Article #8 by Vincent Punzo: "Morality and Human Sexuality"
Vincent C. Punzo is a professor of philosophy at St. Louis University. He begins his
argument that there is a significant difference between sexuality and other types of human activity. By then emphasizing aspects of the human self, he composes an idea against sex before marriage. Marriage, in the eyes of Punzo, is an ultimate commitment. He separates this framework from his ideas of sexuality, which he thinks lack integrity and are inherently flawed likewise. Despite his rigid commitment to the arguement that premartial sex is wrong, he makes moral allowances in the name of sexual identity and desire on the road to marriage. Punzo rests these seemingly controversial ideas on the moral basis of thou shalt do no harm, which condemns the notion of a sexual relationship without integrity. The intertwining of ideas like integrity, morality, and sexuality seems to always lead to more questions than answers. Punzo's arguments are logically valid, but it fails to give any value to the idea of casual sexual relations as benefical. Punzo’s rigid definition of marriage prevents these ideas from having any merit in his discussion, and I disagree with Punzo’s idea that marriage is the only integral and moral commitment worthy of sexual activity. Despite the concessions that Punzo made to the ideas of casual sexual intimacy, he fails to take their real value into account. In reality, everyone is physiologically and psychologically different. Thus, how people value and control their sexual identities is almost randomly selected, and this prevents me from accepting that the institution of marriage is holier than thou. The range of human emotions on the subject implies that regardless of Punzo’s matrimonial integrity, the convention loses its moral authority given the impulsivity of circumstance. It fails to account for human randomness and impulsivity, and therefore marriage can not be readily relied on as an institution of absolute moral authority.