Can anyone explain WHY premarital sex is considered immoral?

[isildur]

GL -
Monogamy does not just mean one parter throughout life - and since I clarified why what you described does not fit that definition of the term, your insistence that it does is childish.
If you're gonna come with attitude, at least be right.

Main Entry: mo·nog·a·my

1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time <monogamy is common among birds>
- the emphasis here is &quot;at one time,&quot; just as I clarified that allowing sex in monogamous situations, not simply in marriage, provides ample manner for individuals to, over time, accumulate numerous sexual partners.

Since the gist of this discussion has been sex within vs. without the bounds of marriage, and since I have repeatedly clarified why serial monogamy (i.e. you are loyal to whomever you are with at the time) in no way prevents someone from collecting an impressive number of partners (within an active sexual life of 45 years, if you date for 2 years at a time, with one year in between each relationship, how many does that result in?) I am confounded by your insistence that you are saying somehting other than what you have said.
There no reason to think that anyone abiding by the open standard of &quot;sex with those you love&quot; wouldn't have many partners, all one at a time, and I submit that, to think that such a think is likely is to exhibit a clear disdain for evidence.

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< 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? >>

My god, I hope I raised my daughter smart enuough to make sure she has sex before marriage! Sexual incompatibility kills more marriages than anything else, outside of possibly money issues. If she gets married for life, I would hope that she would not have to suffer a lifetime of bad sex.

 

[weezergirl]

actually i work with married couples and based on my observations most people despite being sexually compatible before marriage find out that after having kids, they aren't. you can't predict stuff like that. people's sexual drive changes with time.

anyways, i hate that argument. it's so not true!

 

[Aihyah]

i kinda think the idea started when people decided taking baths was evil or dangerous doubt many women had orgasms back then..(ignorant men), and sex felt good for the guy but was utterly disgusting..oh the smells and other stuff so it had to be evil

 

[GL]

isildur, I said what I said. Pre-marital sex can be monogamous and it can be promiscuous. You can't tell just from the phrase 'pre-marital sex' whether it is one or the other.

 

[isildur]

actually i work with married couples and based on my observations most people despite being sexually compatible before marriage find out that after having kids, they aren't. you can't predict stuff like that. people's sexual drive changes with time.

Its absurd to _not_ acknowledge this! Although nobody ever thinks about it, do you really expect to have the same sex drive/desires/performance/tendencies at 21 as you will at 30? 40? 50? 65?
(ok, that's gross, sorry guys!)

 

[isildur]

GL - Dude! Nobody ever said that &quot;staying with same person for your whole life&quot; isn't monogamous! It certaily is! However, being monogamous isn't necessarily staying with the same person your whole life!
That is the distinction I have been trying to get at! What sitation demands that you only have one partner for life? One that insists that sex only occur within marriage - the arrangement that has been suggested here makes no such provision.

If you allow sex outside of marriage (premarital or otherwise), what is the litmus test for sexual activity? Love? Co-habitation? Dating for x months? Any of these conditions allows for the eventual termination of the relationship and the instigation of another that meets the same criteria, ad nauseum. There is simply no way around it. The justification for entering into a sexual relationship, whichever of those that you choose, does not (pragmatically, legally, socially) maintain the same level of commitment that is involved in marriage. Thus, the realistic appraisal is that, by those standards, you will more than likely, though not certainly, end up with more than one partner, even though it be not concurrently.

 

[StormRider]

actually i work with married couples and based on my observations most people despite being sexually compatible before marriage find out that after having kids, they aren't. you can't predict stuff like that. people's sexual drive changes with time.

Yes, I predict my future wife's sexual drive will dramatically increase because I'll be so good in bed! hahaha

 

[isildur]

LOL Storm

May such premonitions all be true!

 

[paruhd0x]

It is immoral because if there was a child involved, his life would not be started on the right foot...

 

[Aihyah]

hehe, also, for those that pointed to the bible. do you pick and choose what you think was gods word from the bible? if you choose one thing, the rest should also be completely true

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Yes, I predict my future wife's sexual drive will dramatically increase because I'll be so good in bed! hahaha >>

Remember, practice makes perfect.

