»Pre-marital sex - yes or no? Why/Why not?«
|
|||
 Suppressing your natural healthy sexual urges is, of course, nothing else than self-induced masochism. This is also proven by the fact that the guys who went to monasteries and abstained from sex, burned their testicles, cut off their penisses and engaged in a lot of more masochistic behaviour. You could say that the Christian religion made them perverted. But you could also say, that it were perverts who invented Christianity. See also IMO → Child pornography at a Roman Catholic seminary IMO → Catholic church and sexuality IMO → The Christian cult: Under gay influence? IMO → The bible is inaccurate and written by criminals and mad men You are free to choose your idols. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsPre-marital sex - yes or no? Why/Why not? |
|
|||
|
MindSlave: Maybe this is just a scientific definition, but humans are apes. OK, I didn't want to go into details, but my point is: Even amongst apes you cannot be 100% sure that all kinds of apes behave the same. Thus even if humans are biologically considered apes, they are still humans. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since we are at it: Probably you are a Christ and think that premarital sex is forbidden by the bible. IT'S NOT. Neither is homosexuality. Adultry is. Thus don't marry. 
Merry swinging. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
An interesting read:  Shows the REAL reason and the only places where sex before marriage is mentioned in the Old Testament: When a man rapes a young girl then the father cannot sell her to the next man for the same high price compared to a virgin. I am glad that god takes care of this important issue. The seducer has to "pay the virgin fee" or "pay the fee and marry the girl". It is so good that god cares for everyone! Exodus 22:16 - 17, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins."
Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29, "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days." This Exodus passage is one of the few passages that deal directly with the issue of premarital sex. There are a couple of important points concerning this passage. First, neither the man or woman is rebuked or punished for any sin (compare with Deut. 22). The man is required to seek marriage but can be refused by the father. The key here is that there is no punishment for the man and woman having sex. The punishment is for the change in value of the woman as bride. The term "virgin's dowry" implies that there was a special dowry (probably of greater compensation) for her virgin status and since she is no longer a virgin, the father is still payed the dowry as compensation regardless of whether she marries the guy or not. Also note that there is no law concerning the pre-marital sexuality of men or unbetrothed non-virgin women. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: KNN presents the naturalistic fallacy. It's interesting that Christians claim that premarital sex is incomparable to HUMANS because it's naturalistic, yet at the same time claim that anal sex is a perversion because is against the nature
You can't have it both ways. Oh, well, Christians claim so much that is not even mentioned in the bible. 
Back it up, folks... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volonteshiva: If you have 500K to blow on a luxury car/sports car whim, allone then sure you would buy the car before test driving it.  true, but if you have that much money just laying around to just go out and purchase (commit to) a vehicle and then didn't like it, you probably wouldnt keep it around long and then just go out and buy another one...or if you did like it, you would keep it around until you grow bored of it and trade it in to buy another...or hell, why not buy two or three at once 
posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Shows the REAL reason and the only places where sex before marriage is mentioned in the Old Testament:
When a man rapes a young girl then the father cannot sell her to the next man for the same high price compared to a virgin. I am glad that god takes care of this important issue. The seducer has to "pay the virgin fee" or "pay the fee and marry the girl". It is so good that god cares for everyone! ah yes, i have read this and the only thing i can get out of it is...when this was writen women were property to be given to a man for marriage...and nobody wants "used goods" so in that case, the women are to be virgins, there is no punishment (er rather nothing at all said) for a man who is not a virgin before marriage...only the woman. if a man takes a virgin and does not marry her then, yeah...he has to either pay the father a fee or marry the girl. posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: 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? What the heck? You think utilitarianism is the only possible moral system? All your arguments for pre-marital sex are very valid in defending a utilitarian stance, but you seem to think that it is the only possible system and that they are valid for all views. Quote: Morals are mere agreements within a group. This is certainly a possible moral system, but your mistake is in assuming that it is the only possible one. It is NOT, and I am quite sorry if you can't imagine that morals can be based differently. (this is another matter, but the theory that morals are merely agreements within certain groups, or cultures, is called ethical relativism. It is an invalid theory. If you are interested and start a thread about it, I will disprove ethical relativism for you. Generally, any moral system based on the majority rule turns out to be invalid when you examine it) Quote: Suppressing your natural healthy sexual urges is, of course, nothing else than self-induced masochism. You could also say that taking a bullet to save the president or jumping into the fire to save a child is masochism. The point is, all willful suffering is NOT masochism. No sex != masochism. Quote: This is also proven by the fact that the guys who went to monasteries and abstained from sex, burned their testicles, cut off their penisses and engaged in a lot of more masochistic behaviour. This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Its