Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

  1. #1

    Icon1 Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Mkesadaran accepted the challenge to debate the moral legitimacy of one-night stands.

    I think there's nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sexual intercourse casually for the joy of both parties, without wanting to engage in a long-term relationship. I'm yet to hear a good reason why this should be morally reprehensible, other than religious justifications of course, which are never entirely based on reason or logic, but on the conventions of past ages and outdated tradition.

    In this debate, a one-night stand shall be differentiated from prostitution, as it takes place without direct payment of money.
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 09, 2009 at 06:14 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Thank you for accepting this debate PowerWizard. This is my first debate in the fight club actually so... comment here

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=979

    Moving on, first of all, allow me to further clarify the details of this debate. PowerWizad has agreed that we set the definition of the word “moral” as:

    “Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.”

    These values will be based on the the moral beliefs of different cultures around the world. Religion will remain a valid reference as it is an integral part of many cultures.

    Keeping this agreed notion of morality in mind, I will begin by outlining the views of selected religions by citing what their religious texts have to say about the subject. Keep in mind that we are not here to debate if certain punishments in these texts are fair or not, they are simply cited to emphasize the severity in which fornication is looked down upon in these religions.

    Now, it's apparent that PowerWizard does not agree with religious justification of morals. However, keeping in agreement with our agreed notion of morality, ethical codes are based on the beliefs of the people and culture itself.

    For example, Nazis did not find anything immoral with the slaughter of innocent Jews, however, we as a majority, find this act to be absolutely horrendous and evil. Therefore, you must consider the religious beliefs of the people as people themselves define the moral code.

    In short, it doesn't really matter how illogical you think a culture's moral beliefs are, you still have to hold them in regard (at least during this debate) because each culture defines their own moral codes. Now, allow me to start outlining the moral beliefs of different cultures.

    I will first cite the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    17:32 And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.


    24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

    This verse shows us how severe Islam looks down upon fornication (including one night stands) as immoral.


    Now let's see a quote from the Bible ( and my commentary):


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    1 Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
    The Bible clearly states here that fornicators are morally unrighteous.

    An interesting thing to note here is a highly probable link between the Bible and the Qur'an regarding the translation of the word “adultery”. This link is made even more possible by the fact that both texts came from Abrahamic religions and were originally written (The Old Testament and the Qur'an at least) in languages that share the same semetic language group.

    In Arabic, the language the Qur'an was written in, Islamicity.com explains in regards to the transltion of “adultery” in :

    The term zina signifies all sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not husband and wife, irrespective of whether either of them is married to another partner or not; hence, it denotes both "adultery" and "fornication" in the English senses of these terms.”

    In Hebrew, the word zanah (see the similarity) also shares the same implication as the Arabic term zina in the sense that both terms denotes both “adultery” and “fornication”.

    In light of this new information, it is easy to see how the term “adultery” could also imply to fornication in general. Take this simple (and somewhat cliche) verse for example:

    Exodus 20:14 (As translated from by King James Bible):Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    Its easy to add the words “and fornication” and the verse will still have a legal translation in agreement with Biblical teachings. The Bible also contains many references to adultery possibly to emphasize moral dissatisfaction of fornication (taking new translations into account.)


    Of course, I do not really have to cite all these translations in order to show the severity in which the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths view one night stands as immoral. You can simply tell a practicing Jewish, Christian, or Muslim parent that their daughter is having random one night stands. Immediately will you see the dissatisfaction glow in their face

    As a matter of fact, I could tell this lie (or fact depending on which lady we're talking about) to parents of different cultures and the majority would still have faces full of anger (Even atheists). This leads me to conclude that the majority (or at least a lot) of cultures view one night stands as morally wrong.

    Even in secular countries, some clearly view one night stands as immoral. Certainly, when a woman is known to have sexual relations with many men, some would call the lady derogatory terms such as whore or slut, even though she may not be a prostitute at all but a woman who simply enjoys multiple one night stands.

    I know that in high schools around America, these terms are being used to insult pregnant teens. Even if it is not apparent at first, doesn't this mean that these secular teens themselves at least believe these acts to be somewhat indecent?

    I'm aware that many choose to have multiple one night stands anyways, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily think that its morally acceptable. Some choose to commit such acts anyways because it's “fun”. I've talked to a few high school students who committed fornication. They admit that they believe the entire act to be immoral, they still do it again the following night...

    Why one night stands are considered immoral by many cultures is another question. I believe it's only fair to allow PowerWizard a chance to respond to these statements before I write another block of text.

    However, under the conditions of this debate, I believe that this question comes second. After all, we both agreed that morality “will be based on the the moral beliefs of different cultures around the world.”

    If the majority of cultures view one night stands as immoral, then surely it must be considered immoral at least by the majority of the inhabitants of this world as society itself defines its moral codes.
    Last edited by Shams al-Ma'rifa; June 09, 2009 at 09:32 PM.


