Opposite Sex Housemates

[Lisa]

Amp, you should know by now. There's never just one specific situation.

After reading the posts, allow me to summarize: we've heard about one guy/one girl, groups of people, one-night/temporary housing situations, huge age discrepancies between individuals, and bikinis.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Lisa

[Amppax]

[quote name='Lisa' timestamp='1334583696' post='2418643']
Amp, you should know by now. There's never just one specific situation.

After reading the post, allow me to summarize: we've heard about one guy/one girl, groups of people, one-night/temporary housing situations, huge age discrepancies between individuals, and bikinis.
[/quote]

I realize this, but I'm trying to determine which people's comments to apply to which situation, plus, I like clarifying things.

[Winchester]

I still want to know who said adultery was morally neutral.

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1334538837' post='2418418']
I may have mixed up what he said. Keep in mind I read it when I was thirteen and I wouldn't be surprised if I either misread it or read what I wanted to read.
[/quote]

Yeah, you read it a realllly long time ago....back when you were 13, and Obama was still president, and Bieber still had that ridiculous haircut. Where does time go?

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1334538873' post='2418420']
I am not really happy with you speaking for all men, Futurepriest. Your experiences and thoughts do not necessarily represent everyone else with an XY chromosome
[/quote]

Not to mention the fact that he cannot even operate a vehicle without supervision. Sorry, I just can't take him seriously whenever he talks about grown-up things. He's 15, with the mind of a 15 year old. Sure, he seems to have absorbed a lot of information at that age, but he's still a young teenager.

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1334554108' post='2418550']
I do know that biology dictates that if you are anywhere between thirteen and thirty, you most likely have unthinkably large levels of lust. And in a society that teaches you to release your lust with whomever you want and that it is natural to do so, it's no wonder why cohabitation has led to a lot of sin.
[/quote]

Right, because men and women over the age of 30 don't have to worry about lust, improper sexual attractions, etc.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334582768' post='2418635']
So if I find a culture somewhere that it is not scandalous to cheat on your wife, then me cheating on wife will be acceptable. Sounds strange, but ok.
[/quote]

Once you're done finding that, why don't you re-read this thread, to familiarize yourself with what we're talking about. That way you won't make irrelevant, strawman-laden statements like the one above

[kujo]

This thread is dumb.

Before FP decided to speak on behalf of all men (from the tender age of 15), JLOL said the following:

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1334436134' post='2417825']
I think you are right Anomaly. For most people, being told that a man and woman, or several of either, are rooming together would be a non issue(as in, so what? thats not interesting). at the most eventually someone might ask if there is anything going on, and upon being told "no" would be totally ok with it.

Whereas scrupulous Christians see an orgy behind every closed door it seems.
[/quote]

It's funny because it's true. I can't tell you how many times people on here have said "oh, people will look at this and assume that the Catholic Church is okay with it." That's gotta be the dumbest croutons I've ever heard. No one will even bat an eye about it. No one except Christians who like to leer and judge the hearts and minds of their beloved "brothers and sisters."

[Papist]

[font="'Segoe UI"][color="#282828"]It was stated more than once that scandal is relative to a culture, where such culture does not balk at opposite genders living under one roof. Concluding, [/color][/font][color=#282828]opposite[/color][color=#282828] genders living under one r[/color][color=#282828]oof is no problem.[/color][color=#282828] So, if a culture doesn't balk at [/color][color=#282828]adultery, why can't one come to the same conclusion.[/color]

[kujo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334587057' post='2418664']
[font=Segoe UI][color=#282828]It was stated more than once that scandal is relative to a culture, where such culture does not balk at opposite genders living under one roof. Concluding, [/color][/font][color=#282828]opposite[/color][color=#282828] genders living under one r[/color][color=#282828]oof is no problem.[/color][color=#282828] So, if a culture doesn't balk at [/color][color=#282828]adultery, why can't one come to the same conclusion.[/color]
[/quote]

You are drawing an equivalency between adultery (a sin, as clearly stated in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere) and cohabitation (not a sin in and of itself, as found nowhere in the Bible, Catechism or anywhere else). Hence, the strawman.

Edited April 16, 2012 by kujo

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334587057' post='2418664']
[font=Segoe UI][color=#282828]It was stated more than once that scandal is relative to a culture, where such culture does not balk at opposite genders living under one roof. Concluding, [/color][/font][color=#282828]opposite[/color][color=#282828] genders living under one r[/color][color=#282828]oof is no problem.[/color][color=#282828] So, if a culture doesn't balk at [/color][color=#282828]adultery, why can't one come to the same conclusion.[/color]
[/quote]
Because adultery actually IS a sin. There is no sin inherent to 2 people sharing a front door.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1334586661' post='2418661']
This thread is dumb.

