Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[dianaiad]

Whether or not premarital sex is 'moral,' depends entirely upon the culture one is living in. "Moral" is a cultural/religious choice.

Premarital sex, however, is medically, scientifically and emotionally STUPID.

Why are there STD's?

Because people fool around with folks other than their spouses.

Consider this:

If one generation...just ONE generation...of humans would remain celibate until marriage and chaste (being true to one's spouse) afterwards, STD's would simply be eliminated, almost completely. Two generations which do this would eliminate all STD's completely...not that there would be many, if any, left to eliminate. It would also lessen the demand for abortion, especially 'abortion for the sake of convenience.' It would probably eliminate 70 to 80 % of that demand.

And do NOT tell me that this can't be done. I did it. I know many people who have....and y'know what? They have lived happy, fulfilled lives. Nobody went mad. Nobody died of frustration. They all, pretty much, had good, solid, sexual lives with someone they loved.

And yes, this goes for gays, too, same principle.

Now my belief system says that premarital sex is immoral...but that's for those who belong to my belief system and share my values. Not everybody does. In fact, there aren't all that many of us; about as many, actually, as there are Jews in the world. Not a lot.

So my moral values don't apply to everybody.

The SCIENCE, however, does. Premarital sex is iffy. Dangerous physically and emotionally. As in, really, really dumb.

 

[Deeje]

Using a computer designed by science to bash science is a bit ironic, isn't it?

That old chestnut? Seriously.....who is the creator of science? Hint: it isn't humans.

One merely needs to know the difference between what science "knows" and what science "assumes" to know.

Who gave humans the intelligence to discover all the things that science studies?

If God had not created the world, what would science study? Did science give us a brain?...the ability to analyze data.....to figure things out by using evidence to come to valid conclusions?

No one bashes true and provable science......but we have to be able to distinguish between facts and suggestion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

The Roman Catholic concept of reproduction invokes traditions which are a path to understanding the past but are not necessarily reflective of absolute moral good, and they do not encrypt all knowledge within themselves.

The first objection I have is that these statutes were put into place without modern understanding of the physical process of reproduction. That is, they were invoked without full available knowledge. It was thought that seed could be wasted and possibly that it worsened over time. Both of these we know today to be false. Wasting seed does not harm offspring.

The second objection I have is that the position on marriage is extreme. No divorce is allowed. Marriage can easily become a detriment to the adults and sometimes to the children. When that happens the marriage is already broken, but the RC position does not allow that condition to be recognized and remedied. That's a problem not something to be persistent about. Remember this that the RC's extreme position is an innovation, not something itself traditional. As with reproduction there is new knowledge, and the RC ought to be right on top of that, pronto. Why isn't it?

My third objection is that I partly agree, but because of the extreme positions on divorce it is unwise to restrict premarital sex so strongly. It creates a situation in which those with troubles in their marriage are shamed by the community. That's not a good approach for a community to take, because nobody can know ahead of time what their partner will do. What you ought to do is encourage people to be honest when they are having trouble, so they can get help. When the man will no longer put up with his wife, then the church should recognize the marriage is broken. If the woman runs off, then that is also a broken marriage. How can it say that its position is traditional or wise? The marriage is broken but the church is not able to comprehend it. Then there must be efforts to circumvent some of the damage, and that's what people are being forced to do, to try and limit the damage.

 

[ZooGirl02]

The states which have highest numbers of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, divorce, single-parent households are all highly religious states which encourage abstinence only education programs. The best way to resolve this doesn't seem to be to give undue credit to marriage, but to give due credit to sex education, family planning, and availability of affordable healthcare.
Besides, marriage in no way makes you more mentally, physically or financially prepared for having children. But some of that IS mitigated, again, by having frank, honest discussions with your spouse and a plan of action. I'll take the latter over the former any day.

Correlation doesn't equal causation though. Have studies actually been done which prove that abstinence-only education actually causes such problems or do we simply know that the problems are correlated?

