Frederica Mathewes-Green writes a provocative and helpful article in CT on sexuality, giving three insufficient arguments for sexual chastity, and arguing instead that we must focus on God. Here's a helpful quote regarding the insuffiency of only appealing to "objective morality":
We regularly complain that young people have no absolute values; that, in Guroian's words, "There is no right and wrong." But this message is likely to strike hearers as irrelevant, speculative, and quaint. Not only that, but flat-out wrong. These students have an objective morality. It's just different from ours. They believe that it's objectively wrong to dump someone in a callous way. It's wrong to have sex with someone who isn't willing. It's wrong to transgress any one of a hundred subtle etiquette cues about who may sleep with whom under what circumstances. There is plenty of objective morality on their side, and they think it's better than ours. As far as they can see, theirs is working and ours looks pointlessly difficult. Why should they switch?
Good point. I encourage you to read the whole thing.