Before FP decided to speak on behalf of all men (from the tender age of 15), JLOL said the following:



It's funny because it's true. I can't tell you how many times people on here have said "oh, people will look at this and assume that the Catholic Church is okay with it." That's gotta be the dumbest croutons I've ever heard. No one will even bat an eye about it. No one except Christians who like to leer and judge the hearts and minds of their beloved "brothers and sisters."
[/quote]To be fair to the posts on this thread, kujo, I think we need to clarify a couple of points.
-I don't think ANYONE is okaying pre-marital sex (in this thread), and are working on the assumption it's not being argued in this thread.
-I think the contention is that if a mixed gender couple are rooming, some Catholics are saying that in and of itself is 'scandalous' because they seem to be assuming that a sexual encounter is most likely going to happen.
-I think the arguement against the above point is others saying that is a culturally driven conclusion, while some are saying that is an inherently Catholic valuation.
-Others (well me anyway), is making the point that we shouldn't assume the worst behavior, and maturity (both emotionally and "spiritually/morally") is required before making that sort of decision.

[MIKolbe]

Does that beg the question if willfuly 'creating tinder for sin' is sinful?

I know being tempted is not sinful, per se....but what if you willingly create a situation for temptation? Is that 'willful creation' sinful? If so, is it as dangerous to the soul as the sin itself? or does that even matter?

I really don't know....

(ETA - whoops, meant to get that in after MS's post)

[Winchester]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334587057' post='2418664']
[font=Segoe UI][color=#282828]It was stated more than once that scandal is relative to a culture, where such culture does not balk at opposite genders living under one roof. Concluding, [/color][/font][color=#282828]opposite[/color][color=#282828] genders living under one r[/color][color=#282828]oof is no problem.[/color][color=#282828] So, if a culture doesn't balk at [/color][color=#282828]adultery, why can't one come to the same conclusion.[/color]
[/quote]
No one argued that adultery was morally neutral.

Try again.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1334587485' post='2418669']
Does that beg the question if willfuly 'creating tinder for sin' is sinful?

I know being tempted is not sinful, per se....but what if you willingly create a situation for temptation? Is that 'willful creation' sinful? If so, is it as dangerous to the soul as the sin itself? or does that even matter?

I really don't know....

(ETA - whoops, meant to get that in after MS's post)
[/quote]If you're moving in with the opposite sex, hoping that proximity and circumstances are going to help you get 'lucky', then I would agree that is sinful, or with bad intent if you agree with the premiss that pre-marital sex is wrong on moral, ethical, or religious grounds.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Anomaly

[Papist]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1334587217' post='2418665']
You are drawing an equivalency between adultery (a sin, as clearly stated in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere) and cohabitation (not a sin in and of itself, as found nowhere in the Bible, Catechism or anywhere else). Hence, the strawman.
[/quote]
[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1334587262' post='2418666']
Because adultery actually IS a sin. There is no sin inherent to 2 people sharing a front door.
[/quote]

Yes. You are both correct, and I agree. However, one may not be able to see the flaw in applying the same logic, especially one that is not well formed.

I am not condemning opposite gender cohabitation. But advocating thought and prudent judgement in doing so.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1334587485' post='2418669']
Does that beg the question if willfuly 'creating tinder for sin' is sinful?

I know being tempted is not sinful, per se....but what if you willingly create a situation for temptation? Is that 'willful creation' sinful? If so, is it as dangerous to the soul as the sin itself? or does that even matter?

I really don't know....

(ETA - whoops, meant to get that in after MS's post)
[/quote]
Well, we are supposed to avoid near occasions of sin, but I don't see how not doing so could be a sin, or it couldn't be a near occasion of sin since it would be a sin. And since a near occasion of sin isn't a sin, I wouldn't think it could be as dangerous to the soul as an actual sin. Obviously, it's not a good idea to create near occasions of sin, and I'm not even saying that living with someone of the opposite sex is a good idea if not married, just that it's not anywhere near the same category as committing adultery, which is clearly sinful.

[kujo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334587790' post='2418674']
Yes. You are both correct, and I agree. However, one may not be able to see the flaw in applying the same logic, especially one that is not well formed.

I am not condemning opposite gender cohabitation. But advocating thought and prudent judgement in doing so.
[/quote]

Ah yes. We must be mindful of the dangers of committing one sin whilst deciding whether or not to do something totally different and unsinful. The same principle applies in my work--when I am cutting red peppers, I try to make sure that I am sure to keep the sin of murder at the fore of my senses.

[sixpence]

For those who are worried about scandal, it is also scandalous for a married couple to live in the same house as another single individual. If not, why?

[Papist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1334587626' post='2418671']
No one argued that adultery was morally neutral.

Try again.
[/quote]
I see. I'll have to take note of this morally neutral stuff. It might come in handy one day.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1334588792' post='2418682']
I see. I'll have to take note of this morally neutral stuff. It might come in handy one day.
[/quote]
Are you usually this passive-aggressive?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1334588127' post='2418679']
For those who are worried about scandal, it is also scandalous for a married couple to live in the same house as another single individual. If not, why?
[/quote]

I'd say it depends on the location. In Seattle, certain areas are home to a huge "poly" community, so if you lived near one of those areas, people would be more likely to assume you ARE doing nefarious things. But outside the city, everyone would assume the couple needed the income from their boarder.

[Winchester]

Walking across the street: Morally neutral.