Sex Before Marriage

[dan]

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

Embezzling from a large company is often overlooked completely. If it's noticed at all the discrepencies are often written off with not a single afterthought. My salary was once doubled after the office I worked for changed banks. I went in to try to fix it and they said it would be too much trouble with all the problems the new bank had caused. They said they'd just write it off, but I told them I wasn't comfortable with that. This kind of embezzling is a victimless crime. Nothing is effected and no one is harmed, so, by your criteria, it is perfectly moral.

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.

You provided me with absolutely black and white criterion. You said harm=immoral, no harm=moral. If you'd like to amend your statement then go right ahead, but I was trying to point out that your over-simplification of your moral criteria has gaping holes in it. If their are extenuating circumstances then you must specify. Your first post leaves only one consideration to make, and my examples satisfy that consideration perfectly.

 

[Draka]

I've just arrived on the scene here and admit to not reading the thread in its full entirety, but want to go ahead and weigh in with my thoughts if that's okay.

I see nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. In fact I think it is fully warranted. Whether people want to admit it or not the fact is that physical attraction and sexual relations is an intregal part of a marriage. If you go into the relationship with just love and marry for love without experiencing physical relations and then it turns out that the physical attraction just isn't there or the sexual relations are not "compatable" with what either partner wants then that puts a strain on the marriage.

Fact: we are mammals...hence animals
fact: we have natural sexual urges and desires...as any animal
fact: if the marital relationship is not fullfilling these urges and desires then eventually you either deal with the "wandering eye" "depression" or extramarital affairs as a possible result of the aforementioned.

These are reasons why I think that pre-marital sex is not only not "wrong" but can be a useful tool in determining the success of a possible commited long-lasting relationship.

 

[linwood]

Embezzling from a large company is often overlooked completely.This kind of embezzling is a victimless crime. Nothing is effected and no one is harmed, so, by your criteria, it is perfectly moral.

This is not a victimless crime.
Someone is losing money whether they care or not.
It is stealing with no motivating factor for justification of that stealing.
By "writing it off" the taxpayer is losing money if not the company itself.

You provided me with absolutely black and white criterion. You said harm=immoral, no harm=moral. If you'd like to amend your statement then go right ahead, but I was trying to point out that your over-simplification of your moral criteria has gaping holes in it. If their are extenuating circumstances then you must specify. Your first post leaves only one consideration to make, and my examples satisfy that consideration perfectly.

They satisfy it by completely ignoring my post.
I did in no way leave my criteria "black and white" in fact I specifically stated in post 196 in answer to your request for clarification..

"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. "

I then further clarified it in post 199

"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."

The above posts were replied to by you so I can only assume you read them and disregarded them as is your habit.

 

[mingmty]

I've just arrived on the scene here and admit to not reading the thread in its full entirety, but want to go ahead and weigh in with my thoughts if that's okay.

I see nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. In fact I think it is fully warranted. Whether people want to admit it or not the fact is that physical attraction and sexual relations is an intregal part of a marriage. If you go into the relationship with just love and marry for love without experiencing physical relations and then it turns out that the physical attraction just isn't there or the sexual relations are not "compatable" with what either partner wants then that puts a strain on the marriage.

Fact: we are mammals...hence animals
fact: we have natural sexual urges and desires...as any animal
fact: if the marital relationship is not fullfilling these urges and desires then eventually you either deal with the "wandering eye" "depression" or extramarital affairs as a possible result of the aforementioned.

These are reasons why I think that pre-marital sex is not only not "wrong" but can be a useful tool in determining the success of a possible commited long-lasting relationship.

Couldn't have said it better, I wouldn't like to find out my new all life partner likes golden shower :bonk: hahaha better know she likes the same I do before hand.

 

[dan]

This is not a victimless crime.
Someone is losing money whether they care or not.
It is stealing with no motivating factor for justification of that stealing.
By "writing it off" the taxpayer is losing money if not the company itself.

Large businesses can write of hundreds of thousands of dollars without a single person feeling a single affect. You might want to go look up how businesses write stuff off before you assume it somehow effects mine or your taxes. Nobody loses any money in a situation like that, it just gets absorbed by the businesses revenues. This is a perfectly victimless crime, stealing or not. If harm is all that creates immorality then this is a perfectly moral act. Dealing with different degrees of harm does not change at all what I'm saying, neither does saying harm is inevitable. I read your post and I understand perfectly what you're saying, but it is not a valid criteria for deciding morality.

 

[dan]

I see nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. In fact I think it is fully warranted. Whether people want to admit it or not the fact is that physical attraction and sexual relations is an intregal part of a marriage. If you go into the relationship with just love and marry for love without experiencing physical relations and then it turns out that the physical attraction just isn't there or the sexual relations are not "compatable" with what either partner wants then that puts a strain on the marriage.

