I don't think so, what I've said is that it is up to each person to decide for themselves. Heaping praise on someone for a lifestyle choice is the same as approval, and I think that's what she's desperately seeking by writing books and being interviewed for articles where she displays fright about kissing.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction.
That's one of its purposes. Our digestive systems are primarily for the purpose of feeding ourselves to prevent starvation, but I can indulge in a piece of (non-necessary) candy every once in awhile.
Science came along, and let us cook our pork, refrigerate our shellfish, and separate conception from sexuality. Rules that were promulgated a long time ago to satisfy the needs of a pre-industrial agricultural society are not needed like they used to be.
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
So, two virgins who find each other at a time when they are emotionally ready for a relationship, and who stay faithful with each other are going to suffer from one of the above maladies? I guess it's possible, but you could say the same thing about undercooked pork chops or too-old clams.
Technology has changed. Human nature has not. The burden of proof is on your side to show that those rules are merely to satisfy the needs of a pre-industrial society, and not to satisfy the deepest needs of human beings, needs that are part of their nature, not part of their technological surroundings.
What authority do you have to make such a recommendation for all people?
In effect, you are saying that you know that it is objectively true that each and every person should make decisions regarding sexual activity subjectively. This is called a contradiction.
Heaping praise on someone for a lifestyle choice is the same as approval, and I think that's what she's desperately seeking by writing books and being interviewed for articles where she displays fright about kissing.
You may be right. But her psychological motivation for writing this book has no bearing on the strength of her arguments.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction. That's one of its purposes.
The primary purpose, hence the name. The pleasurable nature of intercourse is ordered primarily to bringing the act about. In other words, if intercourse wasn't pleasurable, none of us would be here today.
Our digestive systems are primarily for the purpose of feeding ourselves to prevent starvation, but I can indulge in a piece of (non-necessary) candy every once in awhile.
Yes. But this is categorically different from binging and purging. You're ducking the issue.
Science came along, and let us cook our pork, refrigerate our shellfish, and separate conception from sexuality.
And science has made it possible for us to blow up innocent people with remote controlled bombs. What's your point? That all things which are possible are permissible?
Rules that were promulgated a long time ago to satisfy the needs of a pre-industrial agricultural society are not needed like they used to be.
As far as I know, the human reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction, the pleasurable nature of which also being ordered toward procreation. Has this changed? Has science discovered a new purpose for the reproductive system?
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
So, two virgins who find each other at a time when they are emotionally ready for a relationship, and who stay faithful with each other are going to suffer from one of the above maladies?
Let's see if I understand your argument. Two virgins meet. They have sex outside marriage, that is, sex without having made a lifetime commitment to each other. You are arguing that they will probably not suffer from "sadness, illness and destruction"?
If that's your argument, it's false, for the following reason.
1) The reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction.
2) Intercourse is ordered toward reproduction and the unity of the spouses, the latter end being ordered toward the further end of the proper rearing of children. (And the concommitant happiness of the spouses).
3) The act of intercourse should be engaged in with a proper understanding of its purpose.
4) Two people who engage in intercourse without professing a lifetime commitment to each other are acting without a proper understanding of intercourse, or are failing by ommission to fulfill the responsibilities that naturally come with engaging in intercourse (i.e., a lifetime commitement to each other for the purpose of bringing forth and rearing children and the mutual care of the spouses).
I guess it's possible, but you could say the same thing about undercooked pork chops or too-old clams.
That statement says a lot. Who's the lucky guy/gal?