  3. #3

    Icon1 Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Thank you for the reply. I shall follow your argumentation, trying to counter the points from two sides, firstly from the religious side, secondly from the secular side.

    Now, I don't question the role religions have on morality. They deliver ethical standards to a large number of people, and I respect those who give their lives meaning by following a religion with rich tradition and culture. I should also point out in advance, that religions are not the only sources of morality, and the fact, that morality varies by religion, sends the message, that the questions of morality have to be examined from another point of view too. But let's start with religions first.

    Even, the most explicit sexualethical teachings of Jesus are related to marriage, and therefore apply to married persons. Mark 10:6-9 speaks about the unity of marriage and refers to the Mosaic law "Do not commit adultery". But what is adultery? Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse. I don't find adultery morally acceptable too, unless the spouse gives his or her consent of course, but this is another topic.

    As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 you cited the King James version:

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
    The new international version says (showing the change of ethics)

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
    The interpretation of the "sexually immoral" is not quite clear. To say that people who have casual sex are sexually immoral as they fit this category, would be a tautology, because you would justify their sexual immorality by claiming they are sexually immoral. Even then, it would be weird to claim they are sexually immoral, if the very same passage makes a judgement on homosexuals, and calls their sexual orientation a sin. But the Bible gives a definition of sexual immorality, right after the above-cited passage:

    Sexual Immorality

    "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

    Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
    Now this makes it clear, that sexually immorality means having sex with prostitutes. And it is immoral, because you shouldn't abuse the body of anybody, as it is the householder of the Holy Spirit etc. The Bible doesn't say a condemnatory word of one-night stands made by unmarried people.

    As for the Qur'an, I don't have any objections, sure, it condemns fornication, along with pork, alcohol, and many other things I - and many other men - normally wouldn't find immoral either. I'm not a Muslim, so the rules of the Qur'an don't apply to me.

    On a final note of religions, one could easily argue that the sexual ethics of said religions were "revealed" by God in times when prejudices against women and against sexual minorities were daily, and which are usually reinforced by certain standard features of social psychology, such as intolerance of difference and the often deep-seated insecurities of those who regard themselves as 'normal' but aren't quite sure. Religions are (or should be) about practising spirituality often by giving the experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God. Now what does God have to do anything with my sexual life, as long as I lead a spiritual and morally good life, do not harm others, do my duties etc.? The notion of a God who peeps in my bedroom, and tells me where should I put my penis and where not, is bizarre, to say the least. And why do spiritual and sexual life have to exclude each other? On the contrary, 'God', as the ultimate source of energy and life, can be experienced through the silence of orgasm after a sacred and meditative act of lovemaking. Whether the partner is a long-term or casual, is completely irrelevant.

    ----

    Let's approach this from the secular side. I claim that philosophy is perfectly capable of answering moral questions too. In fact, only philosophy is capable of giving an adequate answer to moral questions, as it only appeals to reason, and not to the authority of tradition or the authority of revelation. We accepted, that ethics is “Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.” But how can one determine the rules of right conduct? In my definition, right conduct means taking the right actions towards leading a meaningful life, and the meaning of life is happiness. Happiness in my view is self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents. It's not an emotion, but a state of mind. Now how do one-night stands come here? Very easily, if you take on a one-night stand with the purpose of getting to know another human person, and decide to exchange your sexual energies, you improved your life by 1. getting to know another person 2. exchanging sexual energies with her 3. possibly turning it into a long-term relationship. It's nothing more serious, than having fun with your temporary sport mate in a soccer match. All are bodily functions without a strong commitment to pursue said activity in the future. So if casual sex contributes to your happiness, it is a right conduct, therefore it is morally acceptable, but at least plausible, just like practising sexual contentment is morally plausible to me too.

    As a matter of fact, I could tell this lie (or fact depending on which lady we're talking about) to parents of different cultures and the majority would still have faces full of anger (Even atheists). This leads me to conclude that the majority (or at least a lot) of cultures view one night stands as morally wrong.
    I don't view the majority culture as a standard of morals. It only says a lot of people follow that certain standard, because they learnt the certain prejudices of that certain culture through their socialization.

    Even in secular countries, some clearly view one night stands as immoral. Certainly, when a woman is known to have sexual relations with many men, some would call the lady derogatory terms such as whore or slut, even though she may not be a prostitute at all but a woman who simply enjoys multiple one night stands.
    Calling a woman slut who enjoys one night stands only proves that society is still unable and prude to accept the changes of the sexual revolution. As the joke goes, a slut is a woman with the morals of a man. Seriously, slut is one who engages in sexual activity with a large number of persons, occasionally simultaneously. It is only a derogatory term, the same as "fag" is a derogatory term for homosexuals, or "cracker" for white people. These words are meant to reinforce certain intolerant prejudices - prejudices which are statements about morality without the pinpoint of neutral observation and thinking.