 

[notfred]

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


Because, if we dont base our beleifs on reason, what do we base our beliefs on? If I tell you &quot;hot air ballons flaot because of magic&quot; will you believe it with no rational explanation?



<< 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. >>


this is a false argument - to make an analogy, my car has a scratch in the door, therefore it is NOT a perfect car. By your logic, since my car is not perfect, the hood also, must be imperfect. However, in reality, it's perfectly possible for my car to have a scratched door and a perfect hood.



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


Care to elaborate? I dont think this is a very convincing argument as it stands.



<< 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. >>


Who cares - as has been stated many times - premarital sex != promiscuity. Based on a common Christian definition of marriage, Marriage is a communion between a man, a woman, and God. This would make any marriage of non-christians esentially null and void, as god had no part in thier marriage. However, it's entirely possible for a man and woman to commit to each other and spends thier entire lives as a monogamous couple WITHOUT god sanctioning it.



<< 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. >>


This is a bad argument to use on someone who isn't convinced that a god exists, primarily because of a lack of evidence.



<< It is a gift. >>

Sex? a Gift from who? God? To only married couples, or to everyone? If it's a gift from God to only married couples... where is everyone else getting it? If it's a gift from God to everyone, I think that negates your whole argument.

 

[isildur]

Sex? a Gift from who? God? To only married couples, or to everyone? If it's a gift from God to only married couples... where is everyone else getting it? If it's a gift from God to everyone, I think that negates your whole argument.

Come on - at least engage the real debate that's going on here, instead of picking a fight with the least supported posts in the thread!

this is a false argument - to make an analogy, my car has a scratch in the door, therefore it is NOT a perfect car. By your logic, since my car is not perfect, the hood also, must be imperfect. However, in reality, it's perfectly possible for my car to have a scratched door and a perfect hood.

You're analogy is off because the example of floorboard/hood is fundamnetally different than the abstract attributes he is referring to in humans - he makes a case that is difficult to find an analog for - of course its also a claim that is impossible to debate either, the best you can do is try to refer to some kind of philosophic teaching (one of which can be found to support nearly anything and none of which can be &quot;proven&quot; or &quot;validated&quot; conclusively), or refer to the vast expanse of human experience which, though suggestive, is hardly conclusive.

Marriage is a communion between a man, a woman, and God. This would make any marriage of non-christians esentially null and void, as god had no part in thier marriage.

Um, your point? This perspective deals with a religious marriage, but since marriage is also a recognized social institution, you're only telling half of the relevant story.

However, it's entirely possible for a man and woman to commit to each other and spends thier entire lives as a monogamous couple WITHOUT god sanctioning it.

Sure! Many things are possible! What is likely is that people will continue to do whatever the heck pleases them, and indulge in whatever temptation/pleasure beckons them, for whatever reason, with little to no regard/thought for the consequences or what &quot;makes sense&quot; in the big picture! Smoking? Hello? Does anyone really _not_ think that this is a singularly destructive behaviour with no redeeming benefits, or simply no benefits period? Do people continue to smoke, or, more importantly, do people continue to _begin_ to smoke? Certainly! Is there some ambiguity about the destructive nature of alcohol abuse (abuse, mind you)? How about cocaine use? Heroin? How about prescription drug abuse? Do you really think people are going to ever stop indulging in destructive behaviour simply because it's destructive?
So, when promiscuity and serial monogamy are so obviously physically/psychologically risky (and I'm not making a substantive comparisen to drug use, everybody settle down), is it really a surprise that people will not only continue to live in them, but also defend them so adamantly?

 

[bigd480]

Exactly... it's all up to the individual... i personally do not believe in engaging in premarital sex but I wouldn't tell you it's immoral... it's MY choice, based on MY thoughts...

why i choose that path depends on more things than &quot;morals&quot;... this may be a bad word to use since morals are usually used in terms of things that are &quot;right and wrong&quot; like stealing, etc...

premarital sex is a personal issue based on risks involved and other factors... it can have moral implications, like are you gonna marry your knocked-up girlfriend, but it doesn't have to be a moral issue...



