In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, I appealed to the decent opinion of humankind to recognize my right<\/a> to criticize the LBGTQ+ agenda as promoting immorality. In general, I exercise this right by defending traditional sexual morality. In particular, I illustrate defending traditional sexual morality by making a case that coitus in public is immoral. This apparently unusual issue may diminish anxieties that criticism is based on some non-moral tabu about the sexuality of LGBQT+ people.<\/p>\n An example shows how public coitus could be a reality for \u201cordinary\u201d people. Massive pornography shows that public coitus is all too real. The standard careless utilitarian reasoning, preaching that what does not hurt anyone is permissible, is unable to locate any immorality in the example scenario. In search of alternative ways of reasoning about sexual morality, I turn to ancient Greece. We read of the Cynic Philosopher Crates morally criticizing his wife Hipparchia for being ashamed of public coitus. I dismiss Crates\u2019 non-utilitarian reasoning for thinking that it is positively moral. I go on to set aside St. Augustine\u2019s non-utilitarian reason criticizing Crates. Then combining elements of the new natural law morality of G. Grisez et al. , Kantianism and St. John Paul II\u2019s theology of the body, I offer a line of reasoning to a conclusion that the marriage act, the coitus of a married couple, ought not be public. I indicate how a persuasive case can be made for crucial premises in the line of reasoning. The case for the premises uncovers the moral requirements inherent in sexuality. This shows that reasoning about sexual morality is not topic neutral; that sexuality is not morally neutral.<\/p>\n Dan and Lisa are hosting a small party in their apartment after returning from their honeymoon. The guests are two couples they have known since high school. After drinking a little wine, there\u2019s a little bawdy chatter about how married life is really pretty good. As a serpent in Eden, someone proposes to the newlyweds \u201cWhy don\u2019t you guys strip down and show us some of the kinky tricks you learned on your honeymoon?\u201d Stunned silence, nervous laughter, then \u201c\u201dNo, no, not really kinky\u201d from Lisa. More suggestive remarks suggestive remarks. With more cajoling from the others, Lisa seems to waver. That breaks down all of Dan\u2019s hesitation; Lisa and Dan start pawing on one another. They quickly pull off each others\u2019 clothes to engage in especially passionate love-making inflamed by wine and the sense of being watched. With nervous \u201cgood by\u2019s\u201d the party prematurely dissolves.<\/p>\n \tThere is no going back. Eden is no more. <\/p>\n Why was their love-making immoral? Immediately, we try to answer with what can be considered standard moral reasoning about sexuality. What harm was done? We can quickly imagine all sorts of disastrous consequences. Regret and shame might destroy their respect and love for each other leading to early divorce. But this example has been proposed for philosophic consideration of the issue. So, details are added setting aside all possibilities of physical or emotional harm. First might be added the detail that pregnancy resulting from this marriage act was highly desired by Dan and Lisa. Questions about emotional damage are set aside by specifying that somehow all present enjoyed a type of amnesia about the event. So, when all possibilities of physical or mental harm have been ruled out, standard moral reasoning leaves us with no resources for saying that anything wrong \u2013 morally wrong occurred. It is fair to require those of us who want to show that a type of act is intrinsically wrong to consider the act abstracted from all non-moral harm. It must be shown that it is wrong regardless of the consequences.<\/p>\n For perspective, let us look back to Athens around 300BC. In the Hipparchia article in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we can read<\/p>\n […] Crates of Thebes…was so passionate about Cynic ideas that, leaving behind the wealth of his father, he moved to Athens with his wife Hipparchia, who was an equally zealous follower of his doctrine. And when he wanted to lie down with her in public, and she…pulled over her cloak as a cover, she was scolded by her husband: “obviously you are not yet wise,” he said, “since you don’t dare to do in the presence of others what you know well to be the right thing to do.” \tAbout six hundred years later, St. Augustine comments on this case.<\/p>\n It is this which those canine or cynic philosophers have overlooked, when they have, in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs, viz., that as the matrimonial act is legitimate, no one should be ashamed to perform it openly, in the street or in any public place. Instinctive shame has overborne this wild fancy. For though it is related that Diogenes once dared to put his opinion in practice, under the impression that his sect would be all the more famous if his egregious shamelessness were deeply graven in the memory of mankind, yet this example was not afterwards followed. Shame had more influence with them, to make them blush before men, than error to make them affect a resemblance to dogs. And possibly, even in the case of Diogenes, and those who did imitate him, there was but an appearance and pretense of copulation, and not the reality. Even at this day there are still Cynic philosophers to be seen; for these are Cynics who are not content with being clad in the pallium, but also carry a club; yet no one of them dares to do this that we speak of. If they did, they would be spat upon, not to say stoned, by the Let us examine the reasoning.<\/p>\n I interpret Crates\u2019 browbeating Hipparchia that she should not be ashamed to have coitus in public with him as follows.<\/p>\n Coitus with me is morally permissible in private. The argument demands Hipparchia work on developing the Cynic virtue of anaideia (an-ah’-ee-die-ah’ ) which means shamelessness.<\/p>\n Crates\u2019 line of reasoning to twist Hipparchia loving him into a means for making a philosophic statement is terrible.<\/p>\n \tWhat is right in private may be wrong in public. A guideline for good management of employees is\u201d Criticize in private, praise in public.\u201d He assumes a ridiculously reductive sense of human nature. What is not natural for dogs who have no culture by nature is not natural for humans who by nature have cultures.<\/p>\n \tAugustine is not foolish as Crates. Mostly from the later part of the passage, I interpret Augustine as arguing that Hipparchia ought to let shame inhibit her from engaging in public coitus with Crates.