    I'm aware that many choose to have multiple one night stands anyways, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily think that its morally acceptable. Some choose to commit such acts anyways because it's “fun”. I've talked to a few high school students who committed fornication. They admit that they believe the entire act to be immoral, they still do it again the following night...
    This paragraph doesn't address why they are viewed as immoral, but as my opponent said, he has further arguments at hand, so I shall let him proceed as well as react to my points, in the hope of further reasonable debate.
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 10, 2009 at 07:34 AM.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 you cited the King James version:

    "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
    The new international version says (showing the change of ethics)

    "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."
    I question the validity of this translation. The word "effeminate", means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Translating it to "male prostitute" is a very gross exaggeration of the true definition.

    The interpretation of the "sexually immoral" is not quite clear. To say that people who have casual sex are sexually immoral as they fit this category, would be a tautology, because you would justify their sexual immorality by claiming they are sexually immoral.
    Fortunately, the King James clearly referred to "fornication" (along with adultery, etc) as sexually immoral.

    I know you might say that times change and new translations will need to be made to conform to modern standards. Unfortunately, translations don't (or at least shouldn't) work like that. Translations are meant to convey passages of scripts from a foreign language word by word into a language that people at home may understand.

    If Jesus (or whoever wrote the original passage) says the word "effeminate", you must not translate it to "male prostitute" because, that's not what was originally written... However, I'm sure that if you talk to English-speaking Christians, most will not question the validity of the King James Bible.

    Sexual Immorality

    Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
    Now this makes it clear, that sexually immorality means having sex with prostitutes. And it is immoral, because you shouldn't abuse the body of anybody, as it is the householder of the Holy Spirit etc. The Bible doesn't say a condemnatory word of one-night stands made by unmarried people.
    I already have show that the New International Version gives very bad and grossly over-exaggerated translations. you can read the entire critique of the translation here.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html

    It was made by Evangelicals and....

    When Evangelical Protestants received the Revised Standard Version, certain texts regarding the virginity of Mary and other Old Testament passages whose Christian interpretation referred to Jesus did not follow traditional Evangelical translation.
    Anyways, let's get back on topic shall we? Let's see what the King James Bible has to say shall we. Less people question its translation.

    All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

    Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
    I think this translation better gives us the concept of sexual immorality in the bible (see how fornication is highlighted). I especially think this passage as especially important:

    but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    To sum it up, fornication is sexual immorality.

    Now, I know that you say that the New International Version Bible is showing a change in ethics among Christians. However, this is simply untrue. Fact remains, I can still lie to Christian parents (even Evangelicals) about how their daughter is having one night stands. They still view the act as immoral and with be infuriated at their daughter.

    In short, the New International Version Bible has bad translations and is biased (read the critique). However, ethic codes remain constant, Christians still view fornication as immoral. If there's still any doubt that the Bible doesn't view fornication as immoral, you can simply read all of the 25 verses in this page:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...lewordsonly=no

    As for the Qur'an, I don't have any objections, sure, it condemns fornication, along with pork, alcohol, and many other things I - and many other men - normally wouldn't find immoral either. I'm not a Muslim, so the rules of the Qur'an don't apply to me.
    Good, at least we've agreed on at least one culture who view this act as immoral.

    if you take on a one-night stand with the purpose of getting to know another human person
    That is a very weird statement. Usually, when people have one night stands, it's because they want to have all the joy of sex without the hassle of a serious relationship.... Hence, people don't usually have one night stands to get to know the other person...

    1. getting to know another person
    Yea... people don't usually have one night stands to get to know the other person... As previously stated...

    possibly turning it into a long-term relationship.
    Yea... people usually have one night stands because they don't want to have a long-term relationship. Hence the term "one-night stand"

    It's nothing more serious, than having fun with your temporary sport mate in a soccer match.
    I would like to think of sex as more serious than a soccer match... You can't get STDs from playing soccer and nobody I know views soccer as immoral...

    So if casual sex contributes to your happiness, it is a right conduct, therefore it is morally acceptable.
    Not necessarily, sadists might take joy in inflicting pain upon others, that doesn't mean it's right or morally acceptable. I'm sure you'll say that this is because it harms others so another example.

    Pedophiles may take joy in viewing child porn (without actually harming the child). I'm sure you don't view this as right conduct, or as a morally acceptable act...

    I don't view the majority culture as a standard of morals.
    You kind of have to though. We, as a majority, set the standard that killing innocent Jews, cannibalism, and pedophilia are all immoral...

    Calling a woman slut who enjoys one night stands only proves that society is still unable and prude to accept the changes of the sexual revolution.
    I'm not sure if America is the name of the society you're talking about...

    Seriously, slut is one who engages in sexual activity with a large number of persons, occasionally simultaneously.
    and people who have multiple one night stands... or even one according to American teenagers...

    It is only a derogatory term, the same as "fag" is a derogatory term for homosexuals
    Which derives as a result of society's view that homosexuality is immoral. Another topic altogether...

    These words are meant to reinforce certain intolerant prejudices - prejudices which are statements about morality without the pinpoint of neutral observation and thinking.
    Well in the case of "slut" or "fag", the statements are made as a result of society's view that these acts are immoral... In the case of "cracker", that's just racism but the Bible never said "thou shalt be racist."

