Sex Before Marriage

[Squirt]

They aren't parent material.

They can't hold a job.

They are abusive.

They are childish.

They don't practice a healthy sexual relationship.

I could go on and on.

Marrying only for love is usually disasterous and the skyrocketing divorce rate can be traced directly to it.

So are you saying that it would be okay to have sex with someone you wouldn't want to marry? Personally, I can't imagine falling in love with someone who wasn't parent material, who couldn't hold a job, who was abusive and childish and who didn't have a healthy sexual relationship. All I'm trying to say is that love alone is not a good enough reason to have a sexual relationship with someone. If you truly love someone enough to want to be intimate with him, you ought to love him enough to make a commitment -- i.e. marriage.

 

[nutshell]

So are you saying that it would be okay to have sex with someone you wouldn't want to marry?

No. I don't believe sex outside of marriage is okay.

 

[Ðanisty]

Can you give me a logical reason not to marry someone you love?

For some it is against the law.

 

[Mister_T]

Ah, the litany begins. Close-mindedness has become such a sin. Do you know the difference between close minded and having conviction? Apparently, even if you know something beyond a shadow of a doubt you have to allow the possibility that other conclusions may be more valid or else an idiot will call you close minded. "The sky is blue!" "It could be another color! Why don't you allow people who like other colors to have a say! You're so close-minded! Why can't you be more like me and claim to be open minded but not accept anyone else's ideas anyway!!"

Open minded means you can't make a decision.

Open minded means you look at all points of view and critically examine them. You study things thoroughly and base your opinion on evidence and facts. You don't take anything at face value. Close minded means just that. You close your mind to any perspectives or opinions other than your own because for some reason it makes you feel uncomfortable. The facts and the evidence could be overwhelming and a close minded person will automatically dissmiss them and find some way to try and explain it away. Close minded people are stubborn. Having close mind is a 2-way street. Both religious and non-religious people fall into this category. The Bible is not as simple as the color of the sky. The Bible is intricate and complex and must be examined critically. And just because you have a conviction about something, doesn't automatically make you right. Many people have convictions. You don't have to agree with them and they don't have to agree with you. And people should not let a difference of opinion create a barrier between themselves and others.

"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind," (Rom. 14:1-5).

 

[dan]

Open minded means you look at all points of view and critically examine them. You study things thoroughly and base your opinion on evidence and facts. You don't take anything at face value. Close minded means just that. You close your mind to any perspectives or opinions other than your own because for some reason it makes you feel uncomfortable. The facts and the evidence could be overwhelming and a close minded person will automatically dissmiss them and find some way to try and explain it away. Close minded people are stubborn. Having close mind is a 2-way street. Both religious and non-religious people fall into this category. The Bible is not as simple as the color of the sky. The Bible is intricate and complex and must be examined critically. And just because you have a conviction about something, doesn't automatically make you right. Many people have convictions. You don't have to agree with them and they don't have to agree with you. And people should not let a difference of opinion create a barrier between themselves and others.

"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind," (Rom. 14:1-5).

Do you really believe I do not consider the arguments I see here before I rebut? I spent all but the last five years of my life fighting against the conservatives and "close-minded" people you are painting me as here. I've seen every single one of these arguments and I've shed countless tears trying to figure out where my place is in all this. You presume to tell me how I arrive at my conclusions and you don't even know me. I only have one conviction that I obtained free from substantial empirical evidence, and that is that God lives. Everything else I have arrived at through years of painstaking research and study, and I continue to pursue truth every single day. I am after a Ph.D. in Ancient Languages and I take objectivity very, very seriously; but my point is this: if I arrive at a conclusion after serious consideration, study and prayer I do not apologize for my conviction and I do not concede to the unfounded opinions of people who act on their own visceral reactions. William James said we pay too much heed to our passional natures and not enough to our logical. Just about every single person in this forum makes their judgments based on their initial gut feelings; then they hunt down evidence to support only their opinion. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those people.

 

[Mister_T]

Do you really believe I do not consider the arguments I see here before I rebut? I spent all but the last five years of my life fighting against the conservatives and "close-minded" people you are painting me as here

I do not appreciate being lumped together with those people

Do you think I and a lot of people on this forum have not done the same things you are claiming?

Open minded means you can't make a decision

That's not a nice portrait you are painting for us open minded people. And I sought to correct you on what being open minded really means. I don't appreciate they way you portrayed open minded people.

You presume to tell me how I arrive at my conclusions and you don't even know me

Just about every single person in this forum makes their judgments based on their initial gut feelings; then they hunt down evidence to support only their opinion.

You just did what you accused me of. You presumed to tell other people about how they they arrive at their conclusions and you even went as far as proposing the foundation for their beliefs. You....are not these people. You don't know them. You have not been what they've been through. You cannot sterotype everyone whole does not have the same convictions as you. That latter quote gives me the impression that if somones way of thinking does not align with yours, then the only explanation for their judgments, is that they are based on their intial gut feeling and that they only look for things that will support their rash judgement without doing any "real" research. You are not doing a very good job of proving that you're not close minded.

 

[Majikthise]

Sex before Marriage?

Yes please.

It should be manditory.:woohoo:

 

[dan]

If I make an argument and I get a response back showing that the person has done no research whatsoever and is relying wholly on his/her own a priori conclusions I believe I can make that call. They demand sources from me and I supply them, but do they investigate? No. Do they debate my evidence? No. They go on spouting more of their own conclusions without any back-up. I'm speaking generally here, of course, but I believe I provided several logical arguments along side several sources a while back and have received no counter to those arguments or their sources, only "Nu-uh!"