This would make sense if relationships actually worked the way they do inside your head, but that kind of experience before marriage actually deteriorates the couples' ability to find sexual compatibility. I've gotta go, but you can either look at my earlier posts explaining how or I can explain it on another date.

 

[linwood]

Large businesses can write of hundreds of thousands of dollars without a single person feeling a single affect.

You might want to evidence your assertion instead of asking me to prove your point for you.

It is not possible that hundreds of thousands of dollars can just disappear with no repercussions upon anyone.

Evidence your assertion.

 

[Mister_T]

This would make sense if relationships actually worked the way they do inside your head, but that kind of experience before marriage actually deteriorates the couples' ability to find sexual compatibility. I've gotta go, but you can either look at my earlier posts explaining how or I can explain it on another date.

Sex was DESIGNED for marriage. And in a perfect world, everything, including relationships, would work the way they're supposed to. Everybody would find there soul mates on the first try and would loose their virginity to each other. We don't live in a perfect world. 50% of marriages in the USA FAIL. JUST BECAUSE YOU MARRY SOMEONE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WILL LAST. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE. This includes both religious and non-religious. A lot of people divorce each other because they rushed into things and did not take the time to REALLY know each other. You and your soul mate must be compatible on ALL levels. Otherwise there is no point in marrying that person.

that kind of experience before marriage actually deteriorates the couples' ability to find sexual compatibility.

In some cases this is true (a virgin couple). But for many this is not. Regardless of you religious background

 

[Bishka]

I have a bit to say on this subject. For those of you who say you should, how about you chill out and look at it from the LDS perspective and lay off a little. If you need me to explain it, either PM or I'll try to remember to check this thread.

 

[Smoke]

Sex was DESIGNED for marriage.

Seems pretty obvious to me that there was sex a long time before there was marriage.

 

[Bishka]

Seems pretty obvious to me that there was sex a long time before there was marriage.

May I ask how is is obvious. I believe there was no 'quote-un-quote' sex long before there was marriage. I believe marriage was an instituted by God in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve did not start have offspring until they left the Garden. Just my views on it though.

 

[Smoke]

I see nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. In fact I think it is fully warranted.

I'm forty-five years old, and I've never been legally married. I certainly think pre-marital sex is better by far than being a forty-five year old virgin.

My brother and his wife say they've never had sex with anybody but each other, and never before they were married. I believe them, and I think that's fine. But I don't think I would have been happy if I'd only ever been with one person.

 

[Bishka]

I'm forty-five years old, and I've never been legally married. I certainly think pre-marital sex is better by far than being a forty-five year old virgin.

My brother and his wife say they've never had sex with anybody but each other, and never before they were married. I believe them, and I think that's fine. But I don't think I would have been happy if I'd only ever been with one person.

Well, we all have our own opinons, but I must have you know, there are many women and men in the LDS church that NEVER marry, one I know, Sheri Dew, been a virgin her whole entire life and she's in her 60's.

Even if I was 45 and not married, I would not have sex.

 

[Smoke]

May I ask how is is obvious. I believe there was no 'quote-un-quote' sex long before there was marriage. I believe marriage was an instituted by God in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve did not start have offspring until they left the Garden. Just my views on it though.

As far as we know Adam and Eve never had their marriage sanctified by church or state; they were just living together in a garden.

Seriously, I guess your view is reasonable if you refuse to believe in evolution and accept the first few chapters of Genesis as factual history. But I don't share those beliefs, not even remotely.

 

[Smoke]

Well, we all have our own opinons, but I must have you know, there are many women and men in the LDS church that NEVER marry, one I know, Sheri Dew, been a virgin her whole entire life and she's in her 60's.

Even if I was 45 and not married, I would not have sex.

Oh, I've known people in their 80s and 90s who claimed to be virgins, and I believed them. I don't have a problem with that at all -- for them. But I would have a problem with it for myself.

 

[Bishka]

As far as we know Adam and Eve never had their marriage sanctified by church or state; they were just living together in a garden.

Seriously, I guess your view is reasonable if you refuse to believe in evolution and accept the first few chapters of Genesis as factual history. But I don't share those beliefs, not even remotely.

As far as YOU know. I believe that Adam and Eve had their marriage sanctified by God. I don't believe in evolution as that we decended from monkeys, but I do believe in human evolution as changing over the centuries. I do believe in Genesis full-heartedly.

 

[Smoke]

As far as YOU know. I believe that Adam and Eve had their marriage sanctified by God.