falsehood is obvious if stated in syllogistic form : All priests are people who abstain, some priests are masochists, therefore all the people who abstain are masochists. I'm sorry KNN, it is NOT proved. What is proved is : some priests are masochists. knn: 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. If you are unable or refuse to see why pointing out that your initial argument marked '1)' was completely disproved because it is based on the naturalistic fallacy, then I guess it would be futile for me try to prove why. If you just don't know what the naturalistic fallacy is, then read  Quote: What you do is simply "Shoot the messenger when he brings a bad message". If you want examples of actual ad hominem arguments, I will give you some: KNN, please stop carrying on about all the things wrong with christianity, radical islam, homosexual priests, and christians who don't know the bible and whatnot in every thread remotely connected to them. Please stop doing that, and start new threads about why they suck and confine your lamentations to them. It does nothing to contribute to the discussion, and just riddles every debate with irrelevant horseshit. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: (this is another matter, but the theory that morals are merely agreements within certain groups, or cultures, is called ethical relativism. It is an invalid theory. If you are interested
and start a thread about it, I will disprove ethical relativism for you. Sure, start a thread about it if it isn't already covered at IMO → Are Good and Evil just human concepts? Or universal laws? IMO → Is it okay to ignore Cultural Relativism? ralph_angelus: You could also say that taking a bullet to save the president or jumping into the fire to save a child is masochism. The point is, all willful suffering is NOT masochism. No sex != masochism. Yeah, but as I wrote the Christians who engaged in supressing sex so much WERE INDEED masochists. Thus it's pretty safe to assume that the sex hatred of Christians has indeed something to do with their brutality. ralph_angelus: If you are unable or refuse to see why pointing out that your initial argument marked '1)' was completely disproved because it is based on the naturalistic fallacy, then I guess it would be futile for me try to prove why. If you just don't know what the naturalistic fallacy is, then read en.wikipedia.org… or something. I fail to see the naturalistic fallacy. Sex is not only some minor side topic of discussion. Sex is THE foundation of life. There cannot be discussion of ANY KIND whether it's moral or immoral. Sex is simply OK. We are not talking about abortion or homosex. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: KNN, please stop carrying on about all the things wrong with christianity, radical islam, homosexual priests, and christians who don't know the bible and whatnot in every thread remotely connected to them. Please stop doing that, and start new threads about why they suck and confine your lamentations to them. You can accuse me of many things, but not that I have started too little threads about Christianity. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I'm in favor of pre-marital sex. However, I must also point out that ralph completely kicked knn's ass in this debate.  posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: You can accuse me of many things, but not that I have started too little threads about Christianity. Off-topic. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: I must also point out that ralph completely kicked knn's ass in this debate He was 20'000 miles of kicking my ass. He has not weakened any of my examples/arguments, except by labeling them as "naturalistic fallacy" which they are not. Let's check from ralph's own source: The naturalistic fallacy is an alleged logical fallacy, identified by British philosopher G.E. Moore in Principia Ethica (1903), which Moore stated was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "healthy", "natural", etc.). This topic is not about "Pre-Marital being ethically good". This is a thread about pro-arguments and counter-arguments of pre-martial sex. So far I have seen no pro-arguments. And if I do then I considered it ridiculous to label them as "moralistic fallacy". Moreover: I highly doubt that one can bring forward an argument such as "naturalistic fallacy" ABOUT NATURE (= sex). It's simply a killer argument that is not applicable. User #1: Is gravity good? User#2: Well, this is how this universe works, thus it's OK Ralph: User #2, you are a fool. That's the naturalistic fallacy Sorry, there is simply no naturalistic fallacy when you are talking about nature. And to say it with Wikipedia: Many people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" to characterize inferences of the form "This behavior is natural; therefore, this behavior is morally acceptable" or "This behavior is unnatural; therefore, this behavior is morally unacceptable". Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality and cloning, to take two examples... While such inferences may indeed be fallacious, it is important to realize that Moore is not concerned with them. He is instead concerned with the semantic and metaphysical underpinnings of ethics. Moreover, as Ralph correctly pointed out, my other arguments are pragmatic. Noone has brought forward anything against them yet. I even argued against the bible argument. And actually, we are still waiting for a good PRO-ARGUMENT against pre-marital sex. To sum it up: Shame on you Tiefling, that you thought that anyone has out-argued me. I delivered a full bunch of natural, pragmatic and religious arguments that are far from being ass-kicked. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now, if I argued "Look, the majority of users has voted PRO pre-marital sex, and only 1 user has voted AGAINST it, thus pre-marital sex is OK"... THAT would constitute a "natural fallacy". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: knn: You can accuse me of many things, but not that I have started too little threads about Christianity. Off-topic. It's a small remark thus it's OK, as written in the Offtopic rules. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 March 2010, 06:04 php B.B. |