Would you consider Sex Before Marriage is morally wrong?

Hilarious that youre asking Liberals about what is morally right and wrong.
Might as well ask Col. Sanders how he feels about chickens.

 

The Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. Were they devoid of morals?

 

Do you really judge your romantic partner(s) on their ability to pay your bills, though?

 

They are his sustenance without which his fortunes would be incalculably diminished? He wants to spread them all over the world and do his best to get everyone to have some?

You guys and metaphors. Are you really following the concept?

 

It's sometimes interesting from a Libertarian perspective to read some comments like this. While I'm opposed to the big brother government agenda of the liberals it is their endorsement of the Rights of the Individual which reflects true morality moreso than anything else that Libertarians support.

 

No sex before marriage is not morally wrong.

It is a sin in the eyes of some religions but seriously most religions condone several forms of violence and torture so how moral is that.

Eye for an eye anyone. Turn the other cheek. Assasinate the infidels.

I would think killing is the highest moral sin but plenty of that happens so having sex before marriage is pretty low down on the sin factor.

Besides if you are not religious like me then it is totally irrelevant.

And yes that means that in some circumstances murder and killing should be condoned.

An invasion of my country or my own home, a person who has raped my daughter is a dead animal walking, just to name two.

 

You mean if love is built. Marriage does not guarantee love, and without love, marriage is not a stable bond at all.

Can you provide some hard proof that the majority of single moms don't raise outstanding children, and most sex without a condom leads to pregnancy?

The market has everything to do with sex, especially when dealing with teenagers. Just turn on MTV and sit through one commercial break if you don't believe me. The free market is encouraging our children to have a lot of sex and have it often. Look, everyone likes sex, and everybody wants it; there's literally billions of dollars to be made yearly either selling products specifically for sex, or using sex to sell products that really have nothing to do with it.

 

Actually I've found the Christian religion denigrates love in a marriage as it typically addresses the woman as being the property of the man. Universally women typically don't have equal rights and status in religious marriages. I find this lack of equality inherent in religion to be highly immoral.

 

Sex before marriage is too broad and inprecise a term. Do you mean, casual, wham bam thank you maam, sex or sex betweenn two people in a committed relationship.

I engaged in both before marriage. I had sex with women I was seriously involved with and sex with women with whom I was just casually acquainted. The one act was an expression of caring and the other was basically masturbation using some woman's vagina.

I have no regrets about the sex with the women with whom I had a committed relationship but I still, after many, many years regret the casual sex and feel it was kind of sleazy.

 

Love does not imply a committed relationship as committed relationships are purely intellectual while love is purely emotional.

Can it really be immoral if two individuals share love by having a physical relationship even if it's only for one night? Can we morally differentiate between sharing love in an intellectual relationship as opposed to sharing it through a physical relationship? The sharing of love with another individual whether we do it intellectually or physically can never be morally wrong.

 

The market is a reflection of the lack of moral, but the advertisements of the market also influence the viewers values and morals.

It is a vicious cycle!

Those who think Morality are subjective would be most easily influenced by the market.

 

What's 'immoral' about sex? Nothing. What's 'immoral' about two consenting adults participating in a moral act? Nothing. If you believe that sex is 'immoral', what makes it suddenly moral after two people fill out a form and stand for two minutes in front of some government worker and repeat some words from some government sanctioned document?

 

Because they have no independent thought....Notice how all the people who think its "Immoral" are far right "conservatives".

 

This is why the demise of western civilization is inevitable. The tide of demand and supply is too strong now, there is not much we could do.

Since ancient times, our ancestors invented and developed many cultures, local customs/practices, traditions, religions, values and moralities. All these concepts (in essence) are fundamentally revolved around sex, procreation and the successful continuation of their offsprings.


The rapid advance of technologies allows us to dismantle these concepts faster than we could truly understand what we do, and all these are just for a single purpose of satisfying our selfish desires.