Was there a ceremony? Did Eve even consent to the arrangement? (Remember, part of the curse on Eve was that she'd desire her husband.) As far as that goes, did Adam? "Have a nice nap? Here's your woman!"

No, Becky, I expect you to believe that, and I'm not really trying to change your mind.

I don't believe in evolution as that we decended from monkeys, but I do believe in human evolution as changing over the centuries. I do believe in Genesis full-heartedly.

I don't think we want to open that whole can of worms on this thread, and I don't suppose either would change the other's mind if we did. But maybe we can agree that for Mister_T's claim about sex being designed for marriage to be true, special creation or something like it would also have to be true.

 

[Bishka]

Was there a ceremony? Did Eve even consent to the arrangement? (Remember, part of the curse on Eve was that she'd desire her husband.) As far as that goes, did Adam? "Have a nice nap? Here's your woman!"

No, Becky, I expect you to believe that, and I'm not really trying to change your mind.

I don't think we want to open that whole can of worms on this thread, and I don't suppose either would change the other's mind if we did. But maybe we can agree that for Mister_T's claim about sex being designed for marriage to be true, special creation or something like it would also have to be true.

I wish I could tell you these things, I really wish I could, but I have a promise to keep about them. I can tell you, yes, Eve did consent to the arrangment, but hey, that's just my opinion on it.

 

[s2a]

Can anyone give me a logical reason not to have sex with someone you love?

Of course. Prospective unwanted pregnancy and transmissible STD's. Logically, both are to be avoided when possible. Fortuanately, they are avoidable when effective barrier methods are employed. Unfortunately...lust (unbridled passion, etc.) is not a manifestation borne of logic, but of reptillain (basal) emotion. And yet, emotionally secure consenting partners can manage to utilize logic before indulging lust at it's basest levels.

"If two people are in love with each other what is so "evil" about sharing intemacy with each other."

"Evil" is an estimation/qualification of human behavior delineated/defined by many differing philosophical/ideological/creedal aspects/perspectives. Each of us is accountable to our own estimations of what specifically constitutes either "good" or "evil".

Marriage is just a man made ritual. Love is eternal.

The first observation is accurate, the second is but wishful thinking. Love is fickle, impatient, and demanding. Love is not (directly) subject to logic, nor does logic dictate what may or may not prove to be an everlasting "love". Most couples cite being "in love" as primary rationalized justification for marriage, yet nearly half (in the U.S.) have experienced legal marriage dissolvment (marital divorce) of some sort. Consentual sex is only a minute (yet, admittedly, still important) part of any lasting and loving relationship.

I can't find anywhere in the Bible where having sex with someone you love is labled as adultery and/or sexual immorality.

Perhaps the Bible is poor authority in qualified personal estimations of morality. It's just a book, after all. There are lots of insightful books out there - regarding human sexuality, personal morality, and situational ethics - of equal/valid consideration to imbibe and ponder accordingly as to consequential aspects of "pre-marital sex".

In the book Song of Songs, two lovers are talking sexually about each other and NOT ONCE does the phrase husband or wife appear in that book. Yet it's apart of the Bible. I have yet to see anyone provide a specific command from the Bible or a decent argument to back up the church's argument that this is wrong. The only rebuttals I've heard are "it just is" and "it is implied" (which even if it was, it is done very poorley) Your thoughts.

My thoughts are that Judeo/Christian faith makes (or insists that) Biblical teachings (to be/as) "true (or "truth")". As faith varies, so do interpretations of Scripture (foremost to suit one's own established sensibilities).

Your milage may vary.

 

[Draka]

This would make sense if relationships actually worked the way they do inside your head, but that kind of experience before marriage actually deteriorates the couples' ability to find sexual compatibility. I've gotta go, but you can either look at my earlier posts explaining how or I can explain it on another date.

Uhhh...if you THINK so.

Have you ever been married? Do you know the internal workings of a marriage first hand? How many of your closest friends are married and confide their deepest thoughts, worries, and problems about their marriages to you? Have you ever known many divorcees and their reasons for divorce? Do you know what the major causes for problems within a marriage are? Second to finances is sex. With sex being such a pivotal issue in a relationship (whether your eyes want to see this or not) then it stands to reason that there is such a debate on this. The only way I can see your statement having any validity is if you take 2 virgins who have no idea what sex is all about and hope they turn out to both be liking the same things. However that is rarely the case. Everyone has different likes and preferences and boy, would it suck to live in a marriage in which you constantly felt sexually unsatisfied and never knew why or that there was something different you could be doing. If sex is a chore to you then I guess it doesn't matter...but to the rest of us that happen to enjoy sex...believe me...it makes a big difference.