The point is that people who are infertile or past the age of childbearing can still be open to welcoming a child should new life begin. No is suggesting if one cannot have a child that one should stop having sex.
Violates the 1st Amendment on counts 1 and 2.
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
The STD rates gay men are readily available on the CDC web site.
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
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.
No, it doesn't.
In my OP, I used the term 'sexual morality'. That's obviously the type of morality I'm talking about. There are other types of morality. That's the type you're talking about.
Your cartoon version of Trump isn't reality. Thankfully, the American voters didn't buy it. Trump is a great competent leader.
Premarital sex violates God's law. It inevitably leads to bad results. It is also a selfish act which fits in with what you're talking about.
I've been married to the same woman for 37 years. We never had sex prior to marrying. Long engagements are for the birds.
Yes, it does. Anyone who has ever studied the First Amendment knows that the establishment clause will never be challenged. You are a religious nut job, which it was designed to prevent!
In general, school boards have the authority to decide what curriculum is taught in their schools, including matters related to sexual health and well-being.
What does that have to do with religion? You cannot impose arbitrary religious views on public education. Never could and never will.
Christian views are also sensible moral views. You don't need to put a name on them. Just enact them. Perfectly legal.
If they relate in any way to religious views not practiced by all religions or even none of those religions, it is unconstitutional.
www.britannica.com
And you would be wrong. The Catholic Church provides classes on natural family planning. Further, you describe the celebratory way Catholics approach sex using the wrong adjectives. The main point of Catholic teaching is that sex should be reserved for married couples.
It's called fornication. Routinely condemned in the Bible
I never said that. You people don't read the OP.
That's nonsense, and studies appear to show the opposite.
That made no sense whatsoever.