 

[turk179]

If I make an argument and I get a response back showing that the person has done no research whatsoever and is relying wholly on his/her own a priori conclusions I believe I can make that call. They demand sources from me and I supply them, but do they investigate? No. Do they debate my evidence? No. They go on spouting more of their own conclusions without any back-up. I'm speaking generally here, of course, but I believe I provided several logical arguments along side several sources a while back and have received no counter to those arguments or their sources, only "Nu-uh!"

I have done some research on this and it appears that all of your arguments received a counter, you just didn't like the answer . I have already commented on this once but will state this again here. Unless it goes against your personal religious or moral beliefs then there is nothing wrong with premarital sex as long as it is with consenting adults who are either in love or not. If it does go against your religious or moral beliefs you can not impose those beliefs on someone else simply because you believe they are committing a sin, the only thing you can do is wait until you are married.

 

[Quiddity]

No. I don't believe sex outside of marriage is okay.

:highfive: I'm with ya there.

 

[linwood]

Sex before Marriage?

Yes please.

It should be manditory.:woohoo:

Agreed.

 

[dan]

I have done some research on this and it appears that all of your arguments received a counter, you just didn't like the answer . I have already commented on this once but will state this again here. Unless it goes against your personal religious or moral beliefs then there is nothing wrong with premarital sex as long as it is with consenting adults who are either in love or not. If it does go against your religious or moral beliefs you can not impose those beliefs on someone else simply because you believe they are committing a sin, the only thing you can do is wait until you are married.

And my question to this response, which has been given before, is By what criteria do you make this moral judgment? To say anything is right or wrong is to apply to it some kind of ethical structure. You're statement is void of any explanation of your conclusion, you just say, "This is the way it is." I would like to hear about the system of ethics you subscribe to that renders the practice in question morally acceptable. Like I stated in my previous post, in order to engage in debate you must present a logical progression of ideas that allow a participant to arrive at the same conclusion without making any inferences or assumptions. I have asked for this criteria several times and have gotten no response whatsoever. If you'd like to explain how you arrive at your conclusion then go ahead, but saying "nu-uh," and then saying, "There. There's your response." is just patronization.

 

[linwood]

And my question to this response, which has been given before, is By what criteria do you make this moral judgment?

I answered this question pages ago.

The criteria for my morality is causation of harm.

 

[Mister_T]

They demand sources from me and I supply them,

As do I

but do they investigate? No. Do they debate my evidence? No. They go on spouting more of their own conclusions without any back-up.

I've experienced the same thing on this thread (Though I,ve gotta give props to Passerbye. He took a good stab at it)

but I believe I provided several logical arguments along side several sources a while back and have received no counter to those arguments or their sources, only "Nu-uh!"

I have done this also. And I received the same response as well to my arguments and resources. Sounds like we're in the same boat.

 

[dan]

I answered this question pages ago.

The criteria for my morality is causation of harm.

Please explain.

 

[linwood]

Please explain.

The standard I rest my morality on is whether or not it causes harm.

If it harms someone it is immoral.

This must then be weighed by different levels of harm and which is less harmful in many situations.

 

[dan]

The standard I rest my morality on is whether or not it causes harm.

If it harms someone it is immoral.

This must then be weighed by different levels of harm and which is less harmful in many situations.

But that would mean things like pornography and embezzling from big businesses are perfectly moral.

 

[dan]

And at the same time being honest can be immoral.

 

[linwood]

But that would mean things like pornography and embezzling from big businesses are perfectly moral.

I don`t see how embezzling can be moral.
You`ll have to clarify that.

And at the same time being honest can be immoral.

Yes, I`m sure at times it can cause harm but as usual you are looking at it from an absolute black or white perspective which simply never works for morality..never.

There are many times when causing harm cannot be avoided, even doing nothing will cause harm at times so one must weigh the harm and possible harm and make a decision from that.

 

[turk179]

And my question to this response, which has been given before, is By what criteria do you make this moral judgment?

Common sense tells me that if two single consenting adults were to engage in sexual activity it would not cause harm to them unless like I said in my previous post that it goes against those criteria that I already expressed. I would also add that they might want to use protection if they are not looking at raising children or catching a disease but this is clearly an afterthought that you are more than welcome to call me on but does not change my opinion in the least.

To say anything is right or wrong is to apply to it some kind of ethical structure. You're statement is void of any explanation of your conclusion, you just say, "This is the way it is." I would like to hear about the system of ethics you subscribe to that renders the practice in question morally acceptable.

Please refer to above statement

Like I stated in my previous post, in order to engage in debate you must present a logical progression of ideas that allow a participant to arrive at the same conclusion without making any inferences or assumptions.

You believe in the Bible, I don't. The only way I can get you to agree with me is to make you stop believing in the Bible which I do not want you to do. I respect your beliefs even though I don't agree with them. My post clearly shows what my "ethical structure" is as far as sexuality is concerned. I am just not capable of making this any easier to understand. I have clearly stated what my criteria are for having harm free sexual activity before marriage. Again I can not make this any more clear. There are no inferences or assumptions in my post.

I have asked for this criteria several times and have gotten no response whatsoever. If you'd like to explain how you arrive at your conclusion then go ahead, but saying "nu-uh," and then saying, "There. There's your response." is just patronization.

Because I believe that I and everyone else have answered your questions exactly the way you wanted and you still say the things that you do then I can only conclude that you are just not hearing what you want to. And because I am pretty sure you are still going to tell me that I have not explained my criteria again I will just add "nu-uh" and "there's your response."