We Never Know
No Slack
When people go to war simply because of what someone believes, mankind has lost what living is about.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is premarital sex moral or immoral?
- Thread starter ZooGirl02
- Start date
When people go to war simply because of what someone believes, mankind has lost what living is about.
Yes, studies have been done to explore the relationship between AO education programs teen pregnancy and STI rate, ruling out other differential categories such as socio-economic status, household education rates, ethnic groups and so on. Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S
At very best they've been wholly ineffective as a preventative tool, at worst contributing to new cases by placing acting teens in higher danger through lack of educated options. Basically, keeping teens in the dark about sex and sex ed does not 'let them be kids' but lets teens be unprepared for the realities of sex when sexual situations come up. Telling them to just not have sex is clearly not working. Stigmatizing sex less so.
Its the language of evolutionists. They have as much of a 'belief' system as we do.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I agree. It is a Baha'i belief that if people fight over religion it is better not to have religion at all.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Not only is pre-marital sex a reasonable decision for a couple, But No Sex before Marriage is downright dangerous for a couple and their children.
A couple should know each other intimately before they marry, otherwise they could discover that they are entirely unsuited sexually, and this can lead to busted homes, sometimes when the wife is pregnant.
The Catholic refusal to acknowledge Gay marriage is very sad, and its ideas about what leads to hell are justr mumbo jumbo, really.
I expect that you have already quoted the Old Testament law of Moses on this, but you disregard so many of the Laws of Moses, like the poor laws, or the safety laws, or the living laws.
You've cherry picked your morals, morals which even your past Popes have ignored.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yep.
A person's sexuality is as individual as their fingerprint, and this can lead to very different kinds of intimate relationships, partnerships and marriages.
And kinds of HPLGBTQA relationships should be acknowledged.....
H=Hetero
P=Polyamorous
L= Lesbian
G= Gay
T= Transexual/gender
Q= Queer
A=Asexual
There may be others! Accept them please!
Congratulations!
Signed,
A man married to the same woman for 14 years after cohabiting for 13 years before, with no intention of having any children, and we support the individual sexualities of all our friends partnerships.
Sorry for copying your style.
Deeje is right about one thing. Man has not been around for 100,000 years. The evidence now supports that Homo sapiens has been around for 300,000 years. Of course, with a wave of the hand and some haughty rhetoric, these facts can be dismissed.
I know a person who has 4 children to 3 different women. His life is absolute hell. The life of the children has been destroyed. The women fight over things they want, if he buys a car for one of them then the other one won’t let him see his children until she gets a car too! His shirts get ripped. He goes out with other women on top of that and they recently lit his shirt, threw it in the car and the car exploded. They were out of the car then. There is a very good reason for monogamy and this person has shown me clearly why.
If anyone wants to have that sort of life good luck to them. I’m happily married to one beautiful soul for 40 years and I live in contentment and peace.
I would guess that marriage would not be much of a barrier to the individual you are describing. He might very well be married to one of the women and doing pretty much as you describe anyway.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Only if God says so. Otherwise there is no way of saying objectively that it is so.
Your scenario would be exactly the same if the new generations NEVER GOT MARRIED but remained monogamous to one partner, having clean, endlessly premarital sex. But, like your scenario, you'd be better off encouraging regular medical testing and family planning over the utopian pipe dream you've got going here. I remind that 'the science' shows abstinence only education states have the worst record of STI and teen pregnancies. (The science so far also shows that in most cases balanced vegetarian diets is healthier than balanced omnivorious diets for humans, that certainly hasn't made meat eating end.) That you CAN be abstinent doesn't mean it's laudable, when there are more realistic tools at our disposal to curb both things.
I had lots of sex with my husband before we got married. But we also doubled protection, had plans in case something went wrong, and had a commitment to each other that transcended the largely empty gesture of marriage (which we literally did for tax/financial/legal convenience). And y'know what? We're living happy, fulfilled lives, too.
Neutral Name
Active Member
Well, I'm not Catholic or even Christian. So, I think that, since God is forgiving of all sins except blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, God forgives this. You aren't going to hell just because you had premarital sex. I do think that marriage is a good thing. It shows commitment but I think that if you have had sex before marriage, you will still be fine.
Whose morals? Certainly not human morality.
Sex is natural to almost every living thing on this planet almost since the first cells began to get together, marriage isn't, the first known marriage occured less than 4500 years ago.
If you consider STDs to be the only problem in the world. But what about children without both parents due to marriages that fell apart soon after they began? What about general well-being of society and individual freedom?
The same is often true of sex within marriage as well.
What kind of lies?
See? Immoral.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
"Scientists have developed more than a dozen methods for determining the age of fossils, human artifacts, and the sediments in which such evidence is found." Various methods have dated some human remains older than 100,000 years.
New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens
" What’s more, the methods can be tested against one another to provide a highly reliable record of the past."
" Here of some of the well-tested methods of dating used in the study of early humans:
- Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
- Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time.
- Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods.
- Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.
- Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA."
Based on overwhelming fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence...I don't believe, but accept as fact, there's been a significant enough gene pool alteration within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population. There's little doubt all life forms share a common ancestor; so then, evolution is about as debatable as the Earth's ellipsoid shape.
ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is nearly 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.
Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Few people have seen marriage as a stop go signal. allowing them to have sexual relations or not. Even those with religious affiliations follow the social conventions of the majority, rather than follow any religious imperative.
In most cases people enter into sexual relationships when the opportunity arises and the time seem right. Any other considerations are put to one side.
With few exceptions this has always been the case.
In most cases people enter into sexual relationships when the opportunity arises and the time seem right. Any other considerations are put to one side.
With few exceptions this has always been the case.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
A wise person doesn't buy an expensive pair of running shoes without first trying them on to be sure they will fit . Likewise, a wise person won't get married until he/she has premarital sex in order to be certain he/she is sexually compatible with his/her prospective spouse .
Last edited: