/lit/ - Literature

>>23271818
>cause for millions of abortions
>cause for incurable groteque diseases like syphilis that eats your brain and makes you go insane
>cause for sex obsessed humanoid drones of vanity and self-indulgence that devolve societies
>people become addicted to sex and masturbation in leu of starting a family and stability and health
I'm sure I missed a lot more...

>>23271880
fpbp

>>23271818
A degree of loss of God's grace and communion with Christ if you are baptized.
There are also many ethical concerns that one could arrive at using their own reason such as the first reply of this thread.

>>23271818
Because the bastard children of the union wouldn't have fathers to teach them how to read books and post on-topic threads about literature on /lit/.
>>23271902
>The reason why in the human species it is natural for the males to want certitude about [the identity of] their offspring is that the upbringing of their offspring falls to them. But this certitude would be destroyed if sexual union were promiscuous.
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/Part%202-2/st2-2-ques154.pdf

>>23271880
>>23271886
>>23271902
>>23271908
Incels

This is the literature board

>>23271908
such a cool aesthetic, i wish I could dress like this

>>23271818
The problem is that it often leads to marital sex.

>>23271818
This is not a literary question. I could give you an answer, but people like you piss me off. Stop posting this crap here. Jannies? Do something, please.

>>23271880
>>23271908
There is the political and cultural dimension as well. If households, not individuals, are the fundamental unit of society, then preventing premarital sex is one way to preserve the family, and ultimately society and the common culture, rather than having individuals intermingle indiscriminately with anyone from anywhere. Here are some words about a book to keep this thread on-topic:
>Aristotle (384–322 BCE) sharply criticized this proposal as unworkable. On his view, Plato errs in assuming that the natural love for one’s own family can be transferred to all fellow-citizens. The state arises from component parts, beginning with the natural procreative union of male and female. It is thus a state of families rather than a family state, and its dependence on the functioning of individual households makes marriage essential to political theory (Politics, 1264b).
>>23271927
That's Jerome!

>>23271940
I'm glad Aristotle realized this, it (shared children/spouces) was a glaring blunder in Plato's work unless he himself somehow knew it would never be feasible in practice.

>>23271952
I should note that, from the article I quoted, there is a footnote referencing Plato's Laws where he defends private marriage:
>In Plato’s Laws, ca. 355–47 BCE, private marriage is retained but still designed for public benefit.
It has been a very long time since I read the Republic but I recall some interpreters saying that the dialogue isn't strictly about politics and governance and is not meant to be taken literally. I unfortunately don't have any sources to verify this interpretation so take what I say lightly.

>>23271818

>>23271818
literally nothing
ancient jews were just incels seething

didn't read the thread but it's bad to have sex with multiple partners because it ruins your ability to pair-bond (and the other person's). if you sex before marriage you're basically saying "i don't want to commit to you but i'm gonna fuck you anyway and we'll just see where it goes from there," which is rather unwise

>>23271908
>DNA tests exist
Certitude of identity of offspring can now be confirmed. This argument doesn't work because it is 800 years old, retard.

>>23271940
>If households, not individuals, are the fundamental unit of society
This is an outdated assumption. This assumes that women cannot be rational nor taxable by the state, which is obviously false.

>>23271978
>Plato's Laws where he defends private marriage
Nice! I haven't gotten to Laws yet, but I heard he may have reneged on several of his early positions.
FWIW in Republic, the communes were reserved for the elite philosopher kings who would be arete enough to "handle that sort of thing for the greater good" or whatever, but common people (the majority/bronze) would still have families, I suppose

>>23272019
>women cannot be rationa
>obviously false
...uh anon?

>>23272019
You miss the forest for the trees. What matters is that the upbringing of offspring depends on the stability of the union between father and mother.
Fornication undermines this stability in two ways. First, if the mother bears the child without the marital commitment of the father, then the child's development will suffer from the father's apathy.
Second, and more broadly, if the mother fails to conceive or aborts the child, the long-term health society suffers because widespread, culturally accepted promiscuity undermines the cultural significance of the marital union itself. Men would live by passion rather than by reason.
>This assumes that women cannot be rational nor taxable by the state
While the most traditional paleo-Thomists would argue against women working for a wage, there is no need to assume these things for the argument that society comprises of households to work. A society forgets her heritage if fornication becomes the norm, because fornication undermines marriage, and marriage is the union of households, and households preserve society.
I must go soon, but here are some resources to understand paleo-Thomism and do it more justice than I ever could. You are free to disagree with everything he says, but you would be foolish to call yourself a philosopher without reading the Angelic Doctor:
isidore.co/aquinas/
aquinas.cc
isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Woodbury, Austin Maloney, S.M., 1899-1979/
isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922/
maritain.nd.edu/jmc/aristotl.htm
https://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2014-the-collapse-of-the-manualist-tradition
https://onepeterfive.com/defense-manuals-manualism/
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/11/neo-scholastic-revival.html
>>23272035
Thank you. Again, it has been a while since I read the Republic, and you should trust your own reading of the text more than mine from years ago.

Marriage is a covenant between God and a couple, and you can't have a covenant without God.