    Alright, for the sake of argument, let's compare two extremes here. Imagine a world in which fornication is made completely unlawful. Now, compare that to a world in which the institution of marriage is non-existent (it's not my intention to make this a strawman by the way, this is relevant to my argument). Which world would you prefer to live in?

    In the first world, we would live in an STD free world... The man and the woman may enjoy sex, as it's their lawful right, but they are also obligated to raise their children together. When the man is sick, the woman is there to help and vice versa. The child will have a clear male and female figure in his life. This world would have better, stronger, families. We can completely eliminate the words "slut", "whore" and "prostitute" from our vocabulary.

    Now imagine the other word, where the institution of marriage is non-existent. Everyone will have multiple sexual partners, no one will know who the father of a certain child is. DNA tests would be too hard as a man and/or a woman may have more that 20 sexual partners for all we know. You might even end up having sexual relations with your sister or cousin, even mother or father... Nobody will take care of each other, the child will not have a certain male or female role model. STDs will be prevalent. Not to mention the human population would skyrocket... Sure you should wear protection but how many people do you think would actually do so?

    Now you tell me which world you'd want to live in...
    Last edited by Shams al-Ma'rifa; June 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM.


  5. #5

    Icon1 Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    I'm sorry about the late response...

    Let's see your arguments.

    Religious arguments

    You question the validity of the Net International Version Bible translation. In fact, it is a reliable source, one of the most popular modern translations made in the twentieth century.

    The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars. The translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more. The intent of the translators was to produce an accurate and readable translation that would fall between formal and functional equivalence. An emphasis was placed on thought-for-thought, but it was meant to be no freer than necessary to carry the sense of the original.
    The text used for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. The text used in translating the New Testament was the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate. Familiar spellings of traditional translations were generally retained
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Int...ite_note-CBA-1

    So this is a scholarly and accurate translation. In order to challenge the validity of the cited paragraphs, you need to cite the original Hebrew version and explain why you don't think it's a good translation. Otherwise we must rely on the Biblical scholars, who knew far better on the subject than we know.

    On top of that, you need to explain why the Bible should be the ethical standard for sexual behaviour. Remember, it's a religious text that tells us that homosexuality is sin. At this point, I should ask: do you view homosexuality as a sin?

    Take :wub:, for another example. There is no place in the scripture where :wub: is even mentioned, much less forbidden. If :wub: isn't forbidden, how could casual sex be wrong, if it's nothing more than a joint :wub: (bodily movement for sexual pleasure)?

    I'd like you to point me to the place in the Bible, where Jesus says that it is wrong for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sexual intercourse without long-term commitment.

    Good, at least we've agreed on at least one culture who view this act as immoral.
    Yes, and this is the religion that says it is okay for men to beat their wives if they "fear disloyalty and ill-conduct". This is the religion, that discourages social interaction between unmarried or unrelated men and women when they are alone, for no obvious reasons. Therefore I don't accept the moral validity of this religion on sexual matters.


    Non-religious arguments

    Not necessarily, sadists might take joy in inflicting pain upon others, that doesn't mean it's right or morally acceptable. I'm sure you'll say that this is because it harms others so another example.

    Pedophiles may take joy in viewing child porn (without actually harming the child). I'm sure you don't view this as right conduct, or as a morally acceptable act...
    Sadists and pedophiles harm others in an especially excruciating way (both physically and mentally), that's why your comparison is baseless. People who engage in one-night stands don't harm anyone.

    Alright, for the sake of argument, let's compare two extremes here. Imagine a world in which fornication is made completely unlawful. Now, compare that to a world in which the institution of marriage is non-existent (it's not my intention to make this a strawman by the way, this is relevant to my argument). Which world would you prefer to live in?
    That's a good question. I would prefer to live in a world where the most people are happy. Happiness is measured by the balance of pleasure and pain, and this applies to morals as well. If someone consistently takes the right actions towards leading a meaningful life, he is a happy man. If more people would be happy (have more pleasure in their lives), where marriage is non-existent, it may very well be a viable option for humankind. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine a world where fornication is completely made unlawful. In life, the primary purpose is to survive, the secondary is to replicate. Without survival, there is no life, without replication there is no continuation of life. In humans, natural selection has favored a method of replication which allows for genetic variation. A superior gene must escape from its inferior gene-mates and be given a chance to join a better genetic team for its continued survival. This method of survival is called crossbreeding. Crossbreeding allows humans to anticipate changes in a dynamic phsyical and social environment, thereby increasing the chance for their survival. It encourages casual sexual relationships, even pre-marriage, as it helps to find the right partner for replication. It doesn't oppose marriage and traditional family roles, in fact, it helps to build the happiest families.
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 13, 2009 at 11:01 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    You question the validity of the Net International Version Bible translation. In fact, it is a reliable source, one of the most popular modern translations made in the twentieth century.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Int...ite_note-CBA-1

    So this is a scholarly and accurate translation. In order to challenge the validity of the cited paragraphs, you need to cite the original Hebrew version and explain why you don't think it's a good translation. Otherwise we must rely on the Biblical scholars, who knew far better on the subject than we know.
    That was their aim but there is no denying that the translations were made by Evangelicals who slated the translations because "when Evangelical Protestants received the Revised Standard Version, certain texts regarding the virginity of Mary and other Old Testament passages whose Christian interpretation referred to Jesus did not follow traditional Evangelical translation."