 

[ZooGirl02]

The Roman Catholic concept of reproduction invokes traditions which are a path to understanding the past but are not necessarily reflective of absolute moral good, and they do not encrypt all knowledge within themselves.

The first objection I have is that these statutes were put into place without modern understanding of the physical process of reproduction. That is, they were invoked without full available knowledge. It was thought that seed could be wasted and possibly that it worsened over time. Both of these we know today to be false. Wasting seed does not harm offspring.

The second objection I have is that the position on marriage is extreme. No divorce is allowed. Marriage can easily become a detriment to the adults and sometimes to the children. When that happens the marriage is already broken, but the RC position does not allow that condition to be recognized and remedied. That's a problem not something to be persistent about. Remember this that the RC's extreme position is an innovation, not something itself traditional. As with reproduction there is new knowledge, and the RC ought to be right on top of that, pronto. Why isn't it?

My third objection is that I partly agree, but because of the extreme positions on divorce it is unwise to restrict premarital sex so strongly. It creates a situation in which those with troubles in their marriage are shamed by the community. That's not a good approach for a community to take, because nobody can know ahead of time what their partner will do. What you ought to do is encourage people to be honest when they are having trouble, so they can get help. When the man will no longer put up with his wife, then the church should recognize the marriage is broken. If the woman runs off, then that is also a broken marriage. How can it say that its position is traditional or wise? The marriage is broken but the church is not able to comprehend it. Then there must be efforts to circumvent some of the damage, and that's what people are being forced to do, to try and limit the damage.

It's actually not an absolute prohibition of divorce. Check out this paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church about divorce:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.


If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's immoral that we still have a term and concept for "premarital sex."

 

[ZooGirl02]

It's immoral that we still have a term and concept for "premarital sex."

Why?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Correlation doesn't equal causation though. Have studies actually been done which prove that abstinence-only education actually causes such problems or do we simply know that the problems are correlated?

Places that teach real and proper sex ed do not have nearly as high rates of teen pregnancy. Plus, the abstinence only teaches blatant lies about contraceptive use and effectiveness, and promote vulgar lies about a woman's sexuality and organs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why?

Because it implies it is somehow different, and that sex within marriage is supposed to somehow be better. That somehow, of course, being the belief that "premarital" sex is "immoral." It's not, and it's no one's business what consenting adults do in privacy.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

A lot of forms of sex have caused most people, including children to be in hell suffering.

When an individual is married inside (made whole/wholesome inside) ~ then it will be for the right, selfless reasons that cause no hell suffering.

I think sex caused people

 

[The Reverend Bob]

What does "marital" mean anyway? If two people are in love and committed to each other doesn't that constitute a union of two people? Even though I personally find divorce an ugly thing, who am I to judge when people no longer wish to be a couple? And for real, I am no one to judge when it comes to serial monogamy. I am a damn sinner in that regard, Like a lot. Maybe too many times. I do have some regrets though.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's actually not an absolute prohibition of divorce. Check out this paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church about divorce:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.


If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6

That does not address the problems, so it justifies premarital experimentation not fully but seriously. It makes marriage very frightening, and then makes it into a prison for some. Marriage is great for kids, but if the marriage goes bad sometimes they are better off with a divorce. The RC can pivot and fix this, too. It can find a way, issue new Christian names or something. If it fixes this, allowing divorce without a bunch of shame dumped on the bride; then its restriction against premarital sex will make more sense.

 

[dfnj]

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

Protected or unprotected?

 

[Skwim]

Unlike many people, as an agnostic I'm free of the stifling demands and commands of religion, and can freely think for myself without having to first check with the gate keeper. Personally, I believe that purposely killing healthy children is immoral, and if I want to condemn the Christian god for killing children as immoral I don't have to think twice about it. How many Christians here dare do the same? Do you, dear Christian, dare condemn god as immoral for doing so? Oh, I know the standard cop out: "If god does it it has to be moral," which has to go hand-in-hand with owning slaves being moral because god condons it

So we have

Killing healthy children is good...........when god does it
Owning slaves must be good.............because god condons it
​

How about evil. Is evil good or bad? Well:

Evil has to be good.............................because god creates it
​

But honestly Good Christian out there in RF land where does your moral compass point?

