Can anyone explain WHY premarital sex is considered immoral?

[Red Dawn]

<< Would you allow you little girl to do it or would you prefer your daughter's 1st time to be after marriage? >>

How about with the whole Football team? Teach your children to have a healthy attitude regarding sex, instead of a taboo like religion makes it.

 

[Isla]

<< The problem is everytime a women is made a Salami Sandwich out of they think it means that the Sandwich maker is there for a full course meal when most of the time it's just a light snack. >>



LOL! That is precisely why this little deli doesn't offer free samples!

What I tell the girls I come in contact with is that unless they are a rare type of female, they will be hurt by sex outside of a committed relationship. Sure, there are women who can have casual sex and seem to be okay with it, but most normal, healthy women give their hearts when they spread their legs.

Being penetrated and deposited (marked!) in is a lot more personal than doing the penetrating... It's not as easy to just get up and walk away from having been entered.

Dogs pee on trees and walk away happily. The tree just sits there smelling like piss.

Guess those are my pithy thoughts for the day...

 

[notfred]

<< It's easy enough to answer the question yourself. Just ask yourself the 1 questions.

1. Would you allow you little girl to do it or would you prefer your daughter's 1st time to be after marriage? >>



If my daughter was 27 years old, I wouldn't mind having sex in a loving relationship. regardless of whether she had been married or not.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< I would suggest that the reality of the problems presented by multiple partners provides a very &quot;reasonable&quot; and &quot;logical&quot; explanation for the religous prohibition on sex with people other than the spouse. Regardless of how you feel about religion or such religious prohibitions, to state that this particular one has no &quot;reasonable&quot; or &quot;logical&quot; foundation suggests that you are in no position to rule on matters of either. >>

Excuse me Isildur, we are talking about premarital sex, not multiple partners. Having sex with your future spouse is premarital sex. Any mind controlling entity that would try to make you feel guilty about that cannot be beneficial for you or society.

 

[notfred]

<< There are _many_ psychological/medical &quot;reasonings&quot; to support the notion that having multiple partners throughout one's life is to be discouraged. By the time people leave their teens, 1 out of every 4 sexually active person has contracted _some kind_ of venerial disease. Is that not enough for you? How about the fact that a woman's chances for cervical cancer climb with every notch on her bedpost? Not to mention the climbing liklihood of other, less serious ob/gyn infections/disorders. The very suggestion that this is the lifestyle that needs to defend itself is typical of the current world culture that is more concerned with self-gratification than any &quot;reasonings.&quot;

What does this have to do with marriage/premarital sex?
Does that question really even merit answering?

With regard to the religious angle, &quot;reasonable or logical foundation&quot; is a subjective distinction, the verdict for which you have reserved for your own determination. I would suggest that the reality of the problems presented by multiple partners provides a very &quot;reasonable&quot; and &quot;logical&quot; explanation for the religous prohibition on sex with people other than the spouse. Regardless of how you feel about religion or such religious prohibitions, to state that this particular one has no &quot;reasonable&quot; or &quot;logical&quot; foundation suggests that you are in no position to rule on matters of either. >>



I agree that having sex with multiple partners can be ver y risky business as far as your health is concerned. However, the question wasn't about multiple sex partners, but about having sex with some to whom you are not married. This by no means inplies multiple partners.

Since you think my definition of reason and logic are subjective, we'll go ahead and make them objective:

reason:
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.

logic:
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

When I criticized Viper's reply, he implied that the only reason for his beliefs was &quot;because someone/something said so&quot; (as he was arguing with my statement that that was not valid reasoning)
I Therefore assumed that he had no other reasoning besides god (or whoever he believes) saying that premarital sex is wrong.

Also, I have no problem with religion, and I'm not trying to attack religion. If the religion in question has chosen it's morals based on sound principle, then they should be explainble in a logical way. IF they can't be explained logically, I find it hard to believe that the priciples would have any sound backing.

 

[Capn]

&quot;we'll go ahead and make them objective&quot;

Heh, and you have this authority why?

 

[linuxboy]

<< Having sex with your future spouse is premarital sex. Any mind controlling entity that would try to make you feel guilty about that cannot be beneficial for you or society. >>




Red, that's exactly correct but the problem is that many people don't have the maturity and responsibility and engage in sexual behavior without actually making a serious commitment, as was pointed out by Isla.

I think the underlying dilemma posed is the question of whether premarital sex is ethically correct. By itself, if it is done with full commitment, then it doesn't matter. I see no difference in relationship status one week before a marriage and one week after. No sudden metamorphosis usually occurs unless problems were originally present.