 

Well, common law and Canon law used to consider that very sort of marriage binding and contractual: common law marriage. Binding contracts don't necessarily require a piece of paper, though I'd suggest it's extremely practical as regards enforcing the contract.

Well, under Mosaic law, there was certainly a legally binding aspect. Adultery was severely penalized. But there are two sides to it, the contractual and the sacramental. They are distinct, but I think they work well together.

 

Orthodox Christianity doesn't teach that women are "property." This a cartoon caricature. In fact, among the first things about marriage Christianity has insisted upon is that it be voluntary. Both parties must consent for the marriage to be valid.

It's immoral if it is done outside its proper place. Sex causes children, and children are the backbone of a sustainable society. It's not something to be taken cavalierly. It should be regulated, not by law, but by social custom.

 

Historically this has not been the case in most cultures, let alone Christian.

That might have been true when contraceptives and abortions were not widely available or practical. No longer.

 

Creating a child without any clear and stable family structure between the parents may work out, but it's not prudent. Particularly in the lower classes, absentee fatherhood is rampant. Mothers must work doubly hard to care for their children, and boys especially often lack male role models. It's not a good thing.

Condoms don't eliminate the risk. Having sex if you're unable to have children is still imprudent even if your protection eliminates the risk by 99%. There's still a 1% chance that it will fail. At that 1% is not a small matter. In it is someone else's entire life, that of your child.

 

Hmm, the APA would disagree. "Absentee fatherhood" is a myth, what matters is the number of people raising the child - hence the effectiveness of the extended family versus the nuclear family.

If the condom fails, have an abortion. Simple as that - this isn't the dark ages.

 

So you guys blame economic freedom for modern sexual permissiveness. If you want to blame something other than peoples' personal moral choices, why don't you blame the state?

Why don't you blame the Welfare State, which incentivizes reckless social behavior by eliminating a good deal of the financial risk associated with it?

Why don't you blame Social Security? In the old days, children tended to care for their own elderly parents, thus encouraging people to have children. But Social Security and similar programs socialize children's care for their parents. When something's held in common, there's less incentive to produce it. So when children transformed from individual caregivers for their aging parents into a collectivized commonly-held pool of caregivers through FICA, well, it follows that there would be less incentive to produce them too, right?

And then there's the War on Drugs, which, in the name of upholding moral values, destroys families and communities, as husbands and fathers in low income communities are imprisoned by thousands for nonviolent drug crimes and truly violent gang crime is incentivized through prohibition.

Blame these things, not free trade.

 

Economic freedom itself is very good, but I have problem with how we use our economic freedom.

 

You are simply wrong. Christianity considers coercion to be a canonical impediment to marriage. This is nothing new.

First of all, just so you know, I don't accept appeals to alphabet-soup authorities as a convincing argument.

I can believe that extended families are preferable to nuclear families, but that's all the more reason to support the stability of marriage and traditional sexual practices, which help maintain stable extended families and local communities, as opposed to adults running around living "the good life," much like children who never grow up, as opposed to settling down as part of a stable family and community group.

So if you support the rights of fetuses, you're stuck in the "Dark Ages"? This isn't really the thread for an abortion debate, but it's troubling how cavalierly you dismiss the matter.

I think the protection of human life and the health of human society has more value than the ability of grownup children to run around and play all day.

And, of course, you can't abort VD.

As I said, I don't want to ban people from behaving like dissolute hedonists. People should be free to be stupid. But there are consequences. So I predict that my side will win in the end, purely by virtue of demographic superiority. Simply put, we'll outbreed you.

 

You mean like how Christians canonically are not supposed to kill people?

Right, because you know better than the scientific community.

Why is living "the good life" being like a child? I'd rather people enjoy life than not. Additionally, I would rather they have children when they want to and are prepared for it rather than get dragooned into it due to social pressures.

Pretty much.

Foolish people do tend to breed more rapidly yes. Futhermore, it's not an issue of bon vivant versus prude, many people are in between. The former have lives which are just as if not more fulfilling.