From June 7, 2015, “Sex and marriage and sin (part 1)“:
And but so, let’s start here, with this: “Sin is when you treat people as things.” And let’s consider what this suggests about sex and marriage and the relationship between those two things.
I would guess at this point that some of my friends who advocate/enforce a traditional, authoritative set of rules for sexual morality are getting nervous and perhaps a bit defensive. They’re probably worried that I heading toward a discussion in which I will question the rule that says sex can only be moral within the context of traditional marriage.
But I’m afraid it’s worse than that. What interests me here is not the question of whether or not sex can only be moral within the context of traditional marriage, but the question of whether it is possible for sex to be moral within that context at all.
Spoiler alert: I am married, and I would not have gotten married if I did not believe that it was possible to do so without treating people as things. Nor would I have bothered getting married if I did not believe that doing so can be one helpful way of structuring life to guard against the potential for treating people as things. But the qualified, conditional nature of that endorsement seems unlikely to be very reassuring to my traditionalist friends.