Zone1 We need to Return to 1940's Values on Sex Outside Marriage. Desperately.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They've already been proven--through the studies.

Define proof. If they had been, why are they not incorporated in law? They cannot be because our freedom of religion has removed them either by legislation or court action.

 

[Mashmont]

Define proof. If they had been, why are they not incorporated in law? They cannot be because our freedom of religion has removed them either by legislation or court action.

You really need proofed defined? Sounds like you’re dodging.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You really need proofed defined? Sounds like you’re dodging.

I need it defined from you because you don't quite have it correct.

Let me ask you a question: Is the earth flat or not?

 

[Dragonlady]

You don't get laid much, I'm sure.

Always living up to your user name, eh, Meat?

You’re sure of so much and you’re completely full of shit.

 

[Mashmont]

I need it defined from you because you don't quite have it correct.

Let me ask you a question: Is the earth flat or not?

You talk in circles. You’re trolling. School boards do all kinds of rulings without proof of anything. There is mountains of evidence that outside marriage leads to more breakups. Such could be part of a mandatory curriculum and would be immune from irreligious leftwingers like yourself trying to get it removed. That’s just the facts. There is no further need for discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

Fools' logic. Disproven over and over. You might as well say you disagree with gravity. God's laws just ARE. A simpleton goes against them.

An overwhelming majority of couples have premarital sex and most live together before marriage.
You are hard pressed to find many who regret it.

Only self righteous Bible Thumpers even care.
None of your business

 

[Captain Caveman]

I just read an article this morning that singer Katy Perry and actor Orlando Bloom just ended their nine-year "engagement". A casualty of this failed shack up is their four-year-old daughter. The story was reported without the bat of an eye. Just more humdrum news. More of the same.

Contrast this to 1949 when actress Ingrid Bergman conceived a child out of wedlock and was banned from Hollywood. Huge scandal. Huge news event.

America and the world had those high moral standards through the 1940s into the first half of the 1950's. People think the 60s ushered in sexual immorality, but it really started in the late 50s. In 1959, Some Like it Hot won the Academy Award. Why? Not because it was a great movie, but because it had gay sexual inneundo at the end.



This decline in sexual morality manifests itself in encouragement of: sex outside marriage, contraception, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion.

The sexual revolution, also known as the sexual liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sexual intercourse outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships, primarily marriage. The legalization of the pill as well as other forms of contraception, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and abortion all followed

Sexual revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Incidentally, by 1957, Bergmann had been forgiven and welcomed back to Hollywood. Again, changing mores. Change for the worse.

Changes in the divorce rate: You can see by the chart, divorces were minimal until 1960, then skyrocketed in the 70s, then reduced somewhat. But the drop was related not to a renewed view of sanctity of marriage; but rather to an increase in cohabitations, which have a higher fail rate than marriages. In short, the total percentage of relatiionships combined licit and illicit has been increasingly failing since 1960.

Some will say "People have always engaged in illicit sex throughout all periods". True. But we are talking about societal sanction. That's the all-important difference. Because once society approves and encourages a behavior, that behavior increases markedly.

You may wonder why sexual moral standards were higher in the 1940s. I say it's because people's character was forged by difficult times: The Great Depression followed by World War II. In bad times, people turn to God. In good times, people become more lax. As America becomes more prosperous, we get morally lax.

I find it interesting the Catholic Church also had it's highest number of priests and sisters in the 1940s and 50s. Those numbers fell right along with the sexual revolution, showing the overall deterioration of society. People are less willing to give up earthly comforts for the sake of others. It's an overall weakening forged by permissiveness. It's a selfish self-comfort. Same with illicit sex. It all goes together.

Conclusion: Immoral sex may seem so simple, innocent, and victimless. In reality, it is among the most dangerous and destructive of all sins because of its pervasiveness. It destroys relationships, objectifies women, derails commitment, creates unwanted children, and numbs people's ability to have meaningful relationships. The promotion illicit sex is done on purpose. Overall, it is Marxists trying to weaken powerful Christian nations, especially the United States, to make us ripe for takeover. This is why illicit sex is sanctioned and encouraged by the leftist media. That trend started in earnest in the mid-1950s.

What will bring us back? If history is a guide, it may take catastrophe to make people refocus on God. Tough times bring out character in people to live in service to others. Or we can be like the people of Ninevah who heeded the warnings of destruction and repented on their own, thus saving themselves.