    Check my critique on the previous argument. I already wrote a whole essay on the Hebrew word "zana". I do not need to learn Hebrew however, I can ask Christian priests and parents...

    On top of that, you need to explain why the Bible should be the ethical standard for sexual behaviour.
    Because many cultures accept Biblical ethics as moral standards. Moral standards are set up by the people themselves. I have already explained this in full detail during my first argument.

    Remember, it's a religious text that tells us that homosexuality is sin. At this point, I should ask: do you view homosexuality as a sin?
    I thought we agreed that we won't post strawmen... The question is irrelevant anyways, if the majority view it as immoral, then it has to be accepted as immoral because people define their own ethical standards... See my first argument. As for my own personal beliefs (not that it's relevant in this argument) I believe that the sexual intercourse is sinful but not the attraction.

    Take :wub:, for another example. There is no place in the scripture where :wub: is even mentioned, much less forbidden. If :wub: isn't forbidden, how could casual sex be wrong, if it's nothing more than a joint :wub: (bodily movement for sexual pleasure)?
    We both know what "fornication" means, I do not need to explain this to you. ROFL sex is "joint :wub:" You forgot to add in that gang rape is group sex

    I'd like you to point me to the place in the Bible, where Jesus says that it is wrong for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sexual intercourse without long-term commitment.
    We both know what "fornication" means, stop dodging it.

    Yes, and this is the religion that says it is okay for men to beat their wives if they "fear disloyalty and ill-conduct". This is the religion, that discourages social interaction between unmarried or unrelated men and women when they are alone, for no obvious reasons. Therefore I don't accept the moral validity of this religion on sexual matters.
    Strawman but PowerWizard you crack me up This is coming from the same person who quoted his words in for mines and pretended to refute it Do I need to send you the transcript? No? Okay then, please respond to me in your other Islam bash thread.

    Ok sorry, we agreed on no ad hominems but you posted strawman. When one person cheats, that means that it's ok for everyone else to cheat

    Non-religious arguments
    Sadists and pedophiles harm others in an especially excruciating way (both physically and mentally), that's why your comparison is baseless. People who engage in one-night stands don't harm anyone.
    Not necessarily, sadists might take joy in inflicting pain upon others, that doesn't mean it's right or morally acceptable. I'm sure you'll say that this is because it harms others so another example.

    Pedophiles may take joy in viewing child porn (without actually harming the child). I'm sure you don't view this as right conduct, or as a morally acceptable act...
    That's a good question. I would prefer to live in a world where the most people are happy. Happiness is measured by the balance of pleasure and pain, and this applies to morals as well.
    I believe that the world would be happier without the "Jerry Springer Show" (look it up if you don't know what it is...)
    If more people would be happy (have more pleasure in their lives), where marriage is non-existent, it may very well be a viable option for humankind.
    Sure do it for the lulz, but who's going to raise the children and take care of husband and wife in sickness and in health?

    On the other hand, I couldn't imagine a world where fornication is completely made unlawful. In life, the primary purpose is to survive, the secondary is to replicate.
    Married people could have children too you know.

    Without survival, there is no life, without replication there is no continuation of life.
    Married people could have children too you know.
    In humans, natural selection has favored a method of replication which allows for genetic variation. A superior gene must escape from its inferior gene-mates and be given a chance to join a better genetic team for its continued survival. This method of survival is called crossbreeding. Crossbreeding allows humans to anticipate changes in a dynamic phsyical and social environment, thereby increasing the chance for their survival.
    So you're saying people shouldn't breed with others deemed inferior? Isn't that the thought that sparked genocides, ethnic cleansing, racism, and Social Darwinism?

    It doesn't oppose marriage and traditional family roles, in fact, it helps to build the happiest families.
    That's a lie, there's no way you could build strong families through multiple fornication. How would you take care of all your partners and children equally? It would also spark distrust and ruin relationships. Have you seen what happens when a man cheats on his wife with only one woman? Could you imagine what it would be like with 20?


