Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[ZooGirl02]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not coming from a biblical background, I have no problem with pre-marital sex. I believe that the emphasis on sexual purity is an artifact from inherited rights style hierarchies and is damaging especially to women.
The biggest hurdle for couples, by my estimation, has nothing to do with external commitments, sexual purity, cohabitation, etc and everything to do with frank, realistic, honest communication.

Signed,
A woman married to the same man she's been with for 17 years, cohabitated and slept with, has no intention of ever having natural children, and supports my LGBT couple friends.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It depends on the people involved and the intent. But to give a simple answer: yes, it can be sinful. If it is selfish and self-serving then yes it is, it all depends on the intent

 

[sun rise]

It depends on the people involved and the intent. But to give a simple answer: yes, it can be sinful. If it is selfish and self-serving then yes it is, it all depends on the intent

To me it's also "sinful" if someone in a marriage uses the other as an object for sexual satisfaction rather than loving the other person with self-giving love.

I would have a hard time calling any act based on self-giving love to be sinful no matter the appearance. I would have a much easier time calling something sinful if the basis of the act were selfish.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd say that premarital sex is recommended and should be encouraged. Sex is a natural part of being humans and learning who we are compatible with and why is an important part of understanding our sexual natures. That involves experimentation and communication.

As the joke goes: I believe in pre-marital sex. I'm just not sure I believe it exists post-maritally.

 

[Deeje]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

These days pre-marital sex is taken for granted as a means to an end. Dating is expected to lead to sex.
Unfortunately when you add alcohol, people don't even remember if they had sex, let alone if it was the "safe" variety. Sexually transmitted diseases are still rampant, though not spoken about much.

High school children have usually lost their virginity in their early teens. I blame a lot of these attitudes on the education system. Evolution has eliminated God in the minds of many, and placed us all in the category of animals....it's OK to behave like them apparently.

But you are correct....the Bible forbids pre-marital sex because of the reasons you cited. Its a shame that so many who profess the Christian faith do not live according to the Bible's teachings on this matter.

I don't believe that contracepted sex is forbidden because we are not to produce more children that we can care for.
1 Timothy 5:8 states..."And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (NRSVACE)

But if a pregnancy does occur, a child has the right to expect to be raised by two people committed to each other in scriptural marriage, and committed to being loving parents to a precious child of their union.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

To me it's also "sinful" if someone in a marriage uses the other as an object for sexual satisfaction rather than loving the other person with self-giving love.

I would have a hard time calling any act based on self-giving love to be sinful no matter the appearance. I would have a much easier time calling something sinful if the basis of the act were selfish.

A lot depends on intent. it is the condition of the heart that matters.

 

[Nakosis]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

Depends on your religion/culture. IMO, reality doesn't care about our moral judgements. IOW, I don't believe there is a factual basis for morality. So the individual gets to decide, whom of course is usually influence by religion and or culture.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

A lot of forms of sex have caused most people, including children to be in hell suffering.

When an individual is married inside (made whole/wholesome inside) ~ then it will be for the right, selfless reasons that cause no hell suffering.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Premarital sex is an important part of determining compatibility between couples prior to getting married. Cohabitation before marriage is equally important if not more so. Why would anyone who actually takes marriage seriously and wants it to be sustainable not do everything they can to make sure they get along with their partner prior to comitting?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

Humans have been around for about 100,000 years or so, the Bible for about 2,000 - 3,000 years. So do you suppose that for 97,000 years humans were being immoral just because God didn't get around to telling them what's what?

Sex has been around since animals have been around, and that's now measuring in the billions of years. Was all of it immoral because animals don't get married? Did you know that we are animals (yes, we are, in spite of religious objection to that obvious fact)?

 

[Deeje]

Humans have been around for about 100,000 years or so, the Bible for about 2,000 - 3,000 years. So do you suppose that for 97,000 years humans were being immoral just because God didn't get around to telling them what's what?

There is no actual proof that humans even evolved from primates, let alone been around for 100,000 years. That is scientific speculation, not fact. When God created humans to reflect his own moral qualities, they knew the difference between right and wrong from the beginning. But being in possession of free will, they made the decision that they wanted to live by their own rules.....so God let them...and here we are. What a right mess we have made of everything! When God implements the re-institution of his own rulership over mankind, who is going to accuse him of not allowing enough time for them to try every conceivable kind of government? Each one a dismal failure. We are witnessing the death of democracy right now......what's next?

