Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[Sand Dancer]

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Frequent masturbation in young men is linked to higher risk of early prostate cancer, but it lowers prostate cancer risk for men in their 50s, a study shows. ... Sexual intercourse did not affect prostate cancer risk. But frequent masturbation did -- in different ways, at different times of life.
Source


A new study finds men who are sexually active in their 20s and 30s are more likely to develop prostate cancer — especially if they masturbate frequently.



However, some previous studies had generated much different findings. The bottom line: More study is needed to settle this one.
Source

Definitely.
Sex, Masturbation, and Prostate Cancer: What’s the Link?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Even Raelians admit that part of the sex industry is awful.

I thought we were talking about masturbation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I thought we were talking about masturbation.

What does robocop always say?
What does robocop always say?
50 shades of gray.
50 shades of gray.
50 shades of gray.
One shade can get darker.
One shade can get lighter.

 

[nPeace]

Definitely.
Sex, Masturbation, and Prostate Cancer: What’s the Link?

Not sure what's your point.
Note though, there's something they are not telling us... ejaculation is not masturbation. The latter can lead to the former, but does not have to. Perhaps that's one missing key that's keeping them in the dark.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Not sure what's your point.
Note though, there's something they are not telling us... ejaculation is not masturbation. The latter can lead to the former, but does not have to. Perhaps that's one missing key that's keeping them in the dark.

This was for the poster who linked to an article saying that young guys who masturbate have a higher risk of prostate cancer. I just posted something refuting it. For informational purpose.

 

[Spartan]

All myths are beliefs.

I missed your evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth. Where's the beef? Just braying out "myth" "myth" all the time like skeptics do doesn't make for a viable argument.

 

[JJ50]

I missed your evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth. Where's the beef? Just braying out "myth" "myth" all the time like skeptics do doesn't make for a viable argument.

There is no evidence it was reality, evidence for the much less than credible has to be provided. If not, the default position must be disbelief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So it's lusting after the sex organs and the pleasure one can derive, rather than the love of the person.
In that case, why is such a person even thinking of marriage?

Sorry - what are you talking about?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

I believe it is immoral, and destroys the foundation of love and true oneness of humanity. I believe it is a sin, comparable with murder. Just look how all people are engaged today in use and abuse each other as objects.

 

[Spartan]

There is no evidence it was reality, evidence for the much less than credible has to be provided. If not, the default position must be disbelief.

Bull. You haven't done your homework.

 

[JJ50]

Bull. You haven't done your homework.

There is NO evidence for the resurrection, the Bible is NOT evidence.

 

[Salvador]

There has been a number of cases where a person sexually assaulted a family member (very young), after watching porn, on their home computer.

My wife and I have watched porn together, and then we've made passionate love. ...

 

[Sand Dancer]

I missed your evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth. Where's the beef? Just braying out "myth" "myth" all the time like skeptics do doesn't make for a viable argument.

Maybe evidence would help. Myths are important though. They help us understand ourselves and the world around us.

 

[Spartan]

Maybe evidence would help. Myths are important though. They help us understand ourselves and the world around us.

Here's tons of evidence. Few skeptics have read them.

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Historical Jesus of the Gospels," by Dr. Craig Keener
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.
“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener
“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

 

[Spartan]

There is NO evidence for the resurrection, the Bible is NOT evidence.

You're full of folly, JJ.

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[JJ50]

You're full of folly, JJ.

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Habermas is hardly unbiased! There is no case, once truly dead no one comes to life again, end of story!

 

[Spartan]

Habermas is hardly unbiased! There is no case, once truly dead no one comes to life again, end of story!

Biased for the truth. Bias doesn't mean untruthful, except in your case.

 

[JJ50]

Biased for the truth. Bias doesn't mean untruthful, except in your case.

You are desperate to believe it to be true, even though it has no credibility.

 

[Spartan]

You are desperate to believe it to be true, even though it has no credibility.

You're desperate to believe it's false, so sodomy can be approved.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Here's tons of evidence. Few skeptics have read them.

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Historical Jesus of the Gospels," by Dr. Craig Keener
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.
“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener
“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

They use the Bible for their info. I meant objective evidence. And most likely there was a traveling religious teacher named Jesus.