  7. #7

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    At this point, I'm not sure you are taking this debate seriously. You call my arguments "straw man" and "lie", even do they are not, and you didn't counter them. If I claim, that I don't find the sexual-ethical teachings of Christianity valid, because of how they view homosexuality, it isn't a straw man, a straw man is an exaggerated version, misrepresentation of the opponent's opinion. So at this point, I should ask, do you have anything else to say to defend your position, other than reaction - replying to my sentences and calling them lies.The only strawmans in this debate was made by you, and you even admitted it:

    Quote Originally Posted by mkesadaran View Post
    Alright, for the sake of argument, let's compare two extremes here. Imagine a world in which fornication is made completely unlawful. Now, compare that to a world in which the institution of marriage is non-existent (it's not my intention to make this a strawman by the way, this is relevant to my argument). Which world would you prefer to live in?
    The other one:

    Quote Originally Posted by mkesadaran View Post
    So you're saying people shouldn't breed with others deemed inferior? Isn't that the thought that sparked genocides, ethnic cleansing, racism, and Social Darwinism?
    Oh noez...

    In your last post you also made an ad hominem, and you also admitted it:

    Strawman but PowerWizard you crack me up This is coming from the same person who quoted his words in for mines and pretended to refute it Do I need to send you the transcript? No? Okay then, please respond to me in your other Islam bash thread.

    Ok sorry, we agreed on no ad hominems but you posted strawman. When one person cheats, that means that it's ok for everyone else to cheat
    I am NOT going to debate with you, if you continue like this, but I'll give you one more chance. So I ask you, do you have anything else to say other than one-night stands are bad, because an outdated translation of the Bible says so?
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 14, 2009 at 09:17 AM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard View Post
    At this point, I'm not sure you are taking this debate seriously. You call my arguments "straw man" and "lie", even do they are not, and you didn't counter them.
    Yes I did... Ready? transcript time..

    I thought we agreed that we won't post strawmen... The question is irrelevant anyways, if the majority view it as immoral, then it has to be accepted as immoral because people define their own ethical standards... See my first argument. As for my own personal beliefs (not that it's relevant in this argument) I believe that the sexual intercourse is sinful but not the attraction.
    That's a lie, there's no way you could build strong families through multiple fornication. How would you take care of all your partners and children equally? It would also spark distrust and ruin relationships. Have you seen what happens when a man cheats on his wife with only one woman? Could you imagine what it would be like with 20?
    And I'm the one who didn't counter arguments...

    If I claim, that I don't find the sexual-ethical teachings of Christianity valid, because of how they view homosexuality, it isn't a straw man, a straw man is an exaggerated version, misrepresentation of the opponent's opinion. So at this point, I should ask, do you have anything else to say to defend your position, other than reaction - replying to my sentences and calling them lies.
    It doesn't matter if you don't think its strawmen, you have to take Christian beliefs into regard because a great number use Biblical ethics as moral codes.

    The only strawmans in this debate was made by you, and you even admitted it
    You said it was an interesting question so I didn't think you would mind. Plus if you check the commentary thread, some guy voiced his opinion that he didn't think of my post as strawmen

    Oh noez...
    Clarify...

    In your last post you also made an ad hominem, and you also admitted it
    I couldn't help it, you brought irrelevant Islam bash to this thread when all you did was pretend to refute it by replacing your quotes as mines... I'm still waiting for your response btw...

    I am NOT going to debate with you, if you continue like this, but I'll give you one more chance.
    You seem to be flustered by my latest arguments which you didn't counter. If you don't want to debate me just concede...

    So I ask you, do you have anything else to say other than one-night stands are bad, because an outdated translation of the Bible says so?
    If you read my arguments correctly, you will see that I made more than one argument on why one night stands are bad. I've countered everything you've said while I can't say the same for you (people can judge by reading the thread)...

    There's no such thing as an outdated translation of anything. Jesus' words are Jesus' words and you can't argue that Christianity allows fornication when it's obvious that Christian parents frown upod on it.

    Please don't get flustered (remember that I'm just a random guy on the internet...). Read my arguments, think for a second, then counter them or concede. I hope that it doesn't take another week for you to reply but if it does, I understand.

    I apologize for any strawman and ad hominems I have made. However, my description of two extreme worlds should not be counted as strawmen... Let us continue this debate in a mature manner...
    Last edited by Shams al-Ma'rifa; June 14, 2009 at 10:06 AM.


  9. #9

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Let's start it from the scratch. Two consenting adults are having casual sex for the joy of both parties. They are not harming anyone. They are not intending to destroy traditional family structure. They may even believe in God and belong to a church of some sort. At some point of their lives, they will become good fathers and mothers, just like they became good lovers. They are moving on in this phase of their lives to find the right partner. Eventually, most people will end up someone with whom they found a family. So what's the big deal?

    Let's leave religion out of this debate. A religion that tells us that homosexuality is sin (Christianity), or that social interaction between unmarried or unrelated men and women is a no-no when they are alone (Islam), are in no position to give us sexualethical teachings, they already discredit themselves with such horrendous stupidities. You can cite me anything from the Bible or the Qur'an, but last time I had sex with ma girl, Jesus or Muhammad wasn't there whispering "Don't have sex before marriage" in my ears, although I checked it twice, even under the sheets. Seriously, the fact that sexual norms of religions are changing, and they always lag behing the sexual norms of society, is the proof that something is wrong with the sexual ethics of religions. How can someone, for example, give advises on sex, if he doesn't even have a sexual life? That strikes me as odd. I'd rather listen to Steve Vai than to an old fart Catholic priest, who probably doesn't even know the half what I know of sex. So here it is, Steve Vai, attending this serious debate.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Repent, repent, repent ye sinners

    What do you think you got, when you thought you had a lot
    But all your feelings are dead?
    And who do you think you are, when you're reaching for the stars
    But all your feelings are dead?

