As you may have read in my history article, my school routinely made us listen to teachers and speakers tell us why sex was a bad thing. Now, if you're a Christian proponent of the "no premarital sex" stance, I've probably just triggered you to say, "We don't think that sex is bad! We think that it's beautiful; that's why we want to save it until marriage."
             Sadly, this argument is purely subjective. There is no more objective beauty in sex than there is in radioactive decay. Furthermore, if something is beautiful, why restrain it? If sex is so beautiful, why not encourage people to practice it for enjoyment, as long as they do so safely and with someone they trust? Why such enormous restrictions on it (the Catholic Church doesn't even let married couples have sex for purposes other than procreation!)? Sex isn't inherently special.
             I'm sure that I've offended probably quite a few of you out there with that statement. I'm sorry, but there's something that you must realize: Sex is entirely relative. It's special when you make it special, and only then. If you think sex is special and that it should be saved for marriage, you're right. If I think sex is something not particularly special, unless I want it to be, and that I should be able to do it with whomever I desire (provided they consent, of course), I'm right.
             Try as they might, Christians have never been able to give a convincing, moral argument for the immorality of sex. Sex is completely amoral. It is simply an action that has no inherent moral implications. Only when applied in a situation of rape, sexual abuse of a child, or coercive sex, does it become immoral, and, even then, it is the manner in which sex is being conducted that is immoral, not sex, itself.
             The current Catholic view that sex is something sacred is spawned from the traditional Puritanical view that it is simply evil. The Catholic Church knew that no one would take them seriously if they kept with the "se...