The morality ot premarital sex

**Shaun** · July 28, 2008, 05:01 PM

Right or wrong?

Give your reasons.

I believe it's right, and have yet to hear a convincing argument that says otherwise.

(Fixed thread title as 'sex outside of marriage can also mean adultery, which I do not intend to discuss. Sorry for the confusion.)

**Lord Consul** · July 28, 2008, 05:04 PM

I do not think it's a matter of "right" or "wrong", simply because sex is not a "moral act", in spite of what many organized religions seem to think and preach, but a common interaction between humans of different backgrounds and genders, humans with different motivations - some just have sex in order to spit out a truckload of children, while the majority of people like it because it's awesomely fun.

**HopliteElite** · July 28, 2008, 05:19 PM

Sex without protection outside of some sort of legal bond, I frown upon.

Sex with protection outside of some sort of legal bond is just plain fun.

Sex with protection within some sort of legal bond is probably just tedious.

Sex without protection within some sort of legal bond, unless you are financially secure, is just foolish.

**IronBlood** · July 28, 2008, 05:15 PM

I do not think that Sex outside marriage is wrong, I guess in many organized religions, saving sex until marriage shows how devout the spouses are too one another; showing that they waiting this whole time just for them. But I think the question is more of who you have sex with (from a morality point of view). It's ok to have it with someone you have loved for quite a while and who you will continue to love, girl/boy friends do apply. It shouldn't be with a person you just met or with a

on the street. I just hate hearing or watching on TV of people

ing each other after the 3rd date

...

**jankren** · July 28, 2008, 05:18 PM

Its feels good.

**Ex Tenebris Lux** · July 28, 2008, 05:20 PM

I don't see it as a "right" or "wrong" thing. I see it as something that's just natural and it's going to happen anyway. The exception is abstinence until marriage, because you actually have to TRY to do that. But the inclination to have sex comes naturally. I don't buy in to the religious reasons to not have sex until marriage. I do think, however, that if you have personal reasons and you're able to hold to it, then that's pretty noble and quite an accomplishment and something to be admired. But in all honesty as far as I'm concerned it's a non-issue. If you're mature and your partner is mature and you know how to keep it from dominating a relationship, then by all means why not have some fun?

I'm a major advocate of protection though. An even if she is on the pill, the man really ought to wear a condom anyway. Now if you've been with someone for a long time and the possibility of pregnancy is feasabile and you know for a fact you're both free of any VDs (and if you both fully intend on doing the right thing if she does get pregnant) then maybe I could see the guy going without a condom.

I do think some people are to eager to rush into a sexual relationship much too soon. It's sad really because when you rush into it, it can ruin the chance of something deep and meaningful. Been there. Not cool. I've been on the other side though where you let it come when it really does feel right, and that's an amazing thing. I think that's how we learn though, you gotta goof up once or twice (or more...) until you can apply whatever lesson you learned.

**jankren** · July 28, 2008, 05:28 PM

Marriage is mostly protection for the women.

**Pontifex Maximus** · July 28, 2008, 05:33 PM

Sex is a choice, not necessarily right or wrong. Rape of course is wrong. I think abortions that result from sex outside of marriage is wrong, the act itself isn't though. If it's right and OK for the person, then it's okay. (as in no STD's, because spreading STD's is wrong.)

**gambit** · July 28, 2008, 05:39 PM

I only see problems with it if they are doing it irresponsibly, that is without protection or at least some kind of financial stability. People can do whatever they want amongst themselves, but when others who rely on them are brought in (children) then they should think beyond themselves.

Plus it feels good.

**Confederate Jeb** · July 28, 2008, 05:42 PM

Wrong.

**Pontifex Maximus** · July 28, 2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Confederate Jeb

Wrong.

...to meddle in other peoples' business?

**Lord Anubis** · July 28, 2008, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Confederate Jeb

Wrong.

Now why is it wrong?

**Daovonnaex** · July 28, 2008, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Anubis1

Now why is it wrong?

Because it betrays your spouse?

**Lord Anubis** · July 28, 2008, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Daovonnaex

Because it betrays your spouse?

I believe this is about sex while your not married.

**The Good** · July 28, 2008, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Confederate Jeb

Wrong.

I too believe it's wrong. Just look at the debate that went on in the Personal Help forum, a thread on the subject of casual sex.

What if you have sex with someone, but won't end up being in a marriage together? Maybe the intention was never marriage, but then if you do eventually settle down and get married, and if you have sex with your wife (especially to conceive children), both you and your marriage partner will acquire STDs because of the one (or more) previous affair/s you had. This is why premarital sex is wrong. Abstinence is crucial, lest you further the cause of such diseases as AIDS, Crabs, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

-AVLVS ARTORIVS MAXIMVS

**Cluny the Scourge** · July 28, 2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Artorius Maximus

What if you have sex with someone, but won't end up being in a marriage together? Maybe the intention was never marriage, but then if you do eventually settle down and get married, and if you have sex with your wife (especially to conceive children), both you and your marriage partner will acquire STDs because of the one (or more) previous affair/s you had.

Or indeed, not. I sense that you would be AMAZED by how many people get married without infecting their spouse with a disease.

**sephodwyrm** · July 28, 2008, 07:05 PM

Try not to do it. It hurts your spouse, your kids if you have any and feels good for only about 2 seconds if you're the male (longer if you're female, though).

Btw, I am more curious. What would you do if you discovered that your spouse has been doing that?

**Rush Limbaugh** · July 28, 2008, 07:26 PM

A better question would be sex without commitment .

I dont care if your married. Its just a piece of paper other than its legal benefits that I oppose.

**Shaun** · July 29, 2008, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Artorius Maximus

I too believe it's wrong. Just look at the debate that went on in the Personal Help forum, a thread on the subject of casual sex.

What if you have sex with someone, but won't end up being in a marriage together? Maybe the intention was never marriage, but then if you do eventually settle down and get married, and if you have sex with your wife (especially to conceive children), both you and your marriage partner will acquire STDs because of the one (or more) previous affair/s you had. This is why premarital sex is wrong. Abstinence is crucial, lest you further the cause of such diseases as AIDS, Crabs, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

-AVLVS ARTORIVS MAXIMVS

lol

Oddly enough, most people who have had a sexual partner before their spouse managed not to give them as STD. What you're saying is pure rubbish, the kind of rubbish one would expect from The Silver Ring Thing in America, that kind of organisations.

On a side note, I've fixed the thread title as it was rather ambiguous.

And finally:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...4/bopis114.xml

What do all the "You've got to wait until marriage for sex because it prevents disease!" say this this?