    Must you make a decision, between sex and religion
    Why can't you love God in your bed?

    chorus:
    Well, jesus christ is in your bed tonight, to bring you back from the dead

    How are you gonna fight for what you think is right
    If all your feelings are dead?
    And what can you know of love, from the eyes of a child to the heavens above
    When all your feelings are dead?

    It's a tragic condition, sex and religion, makin' a manic mess in your head

    (chorus)

    Jesus christ, or any son of the heatless light
    When all your feelings are dead

    Resurrection!

    I raise my hands high up into the air
    Get down on my knees and start-a-prayin'
    When love walks in, my body begins
    I feel my promised land comin', but I gotta go to hell now
    And those creatures, evangelist preachers
    The ones that take money, for the promise of hope
    Well, they are dangerous, I'm not dangerous
    Brain washing us, and we're not gonna take it

    (solo)

    I just wanna know, oh, lord, how it is so
    How is it that you can take my sins away?
    Oh, lord tell me, so I can see the light again
    I don't think anybody can take my sins away

    How can the truth be known, if we got little black holes in our souls
    And all our feelings are dead?

    Are we imprisoned by sex and religion
    Or is God the one that's trapped in our mess?

    (chorus)

    Jesus christ, or any son of the heatless light
    To bring you back from the dead

    So remember now folks, when you kneel to pray
    Blow a little kiss to the hypocrites
    Good God knows when you turn the other cheek
    Which direction you're pointing it


    [holy . holy jesus christ, I hurt your brain, hah, great god, steve, oh
    my fingers are numb, right now
    yeah, they're numb
    can I deprive my brain of oxygen?]
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 15, 2009 at 05:00 PM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    If I may, religion is only half my argument, I believe I have put some good secular arguments out there.

    As for your request, I have already outlined our agreed notions of morality. We both agreed that religion will remain a valid reference as it is a part of many people's moral codes... You can't just our agreements in the middle of the debate...

    We will continue this debate on looking at morality from both religious and secular viewpoints. After all, morality is based on the beliefs of the people, and if the people decide to use religion as their moral compass, you can't do anything about it...

    If you don't want to continue, you can simply concede and start another debate on one night stands where religion is not applicable. Other than that, I have to decline because we're in a debate about morality in general and we have already agreed on rules before hand.


  11. #11

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Alright, if I may suggest, let's discuss only one religion at a time, if that's okay with you. If we're done with religions, we can proceed to secular arguments.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    or you could just address my arguments so we could continue with both...
    Last edited by Shams al-Ma'rifa; June 15, 2009 at 09:45 PM.


  13. #13

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    I continue merely for the purpose of the debate. Let's start with Christianity. What's the evidence that Jesus didn't have sex? He is mentioned in the Gospel of Philip as having kissed Mary Magdalene on the lips. Also, a lot of prominent Christians were "sinners" once, St. Augustine for example, who had a concubine for several years. Once I'm 100 % convinced that Jesus didn't have pre-marital sex, I will accept his sexualethical teachings.

    Also, if Mary allegedly wasn't fertilized by Joseph, who was she fertilized by? Could it happen she had sex with someone outside her marriage?

    I don't intend to mock any religion, I'm just merely asking these ambiguous questions.
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 16, 2009 at 06:07 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard View Post
    I continue merely for the purpose of the debate. Let's start with Christianity. What's the evidence that Jesus didn't have sex? He is mentioned in the Gospel of Philip as having kissed Mary Magdalene on the lips.
    kissing someone is not the same as having sex with someone... he also kissed judas and his other male followers, i hope you're not going to suggest that jesus is gay... it was just a traditional show of affection the way you kiss your mother, it doesn't have to be sexual in any way...

    Also, a lot of prominent Christians were "sinners" once, St. Augustine for example, who had a concubine for several years.
    couldn't that be considered an ad hominem which is against our agreement? anyways, that fact alone does not change biblical teachings of morals...

    Once I'm 100 % convinced that Jesus didn't have pre-marital sex, I will accept his sexualethical teachings.
    your mere suggestion will rouse up the christians in anger. jesus is considered to be god's son without sin. do you really think he would break his own covenant and commit fornication? blasphemy!!!

    Also, if Mary allegedly wasn't fertilized by Joseph, who was she fertilized by? Could it happen she had sex with someone outside her marriage?
    this is starting to get off topic. fact of the matter is, christians believe god sent forth his spirit into her womb or something like that. that's why she was able to conceive virginal birth... this is just a matter of belief so i will pull out the blasphemy card again blasphemy!!! i wonder how the christians would react at your statements...

