»Pre-marital sex - yes or no? Why/Why not?«
|
|||
 As far as I can tell, this idea to abstain from sex is typical for young people. It's a youth movement thingie. Similar like listening to loud music, getting drunk on parties and acne. Don't worry, this phase will go over  posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsPre-marital sex - yes or no? Why/Why not? |
|
|||
|
I should also add that convincing others into suppressing one's own healthy urges not only makes you guilty of perversion, but maybe also of rape, since because of you others could not live out natural bahaviour. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
And anyone who thinks that he can relieve himself by masturbation, let me clarify: Masturbation is homosexual and mass-murder. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: 1) Do animals have any pre-marital rules? Why should we? It's completely unnatural to MARRY before SEX. KNN presents the naturalistic fallacy. Arguments 2-4 are pragmatic considerations, which are irrelevant if the question is a moral one. Quote: MOREOVER, failing to stay sexless before marriage can raise doubts and feelings of guilt.
MOREOVER, failing to keep your children off sex before THEIR marriage can invalidate and again, raise feelings of failure. These statements are equivalent to : if you adopt a moral resolution, failing to keep it will make you feel guilty. Unstated implication : therefore moral resolutions are bad. Fallacy of relevance. Also, note that most of KNN's arguments are based on the naturalistic fallacy. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||
|
ralph_angelus: KNN presents the naturalistic fallacy. ralph_angelus counter-argues with the moral fallacy. Sex is part of nature. But it is not necessary a part of morals. Only if humans decide that it is. Thus every NATURAL or PRAGMATIC argument is immediately more valid than any moral argument. Otherwise I could start 20 topics a la:
And whatever argument someone throws you always can say that it's "naturalistic fallacy". ralph_angelus: Also, note that most of KNN's arguments are based on the naturalistic Would you like me to answer with counter-morals? That doesn't lead anywhere. Let me also add that ralph_angelus fails to counter ANYTHING I have said. He tries to counter-prove it by giving it names ("naturalistic fallacy"). posted by knn |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||
|
knn: • Eating beef before marriage: Yes or No?
• Shaving your beard before marriage: Yes or No? • Watching horror movies before marriage: Yes or No? These 3 things ("Beef", "Movies", "Beards") are indeed moral issues (discussed by other religions) and the best answer is this: It's fun, noone is getting hurt, thus it's OK to do. The same applies to sex. There is simply not a single valid reason against protected pre-marital sex except invented moral ones. Religions do indeed forbid you to watch Harry Potter, to shave off your beard or to eat beef. But there is no single valid reason except (to put it in ralph's words) for the moral fallacy. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: ralph_angelus counter-argues with the moral fallacy. the what? would be obliged if you would explain. Quote: Sex is part of nature. But it is not necessary a part of morals. Only if humans decide that it is. Unsupported ssumption : humans decide which parts of nature are a part of morals. Quote: It's fun, noone is getting hurt, thus it's OK to do. Conclusion does not follow from the premise. YOU say that anything where people don't get hurt is OK(or moral). Also, it is questionable whether people get hurt or not. Quote: Let me also add that ralph_angelus fails to counter ANYTHING I have said. He tries to counter-prove it by giving it names ("naturalistic fallacy"). Are you seriously challening the necessity of names? When certain concepts are obvious or have been proven/stated many times before we give them names for the sake of convenience. By using a well-known name, I invoke the disproof/proof that have been proposed over the years by various individuals, instead of having to state it all over again myself. The rest are simply ridiculous. Please don't use so many red herrings, its tiresome to have to deal with ridiculous arguments. Quote: These 3 things ("Beef", "Movies", "Beards") are indeed moral issues (discussed by other religions) and the best answer is this: Beef, movies and beards are not as relevant to married life as sex. Geez. Quote: Otherwise I could start 20 topics a la:
