Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[Sand Dancer]

in Scripture I find that fornication (from the Greek porneia) would be wrong for 'sleeping' with a single or married woman.
As Hebrews 13:4 mentions that God will judge sexually immoral people, that includes fornication/porneia and adultery.

It's hard to get a clear message from a book with so many authors written over 1,200 years.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then the notion of sinful is moot isn't it?

.

Indeed it is.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It's hard to get a clear message from a book with so many authors written over 1,200 years.

What I find clear is the internal harmony among the many Bible writers (God's secretaries).
The message is clear about fornication (porneia) and adultery being unscriptural because all Bible writers agree.
If we look up the words fornication and adultery in a comprehensive concordance we can see how many times such words appear, or being sexually immoral appear, and that Bible writers do Not differ.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?

There's just no reason for masturbation or sexual immorality outside of marriage. It only causes damage and never satisfies.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What I SAID was that aside from any morality involved, premarital (or pre-choose a permanent partner, however it's done) is stupid. There is a fairly large difference between the two concepts, I think.

What I was commenting on was the difference between what was inside and outside the parenthesis. The oversignificance placed on the institution of marriage rather than just talking about committed relationships. I think we both agree on that (outsideyour religious view.)
Though I think it's quite possible to be non-monogamous in a non stupid way, too. I'm just not personally interested in that sort of life.

Good for you. No sarcasm or condescension intended; I mean that. Good for you. However, if everybody became a vegetarian, it wouldn't solve the problem of diseases that have plagued humans for pretty much as long as there have been humans, would it?

Eliminate? No. But cardiovascular disease and cancers with association to diet could, in many circumstances, be mitigated *significantly* by a balaced plant based diet. Lots more people die of these diseases than any STI.

Might save a bunch of cows and chickens, ...but then again, probably not. All those cows and chickens would probably go extinct, since nobody would have any use for them....

Vegetarians still consume dairy and eggs. But even if I were talking a vegan point of view, the goal towards elimination of animal product dependence isn't to keep domestic animals from going extinct. I imagine they would do what I think should be done with every white tiger in existence(due to severe genetic health issues), put them in comfortable habitats to live out the rest of their lives but do not breed any new generations.

Good for preventing STD's???

You bet.

I'm sorry.

Thank, I do appreciate it.

....and what if you had 'tested positively?" For something like, oh, AIDS or another incurable STD?

This is called serodifference or mixed status couples and, even with HIV, it is completely possible to have sex without passing the virus with the proper safety precautions (including barrior methods coupled with medications like anti-retrovirals and PreP). With modern medicine mixed status couples have lifetimes of sexually active relationships with their partner without passing, and that's something unfortunately not talked about muh because some think it reduces the effectiveness of using HIV as a boogeyman.

Even though it is also quite possible to bare children without HIV, I probably would have gotten my tubes tied anyway. But I don't actually want (biological) children so no big deal there.

In fact, almost all the posts in here objecting to the idea that pre-marital sex is 'immoral' are arguing from that POV....the selfish one. The one that says 'doesn't matter what risks I run, or what I expose my partners to, or what happens to a child that might result...it's more important that I get an orgasm than any of those considerations, and nobody has the right to criticize!"

<insert vegetarian argument here>
How selfish it is compared to just being a basic, natural part of life depends on your perspective.

 

[Spartan]

You mean people like Einstein?

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, and all the rest who kick Christ to the curb due to their spiritual constipation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet big enough to bring up.

And yet you point it out why?

 

[Spartan]

If all that stuff is real I'd rather be in Hell than spending all eternity worshiping an egotistical, genocidal tyrant. Separation anxieties, after all, no longer apply to me in that case.

If you do wind up in hell it's not going to be five minutes before you were wishing you were somewhere else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Low blow, Shadow Wolf.

I consider it fair.

However, this IS apples and oranges, is it not?

No, it's not. It's a good chance I can do higher level mathematics, and do them far easier. Why can't you? I can stroll through the parks of Geometry and Calculus. So if I can, that must mean you can keep up. No excuses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you do wind up in hell it's not going to be five minutes before you were wishing you were somewhere else.

