Would you consider Sex Before Marriage is morally wrong?

Sure it "can" be.

Again, people have different priorities and capacities.

 

Women aren't made like that. Oh yES> I KNOW. We've been told we are. It is harmful to ourselves, men and society in general.

 

Consensual sex is never morally wrong. You just need to make sure you understand the consequences, both physically and emotionally, that can occur.

 

To you it isn't. Each person's relationship is different.

 

Understanding consequences doesn't justify them.

 

True; however, we're discussing consequences that don't require justification to begin with, so your point is moot.

 

Understanding the consequences, both positive and negative, allows the individual to enjoy the positive consequences and avoid any negative consequences. The positive consequence can most certainly be justified while any negative consequences can be avoided.

 

In my opinion, marriage has nothing to do with it. Having sex in the parking lot with a woman you met five minutes ago in the bar is very dangerous, unbelievably stupid, and probably wrong.

Of course, I wonder how many women would be single right now if they hadn't had premarital sex with their partner. Scientists have proven that a man's IQ temporarily drops fifty percent immediately before and after sex. The residual effect can last long enough to wake up married.

How many women consider sex after marriage immoral and a waste of time?

 

my husband isn't a car....

and it's the fact that you view people as objects that shows that sex without any morality degrades the society at large.

 

That's a nice theory although I'd like to know what negative consequence could be avoided ...

 

well you had me for the first sentence. I think it is the relationship that is important, not the lisence....are both people clear on what is going on...are they both on the same page.

I know a gay man for example that lives alone, he is an adult...he has no partner and doesnt' WANT one. He occassionally has sex..as long as he is responsible, uses safe sex, and doesnt' hurt anyone (or GET hurt), chooses adult partners that are in agreement with him that it is a one off deal; I am not going to judge him.

well maybe that IS judging him...but it is judging him to be a moral and trustworthy person.

 

While I would agree that sex in the parking lot after meeting a person in a bar five minutes before is possibly dangerous and possibly stupid I don't see how it could be considered "wrong" from any perspective.

Something that has been forgotten is that millions of Americans choose to never marry. Is the proposition that they should never engage in sex? Marriage is a legal partnership between consenting adults that many simply choose to not be a part of. That doesn't imply that they can't enjoy sex with another individual when both of them are consentual related to it. Perhaps neither of them seek to be involved in a legal partnership, ever!

I can only wonder about those that believe being involved in a legal institution has any relevance related to a personal relationship between two people where that relationship lasts a hour or 100 years.

We must understand that people relate to others in three manners. They relate intellectually, they relate emotionally and they relate physically. To hold the position that all three are required for any of the three to exist is absolutely stupid. Each form of relating has it's own benefits regardless of the other two. Two people can relate physically just as easily as intellectually.

We can't support an argument that if two people relate intellectually that they need to relate emotionally and physically just as we can't support an argument that if two people relate physically they must also relate intellectually and emotionally.

The "ideal" relationship is obviously when two people relate intellectually, emotionally and physically because these three different forms of relating can be mutually complimentary but it is not a requirement as each form of relationship can stand alone.

 

Sex before marriage was only "wrong" last millennium before modern forms of contraception were invented.

 

The person could be married.

 

Ha... contraception sure doesn't seem to be stopping all the disease and unwanted pregnancies.

 

There is absolutely zero evidence or proof to back up your claim. Therefore I'm just going to have to assume that it's a wild, exaggerated fantasy that you simply made up

 

Do you consider test driving a car before you buy stealing?

 

Really ? So stds are a figment of our imaginations ?

 

I see nothing wrong with the theorizing. I believe cultural permissivity of pre-marital sex is a large component of the reason for infidelity and the divorce rate.

It's hard to take issue with that opinion - and I say that having engaged in pre-marital sex a whole lot.

 

This is a ridiculous position. How could the purpose of marriage be sex, when one can have sex without marriage????

Think through what you write next time; this thread is full of examples of your posts which indicate a problem with that.

 

Government law and action hasn't shaped our morality; it's the other way around.

 

I don't see it as a "capacity" issue. Some people exercise their capacity for self-sacrifice to a greater degree than others, but that's not love, that's just a behavioral trait.

 

But that theory is absurd. Mainly because all that you mention always has been.

 

So you're saying that people's objection to fornication is based on the lack of availability to contraceptives?

 

It would if safer forms of sex were practiced more often.