School routinely made us listen to teachers and speakers tell us why sex was a bad thing. Now, if you're a Christian proponent of the "no premarital sex" stance, I've probably just triggered you to say, "We don't think that sex is bad! We think that it's beautiful; that's why we want to save it until marriage."Sadly, this argument is purely subjective. There is no more objective beauty in sex. Furthermore, if something is beautiful, why restrain it? If sex is so beautiful, why not encourage people to practice it for enjoyment, as long as they do so safely and with someone they trust? Why such enormous restrictions on it (the Catholic doesn't even let married couples have sex for purposes other than procreation!)? Sex isn't inherently special. I’m sure that I've offended probably quite a few of you out there with that statement. I'm sorry, but there's something that you must realize: Sex is entirely relative. It's special when you make it special, and only then. If you think sex is special and that it should be saved for marriage, you're rig. It is simply an action that has no inherent moral implications. Since the humanist moral code is completely unencumbered with issues like one's "closeness to God," it includes no such prohibitions against physical pleasure. If two adults willfully consent to have sex, whose rights are being violated? Who are they hurting? Themselves, by risking STD transmission? This is a risk they've acknowledged, accepted and, hopefully, minimized, by using protection. My point is that sex is not a moral choice.
The only possible respect that someone could gain from me through abstinence is that they're ignoring their desire for physical pleasure, which takes willpower. Do I find the concept revolting? Yes. Christians believe that sex is a roadblock in one's "closeness with God," because it is physical and humans tend to lean toward a materialistic way of thinking. Only when applied in a situation of rape, sexual abuse of a child, or...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document