Is fornication sinful?

[TJ in Oregon]

Well, I guess I'm of the opinion that 'fornication' is wrong when it takes the form of adultery or casual promiscuity, but, on the other hand, I think that if two people who, you know, actually love each other (or like each other, I dunno how one is to define 'love' as such in these situations), then I don't think sex outside of marriage is necessarily wrong.

What about persons of the same sex? Or is that covered by natural law since sex must be done with the telos of procreation, but not between adults of different sexes who aren't married? If marriage unnecessary for sex to be licit, what purpose does it then serve? Is it just a contract of two people who love each other? What does it mean for the two to "become one flesh" if they can licitly do this without marriage if they 'love' each other? What about masturbation? Do you think that is inherently sinful?

[TJ in Oregon]

I guess my post got TL;DR'ed?

I'll admit to not entirely understanding it. If not love, then what is the basis of marriage? Are you saying that it is sex? Because, at least to me, the idea of the basis of marriage being its monopoly over sexual activity strikes me as very, well... bad.

At risk of putting words into his mouth, I interpreted his post as meaning the basis of marriage is love defined as willing the good of the other rather than love defined as attraction. Perhaps given the multiple meanings of 'love', a better term for what he is describing would be 'commitment'.

[TJ in Oregon]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

Of all the issues to suddenly embrace practicality on, why this one? With issues of personal morality like this one without large political ramifications and moral quandaries that will arise from other things like tax policies for example, on which you seem to remain an idealist, what reasons are there for the departure from your ideal world? What do you mean by "true for me personally"? Are you advocating a relative sexual ethic that differs from person to person?

[TJ in Oregon]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

Of all the issues to suddenly embrace practicality on, why this one?

I'm not so much embracing practicality as I am saying that those are my views when I do think in practical terms. I still prefer to think in ideal terms, on this as in pretty much everything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being sick of arguing with people about a subject that I find especially emotionally exhausting, for the most part. What I mean by 'practical terms' is 'what I can reasonably expect of the people around me who don't share all my views'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That was poorly worded. I apologize. I mean that my actual views haven't changed (and also that I'm personally uninterested enough in sex not to have the problem that Simfan is describing). I'm advocating letting myself be emotionally exhausted and not having to deal with this so much.

Fair enough. I was under the impression from that previous post you were arguing that fornication is not sinful, which I can now is not what you're arguing. Thanks for the clarification.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm arguing that it's not sinful enough to be worth kamikazeing my social relationships over (independent of aggravating factors, like if there was dishonesty involved or a friendship was somehow built on an understanding of these things that turned out not to be true). That's all.

Well of course. How can you ever hope to convince them of the truth if you kamikaze your social relationships over it? I'd like to think you (and I) can have friends without supporting their every life decision but treating them the same regardless. I (think) I have quite a few friends who fornicate, know my beliefs on the matter, and are still willing to be friends regardless. Maybe they're all just pretending to like me while they go home and stick pins in their TJ dolls every night because I think fornication is sinful. Maybe I just have extraordinarily thick-skinned friends. But I think it's possible to do.

[TJ in Oregon]

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

Scott, do you believe non-Progressive Christians are going to hell for our beliefs?

Note: I don't quite believe in what Never Convinced posted, I believe in Invincible Ignorance, but that's beside the point.

[TJ in Oregon]

Hahaha.  What a sad, sorry little excuse for a human being you truly are.

Scott, do you believe non-Progressive Christians are going to hell for our beliefs?

Note: I don't quite believe in what Never Convinced posted, I believe in Invincible Ignorance, but that's beside the point.

Well, because you guys don't interpret the Bible the same way I do, I'd say yes - you are most certainly going to Hell.

Does that make you feel better?

No, because now I'm unsure of whether or not you're being serious and am also unsure if you were of what your actual answer would be.