<\/p>\n Shame is the instinct we have for hiding from public view that which clearly exhibits our fallen nature. Augustine is correct about our being fallen creatures. To say that we are fallen creatures is to say that human beings collectively and individually are not as they ought to be. We are fallen creatures. However, admitting our falleness does not require admitting that what is good for us is any less good than \u201cbefore the fall.\u201d Our falleness resides in the weakness of intellect and will to know what is good and then choose correctly from what is good. In particular, coitus with its special mixture of thought and sentiment might well be as good now as \u201cbefore the fall.\u201d Actions driven far more by passion than reason do not clearly exhibit our fallen nature.<\/p>\n This critique of Augustine segues to a line of argument basing sexual morality on the goodness of sexuality<\/p>\n Sexual intimacy is a basic human good. The marriage act is a tri-partite basic human good. Conception, sexual pleasure and intimacy are the three components. The focus is on intimacy. Long discussion of conception , sexual pleasure and their connection to intimacy would distract from the line of argument. Contrary to Augustine, note in passing that a component of the good of the marriage act is a special type of pleasure, or erotic joy, whose moral value ought not be overlooked. At the right time, in the right way, with the right person sex is and ought to be sexy.<\/p>\n Why, though, is in private <\/em>the right way? The marriage act is doubly life giving. It is the biological procreative act and the human act for creating and re-creating the life long one flesh entity of a man and woman. It is to be life long for to bring to life that unity with an explicit or implicit intention to not hold the unity is to intend to abort the new life being created. A couple seeks privacy so that they can say, or signal, to one another \u201cRight now, we have no interest but each other .\u201d They strive to be one. They need, or need to be seeking, that aloneness so that they have nothing else to pull them apart. To intentionally preclude the possibility of that solitude necessary for that unity of will is to preclude the basic human good of the one flesh unity of a man and woman.<\/p>\n I could go on trying to articulate the necessity of privacy for the one flesh unity. It is important that this task can be left for non-philosophers. If intimacy is a basic human good, then its being so and its necessary conditions are accessible to all. The best support for the premises of my line of reasoning is the testimony of sensitive, wise and experienced men and women. Traditional sexual morality is to be defended by those who realize its truth. Philosophers only point out crucial premises for which testimony is needed.<\/p>\n \tIn closing, reconsider how that night might have struck at the unity of Dan and Lisa. Imagine two continuation of their lives.<\/p>\n \tDan and Lisa are mortified. They cannot believe they did what they did that night. Trust in themselves and one another.is shaken. With our ability to push to the back of our minds the many stupid things we do in our youth, they go on with their lives as if it never happened. Yet, there is a new sadness in their lives. But life goes on. They delight in the daughter born nine months after that night. Over the next few years, they are feel blessed with two boys. In the eyes of their children their unity is being parents. God has forgiven them, long before they forgive themselves.<\/p>\n \tDan and Lisa are surprised and delighted about how bold they can be in pursuit of sexual excitement. After that night, they start seeking out other couples interested in group sex. In the eyes of the group sex subculture, their unity is that of a team seeking sexual excitement.<\/p>\n \tVenial sins wound the soul. Mortal sins kill the soul.<\/p>\n *Source. Translated by Marcus Dods. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, I appealed to the decent opinion of humankind to recognize my right to criticize the LBGTQ+ agenda as promoting immorality. In general, I exercise this right by defending traditional sexual morality. In particular, I illustrate defending traditional sexual morality by making a case that coitus in public … Continue reading <\/p>\n <\/span>
\n\tThe story of Hipparchia\u2019s Cynic marriage quickly became the premiere example of that virtue, which is based on the Cynic belief that any actions virtuous enough to be done in private are no less virtuous when performed in public. As exemplars of anaideia, Hipparchia and Crates influenced their pupil Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism. <\/p>\n
\n mob. Human nature, then, is without doubt ashamed of this lust; and justly so, for the insubordination of these members, and their defiance of the will, are the clear testimony of the punishment of man’s first sin. And it was fitting that this should appear specially in those parts by which is generated that nature which has been altered for the worse by that first and great sin\u2014that sin from whose evil connection no one can escape, unless God’s grace expiate in him individually that which was perpetrated to the destruction of all in common, when all were in one man, and which was avenged by God’s justice. Augustine, City of God Book 14.20<\/strong>*<\/p>\n
\nWhat is morally permissible in private is morally permissible in public.
\nHence, coitus with me is morally permissible in public.
\nShame which is based on public opinion but not nature inhibits you from engaging in public coitus with me.
\nYou ought not let that which does not come from nature inhibit you from engaging in public coitus with me.
\nSo, you ought not let shame inhibit you from engaging in public coitus with me.<\/p>\n
\nActions which clearly exhibit being driven by passion far more than reason clearly exhibit our fallen nature.
\nCoitus is an action which clearly exhibits being driven by passion far more than reason.
\nSo, coitus clearly exhibits our fallen nature.
\nWe ought not clearly exhibit our fallen nature.
\nSo, we ought to use shame to hide coitus from public view.\t<\/p>\n
\nSexual intimacy requires privacy.
\nTo intentionally choose to engage in the marriage act in public is to intentionally choose to inhibit the basic good of intimacy.
\nOne ought to never intentionally choose to inhibit a basic human good.
\nSo, one ought never intentionally choose to engage in the marriage act in public.<\/p>\n Sexual Privacy Necessary for New Life<\/h4>\n