<< Why does anyone think anything is immoral? You miss the point, everyone is subject to their own morals, it doesn't have to come from one certain thing, it could be just a feeling, your conscience. >>

 

[isildur]

&quot;Why do you guys tell people not to have sex before marriage?&quot;

Because it is harmful to people to engage in sexual activity with multiple partners throughout their lives and the institution or marriage, coupled with the prohibition of extramarital sex, provides an environment wherein sex may safely and heathily be expressed and 'ensures' that this unhealthy behavior is avoided. Marriage is the singular union expressly designated as life-long, and rising divorce rates only illustrate the inability of people to maintain commitments. If people are even unable to stay committed within marriage, is it reasonable to insist that they could do so in a less static, non-marital relationship?

Simply put, because all the evidence indicates that life-long monogamy is the most healthy expression of our sexuality and any available evidence also indicates that those having sex outside of marriage are exponentially more likely to have multiple partners throughout their lifetime.
<shrug>

All religious arguments aside, it simply makes the most sense sociologically, psychologically, and physiologically.

 

[notfred]

sorry isildur, but I'm on the worlds slowest computer with the worlds slowest net connection at the moment, and I'm also trying to work, whick makes responding to every post quite difficult. I'm trying to respond to as many as I can, and I happened to see that one and thoguht I should say something.

As far as saying that marriage is also an accepted social institution, divorce is also an accepted social instution (unfortunately) so, if we go by the social definition of marriage, it doesn't neccesarily prevent multiple sex partners.

Yes. lots of things are possible, and other things are more likely. Jsut because it's LIKELY that murder will be committed in the future doesn't mean that everyone should be treated as a murderer. Just as, because it's likely that many unmarried couples will not remain totally monogamous, we cant assume that all unmarried couples are therefore promiscuous.

I think that was worded really poorly, buy hopefully you get the idea.

 

[ace31216]

Having premarital sex is a sin! Sex after marriage is a justified sin.

 

[Fearlss1]

Do you buy a car with out test driving it. Do you buy a milk cow without tasting the milk. you do buy clothes without trying them on.. Ok then why would you want to be stcuk with a mate that is boring in the sack.. Roflamo jk Yes I think you should wait until your probably married. But its hard to avoid the temptations, thus called sin..
just my .02 thnx and goodnite.
-=Nate293468

 

[bigd480]

other questions may be:
WHY is premarital sex taken as a given?
HOW many ppl have it for the wrong reasons (everyone else is doing it)?
WHY is it so overrationalized that ppl will make up any excuse (sexual compatability, rite of passage, everyone does it) to justify it?
IF it is really &quot;not a big deal&quot; why are ppl always going out of their way to defend it?
HOW many ppl who've had premarital have regretted it?

 

[StageLeft]

Cause the people who wrote the bible said so!!

 

[Ferocious]

Conservatives like to say that.

But we all know that is just another hypocritical characteristic of that mindset.

 

[tkim]

isla...word to your first post!!!

 

[woodly6]

Because its fun!

 

[sandorski]

It's like this, at one time, the people who caused a pregnancy(man and woman) were held responsible for the care and nurturing of the inevitable child produced. To avoid a situation where the man and woman were unable to fulfill their obligations to their produce and also to know which man was responsible for the product, a simple yet effective idea was born(no pun). Marriage.

Now this idea would only work if people were onboard with it. Thus, the idea of &quot;pre-marital&quot; sex was formed. This was deeply frowned upon to the point where some cultures invoked the death penalty at times. Eventually people came onboard and in time it was considered as normal as breathing.

Everything worked fairly well until about the time of the birth control pill. This kinda negated the need(or so it was thought), of old ideas. Once the sexual revolution ran it's couurse, another reason for the support of the moral of no pre-marital sex was found. That was the contol of disease, some minor others life threatening.

Like it or not, morals, such as no pre-marital sex, were formed from years, centuries, even millenia of wisdom and experience. Sometimes it is best to listen to what has been learned the hard way from others.