it.
</mod>
You can choose your partner. In fact, you can wait until later to choose your partner if you want to. You can choose the single, celibate life for now, and once you find the man/woman of your dreams, you can then get married and have sex. Remember, the idea here is to analyze how heavy the burden is on a strict, heterosexual Catholic. So if a Catholic can ethically do it, so can you.
As for gay marriages…sure, why not. They’re allowed. I want to know about the sex-marriage relationship, not the hetero-homo comparison.
To those that think the marriage would be terrible, I disagree. In my life right now, I’m right on the verge of getting married. If I wasn’t getting laid right now, I definitely would go for it. So the abstinence demand just pushes me over that line. For me, though, this doesn’t mean the marriage would be based on sex. There are plenty of other reasons, including love, that would make it a strong marriage. So to assume that choosing marriage (when you normally wouldn’t) leads to a bad marriage is an error, I think.
Well if virtue is defined as the values of the people being considered, then anyone having a poly relationship would not be virtuous. Yet in my given hypothetical, everyone is virtuous. That is, they’re completely strict and in agreement about their sexual beliefs.
Universal mind control. Or conditioning since birth. It doesn’t really matter how it comes about, just assume that everyone in the world that’s sane would abhor the idea of having an affair, being in a poly relationship, or prostituting themselves. They think of premarital sex like we think of cannibalism or infant rape. It’s disgusting and just doesn’t happen in day to day life.
Of course I’d choose to get married. That’s the point of the prohibition on having sex outside of marriage. The desire for sex is strong, and this redirects it into a desire to get married and have a family. (Okay, so that last bit is the reason for the prohibition on abortions/birth control.)
I’d get married. Pretty easy choice, since I’ve always been a monogamist man anyway. Though the prospect of being lonely for the rest of my life, should I divorce my wife, is pretty scary, it’s still a better option than being lonely no (and sexless! :o) forever anyway.
Since you cut off people that are already married and happy about it, I’m curious what information you think the results will show you?
I’m a bit confused with the limited options on the poll as well.
In truth, my wish would be to be married, even without sex (current status is completely single and sexless). Marriage is in my mind more then just about sex, or even children. It is the whole warm-fuzzy of trust, friendship, security, companionship, laughter, tears… Much more then simply sex.
That the desire for sex is strong enough to get people into lifelong monogamous relationships when they otherwise wouldn’t. So for a young, devout Catholic man to resist premarital sex is not a task to be taken lightly.
In the thread linked to in the OP, I argued that the burden of Catholic ban on gay sex/marriages is equivalent to the burden placed on a marriage-avoidant straight man. The gay man dislikes “marriage to a woman” because of the woman, while the straight man dislikes it because of the marriage. Thus, neither get to have sex due to the same rule.
Had the poll results turned the other way, it’d be evidence that for most people, the ban on premarital sex isn’t that much of a burden because it’s something easily accomplished. It’d make it comparable to “Thou shalt not lick cacti.”
QFT
I’ll take sex, please.
OK. Well, I won’t answer the poll per your request.