fornicatin'

[dairygirl4u2c]

*that's suppose to say "is okay?"
also consider how the CC teaches that there's natural law written in man' s heart, and there's church law. both may be objectively true, but i'm pretty sure they teach that everyone's not expected to automatically know church law.

i'd tink fornication might fall into church law as far as being wrong goes, but that's just me.

Edited October 5, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Didacus]

the actual thought itself or belief if you will, is not a sin. However, other factors once considered can make this belief a source of great sin, thus should it be wrong?

I refuse to speculate at this time.

God bless...

[Aloysius]

when we have sex our brains release a chemical known as oxytocin, which gives us a distinct mental attachment to the person we were having sex with. this happens moreso in women than in men, but it happens in both the sexes.

anyhoo, the more different people a person has sex with, the more oxytocin is released for your memory of that specific person. you are thus in effect biologically mentally attached to every person you've ever had sex with.

the brain is incapable of sustaining large amounts of this attachment hormone for many different people, and thus the more people one has sex with the less capable they are of attaching themselves to another person.

as such, it would appear that the perfect natural state of man is monogomous, and as such I would label fornication something that breaks the natural law.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 5 2005, 09:03 AM']when we have sex our brains release a chemical known as oxytocin, which gives us a distinct mental attachment to the person we were having sex with.  this happens moreso in women than in men, but it happens in both the sexes.

anyhoo, the more different people a person has sex with, the more oxytocin is released for your memory of that specific person.  you are thus in effect biologically mentally attached to every person you've ever had sex with. 

the brain is incapable of sustaining large amounts of this attachment hormone for many different people, and thus the more people one has sex with the less capable they are of attaching themselves to another person. 

as such, it would appear that the perfect natural state of man is monogomous, and as such I would label fornication something that breaks the natural law.
[right][snapback]746765[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This not only happens during sex, but any time one becomes aroused.

The same chemical bonds a baby to its mother.

Oxytocin flows mainly through nipples.

[Aloysius]

yep, and if a baby goes and gets mothered around with a different woman every night... he'd be screwed up in who he considered his mother and how tight a bond he could ever really have with a mother.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]when we have sex our brains release a chemical known as oxytocin, which gives us a distinct mental attachment to the person we were having sex with. this happens moreso in women than in men, but it happens in both the sexes.

anyhoo, the more different people a person has sex with, the more oxytocin is released for your memory of that specific person. you are thus in effect biologically mentally attached to every person you've ever had sex with.

the brain is incapable of sustaining large amounts of this attachment hormone for many different people, and thus the more people one has sex with the less capable they are of attaching themselves to another person.

as such, it would appear that the perfect natural state of man is monogomous, and as such I would label fornication something that breaks the natural law. [/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with this necessarily. But I do want to say I've considered this argument from personal expereience (not that I've fornicated, but something like that..) and this is a reasonable argument. I give you made props for bringing it up; I always enjoy your responses as they are usually on the mark as relevant arguments. Anyway, do you know if any of this has been tested?

Whatever the case, I might wonder if it's necessarily bad that you lose that. You still love people. I really doubt it disolves your capability of loving, only your capability of being emotionally attached a lot, maybe. But that's emotion. There's a lot of emotion the first time you learn to drive, but it eventually wears off. I realize these are different, but they may not be in the main point of the differnce of the two. Also, consider that maybe a mother has a lot of emtion for her babies at first, the emotions may wear off althought still be there for the subsequent, but it may be less. It'd seem the mother would still love them though even with less and less emotion. I wouldn't argue that she should only have one baby, but have lots and love them all. Not necessarily analogous either but. I'd think the fornicator could eventually find someone to love completely and marry that person.

Just some rambling thoughts...

Though you might make the argument for natural law saying that a mother cannot support herself with a child, thus needing a man. But that's only for awhile. The woman can eventually find another mate. Though I might wonder if while he's supporting the woman and child he doesn't go get her pregnant again! hmmm

Edited October 5, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 5 2005, 09:35 AM']*that's suppose to say "is okay?"
also consider how the CC teaches that there's natural law written in man' s heart, and there's church law. both may be objectively true, but i'm pretty sure they teach that everyone's not expected to automatically know church law.

i'd tink fornication might fall into church law as far as being wrong goes, but that's just me.
[right][snapback]746737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Fornication is a very grave sin. I don't know what you are asking, but the act of fornication is wrong. I don't necessarily think that having beliefs is necessarily a mortal sin (maybe venial). Ask a priest!

[tojo]

[quote]Do you think that it is objectively reasonable, albeit objectively wrong, to think that fornication is natural?[/quote]

Fornication: consentual sex between two unmarried people.

For natural law I would redefine fornication as "having a sexual partner one doesn't intend to be their permanent exclusive partner." Could one naturally form a (non-religious) conviction that such acts/relationships are wrong? I think so.

Naturally, sex is reproductive. Naturally sexually active people usually have children. A child is biologically related to his parents, in that half of his biological makeup is composed of that of each parent. People who share biological make-up are family/related.

