The Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics - Coursework Example

Chapter 5, Sexuality and Morality From the Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics, defend or counter the contention that the prime “goal or purpose of sexual activity is reproduction within the context of marriage.” (White 257). To what degree would this exclude “other purposes”? According to the Vatican declaration on sexual ethics, sexual activities between people should possess the moral justification for such act. The moral justification in these cases is adopted from the statement of Aquinas, which establishes that there has to be teleology or finality as espoused by the moral discourses. Application of this understanding is equally to restate that human sexuality is to exhibit divine purpose that justifies why it is immoral to engage in sexual activities without the slightest intention and obligation to deliver the finality of the act. In other words, sexual activities are only mandated to be used for purposes of procreation. This one and the only end desire as evinced by the moral discourses. It is explained that only people in marriage that have the absolute authority of giving birth to offspring. Reproduction is essential in human life for the extensions of lineage (White 264). The family owns the moral objective ensuring that human beings multiply to fill the world as stated in the bible. The declaration does not however provide adequate information on giving birth to offspring outside the wedlock, but rather offers a poignant illustration on the danger of having children outside binding relationships that are sanctioned and approved by the society. For instance, if premarital sex can be used to raise offspring then there is a huge possibility that the family as a unit and a value will crumble (White 263). There will be immoral binding between such couples hence families will disappear and no one would take care of children. Sexual activities must therefore be for purposes of achieving the moral finality bestowed upon such an act, and this finality is procreation or reproduction. Other sexual engagements like homosexuality, pre-marital sex, masturbation are immoral since they do not possess any bit of the sexual moral teleology. They are meant simply for entertainment and recreation hence not justified by a moral discourse. There is no form explanation that can support sexual engagements outside marriage since they are not only valid for such important engagements b9ut most of them lack the ability to do so. It is immoral and unjustified by any available moral discourse. They do not meet the expectation of sexual activities as important and divine act given by the most high. 2. Explain the two sides of the debate regarding homosexual marriage and traditional heterosexual marriage, citing arguments both for and against. Which side appears to carry the weightiest arguments? Why? In a balance of acts, the society has undergone extremely severe changes. Many issues have not only cropped up, but they have delivered with them “moral justifications” for the respective acts. A huge proliferation of sexual acts has made the society succumb to a state of confusion. Many people are engaging in sexual activities such as homosexuality and masturbations. Homosexuality has gone to an extent of being integrated and accepted as a normal sexual act, hence people engaging in such kind of sexual activities should not be demonized or punished. In one way, this reasoning may be right because all human beings have the natural rights and freedom. They also have the constitutional right of liberty hence things that they do in their private lives should not be used against them as long as such acts do not affect others or those around them (White 274). On the other hand, these acts beat the logics of sexual morality. They do not see sexual engagements as unique phenomenon that is only entitled to provide the medium of reproduction or procreation. They defy the holiness that the religious moral emphasize in many occasions. Most of the religious moral discourses outline sex as an existence that have led to many problems in the society due to the fact that people have not [identified the value of sexual activity as divine and material on human life. They consider sexual activities among people of the same sex as very immoral and surpass the moral obligation and finality of sex. The traditional heterosexual marriage has continued to be considered as the only moral type of marriage. This is because, through heterosexual marriage, children are born hence the moral teleology of sexual engagements. In homosexual marriages, the couples lack the biological abilities of giving rise to offspring. Consequently, such relationships lack the result of moral sexual engagements hence immoral and unacceptable with regard to religious and social moral discourses. In other words, natural and constitutional rights may be viewed important and inherent to human existence but they do not espouse in details the, value of human morals and divine values. Homosexuality can only then be justified based on respecting the value of human natural rights and constitutional freedom, but it is void of any moral contemplation. Consequently, the traditional heterosexual marriages appear to weigh more not only on the moral and religious context but also on the context of naturalism and biological extents that permit reproduction (White 258). 3. Summarize the values underlying each of the two broad views regarding sexual relationships in a) traditional sex within marriage, and b) freedom to have sexual relationships as one pleases. Compare/contrast these two sets of values, listing your conclusions. Sex is important and very much phenomenal in as far as the existence of human beings is concerned. It is however very controversial in practice. This is to say, people know that it is both morally and naturally appropriate to have sex within marriage but the pressures to have sex outside wedlock appear to sharp to defeat. As a result, people have turned blind eye and a deaf ear on the moral obligati0n of sexual activities. Pre-marital sex is one of the most common sexual immoralities in the society. People have turned sex into a source of recreation and entertainment, hence losing its value as an act with finality to procreation as espoused in most of the religious discourses. Sex within marriage is therefore the most moral and the one that achieves the sexual finality as explained by sexual morality. However, certain reservations may be made against this view of sex in a more natural way without the application of sexual morality. From the natural point of view, human beings are made of very strong desires of sex. In fact, according to psychology, sex is one of the primary and basic human needs. Hence, without sex one may undergo certain psychological disturbance. On the same paradigm, there are those who have chosen not to marry or who have delayed to marry due to many of the unavoidable circumstances. The question then is how do they deal with their sexual desires that are at times driving crazy? Can they just ignore and continue? One fact is for sure that in most circumstance human beings find it difficult to continue withholding their strong sexual desires for very long periods (White 259). Sex would then be just natural, without applying moral sanctions against sex outside marriage. It would then be a psychological tragedy to try to sanction humans from sexual activities outside marriage yet it is one of the primary needs. This may result in other sexual activities like masturbation or homosexuality that are not considered socially moral hence complicating it further. In this case, humans are torn between choosing to suffer psychologically by trying to suppress the urge for sex, while on the other hand observing the moral contemplation of sex. It is not easy to restrict people from having sex as they please. Actually, the bill of rights espouses the need to respect individual liberty and freedom of choice. It is therefore left on the individual judgment of doing what their consciences allow them to do. One can only then deliberate on what to choose to do depending on the guilt and value that one gives to sex. Morally, sex outside marriage is wrong. Naturally, individuals have choices to make, and liberties to do so after considering the moral contemplation of sexual activities (White 263). 4. A popular argument is that “what two consenting people do privately has no bearing on anyone else.” In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court (Bowers v. Hardwick) ruled in favor of Georgia against Hardwick on his sodomy conviction, arguing, “that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to engage in sodomy” and that the “right of privacy [does not] extend to consensual acts of sodomy…” (White 305-306) Should sodomy be illegal? Is it immoral? Defend your position with clear reasons and logical evidence. Two paradigms of reasoning may apply on this case including paradigms on a personal basis and the other on moral values of sexuality. On personal level, sodomy should by no means be legalized. It is against the law to infringe the rights of others and sodomy simply applies having a forceful sexual engagement in which the other party does not consent to it. It may also be due to manipulation of the others using the powers that one possesses over such parties. In most cases, the victims of sodomy are minors who are either forced to the act or manipulated. It is then should continue to be illegalized and the perpetrators be subjected to severe punishments. On the consideration of moral discourses, it has been established that sex is only moral when it qualifies two aspects (White 276). One, it should be done within marriage or wedlock or when it is done with the finality of reproduction but within the marriage. In this case, sodomy can never result into the finality of reproduction. It is therefore immoral to subject a minor to sodomy or even if there is consent of both parties. Asexual activities have consistently defied the morals of sexuality and should be viewed with much contempt and considered as illegal in all dimensions of the societal aspects. Reference White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Read More