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
And, BTW, empty threats with no support don't scare me. I've been in much worse situations than someone threatening an eternal damnation they can't support or back up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's just no reason for masturbation or sexual immorality outside of marriage. It only causes damage and never satisfies.

Masturbation cases no damage. Unless you're doing it too hard.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Masturbation cases no damage. Unless you're doing it too hard.

Just a friendly reminder that I don't really want to talk to you. Sorry.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Masturbation cases no damage. Unless you're doing it too hard.

I don't want to be rude so I will say three things. You're welcome to reply at least once:

I read a book by a neurosurgeon that had scientific evidence it was bad.
Anytime you fantasize on something that can't actually happen there are 50 shades of gray of how it messes up your mental integrity.
I have found it personally to be very mentally rewarding to forego it, and many people have noticed I perform better mentally since I stopped last.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read a book by a neurosurgeon that had scientific evidence it was bad.
Anytime you fantasize on something that can't actually happen there are 50 shades of gray of how it messes up your mental integrity.

Science supports none of those claims. And in regards to mental health, I've studied sex quite a bit. Unless it's from an organization with known biases (such as NARTH), the science agrees that masturbation can be healthy, and having fantasies are perfectly fine and normal so long as remember they are just that, and we don't let them consume us. And in all my studies and clinical experience, there is nothing that suggests having a fantasy is bad for clients.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Science supports none of those claims. And in regards to mental health, I've studied sex quite a bit. Unless it's from an organization with known biases (such as NARTH), the science agrees that masturbation can be healthy, and having fantasies are perfectly fine and normal so long as remember they are just that, and we don't let them consume us. And in all my studies and clinical experience, there is nothing that suggests having a fantasy is bad for clients.

There are 50 shades of gray of how bad it gets. You can tap yourself because of some very subconcious urge or check out a woman or someone can rape someone for a power trip when they don't even love her.

It always does some harm because you are informing your brain you'd like to do something that you can't; violent video games can do the same. The American Psychological Association still has that statement about what violent video games do to the gamers as late as this year.

"“The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression,” says the report of the APA Task Force on Violent Media. The task force’s review is the first in this field to examine the breadth of studies included and to undertake multiple approaches to reviewing the literature."

I won't argue with your expertise; maybe you just don't notice a change in the people who do it to a lesser degree.

Also thank you for bearing with me.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

As I understand it, when a man and a woman are united with the consent of God, marriage is merely the social formality of something already known to them. In other words, marriage has at least two components. One of those components is worldly tradition and the other is of God.

But if a man and a woman are not united in God, then their sexual conduct becomes a sin. The tradition of marriage is the means by which society judges the rightness of sexual conduct between men and women. In the legal sense, marriage is the means by which the law makes clear the rights of the parents with respect to children. It establishes who has rightful claim to and guardianship over the children. There may also be obligations of the men to the women and of the women to the men that become clearly established by the formality of marriage.

But all the worldly aspects of marriage are merely reflections of the spiritual union of a man and woman before God. It is something that the two of them know already. So, in that case, they do not require the consent of others. Instead, their marriage is a means for others to bear witness to the glory of God.

What this all boils down to is this: a man and a woman simply know (or they do not know). And the one's that know have been united by God.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Science supports none of those claims. And in regards to mental health, I've studied sex quite a bit. Unless it's from an organization with known biases (such as NARTH), the science agrees that masturbation can be healthy, and having fantasies are perfectly fine and normal so long as remember they are just that, and we don't let them consume us. And in all my studies and clinical experience, there is nothing that suggests having a fantasy is bad for clients.

Well Shadow Wolf, I am tired, so I will look forward to your message tomorrow afternoon.

Another thing I can't help but question is how do you know that minor acts don't cause harm?; I thought almost everyone masturbated so do you have a sample size? Just wondering.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Another thing I can't help but question is how do you know that minor acts don't cause harm?

It's my schooling and professional background. If masturbation caused harm, I would know it. If having fantasies were inherently dangerous, I would know it. I've had people's health and well being in my hands. I'm not trying to say I know it all, but these are very basic 100 and 200 level psychology course topics. Professionally, even with clients in poor health there are no instructions for them to stop masturbating (unless they are too unhealthy for sexual activity). Fantasies being bad is not considered dangerous and unhealthy, but just a sign you're a living human being. We all have dreams about what we don't have. That's why we call them "dreams" and "fantasies."

