Goldman’s Plain Sex argument Sexual Morality Goldman’s Plain Sex argument

Viewpoints in the debate Traditional (Conservative) View—Sex is morally permissible only within the conventional institution of marriage, which presupposes a monogamous union of a man and a woman. Nontraditional (Liberal) View—We should not judge the morality of sex acts by whether they fulfill a particular natural purpose.

The Traditional View Natural Law Theory: Humans should guide their lives toward the goals revealed in nature and thus act in accordance with the requirements of natural law. The Roman Catholic View: The natural end of human sexuality is procreation, so only actions that are compatible with this purpose are morally permissible.

Homosexuality Sexual relations between members of the same sex. Non-traditionalists see nothing inherently immoral in homosexual sex, just as they see nothing inherently immoral in heterosexual sex. Traditionalists condemn homosexuality as unnatural or abnormal.

Same-Sex Marriage Traditional View: The purpose of marriage is procreation and childrearing, and since homosexual couples cannot procreate, they should not be permitted to marry. Nontraditional (Liberal) Reply: Having and raising children is an important object of marriage, but it isn’t the only one.

Goldman’s Argument Goldman criticizes a predominant view of sex, which he calls the means-ends analysis of sex. The means-ends analysis of sex attributes “a necessary external purpose or goal to sexual activity” (e.g., reproduction, communication, etc.).

Goldman’s Argument (cont.) The aim of sex is “the physical contact itself, rather than something else which this contact might express.” Sex is plain sex. Sex can be used to express love, to communicate, and to procreate, but its essence is sexual pleasure through contact. Sex is not intrinsically right or wrong, although “general moral rules apply to the treatment of others in sex acts as they apply to all human relations.”