Sex has been around since animals have been around, and that's now measuring in the billions of years. Was all of it immoral because animals don't get married? Did you know that we are animals (yes, we are, in spite of religious objection to that obvious fact)?

A nice strawman.....I hope he didn't suffer much as you flogged him to death.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no actual proof that humans even evolved from primates, let alone been around for 100,000 years. That is scientific speculation, not fact. When God created humans to reflect his own moral qualities, they knew the difference between right and wrong from the beginning. But being in possession of free will, they made the decision that they wanted to live by their own rules.....so God let them...and here we are. What a right mess we have made of everything! When God implements the re-institution of his own rulership over mankind, who is going to accuse him of not allowing enough time for them to try every conceivable kind of government? Each one a dismal failure. We are witnessing the death of democracy right now......what's next?



A nice strawman.....I hope he didn't suffer much as you flogged him to death.

You do realize, I hope, that there is approximately zero evidence for anything that you say, and a very great deal of evidence against it. I do not expect you to be worried about the preponderance of evidence, however. That wouldn't fit in your worldview.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I would also like to mention that a good reason for saving sex for marriage is because sex can and often does result in children and the stability and hopefully permanent nature of a marriage is a much better situation to raise children in than an uncommitted a non-permanent dating relationship or other types of situations which have no stability or commitment.

 

[wandering peacefully]

There is no actual proof that humans even evolved from primates, let alone been around for 100,000 years. That is scientific speculation, not fact. When God created humans to reflect his own moral qualities, they knew the difference between right and wrong from the beginning.

This is too funny. First you complain there is no reason to believe in a theory with mounds of well studied, hard evidence to support it, and the very next sentance you start talking about believing in the God theory which has zero evidence of any kind?

 

[Deeje]

This is too funny. First you complain there is no reason to believe in a theory with mounds of well studied, hard evidence to support it, and the very next sentance you start talking about believing in the God theory which has zero evidence of any kind?

Pick your theory...mine ends well...what about yours...?

BTW, those "mounds of well studied, hard evidence" don't amount to a hill of beans because all that "evidence" is open to interpretation....and guess who interprets that "evidence"......? You can believe them if you like....but when I have studied the many "proofs" presented to me on these boards, it reveals way more speculation, assertion and assumption than it ever does facts. People skim over the words and do not see the speculative nature of their conclusions.
"Might have"..."could have"...."leads us to believe that" something is so, is hardly the language of fact.

The truth is, science has no more hard "facts" to prove its case than we do.

Be careful about how hard you laugh as well....

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would also like to mention that a good reason for saving sex for marriage is because sex can and often does result in children and the stability and hopefully permanent nature of a marriage is a much better situation to raise children in than an uncommitted a non-permanent dating relationship or other types of situations which have no stability or commitment.

The states which have highest numbers of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, divorce, single-parent households are all highly religious states which encourage abstinence only education programs. The best way to resolve this doesn't seem to be to give undue credit to marriage, but to give due credit to sex education, family planning, and availability of affordable healthcare.
Besides, marriage in no way makes you more mentally, physically or financially prepared for having children. But some of that IS mitigated, again, by having frank, honest discussions with your spouse and a plan of action. I'll take the latter over the former any day.

 

[Deeje]

I do not expect you to be worried about the preponderance of evidence, however. That wouldn't fit in your worldview.

The Bible provides my worldview...the fact that it does not provide yours is duly noted.

"Evidence" is a word that science has used to disguise the fact that it has no facts.

 

[wandering peacefully]

"Might have"..."could have"...."leads us to believe that" something is so, is hardly the language of fact.[/QUOTE]

Exactly the theist's language.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The Bible provides my worldview...the fact that it does not provide yours is duly noted.

"Evidence" is a word that science has used to disguise the fact that it has no facts.

The Bible provides my worldview...the fact that it does not provide yours is duly noted.

"Evidence" is a word that science has used to disguise the fact that it has no facts.

Using a computer designed by science to bash science is a bit ironic, isn't it?