• Eating beef before marriage: Yes or No? • Shaving your beard before marriage: Yes or No? • Watching horror movies before marriage: Yes or No? Woah, do you actually get away with arguments like these here? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 As regards the nature/morality discussion, I would point out that our closest living relatives are the great apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. Among these animals, pair-bonding for the purposes of sex does not exist. The usual sexual unit for great apes is one dominant male with a group of females over whom he has exclusive mating privileges, provided he can defend himself from rival males. This makes sense for both males and females because males can mate with as many females as possible, while females are assured of mating with the strongest available male. The whole institution of marriage is a debasement of this pattern because it assures even a weak male of mating privileges over a woman or a group of women, depending on the culture in question. Conversely, marriage also forces a male to mate exclusively with his wife or wives even beyond their sexual/reproductive prime. So marriage may make financial and child-rearing sense for some cultures, but it is certainly not a natural outgrowth of human existence. A more effective pattern would be either one male with many females (as in gorillas) or each individual living solitarily until mating occurs (as in orangutans.) Humans really are not that different from our non-human relatives, and I don't see why we shouldn't look to them for hints as to the most effective strategy for mating. I'm surprised that no one arguing against sex before marriage has brought up the issue of child-rearing, because it seems to me that this is the best argument for waiting until marriage to have sex. Unwanted pregnancies can lead to extremely difficult child-rearing experiences. However, I think the idea that male children especially need a male role model in the house is a myth; children need to be socialized with other children, adults, and families, but I don't see how the gender of the people they are socializing with matters much. I also think males in American society are generally unfit to be parents due to the low expectations placed on them regarding emotional maturity. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Unsupported ssumption : humans decide which parts of nature are a part of morals. What the heck? Morals have nothing to do with nature or the physical universe. Morals are mere agreements within a group. Is it moral that things fall down to earth? Is it moral that cats have sex before marriage? ralph_angelus: Beef, movies and beards are not as relevant to married life as sex. Geez. Maybe they are not. So what? My argument is, that believing that "sex before marriage is bad" is the same thing as believing that "eating beef is bad even when there is nothing else to eat". It's simply a matter of BELIEFS. If you like to die, because pork is the only thing to eat and your religion forbids you to eat pork, then it's OK with me, but a perversion of nature anyway. ralph_angelus: Conclusion does not follow from the premise. YOU say that anything where people don't get hurt is OK(or moral). Also, it is questionable whether people get hurt or not. Sure, how can sex be bad if it doesn't hurt anyone? Are you claiming that it's QUESTIONABLE whether people get hurt when having pre-marital sex? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Are you seriously challening the necessity of names? No, I am simply against a killer argument like "Whatever ralph_angelus says is nonsense" INSTEAD of a valid counter-argument. You have not counter-argued against A SINGLE statement of anyone here. What you do is simply "Shoot the messenger when he brings a bad message". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlave: I'm surprised that no one arguing against sex before marriage has brought up the issue of child-rearing, because it seems to me that this is the best argument for waiting until marriage to have sex. I know why. Because if you start to argue "sex before marriage for the sake of children" then the argument succumbs when people point out that "Protected sex would be OK then" or "Anal sex is OK" or "Oral sex is OK" or "Fisting is OK". In reality it doesn't matter for these religious people, whether its oral, anal, protected sex or even masturbation. They mean sex of any kind, which makes them of course look like idiots when they start to argue about "Children should have a stable parenthood". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me also add, that the argument "Pre-marital sex may lead to unwanted children" is also weak, since MARITAL sex may also lead to unwanted children. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlave: As regards the nature/morality discussion, I would point out that our closest living relatives are the great apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. Among these animals, pair-bonding for the purposes of sex does not exist. I like your post, however to be fair, I must state that humans are not apes and not rats. Thus what applies to apes, does not necessarily apply to humans. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did you notice that the cultures who promote "Sex within marriage only" are cultures that marry pretty early? By early I mean 9-12 years old. Also the Jewish did marry that early. Thus the statement "No sex before marriage in the modern USA" is of course a double-perversion. You cannot have both: Prohibition of pre-marital sex AND marriages with 25-35. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: I like your post, however to be fair, I must state that humans are not apes and not rats. Thus what applies to apes, does not necessarily apply to humans. Maybe this is just a scientific definition, but humans are apes. I guess you mean non-human apes though. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 February 2012, 09:52 php B.B. |