Two people who aren't related, through sexual intercourse, can come to share biological make-up, which exists within their child. A person who fornicates (or commits adultery) is risking becoming related (sharing bio make-up) with many people. A parent, say a mother, relating herself to a man who is not the father of her child creates relates herself to him in the same way she is related to her child's father.

The existence of that relationship can and often does undermine the child's relationship with their father, gives them a shaky relationship with the other man, and creates a host of other problems. the relationship hurts her child, the rest of the family, and destabilizes society, the relationship is wrong. (Divorce and remarriage are naturally wrong for similar reasons).

This was a quick attempt to explain a complicated idea, so I'm sure it has many holes as written.

[dspen2005]

fornication is outside the context of marriage and by definition is against God's Law -- read JP2s Theology of the Body and the anthropology of the relationship between man and woman

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 5 2005, 01:25 PM']I'm not sure I agree with this necessarily. But I do want to say I've considered this argument from personal expereience (not that I've fornicated, but something like that..) and this is a reasonable argument. I give you made props for bringing it up; I always enjoy your responses as they are usually on the mark as relevant arguments. Anyway, do you know if any of this has been tested?

Whatever the case, I might wonder if it's necessarily bad that you lose that. You still love people. I really doubt it disolves your capability of loving, only your capability of being emotionally attached a lot, maybe. But that's emotion. There's a lot of emotion the first time you learn to drive, but it eventually wears off. I realize these are different, but they may not be in the main point of the differnce of the two. Also, consider that maybe a mother has a lot of emtion for her babies at first, the emotions may wear off althought still be there for the subsequent, but it may be less. It'd seem the mother would still love them though even with less and less emotion. I wouldn't argue that she should only have one baby, but have lots and love them all. Not necessarily analogous either but. I'd think the fornicator could eventually find someone to love completely and marry that person.

Just some rambling thoughts...

Though you might make the argument for natural law saying that a mother cannot support herself with a child, thus needing a man. But that's only for awhile. The woman can eventually find another mate. Though I might wonder if while he's supporting the woman and child he doesn't go get her pregnant again! hmmm
[right][snapback]746993[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The problem is, it hinders your ability to have real and meaningful committed and caring relationships. it ruins the human experience of emotional union through sex and keeps people unable from committing to a family.

now we all know that a family is a very human thing I hope, and that without people willing to commit to a family there are many negative reprocussions to socialization.

whether or not we believe it should be some "right"... we should all aggree that divorce is a social evil that hurts families and children.

less than 1% of all people who get married when they are virgins end up divorced according to studies done.

this is due to the biological reasons mentioned above.

when fornication happens, the female involved is most hindered from being able to be committed to a relationship. so in effect, the man has made this woman dependent upon his relationship psycho-biologically. when he leaves, that woman has this 'claim' etched into her brain... the man has ruined her chances of a lasting and meaningful relationship.

the man's ability to have committed relationships breaks down over a lot longer period of time... but the fact that ONE TIME he is hurting the woman is far enough to say by natural law he shouldn't be doing it.

considering the divorce rate among the normal population and the divorce rate among virgin-marryers... it is clear that fornicators are far less able to commit in relationships.

[scardella]

I forget the reference, but in my Christian Marriage class, the following argument came up against fornication (and it is not really specific to Christianity, but seems to complement what has already been said; maybe it's just summarizing what has been said in a different way):

Fornication is a lie being told with the body. In the same way that giving "the finger" communicates quite effectively, the marital act communicates exactly that: an act which engages or renews the marriage covenant. When one fornicates, one is making a promise that he does not intend to keep. Therefore, one would be hard-pressed to justify fornication.

Furthermore, it raises the issue of trust. Because it becomes harder to maintain that attachment (for whatever reason) for someone who has fornicated, that person would be more likely to engage in extra-marital affairs, which can easily devastate a marriage. Thus, if you know your potential spouse has had marital relations before, that should cause you concern if marriage becomes a possibility.

[Benedict]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 5 2005, 02:07 PM']less than 1% of all people who get married when they are virgins end up divorced according to studies done.

this is due to the biological reasons mentioned above.[/quote]
I could argue against this point unless it was amended to say "this is [u]partly/in large part[/u] due to the biological reasons mentioned above."

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Oct 5 2005, 09:10 AM']Oxytocin flows mainly through nipples.
[right][snapback]746775[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


hahaha. It doesn't flow through the nipples, it's found in the brain. I've heard about thinking with what's in your pants, but never with what's in a over-the-shoulder boulder holder.

I think I've heard that it's released with the stimulation of the nipples, such as during breastfeeding, verdad?

Edited October 5, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[Aloysius]

yep... that didn't sound right to me either but I figured that's what he meant...

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 5 2005, 06:21 PM']I think I've heard that it's released with the stimulation of the nipples, such as during breastfeeding, verdad?
[right][snapback]747636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
La verdad.