But, like many other things, the want for instant gratification is a great motivator in human behavior.

Society wants to discourage the irresponsible behavior so it makes sex before marriage taboo in hopes that it will deter people from engaging in it.

ethically, the cultural ritual of marriage doesn't make a difference in the relationship between two people but many times, the wrong intentions lead to dire consequences.

I think that's why it's considered taboo: because if it was openly allowed, it would produce undesirable results unless it was discussed openly and people were educated.

 

[linuxboy]

<< Heh, and you have this authority why? >>



herm? He's just using a formal proof based on definition to defend his argument. It's not based on authority. Besides, logic and reason ARE objective by their sheer implications.

please explain you post

 

[isildur]

Excuse me Isildur, we are talking about premarital sex, not multiple partners. Having sex with your future spouse is premarital sex. Any mind controlling entity that would try to make you feel guilty about that cannot be beneficial for you or society.

&quot;Cannot be beneficial for you or society&quot; - on what do you base this conclusion? Certainly not &quot;reason and logic.&quot; Does society attempt to incite guilt/shame when its members transgress any number of social codes? Certainly. Do all organizations/individuals/institutions? Certainly. The only reasonable point to argue concerning guilt/shame is under what circumstances they are appropriately evoked.

The connection between premarital sex and mulitple partners should be obvious. How many people only date one individual prior to marriage? Or, how many people does the average adult date prior to marriage? The person who thinks it is okay to have sex with the person they are dating, whether it be because they are monogamists or because they believe they are going to marry them, is, pragmatically, endorsing mulitple partners. I didn't say &quot;promiscuity,&quot; I didn't talk about swinging: even serial monogamy results in mulitple partners.
The only way to &quot;reaonably&quot; and &quot;logically&quot; avoid the physical/psychological pitfalls of multiple sexual partners is obvious - don't have sex with anybody until you are in a lifelong state of commitment to someone.
The point is that, while you may reject them - as is your right and wont - there _are_ &quot;reasonable&quot; and &quot;logical&quot; reasons for the religious prohibition on premarital sex, as there are for _most_ religious prohibitions, although when the reasonings are based on spiritual principles, they will fail to be compelling (nor are they meant to be) to those who do not subscribe to the spiritual/religious principles they are based on.

No intelligent religous person can fault someone from outside their faith (whatever it may be) for living in violation of whatever religious/spiritual laws that they observe, when the only reasonable reason for observing those laws is an adherence to said faith. However, such cross paradigm judgement is precisely what you offer here.
If you can't bring a little more even-headedness to the debate, or even a little more _debate_ to the debate, then stuff it dude, nobody needs to hear your virulent opinions when all they are backed by is typical kneejerk emotional backlash.

 

[Viper GTS]

When I criticized Viper's reply, he implied that the only reason for his beliefs was &quot;because someone/something said so&quot; (as he was arguing with my statement that that was not valid reasoning)
I Therefore assumed that he had no other reasoning besides god (or whoever he believes) saying that premarital sex is wrong.

Religious convictions are pretty much the only reason people think that premarital sex is wrong. What you have attempted to do is discredit religion, &amp; bar those with religious conviction from replying to your thread.

While I do believe that pre-marital sex is wrong because of religious conviction, I have reasons for believing it's dangerous that have nothing to do with religion.

But you didn't ask why it was considered dangerous. You asked why it was considered immoral.

Viper GTS

 

[GL]

Pre-marital sex is not necessarily devoid of monogamy. In fact, the definition of it lends nothing to the number of sexual partners. Many people here have a notion that pre-marital sex is promiscuous sex. Of course this isn't the case. Pre-marital sex can be both monogamous and promiscuous - as can sex within marriage as millions of married people throughout history have learned.

 

[Viper0329]

Why do people think that they must be able to decipher something with &quot;logic&quot; to understand or believe it.

People are not perfect. We never have been nor will we ever be. If we are not perfect, then neither are our minds and thinking ablity. Therefore, we can not understand everything.

Premarital sex is immoral. When you have sex with one person, you are becoming and giving yourself to them. Therefore, you become one.

Let's say I am 21. I seem to enjoy myself thouroughly quite often. Well...when I turn 25, I am engaged and in love. We are about to get married to each other. How can we say we are only for each other if I am part of so many other people??

Think of it as self control. You love that person so much that you are willing to wait until marriage. If you have so many people runnin around doin it, then you have all these single parents with no one to support. New diseases are arriving everyday. We cant just have fun while we are alive. We must learn to use what we have wisely.