    I don't intend to mock any religion, I'm just merely asking these ambiguous questions.
    well in other words, you're just asking questions for the lulz because you can't address the real debate...

    Remember this debate is titled "Are one-night stands morally acceptable" and there's no doubt that the major Abrahamic religions do not find this acceptable. You can dish out as many blasphemous statements as you want, the fact remains, christians don't find one night stands to be morally acceptable.

    let's get back on topic and either adress my previous argument properly or concede. it's not like attacking christian beliefs will actually convince them that jesus had premarital sex and one night stands are acceptable...


  15. #15

    Icon1 Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    "Blasphemy" would be considered a valid argument, if you proved that God condemns sex in the first place. God's thoughts can be recognized in 2 ways:
    • Revelation - a prophet of God conveys the orders of God
    • Gnosis - a spiritually enlightened person gains insight in God's mind


    Revelation in Christianity doesn't teach us that sex would be wrong, as I have already shown you. Moreover the supreme law of Christianity is the Law of Love, which trumps every other law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus
    "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:35-40)
    He expressed it another time in His famous "golden rule": "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). The term love can be used as noun to describe a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and caring toward another person, including a sense of underlying oneness. Love as a verb becomes loving, an action. When we act with love towards another we are allowing love to flow through us. Choosing to love is choosing to act compassionately and with loving kindness toward others. It is therefore crystal clear, that loving another person can't be against God, in fact it's complying with the supreme law of the Christian God. Women and men should be admired as God's creations, who were created to love each other. So if you make love to a woman, you are fulfilling this primary law. One-night stands aren't different either, you are still making love to a woman, and still fulfilling God's intentions.

    Gnosis tells us that sex can be a divine experience, i.e. tantric sex.

    For those who are religious / spiritual, I think Albert Einstein expresses the enlightened view of God. He writes 'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.' This harmony arises from a wave structure of matter in space (we are all interconnected in this space that we all commonly experience). This unity of reality (God, Brahman, Tao, Spirit, Energy, Light, Vibration) is central to all major world religions, thus their common moral foundation of 'Do unto others as to thyself' as the other is part of the self. If you were a devoted student of tantric philosophy, you would go through an extensive program of physical, sexual and mental exercises to heighten your sensory awareness. Through slow and thoughtful practice in lovemaking techniques you would learn to comfortably extend the time of lovemaking. In this way you would train yourself to be aware of not only your own feelings but also those of your partner. The spiritual part of tantra is to use your sexual energy to merge ecstatically with your partner and through him or her to become one with the cosmos or god.

    Both revelation and gnosis tells us that sex means getting closer to God.

    Now if you throw another "blasphemy" at me, I'm finished with this debate.
    Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; June 17, 2009 at 06:07 AM.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard View Post
    "Blasphemy" would be considered a valid argument, if you proved that God condemns sex in the first place.
    Oh noes now would this be considered a strawman? we're arguing if one night stands are morally acceptable, not sex in general...

    1 Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
    1 Corinthians 6:17-19: Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    Matthew 5:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
    1 Thessalonians 4:3:For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication
    Revelation in Christianity doesn't teach us that sex would be wrong, as I have already shown you. Moreover the supreme law of Christianity is the Law of Love, which trumps every other law.
    gee another strawman? we're arguing if one night stands are morally acceptable, not sex in general... Of course the bible wouldn't condemn it, how else would the human race survive. Stop dishing out strawmans and just accept the fact that Chirtians do not find one night stands to be morally acceptable mmkay?

    Now if you throw another "blasphemy" at me, I'm finished with this debate.
    Oh please, you're just trying to find an easy way out of this debate since you know your strawman won't work... You even tried to change our agreements in the middle of the debate. Respectfully continue or concede please...

    Once again the bible does not condemn sex, it condemns fornication so stop with your strawmen. If you "refuse" to answer, I will simply claim it as a resignation and proclaim my victory...


  17. #17

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Oh noes now would this be considered a strawman? we're arguing if one night stands are morally acceptable, not sex in general...
    What's the difference technically? One-night stands are about having sex, nothing more.

    sexual intercourse
    Function:noun

    1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
    2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis


    one-night stand
    Function:noun

    1: a single sexual encounter between individuals, where neither individual has any immediate intention or expectation of establishing a long-term sexual or romantic relationship.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]



    The difference is PWiz... Sex is a general term while fornication is a more precise term meaning... "sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other."

    Sex between married individuals is not considered fornication. have a nice day


  19. #19

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    I asked what's the difference technically?

  20. #20

    Default Re: Are one-night stands morally acceptable [PowerWizard vs mkesadaran]

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard View Post
    I asked what's the difference technically?
    and i said...

    The difference is PWiz... Sex is a general term while fornication is a more precise term meaning... "sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other."

    Sex between married individuals is not considered fornication. have a nice day


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •