Pre-Marital Sex

[Skywalker]

Pre-marital sex is the act of having intercourse before marriage. This can also be called fornication. In history, pre-marital sex was generally frowned upon, being considered immoral and a form of adultery. In many Islamic cultures today, pre-marital sex is punishable by anything ranging from lashings to death. In America, however, this act is often practiced by unmarried couples, in spite of the risk of STDs such as HIV and AIDs.

Is this morally correct?

(I apologize if this is too brief. I'm keeping this introduction short and my position neutral until another debater jumps in. My debating skills are very rusty. And I promise to edit this post later.)

I did very poorly on the introduction. Please read later posts for an insight on what we are debating. Sorry for the trouble.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Pre-marital sex is the act of having intercourse before marriage. This can also be called fornication.

No, fornication is fornication. Marriage has nothing to do with it, you toadie.

In history, pre-marital sex was generally frowned upon, being considered immoral and a form of adultery. In many Islamic cultures today, pre-marital sex is punishable by anything ranging from lashings to death. In America, however, this act is often practiced by unmarried couples, in spite of the risk of STDs such as HIV and AIDs.

Which is why man, in our wisdom, invented such devices as contraception including but not limited to the condom!

Is this morally correct?

Do I need to noodle whip you or something?

(I apologize if this is too brief. I'm keeping this introduction short and my position neutral until another debater jumps in. My debating skills are very rusty. And I promise to edit this post later.)

Like when? Wait a minute, neutral? Your post seems to be quite anti-pre-marital sex. "in history" "In many islamic cultures" "risk of STDs" "Ann Coulter", etc. This joke isn't even funny!

 

[snex]

what consenting adults do with their privates is their own business. sheesh.

 

[Rici]

What if you married a girl, and on the first night it turns out she has a weener. Well, what then?!

 

[Skywalker]

Hahaha.

I wrote that original paragraph at 1 o' clock in the morning. Moderators, feel free to close this. I apologize for the garbage. :embarassed:

 

[Digital Watches]

I don't really care about the morality of it, there's something a lot more interesting about this.

We live within a society that seems to be experiencing a change of heart on this particular subject. While historically, this has been everything from immoral to punishable by death, now, with the exception of the religious right, much of the western world seems much more tolerant of this practice.

Why is that?

 

[DoH]

Because it feels good; it's a basic instinct to have sex. Gradually our western societies have become far less dependant on religion, and thus we are more willing to try new things.

 

[cF=)]

Religion has bounded one's action long enough, I guess it's only normal that humans have sex before what we call "marriage". When you meet someone, and fall in love with her look and personnality, it's already a major step in the right direction. However, your sexual life is something you need to care about, since your feelings are also expressed through this.

I guess you need to have sex before marriage, because it's a way to reinforce an already good relationship, or to know if the person you met will ever be the right one for you.

 

[McCloud]

Well, there are still those who wish to wait for marriage. Most of them are on a religious level, but for the most part I think it is the idea of saving yourself for your partner.

But hey, that's them. Premarital sex is cool with me.

 

[Deleted member]

I have nothing other to contribute to this debate other than this link.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21691116-401,00.html

I laughed for like a good minute at the headline

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Then we are all in agreement that there is absolutely nothing immoral with pre-marital sex.

Since there is no debate I then there is no need for this topic.

*closes*

 

[cF=)]

I have nothing other to contribute to this debate other than this link.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21691116-401,00.html

I laughed for like a good minute at the headline

When you think of all these young girls who broke accidently their hymen by doing horseback riding or whatever, why would you want it to be like brand new ? It's not like rebuilding a clitoris or an important genitalia part, it's only a ridiculous flesh screen symbolising virginity.

This is worst than the "christmas tree in airport" debate.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Suck on this.

So its ok for thirteen year old girls to get pregnant? Yes, I know about condoms. I also know there are many trailer trash girls who still dont know what a condom is. Im not saying marriage will stop this, Im just implying we are far too relaxed when it comes to this. I mean think about it, there are articles in the papers all the time about ten year olds having sex! I may not agree with sex upon marriage, but if it will keep these kids form doing things like that...

I believe in some instances there could be a legitimate reason to teach a child to wait until marriage. Once they reach a certain age with out an STD or baby, then teach them about contraceptives. Of course we would have to profile. Oh god, did I just open that can of worms?!

 

[snex]

first of all, who said anything about underage children? nobody.

second of all, abstinence-only education is a proven failure. teen pregnancy rates and STD rates among children who were not taught comprehensive sex education are higher.

abstinence-only education is somewhat like telling children not to drive a car because seat belts aren't 100% effective... except they're also either not told about seat belts at all, or discouraged from using them.

 

[cF=)]

Article backing up snex's word:

- http://requiem.net.au/node/252

 

[GameFreaking]

I have no problem with Pre-Marital Sex. What any person does is there business, not my own. Morally correct? depends on your religion i suppose.

I grew up as a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, where Pre-marital sex is a sin, punishable by eternal ****ation, but can be forgiven upon confessing your sins to the Lord.

I do not promote Pre-Marital Sex, though I have partaken in it. What it comes down to is how one feels about having pre-marital sex, not really whether it is morally correct or not.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

first of all, who said anything about underage children? nobody.

I said something about underage children. They are not married are they? Kind of relates to pre-marital sex then huh.

second of all, abstinence-only education is a proven failure. teen pregnancy rates and STD rates among children who were not taught comprehensive sex education are higher.

So your telling me there is no reason to teach children to wait. We should just teach 5th graders to use condoms and everything will be ok? I agree abstinence is not the proper thing to teach everybody, yet I believe it still has its uses.

abstinence-only education is somewhat like telling children not to drive a car because seat belts aren't 100% effective... except they're also either not told about seat belts at all, or discouraged from using them.

Horrible analogy. I don't see what your trying to get across except that contraceptives are not 100% effective.

Like it or not, children are having sex at an incredibly young age. I am not religious and I don't believe in abstinence, but I have no problem telling little Sally to keep her legs closed until she is married if it will keep this world free from another drug addicted stripper.

 

[cF=)]

I said something about underage children. They are not married are they? Kind of relates to pre-marital sex then huh.

Don't accuse snex of making horrible analogies when you can't even bring good ones yourself. Underage children has nothing to do with the current debate.

So your telling me there is no reason to teach children to wait. We should just teach 5th graders to use condoms and everything will be ok? I agree abstinence is not the proper thing to teach everybody, yet I believe it still has its uses.

Teaching children to wait =! waiting until marriage. Nobody said it was wrong to tell your kids that having sexual intercourses before, let's say, 16 years old is not favorable.

I have no problem telling little Sally to keep her legs closed until she is married if it will keep this world free from another drug addicted stripper.

Because you sure think that having sexual relationship younger than someone else's bend your mind and makes you become a criminaly drug addict ? That's jumping a bit to fast to the wrong conclusion because I know girls who had their first relation at FOURTEEN years old and, even if it was a mistake, they aren't ****ed up people.

 

[snex]

the idea that comprehensive sex education does not include discussions on abstinence is a dishonest strawman. comprehensive sex education means teaching everything, including abstinence.

 

[Evil Eye]

Children are having sex. Let's sweep our problems under the religion carpet.

This is obviously going to be much more effective than properly educating our children and expecting a little fucking responsibility from parents.

Sorry, but that's an invalid point and then some.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Don't accuse snex of making horrible analogies when you can't even bring good ones yourself. Underage children has nothing to do with the current debate.

Who is this kid? Are you his mother? Children has everything to do with the current debate. Who would we be teaching prevention to?

Teaching children to wait =! waiting until marriage. Nobody said it was wrong to tell your kids that having sexual intercourses before, let's say, 16 years old is not favorable.

Good job on proving nothing useful to this debate.

Because you sure think that having sexual relationship younger than someone else's bend your mind and makes you become a criminaly drug addict ?

Its criminally by the way.

That's jumping a bit to fast to the wrong conclusion because I know girls who had their first relation at FOURTEEN years old and, even if it was a mistake, they aren't ****ed up people.

That is the worst run-on sentence I have ever tried to read.

I guess I'm dealing with kids who don't have a clue. Why do I even bother?

Next time I would put a little more thought into what you are saying.




In response to Snex, that point is something I can actually agree with you on.

 

[snex]

mad hatter, children have nothing to do with the debate because the debate topic is about pre-marital sex, not sex-ed. if you want a sex-ed debate, start a new topic.

 

[cF=)]

I guess I'm dealing with kids who don't have a clue. Why do I even bother?

Because even if your ego matches the size of a cement truck, you should take in consideration that for a second tongue debate, I'm trying as hard as I can ? Who said you had to refrain from replying simply because I made grammatical mistakes ?

From what I see, you stuck your mind on something that is unrelated to this debate, and neither have you tried to refute what I said. So, why should I even bother ?

It just sucks to come here and see that instead of a reply, I get insulted for keeping this topic on track instead of jumping in your bandwagon.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Am I the only one with a **** brain? How can you exclude children from this debate? If thats the case you need to change the title to pre-marital sex for adults. You cant have a pre-marital topic and exclude children. Really, some one with common sense help me out here.

 

[snex]

you arent making sense. in lots of cultures, children do get married at young ages. even in america, some states have the age of consent as low as 14 - and could go lower with parental consent.

the topic is pre-marital sex, period.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Pre-marital sex it taught to kids who are gullible. I'm still waiting who you think they are preaching pre-marital sex to. 40 year olds who have never been married?

Look, I'm obviously debating with a bunch of *******. So if you have any more comments feel free to direct them towards a brick wall.

Over and out.

 

[Deleted member]

the topic is pre-marital sex, period.

Then take into consideration that kids, who are not married, have sex. Including kids that are not above a consenting age. You know this.

You said it yourself. It's a general topic - it's not exclusive to adults. Don't say that kids have no place in this discussion - and don't say they have everything to do with this discussion..@ Mad Hatter - because adults are not the only ones having sex before marriage.

Clearly, no one here agrees that humans should not have sex before marriage. So there is no discussion.

Where there is a possibility for discussion, however, lies within Mad Hatter's posts.

 

[snex]

again mad hatter, it has nothing to do with teaching. read the freaking first post. the topic is the morality of pre-marital sex. where did you learn english?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Pre-marital sex is the act of having intercourse before marriage.

I do believe children fall under this category.

In history, pre-marital sex was generally frowned upon, being considered immoral and a form of adultery.

This is about the only sentence that could strictly pertain to adults, yet it can still be considered immoral for children.

In many Islamic cultures today, pre-marital sex is punishable by anything ranging from lashings to death.

Muslim children who are caught having pre-marital sex can still be punished in the same ways as adults. Still keeping kids in the debate.

In America, however, this act is often practiced by unmarried couples, in spite of the risk of STDs such as HIV and AIDs.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure kids fall under the unmarried group. This is the part I was talking about more than anything. If children need to told to wait until marriage in order to save them from an STD I agree.

Is this morally correct?

It all depends on a persons morals. Like I said earlier, if it can prevent something bad form happening then I think its fine.


You see, I did read the freaking first post long ago. I still don't understand how you could even consider excluding children.

I may have been a little harsh to some people before, but do you really not see my way? Or, do you just not like me, therefore disagreeing with me?

I started English as did everyone else in the kindergarten at McRea Elementary. It was simple ABC's but English non-the-less. This continued up to 9th grade with traditional English classes. I then went to Searcy High School in Searcy Arkansas. In 9th grade my mother decided I needed to take AP classes, so throughout high school I took AP English. In the 12th grade I took a creative writing class to conclude my K-12 education. At Arkansas State University I took the basic English I & II, then World Lit. I & II. I did not major in English so I did not continue with courses in English. This is the basic history of where I learned English. Thank you.

 

[snex]

you are not "including children." you are focusing on children at the expense of the topic. the question is "is pre-marital sex moral?"

it is not "should we teach children to wait until marriage?"
it is not "is it immoral for children to have sex?"

these issues are entirely IRRELEVANT to the topic of THIS thread. if you want to debate them, START A NEW THREAD.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

you are not "including children." you are focusing on children at the expense of the topic. the question is "is pre-marital sex moral?"

it is not "should we teach children to wait until marriage?"
it is not "is it immoral for children to have sex?"

these issues are entirely IRRELEVANT to the topic of THIS thread. if you want to debate them, START A NEW THREAD.

The reason I'm focusing on children is because thats my point of this topic. The reason I focused on children is because you attacked my points.

who said anything about underage children? nobody.

Am I sorry the focus turned towards children because you couldn't let it go? No. If you don't like it you might as well leave the debate hall now. Crap like this happens all the time.

I never attempted to change the debate to "teaching children," or "immoral for children," I was proving my point.

Again, I believe there are instances where pre-marital sex is immoral.

By the way, the teaching of pre-marital sex falls under the same morals. Which you didn't make this topic so why are you so worried if it stays on track or not? You are worried about keeping on topic but at the same time your keep telling me how off topic I am.

I got to admit, I'm having a good time.

 

[GameFreaking]

When you say "children" what age group are you reffering to? I think of children as 12 or younger, and just how many people of that particular age group are sexually active?

no, I think a better phrase that can connect sexual activity with 12 year olds and younger would be Sexually abused, for more people under the age of 12 are sexually abused rather than participating in pre-marital sex. perhaps the use of the word "children" has mislead me? I think most people on these boards would agree with me when I say Sexually abusing a child is an immoral act, but then again there are some ethnic groups and religions that tolerate it. Their opinion,which in my opinion is a disgusting belief in its own, but their opinion nontheless. I'm digressing.

If the Mad Hatter is using Children as a word to describe the ages of 13-21, then I can see the connection between Pre-marital sex and children.

Still, by making "children" of any age the basis of you're arguement seems to digress from the primary point of dicussionm the morallity of Pre-marital sex.

 

[Zero Beat]

I haven't read all the posts and have not been here for the longest but I'll leave a comment.

I've had sex already and I'm 17. Did it this year too, after 4 years of being with my girlfriend, she's 16.

Honestly, I do not regret it because it felt perfect. I don't need the title of marriage to know that I want to share my love with this girl and take it to the "next level". She didn't regret it either and it's become a healthy part of our lifestyle as long as there is utmost protection.

Even though she's on the pill, condoms are always worn. As long as there's factual love between both partners, marriage shouldn't play such a big role.

There are many implications though, to the marriage issue. One of them being religion. We don't happen to be very religious while still partially believing in god. Yes it sounds contradicting but that's the honest truth.

My two cents.

 

[Skywalker]

Zero Beat, I agree. The answer to "Is it right to have sex before marriage" really does depend on religion. I'm still tied to waiting until marriage because, to some degree, I am a Christian (which goes without saying that different religions have different views on this subject). This thread escaped me for a month. Dunno, there now seems to be an argument on what this topic is actually about. I'll edit the first post accordingly.

And welcome back Zero Beat.

 

[Sandy]

Having sex before one is married was looked down on for hundreds of years, but now as society evolves there have been many things once considered not "normal" that we see every day. So is Pre marital sex still wrong? Do we still feel the same way as we did years ago? I think pre-marital sex was looked down upon many years ago because no one heard of it. Well, now it seems like it is normal to do it. I don't believe in it. I do think you should wait until you are married to engage in these activities. Although, I guess it depends on your morals and how you were brought up. For some of us, marriage is just a change in tax status and lower insurance rates.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Sex before marriage was looked down upon by certain societies, and only those within which had a concept called marriage.

If you look at the cultures that lacked concepts of marriage or didn't care about sexual promiscuity, then you can safely say that there is no moral argument against premarital sex.

 

[KevinM]

I am completely for Premarital Sex, as long as it is performed in a manner that is akin to an act of love. It's much different if your including casual sex, but in relation to a couple I believe that they have the right to engage in the act. Many people are adult enough to make they're own decisions and one of those is to be sexually active, and not only to be sexually active but to carry it out responsibly.

A lot of the arguments towards Premarital Sex come from the fact that the statistics are getting worse, general consensus from the public is that as a whole society is declining and in which many "negative" aspects are growing within America. Unfortunately for those people these Biases are incorrect and have been proven wrong on multiple occasions. One of the more reason articles ran by MSNBC (well by recent in the past year) proves that they're has been very little change in the promiscuity of the populace both men and women in the last century.

NEW YORK - More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

“This is reality-check research,” said the study’s author, Lawrence Finer. “Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades.”

As you can see Premarital Sex has become a natural part of American lives and shouldn't be looked down upon by people who take the bible word for word or the older generations that did not partake in Premarital Sex.

The thing is, Premarital sex is indeed moral as long as it is consensual between to people in a relationship. The white house under the bush administration has released the same views on the subject with one precaution.

Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, defended the abstinence-only approach for teenagers.

White House: Wait longer, please
“One of its values is to help young people delay the onset of sexual activity,” he said. “The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.”

He insisted there was no federal mission against premarital sex among adults.

“Absolutely not,” Horn said. “The Bush administration does not believe the government should be regulating or stigmatizing the behavior of adults.”

Just some food for thought

 

[Mediocre]

Sex before marriage was looked down upon by certain societies, and only those within which had a concept called marriage.

If you look at the cultures that lacked concepts of marriage or didn't care about sexual promiscuity, then you can safely say that there is no moral argument against premarital sex.

I don't follow your logic. Just because some societies didn't have laws against it, that makes it totally moral? Sorry, not buying it.

I agree with your stance, but your logic seems very weak to me.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I quote, "There is no moral argument against premarital sex." I never said that not being immoral automatically made it the only true moral alternative.

 

[Mediocre]

I quote, "There is no moral argument against premarital sex." I never said that not being immoral automatically made it the only true moral alternative.

So, you think that no moral argument can be made against human sacrifice just because the Aztecs and other cultures did it?

Again, sorry, not buying it. Just because some culture did it at some point doesn't make it moral, nor does it preclude its immorality.

Your reasoning seems really screwy here. Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding it.