And, to return to the original topic, how do certain unmarried sex acts "impact" "society" more than others?
Answer to question 1:
a) Bastard children, and hence
False premise - false conclusions deleted. Only poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex leads to bastard children - no justification there for invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex.
Contraception can't handle human nature. What followed from the legalization of contraception was . . . an explosive increase in illegitimate births, which continues. Forcibly legalized contraception has weakened people's respect for the institution that protected children—marriage. Besides divorcing more, people have children without getting married. Even if the father lives with his girlfriend and children, the children become criminals, indigents, suicides, and so on, at exactly the classic rates that have always been associated with illegitimate children.
The only thing here even relevant to a justification for invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex is, "What followed from the legalization of contraception was . . . an explosive increase in illegitimate births, which continues." And that falls well short of a justification, since even if legalization of contraception indirectly caused, rather than being merely correlated with, the increase in illegitimate births, it remains the case that today invading the privacy of people who don't engage in poorly- or un-contracepted unmarried sex won't do squat to reduce illegitimate births.
b) Bastard adults. Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation
I see no reason to think they'll believe that any less if government invades their privacy in an attempt to prevent unmarried sex. Can you provide such a reason?
So that's a "no"?
Answer to question 2:
More bastard adults. As with the answer to question 1, the more distantly you try to abstract sex from the possibility of procreation
So the concept of foreplay is foreign to you? My condolences to your wife. ;-)
On the foreplay thing, I'm afraid you have it backwards. For a Catholic, it's a sacrifice toward a greater good, and we're all about sacrifice. . .
But foreplay involves acts (such as the ones originally under discussion) that are not in and of themselves potentially procreative - at least if you're doing it right. So your suggestion that those acts "abstract sex from the possibility of procreation" strongly implied that foreplay was not in the picture.
Does is make sense that you can be arrested for sending pictures of child pornography around, or, I think, even having them on your hard drive? Certainly seems like police-state stuff.
No, seems like acting against accessories after the fact to child abuse.
Adultery, sodomy, and so on were illegal, without a peep from the Federalist Papers. They just wanted Congress out of it.
I don't recall saying or implying otherwise.
Illegitimacy is only one of the (many) reasons to put sanctions on fornication. The worst of it is not that it produces illegitimate children. It's that it morally degrades even those who don't have children in the process. It makes them colder, more antiseptic people, more inclined to use other people, more disrespectful of ethics of all kinds—not just the sexual kind. It encourages in them a superficial and childish point of view: that the most important thing in this mortal existence is whether I get my jollies just now, in the way I want.
Real freedom is when your government doesn't forbid you to do the right thing. On the other hand, libertine ideas of freedom create so much chaos that they end in the destruction of both kinds of freedom.
b) Bastard adults. Perfectly performing contraception and abortion "beget" adults who believe that sex can be extracted from the general intention of faithful marriage and bearing the next generation
I see no reason to think they'll believe that any less if government invades their privacy in an attempt to prevent unmarried sex. Can you provide such a reason?
So that's a "no"?
Um, no. I just didn't understand your syntax and moved on. I figured whatever you meant would be covered in another (long) answer of mine. But trying again, if I understand you correctly: People who fornicate have been known to arrive at a new understanding of the purpose of sexuality if they hit a lot of roadblocks to fornication—especially fathers, mothers, brothers, the woman's existing children or the man's, clergy, landlords, innkeepers, local bureaucrats, and so on—that offered clues that there is a lot more at stake here than a current passion. Those roadblocks certainly began to wake me up, eventually.
Adultery, sodomy, and so on were illegal, without a peep from the Federalist Papers. They just wanted Congress out of it.
I don't recall saying or implying otherwise.
No, I don't either. I haven't seen you offer philosophical, ethical, or legal justification for any of your opinions. A few claims of cause and effect. But basically, you've just repeated your assertion that you don't want government interfering with you. It's an expression of feeling, rather than reasoning, argument, or persuasion. It doesn't deal with the civilized possibility that someone might reasonably have a different view. It's characteristic of the solipsism of fornication itself, and certainly of contraception. They both embody a denial of the reality that our actions have unseen consequences, and so, especially, do the ideas behind our actions. I think you can do better, and I pray that you do.