Is killing healthy children a good thing?
Is owning slaves a good thing?
Is evil a good thing?


.
​

 

[We Never Know]

Unlike many people, as an agnostic I'm free of the stifling demands and commands of religion, and can freely think for myself without having to first check with the gate keeper. Personally, I believe that purposely killing healthy children is immoral, and if I want to condemn the Christian god for killing children as immoral I don't have to think twice about it. How many Christians here dare do the same? Do you, dear Christian, dare condemn god as immoral for doing so? Oh, I know the standard cop out: "If god does it it has to be moral," which has to go hand-in-hand with owning slaves being moral because god condons it

So we have

Killing healthy children is good...........when god does it
Owning slaves must be good.............because god condons it
​

How about evil. Is evil good or bad? Well:

Evil has to be good.............................because god creates it
​

But honestly Good Christian out there in RF land where does your moral compass point?

Is killing healthy children a good thing?
Is owning slaves a good thing?
Is evil a good thing?


.
​

I condemn a god, christian's, muslims, atheist, i.e anyone who kills a healthy baby(which includes abortions) or supports slavery.
IMO in abortion is the killing of healthy babies. Yeah I know people will claim it's about rights and will claim is it really considered a baby.

 

[blü 2]

whether ... premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side ... We believe that premarital sex is immoral ... it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell .... sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the [two hetero] spouses

With Roman Catholics, if I recall aright, the custom is said to be, copulation that is not hetero, and vaginal, and free of any kind of contraception, and with a person to whom one is married, is absolutely forbidden.

I think this kind of diktat rulemaking, however traditional, however supported by this or that holy authority, misses the moral point.

For me, considerations of honesty (whence trust), informed consent, and responsibility for one's actions are what's important in sexual relations of any kind.

Sometimes these will overlap with the RC rules, very often (not least with the no-contraception rule) they won't.

But in the end, the only person who can answer your question is you.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

Baha'is believe essentially what Catholics believe about premarital sex:

'The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'

In response to another letter enquiring if there were any legitimate way in which a person could express the sex instinct if, for some reason, he were unable to marry or if outer circumstances such as economic factors were to cause him to delay marriage, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse…….

In another letter on the Guardian's behalf, also to an individual believer, the secretary writes:

'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex...'

This indicates how the whole matter of sex and the problems related to it have assumed far too great an importance in the thinking of present-day society.
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365
​

I consider it immoral if one is a Baha'i, because it violates the Baha'i Laws, but I do not judge other people who are not Baha'is because they are not held to the same standard. Of course, I think society would be greatly improved if people followed the Bahai standard, but that is way off into the future.

It is good to see a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, not all do.

Baha'is do not believe that premarital sex will land anyone in hell. We believe that hell is distance from God so people who reject God make their own hell. God does not send anyone to hell. They send themselves by their own choices.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you are correct....the Bible forbids pre-marital sex because of the reasons you cited. Its a shame that so many who profess the Christian faith do not live according to the Bible's teachings on this matter.

God knows best, doesn't He?
Who are we to question God?
It is really as simple as that.

 

[We Never Know]

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?

IMO it's fun, passes time, it can be creative, etc.
If it's such a sin why are millions of christians on the pill? Well of course to have premarital sex and avoid getting pregnant.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's such a sin why are millions of christians on the pill? Well of course to have premarital sex and avoid getting pregnant.

Just because Christians break the Laws of God does not make it right.
Everyone wants what they want, that's the essential problem in society, selfishness.
I believe that most Christians have drifted away from what Jesus taught in favor of doctrines that say they are saved and forgiven.

Matthew 16:23-26 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?