 

[robocop (actually)]

It's my schooling and professional background. If masturbation caused harm, I would know it. If having fantasies were inherently dangerous, I would know it. I've had people's health and well being in my hands. I'm not trying to say I know it all, but these are very basic 100 and 200 level psychology course topics. Professionally, even with clients in poor health there are no instructions for them to stop masturbating (unless they are too unhealthy for sexual activity). Fantasies being bad is not considered dangerous and unhealthy, but just a sign you're a living human being. We all have dreams about what we don't have. That's why we call them "dreams" and "fantasies."

Well, let's just leave it at that. (I still disagree).

 

[dianaiad]

......

Eliminate? No. But cardiovascular disease and cancers with association to diet could, in many circumstances, be mitigated *significantly* by a balaced plant based diet. Lots more people die of these diseases than any STI.

Everybody dies of something....but there is a difference between 'mitigate' and 'eliminate.' I'm not talking about something that would MITIGATE STD's.. I'm talking about something that would utterly eliminate them.

As in...g'bye, and these diseases would go the way of smallpox.

BTW, I have a doctor...my primary car doctor, as it happens, who I haven't seen in over a year because he keeps wanting to have me get cancer screenings. You know, a mamogram, a colonoscopy, bone density testing, all that 'old age' stuff, and who keeps telling me that if I would only go on a 'plant based diet,' all my troubles would cure themselves. The last time I saw him, he told me he wanted me to get these tests because he wanted to keep me from getting cancer, or to 'catch it early.'

I told him that it was too late; that ship had already sailed, and doesn't he read the medical histories of the people he treats?

He wants a multiple myeloma patient who is getting monthly infusions of Zometa to get a 'bone density' test? He thinks that a 'plant based diet' will cure what ails me? I'm sorry, but, er, no.

Here's news; I've never been a huge meat eater. Not quite a vegetarian, but certainly not a carnivore...and my dietary choices had NOTHING to do with the cancer I have. As to changing my diet NOW? No, thank you. Right now my diet is...whatever looks good and that I can keep down. Which, as it happens, seems to be fresh fruits and veggies, cooked cereal in the mornings, stuff like that. I haven't eaten meat for close to a year.

Guess what?

I still have cancer.

Becoming a vegetarian will not eliminate heart disease, or diabetes, or all cancer...it might HELP, if those vegetarians actually pay attention to the nutrients they need and make sure they get them. But being a vegetarian does not eliminate anything, as much as it might ameliorate them.

But being celibate before picking a permanent partner, and staying monogamous afterwords, will ELIMINATE STD's, the way getting vaccinated for small pox eliminated that particularly nasty disease.

My mother had smallpox. All my aunts did. My grandfather did. I was vaccinated against it three times..no, make that four. I have those vaccination scars on both arms and both thighs.

...............but my kids were not vaccinated against smallpox, because smallpox doesn't exist.

Now think about that one for a bit.

How selfish it is compared to just being a basic, natural part of life depends on your perspective.

Not really. Since being a vegetarian might improve one's quality of life, and mitigate some diseases...personally...but does NOT eliminate any of 'em, much less eliminate anything contagious, this could be seen as a personal choice. It is, after all, one's own self whose life would improve, not anybody else's.

However, claiming that pre and extramarital sex is a 'right,' or 'natural,' or whatever the current 'but I want to screw around!" argument is, IS a selfish one. Why?

Because doing so keeps contagious diseases going; the one who figures that his/her wish for orgasmic pleasure is more important than the health of his/her partner is making a selfish argument.

Consider this as well: it has taken us many, many generations to eliminate smallpox. We could eliminate all STD's in ONE generation.

......and just how 'natural' is it to let some doctor/nurse deliberately infect one with 'cowpox' (or whatever took its place) so that one would NOT get smallpox? Just how....biologically 'normal' is THAT choice?

But...everybody did it, and now smallpox is gone. The last case was forty years ago. That's 'the last case anywhere on the planet."