View attachment 1129383
Divorce rate through the decades



The assertion that cohabiting relationships fail more often than marriages is supported by various studies and reports. Research indicates that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to experience divorce compared to those who do not cohabit before tying the knot.
Factors Contributing to This Trend:

• Lack of Commitment: Cohabiting couples might not have the same level of commitment to the relationship as married couples. This lack of commitment can make it easier to dissolve the relationship when difficulties arise.
• Inertia: Couples may find themselves "sliding" into cohabitation out of convenience rather than consciously deciding to commit to the relationship. This inertia can lead to less marital satisfaction and increase the likelihood of divorce.
• Financial and Practical Considerations: Moving in together for financial reasons or convenience might lead to a less stable foundation for a future marriage compared to cohabiting to spend more time together.
• Pre-engagement Cohabitation: Studies show that couples who cohabit before getting engaged are more likely to divorce compared to those who cohabit only after being engaged or married.
• Accumulating Cohabiting Partners: Having a history of multiple cohabiting partners can increase the risk of divorce later, even if the couple eventually marries.

Are Sexual Sins the Worst Ones?

Catholic Therapist Allison Ricciardi discusses sexual sins and whether they are the worst sins...and why we might think so; Mary Magdalene.

spiritualdirection.com

​

As kids at school in the 70's those born out of wedlock (very very few) were ridiculed all the time as Bastards. This went on to secondary school.

Family trees these days are getting like tangled bushes. My kids were brought up to get married first, then have kids. So far things are good.

 

[hadit]

I've never heard of anyone or any organization who insist "that every sexual encounter MUST be done so children can be produced". My point is that the Catholic Church values life and it also promotes natural family planning. It's a matter of priority, isn't it. Does one value life over sex, or does one value sex over life?

Sex is a part of life and Christians can enjoy it as such. Yes, children are a blessing from God, but He does not tell us to just have as many as possible. He gave us sexuality to create and maintain a very special bond between husband and wife, so contraception does not violate His commands. You say the Church "promotes natural family planning". Does the Church teach that contraception is sin?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You talk in circles. You’re trolling. School boards do all kinds of rulings without proof of anything. There is mountains of evidence that outside marriage leads to more breakups. Such could be part of a mandatory curriculum and would be immune from irreligious leftwingers like yourself trying to get it removed. That’s just the facts. There is no further need for discussion.

They cannot in regards to religion views. Why not expand Catholic schools to increase their message at a lower cost? You can't because the schools are expensive.

 

[Mashmont]

They cannot in regards to religion views. Why not expand Catholic schools to increase their message at a lower cost? You can't because the schools are expensive.

Stop repeating stuff that has already been covered. All religions believe this, plus the mountains of evidence that prove it. It's just wise policy, and would help to abate a great ill in society. There's nothing else to be said. Any further replies of yours will be ignored.

 

[Meriweather]

Sex is a part of life and Christians can enjoy it as such. Yes, children are a blessing from God, but He does not tell us to just have as many as possible. He gave us sexuality to create and maintain a very special bond between husband and wife, so contraception does not violate His commands. You say the Church "promotes natural family planning". Does the Church teach that contraception is sin?

The Catholic Church does not teach, "Have as many (children) as possible." The Church is God's kingdom on earth, and it is the Church's duty and responsibility to maintain kingdom living and God's will.

You seem to be saying, "I want what I want, and Hadit wants sex! That bit of pleasure but with no responsibility!" Let's go back to Pope Paul VI when all the studies and positions had been presented about giving the nod to the birth control pill. He took this to deep prayer. The positive aspects of no surprise pregnancies, the benefits of only "wanted" children, the freedom over discipline in sex. What was the downside. In prayer, Pope Paul saw sexual "freedom" sliding down into to sex outside of marriage. He saw control of life leading down to the next level: abortion and euthanasia. He "saw" millions of babies being aborted and it sickened him. It brought him back up to God being the one who is over life and death--not humans. That is Kingdom living, doing what is right/best for the Kingdom. What the Church did was study research on more effective natural family planning and offered classes and information on this.

What say you: Should the the objective be: What individual wants, individual should have! Or, choosing what is best for the Kingdom even though that may require foregoing individual pleasure from time to time.

 

[rightwinger]

What say you: Should the the objective be: What individual wants, individual should have! Or, choosing what is best for the Kingdom even though that may require foregoing individual pleasure from time to time.

How about……No harm, no foul

Sex is not dirty.
Couples have sex thousands of times
Leave them alone and stop the guilt

 

[Moonglow]

God did not marry Mary before he impregnated her...

 

[hadit]

The Catholic Church does not teach, "Have as many (children) as possible." The Church is God's kingdom on earth, and it is the Church's duty and responsibility to maintain kingdom living and God's will.

You seem to be saying, "I want what I want, and Hadit wants sex! That bit of pleasure but with no responsibility!"

No, I am not saying that, and you should not presume that I am. I have clearly stated my view that sexuality is a gift from God for married couples. What they do in their bedroom is their business.