Logic doesnt explain everything. You can't prove God exists. He is greater then us. Our feable minds cant explain why He does what He does, we must learn to accept this.

It is a gift.

 

[Capn]

Reason isn't inherently objective, reason is motivation. If you are taking the position that logic is something universal and unchanging, then perhaps I was wrong to criticize. However, one man's logic is not another's. Just because he may deem arguments against premarital sex to be unreasonable does not mean that they are.

Anyways, in the course of reading I found he quoted a dictionary.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< I have reasons for believing it's dangerous that have nothing to do with religion. >>

Viper, not all have to go to prostitutes to get some Bubba. I bet if you were to smile once in a while some gal might take pity on you and let you have a taste.

 

[linuxboy]

<< You can't prove God exists. >>



Many philosophers would disagree


Viper, that's what I was attepting to explain in an earlier post. Since most morality is in fact based on religion, by excluding religion as an explnation, the correct answer can never be ascertained !

 

[Red Dawn]

<< It is a gift. >>


No it is a fantasy

 

[Capn]

The logic professor at my university is a christian, and he feels he can prove the existence of God. Go figure.

 

[isildur]

notfred - nicely done, you brought some real guns there!

The problem with critiquing a religious claim is that reason/logic must operate on a grounding of assumed truths. I'm not suggesting that you don't understand this, but I think you are skipping a step; logic/reason denotes &quot;proofs&quot; &amp; this debate is not one that leads to a conclusive &quot;proof.&quot; If it is indeed true that the creator and author of the universe says it is in my best interest to have sex with my spouse and only my spouse throughout my lifetime, then it is indeed reasonable and logical by all applications of the terms to abide by that recommendation. However, if such a proposition is untrue, then my adhearence to it is not because of faulty reasoning/logic, but because of a false premise - my argument is sound, but untrue. Of course, trying to &quot;prove&quot; the veracity of falsehood of such a premise is moot - the nature of the claim procludes it. It should also be obvious that debate between two indivuals who differ on these kinds of underlying truth assumptions must involve an agreement to treat with other means of support, as it just as much an effort in futility for one who belives in the truth of a religion or religious text to argue _from_ this position with someone who does not accept it as is the reverse.

That aside, the disctinction you draw between premarital sex and sex with multiple partners over a lifetime is, I think, illusionary, if not in principle and idealogically, certainly pragmatically. How can you encourage sex without bounds and yet encourage holding to a single partner? I fail to come up with any realistically workable resolution - and all the evidence from the world around us tends to agree that, though it may sound good in principle, it cannot work in life.
<shrug>

 

[linuxboy]

<< Reason isn't inherently objective, reason is motivation. If you are taking the position that logic is something universal and unchanging, then perhaps I was wrong to criticize. >>



I understand your position now but consider the following: Logic, or a system of thought based on objective evidence must be a product of objective thought because in a relativist situation, the idea of logic negates the fundumental assumtions and tenets, thus making the premise invalid.


And he did quote a dictionary, which would mean he made it objective, so that's why he called it that.

 

[Stark]

The religious aspect has been touched on. Nearly all religions teach that sex should be reserved for marriage.

Then there is the psychological aspect. Being someone's &quot;first&quot; is a big thing. Being a first love gives you an extra advantage in marriage. Anyone who has dated someone after they broke up with their first love knows the ghost/memory of a past lover can cause a great deal of stress and strife. If you save it 'till marriage, there is no extra baggage.

Finally, no matter how much protection you use, pregnancy may result. If two people aren't committed enough to be married, they probably won't be committed to raising a child together. People think they are &quot;in love&quot; or &quot;grown up&quot; when they in fact are not. Being able to deal with the consequences and actually be excited if a baby is concieved are true signs of love and maturity in a relationship.

Just my .02.

 

[isildur]

Pre-marital sex can be both monogamous and promiscuous

<sigh>

Ok, one more time for the cheapseats - the monogamy that you refer to is immediate, not lifetime. Since your health risk climes with every additional partner consecutively as well as concurrently, it is irrational to insist that a lifetime of monogamy is healthy. If I am a nice guy and insist on being devoted and &quot;in love&quot; with my partners, if I even insist on dating for (what sounds good here? a year? anybody out there waiting that long these days?) ____ before sleeping together and I _only_ sleep with my current, devoted love, what in that indicates that I am going to go to my grave with only one lover? Serial monogamy (a series of monogamous relationships) results in the same thing as promiscuity, the only difference is the timeframe and attitudes towards those you are sleeping with.

 

[weezergirl]

i am not a religious person by any means, so all of my reasons have nothing to do with the bible or God.

why am i waiting til i get married? why not? if sex is this great and wonderful thing, who better to share it with then the one i am willing to spend the rest of my life with? and to me, marriage is a symbol of that. when i'm finally ready to commit myself to this one person then i'm responsible enough and willing to deal with the consequences of having sex (this is all personal of course, maybe others are ready to deal with the consequences but i am not at this moment). personally, as a female, i canNOT deal with having a baby right now or anytime soon, as having sex (even with protection) could put my career (which i've worked really hard for), my freedom to live my life how i want it, and my respectability all in jeopardy since most people i know and care about would be disappointed if i was to have a baby while i was single. there may be a small chance of it happening but there is still a chance. i'd rather be safe rather than sorry. and i definitely don't want to be put in the position of wanting an abortion since i'm extremely against abortion to save your own face from your own actions. to me abstaining from sex is also about having self control. why do people cheat, steal, smoke etc? because they give into something that benefits them and gives pleasure even though they know it can have bad outcomes. I have no problems waiting, i don't feel like i'm &quot;missing out&quot;. and to me, there is a lot more to life then having sex. there is plenty of time for sex later on down the road. and all the good feelings you acquire from sex last only moments, in which they disappear, but which consequences could last you a lifetime. of course i'm speaking from a girls point of view.

this is just my personal opinion, i have lots of friends who partake in premarital sex but they are the most moral and kind people!

 

[GL]

If you stay with one partner for your whole life explain to me how this isn't monogamous. Go invent another word instead of trying to miscontrue the meaning of monogamy or confusing what I unambiguously stated in my original post.

 

[StormRider]

<<Wow, all these posts, and this is the only one that's really an intelligent response. The problem is, although you link premarital sex to a higher probability of a weakened family structure later in life, you can't say for sure that a given individual who has premarital sex will be less qualified as a parent. IF, a certain person could engage in premarital sex, but still be a loving mother/father to all thier children, this would basically negate the argument and make premarital sex NOT an immoral action for this person.>>

In my opinion, a lot of religious teachings make sense even though I am not religious per se.

Yes, I linked it to a higher probability of weakened family structure in the society. These teachings are meant to be applied in general and not specifically to individuals. They are there to promote a healthy society from a group perspective.

Think about lying. Everybody lies but does this mean we should get rid of the notion that lying is bad? If we got rid of the notion that lying is bad, then everybody will lie even more and our society degenorates.

Same with speed limits. When the speed limit was 55, I usually traveled at 65 miles/hour. When it was raised to 65, I now travel at 75 miles per hour. Should we get rid of the speed limit just because no-one seems to follow it? I think that if there was no speed limit, then there would be too many people who will drive too fast.

In the same way, we do not want a society that promotes pre-marital sex as &quot;okay&quot; or &quot;good&quot;. Because this society will have too high a level of out-of-wedlock babies (because birth control is not 100% effective) and too many people who have multiple sex partners (how many people actually marry the first person they have sex with?)

I'm not passing judgement on a single person. I'm just saying that as a general rule, premarital sex should not be considered good (or moral if you are a religious person).

<<So, basically, after reading your post, I'm assuming that you think premarital sex is immoral when committed by poeple who lack the responsibility to care for a family, should the need arise.>>

No, I'm just saying that as a general policy, pre-marital sex should not be considered good (moral) because it is bad for society as a whole. I'm not making any judgements on individuals.

<<on another note - when you bring up the issue of animals and certain chemicals: by comparing people to animals in these cases, you include people as part of the animal world. Some animals species mate for life, but many don't. The only evidence we have of these mating practices is by our observation of them. i.e., we know that bald eagles mate for life because we have almost NEVER seen a bald eagle mate with more than 1 other bird, unless it's original mate dies. IF we apply the same reasoning to poeple, we'd not that human beings OFTEN mate with more than one other person in thier lifetime. Based on this information, I dont see how people could be classified as a species that neccesarily mates for life.>>

Well, from the divorce rate, I'm beginning to think that maybe we don't mate for life. Most animals where the offspring have a long development cycle tend to mate for life -- that's because these offsprings need both set of parents to raise them.

Human offspring have a very long development cycle. Therefore, for the sake of society, we want more couples to &quot;mate for life&quot; or at the very least until their children are grown and leave the nest.

I'm not really saying that humans mate for life but that for the good of society, it's better if we do mate for life. And to increase the probability of humans mating for life, it's a good policy for society to frown upon pre-marital sex.

 

[d33pt]

because it's in the bible or something