Sex is morally wrong?

[Zack]

Sex is harmful to teens if things go wrong, STD's, pregnancy, or other unexpected things can happen. But I asked my sex ed teacher that if all precautions are taken, then is it really harmful for younger people to have sex? She said that it just unacceptable. The only reason I think she could back that arguement succesfully is by saying it is morally wrong. But the drive is enormous, so I don't get (if all precautions are taken) why sex is so "bad"
Discuss..

 

[Kenneth R.]

if it was always morally wrong then we are extinct.

sex is only morally wrong when it is without consent or without love.

 

[Hypnos]

why should sex be wrong if it is without love? love and sex are two diferent things. it's fine when they occur together. but you can have each one of them without the other.

 

[kristen83]

why should sex be wrong if it is without love? love and sex are two diferent things. it's fine when they occur together. but you can have each one of them without the other.

I absolutely agree! Sex and love are most difinitly two different things. It should not be wrong to have sex if you are not in love.Thats just
something someone told there daughter before going on a date so she would not spread her legs. in my personal opinion.

 

[Kenneth R.]

well in my opinion, such action is cause for one to be called a slut, be they male or female.

 

[speed]

Jesus? What is this the Christian coalition website? Sex is morally wrong? WHose morals, and what world are you living in?

 

[Kenneth R.]

Christians do not think sex is morally wrong, as i stated above. if they did they'd be supporting the extinction of humanity and our religion.

 

[Valtiel]

I'll sound like a broken record but sex outside of meaning full commitment and love is wrong, morally, teleologically, period!!!! Sex of course is nessecary, but is not to be taken so lightly, Seriously don't start with all this moral relitavism BS, there is no such thing...

 

[Hypnos]

^^that's just your opinion, not mine and not kristen's. i have my own moral values. they just differ from the christian ones, but it doesn't make them inferior. example: i never cheated in a relationship. but on the other hand being a single now i can have sex whenever i want to and whenever i find a woman that agrees on that act. love is something different. when i am seriously in love with someone, i would never betray her, that would be beyond my moral boundaries. you may not agree with me on these points, but i don't care. there's a lot of christian behaviors that i don't agree with...

 

[G-Master]

While I agree with, Silent Song, I still say this: Live and let live.

 

[Cythraul]

I'll sound like a broken record but sex outside of meaning full commitment and love is wrong, morally, teleologically, period!!!! Sex of course is nessecary, but is not to be taken so lightly, Seriously don't start with all this moral relitavism BS, there is no such thing...

Okay, sorry but I'm going to have to be the one that starts with all the "moral relitavism BS" here. I want you to explain to me why the above moral judgement is valid.

Just for you information, ethics are SITUATIONAL. There's no escaping that, unless you live in candy land.

 

[Kenneth R.]

they are in fact situational, but i don't know of any situation where it would be morally right to have sex without love unless you were the last two living beings of your species and it was necessary to avoid extinction. got any other examples?

 

[Cythraul]

they are in fact situational, but i don't know of any situation where it would be morally right to have sex without love unless you were the last two living beings of your species and it was necessary to avoid extinction. got any other examples?

So far you've merely stated that having sex without love is morally wrong but you haven't given any reasons as to why such a claim is valid.

 

[Kenneth R.]

what motivations would validate such action? personal indulgence? lack of responsibility?

my point is, what meaning does it have if not for love? it then becomes no different than jacking off with somebody else. i'd like to hear what you have to say to validate such actions as sex without love. what makes it morally right, if you question when i call it morally wrong?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Who says sexual pleasure isn't helpful for your health, or something?

Regardless, your moral code isn't objective in any provable sense.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Regardless, your moral code isn't objective in any provable sense.

was thinking about it, and i think ultimately it comes down to this. i guess the end-all answer is, according to each person's individual moral sense, it is either right or wrong based on that, and they should adhere to that morality to be true to self.

 

[Cythraul]

what motivations would validate such action? personal indulgence?

Sure, why not. That's part of the deal. There's an element of indulgence and self-satisfaction in everything we do; doesn't matter what it is. It doesn't necessarily have to be just that however. Where is it written that the other person's feelings can't be taken into account just because the two are not in love? First you have to tell me what qualifies as love. If you can't give me a clear-cut definition of what love actually is then your point is moot. Of course, I'll never believe that it's morally wrong in an objective sense and I don't think you can possibly show me where this all-encompassing moral standard resides. It's either helpful or harmful depending on the particular individual.

lack of responsibility?

What? That's a rather *irresponsible* claim to make. How is that necessarily less responsible than having intercourse with a partner that one is supposedly in love with?

my point is, what meaning does it have if not for love?

You're forgetting the visceral aspects of sex which logically have nothing to do with romantic idealizations. How does that figure in to your scheme?

it then becomes no different than jacking off with somebody else.

That's *your* interpretation of it.

i'd like to hear what you have to say to validate such actions as sex without love. what makes it morally right, if you question when i call it morally wrong?

I'm not arguing whether it's morally right or wrong. I'm saying that it just *is*. Sorry but I'm a pragmatist. Something is either helpful or harmful to a given individual or group in a given context and that's all that you can determine because anything more abstract than that is either nonexistent or completely beyond our grasp.

edit: I'd like to add that I in no way see ethics as a hopeless case. Some people take the radical nihilist viewpoint and see ethics as completely irrelevant. I'd like to make it clear that that's not my stance. Intellectual inertia is not the answer.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I'm not arguing whether it's morally right or wrong. I'm saying that it just *is*. Sorry but I'm a pragmatist.

look at the thread title...

my point still stands. without love, then what's the point?

 

[Taliesin Stormheller]

Sex is morally wrong to those who hold those kinds of values. As long as both parties consent, nothing is right or wrong. The only thing truly unethical is the violation of another's will and person.
But it is, in my opinion, nasty for teens to be having kids and spreading STDs. Volition and action is unethical if it damages others, which is what sex among ignorant people does. It leads to disease for others and the creation of wretched new life. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son.

 

[no country for old wainds]

look at the thread title...

my point still stands. without love, then what's the point?

But what if you *love* sexual pleasure by itself?