Let's go back to Pope Paul VI when all the studies and positions had been presented about giving the nod to the birth control pill. He took this to deep prayer. The positive aspects of no surprise pregnancies, the benefits of only "wanted" children, the freedom over discipline in sex. What was the downside. In prayer, Pope Paul saw sexual "freedom" sliding down into to sex outside of marriage. He saw control of life leading down to the next level: abortion and euthanasia. He "saw" millions of babies being aborted and it sickened him. It brought him back up to God being the one who is over life and death--not humans. That is Kingdom living, doing what is right/best for the Kingdom. What the Church did was study research on more effective natural family planning and offered classes and information on this.

I have often stated that we had a sexual revolution and women lost. I say that because, prior to it, women could say "No, I will be a virgin on my wedding night" and be assured that society would back them up. Now, a woman who says that is mocked and she does not have society's blessing to remain virginal.

I would add that society also lost because of the things you cite. That does not, however, eliminate the positive aspects of contraception used responsibly, like virtually every other advancement in medical science. We have, for just one example, drugs that neutralize pain, but if used irresponsibly cause addiction and destroy lives.

What say you: Should the the objective be: What individual wants, individual should have!

Nope, as I have stated multiple times, our sexuality is designed to be used in a monogamous marriage relationship. That is most certainly not what an individual wants. Men are biologically designed to have sex with as many women as will allow him to.

Or, choosing what is best for the Kingdom even though that may require foregoing individual pleasure from time to time.

This is my position as I have stated it multiple times:

God gave us sexuality to form a unique, strong bond between a husband and wife. He also planned for that pair bond to produce children. Every freedom He gives us requires us to exercise them with responsibility and maturity.

Now, I haven't looked at every single post yet, but I ask you plainly. Do you believe the use of contraception by a married couple to be a sin issue? And by contraception, I mean things that ultimately prevent the fertilization of the wife's egg, such as condoms, the "pill", vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.

 

[hadit]

God did not marry Mary before he impregnated her...

Get a new schtick. This one's worn out.

 

[MarcATL]

More morality policing and cancel culture from the rabid rightwing of the US.

 

[Meriweather]

How about……No harm, no foul

Sex is not dirty.
Couples have sex thousands of times
Leave them alone and stop the guilt

Stop thinking it's about throwing guilt because it is not and above this, stop referring to sex as dirty. This is about choice and what is the better choice each individual. Look back on the Reformation and its time of Enlightenment. What is the good that came from it that we all celebrate? And what is the downside that we pass over as part of the package?

We left a time where the focus was on what is good for all and turned to our time of what is good for me. The problem intrinsic with good for all times, is that there are always those with power and wealth who are deciding what is good for all, and individuals are pushed aside. The problem intrinsic with good for me is that that society as a whole plays second fiddle.

This brings us back to choice in regards to sex: If "I want what I want as an individual" is your choice, you want respect, correct? It appears you don't want anyone making you feel guilty over your individual choice. If the next person says, "I value Kingdom living over my individual pleasure," he should not be made to feel guilty or be accused of being a prude, or that this option will infringe on the choices of others--if heaven forbid--that option is mentioned in a public school.

 

[rightwinger]

Stop thinking it's about throwing guilt because it is not and above this, stop referring to sex as dirty. This is about choice and what is the better choice each individual. Look back on the Reformation and its time of Enlightenment. What is the good that came from it that we all celebrate? And what is the downside that we pass over as part of the package?

We left a time where the focus was on what is good for all and turned to our time of what is good for me. The problem intrinsic with good for all times, is that there are always those with power and wealth who are deciding what is good for all, and individuals are pushed aside. The problem intrinsic with good for me is that that society as a whole plays second fiddle.

This brings us back to choice in regards to sex: If "I want what I want as an individual" is your choice, you want respect, correct? It appears you don't want anyone making you feel guilty over your individual choice. If the next person says, "I value Kingdom living over my individual pleasure," he should not be made to feel guilty or be accused of being a prude, or that this option will infringe on the choices of others--if heaven forbid--that option is mentioned in a public school.

Catholics thrive on guilt
Especially when it comes to sex

Keep your lustful urges in check

They don’t even allow priests and nuns to have sex
How can you respect someone who is engaging in sex?

 

[Meriweather]

Now, I haven't looked at every single post yet, but I ask you plainly. Do you believe the use of contraception by a married couple to be a sin issue? And by contraception, I mean things that ultimately prevent the fertilization of the wife's egg, such as condoms, the "pill", vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.

Above my pay grade. What is the premier option? In school, that would be an A. The girl I've always thought fondly of as my best student worked hard for every C she got, while A's seemed to effortlessly fall into the laps of others. Every individual can judge his/her own capabilities, their own options, their own heart. Like in school, some might effortlessly hit the premier option. Others might give their all in attaining a point somewhere in the middle.

 

[Meriweather]

More morality policing and cancel culture from the rabid rightwing of the US.

In other words, everyone who disagrees with you should hide their own light under a bushel basket.

We're just having a discussion, which is entirely different from the great jobs people in law enforcement perform. Join in, if you would like.