Would you consider Sex Before Marriage is morally wrong?

Okay, but it nonetheless implies that free market economies tend to lead to sexual permissiveness. I think just the opposite. In a free market, people tend to be responsible for their own mistakes, and that tends to make them cautious and prudent in their behavior.

It's the state that shields people from those consequences and creates moral hazard, in addition to weakening and crowding out the natural and organic bonds that arise in a free society through spontaneous order.

In the old days, when the market was freer, families and communities were stronger and there were countless churches, clubs, and other organizations that helped maintain them. But who needs that when the Papa State cares for all?

The government school system is another crucial element that I forget to mention. Children are taken from their parents for most of the day, segregated by age, and forced into the most artificial and unnatural "communities" in which they learn to obey arbitrary authority of the state. Is it any surprise that they have developed a semi-feral "youth culture" in the prison-schools, just as prisoners develop a similar sort of culture in real prisons?

So my point is, blame the state.

 

They're not supposed to murder people. They can kill in self-defense. You clearly are not well-informed regarding Christian moral doctrine. Anyway, yes, Christian marriage canonically must be voluntary. This is one of the reasons for the marriage banns.

No surprise that like most big-statists, you're also a chartered member of the Cult of Expertise

It's your choice. I wouldn't dream of trying to run your life for you. But it is unsustainable. Permissive sexual values make modern Western society a nominee for the Darwin awards.

Well, we'll have to have another thread about fetal rights, so I can show everyone how wrong you are about that too

So you claim. I think a strong family life is far more fulfilling than silly hedonism. But thanks for admitting that the future belongs to us fools.

 

Maybe not Western christian doctrine...

If I have a broken pipe, I get a plumber. If I want information on developmental psychology, I get a developmental psychologist.

Unsustainable huh? And what would lead you to say that.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

That basically sums it up.

 

Government would not be able to enforce morale codes simply because it would violated constitution. The bigger problem is the government officials would be the same people who are subjected to the same deteriorating morale standard as the rest of the public. They would not be ideal candidates for defining/enforcing any morale/family values.

Free markets/economy is not the primary reason of our declining morale standard, but it is one of the contributing factors. We have not yet addressed the core issue.

I think the key is spiritual enlightenment. Unfortunately some of our existing established religions aren't doing a good job at that department.

 

Well, Western Christian doctrine is what I'm talking about.

Yes, except modern academia is highly cartelized through special privileges, subsidies, and the view that expertise is defined by having the right papers or belonging to the right three-letter gangs. So the free and open market of ideas necessary to produce excellence is greatly hindered. But that is also a debate for another thread.

It's unsustainable because it leads to a demographic collapse, as we see in Europe, Japan, and other Western nations. And what children are produced are raised in environments that are not conducive to development of values necessary for maintenance of a flourishing civilization.

Civilization requires strong and stable families and strong and stable families require adults willing to sacrifice a great deal of personal pleasures for the family. Which kind of puts a monkey wrench in the whole hedonism thing.

 

Well, family values can't be legislated into existence, not even if the legislators are saints. But I think they do tend to arise naturally in a free and open society.

I simply pointing out all the ways that the government very actively undermines the stability of families and communities.

 

Oh, no. Personal responsibility? But doesn't that take will-power and common sense?

 

The way of a man with a maid is universal and timeless..

Hopefully, young people are serious and not promiscuous.

 

I understand and agree with everything you said, but my question directed toward Maat revolved around him offering some statistics or something to support his statement that single mothers creating outstanding children and not getting pregnant during unsafe sex is not the norm.

I've often heard it said that most children from single parents grow up to have serious problems in life, but I can't recall anyone ever offering up some evidence to back up this claim.

In the end, I support a more responsible and tempered sexuality for all people. I just think marriage needs to be part of the picture. Marriage may offer some false hope of lasting commitment and responsible sexuality, but it's only true and reciprocal love between two people that will really guarantee this. Sex without love, without a true acceptance of the possible consequences, isn't wrong necessarily, but it isn't, as you say, prudent.

 

That's true, however, social engineering is not acceptable.

Let me get married or not, but don't stop them from making their personal choices.

 

Your sadly mistaken. Christianity does not consider a women property. It does have the man as the leader of the home, but the man is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church.

 

There are differenences between the sexes. A women should look first for a good provider and father of her children.

Men should look first for a moral, responsible, nurturing women. What she does in bed should not be a consideration. Two moral loving people will have completely satisfying sex without expectations.

This is my opinion. This is why you will see longer more successful marraiges between couples with a moral background.

 

In the heyday of Christianity women were property. But even today there is a sense of subjugation of women.

I'm not saying all Christians believe this is morally right, but the Bible doesn't contradict that view of the world.

 

I love my Harley but there is not question that it is my property. Love does not provide the unalienable Rights of the Individual.

As I noted, and as expressed above, Christianity delegates the woman to subserviant role to the man (i.e. they are not equal) and of course we see the "love" by the amount of spousal abuse in America.

When the Bible states that men and women are equal in all respects then get back to me. The Bible is highly sexist but does not stand alone in this regard as virtually all religious teaching are sexist in nature. This is, of course, because men invent religion and the historical origins of religion are based upon the belief that men owned women and that women are not equal to men. Women are always subjected to a discriminatory "second-rate" status as is expressed in the Bible.

 

What a sexist belief. This reflects the "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" belief that many Christians hold related to women.

At least the claim wasn't made that Christians or those that believe in religion are more moral than athiests and agnositics because that has been repeatedly proven to be false.

 

Everyone has their interpretation of the bible. I do not accept all its teachings as from God. I do not demand anything of my wife, nor do I believe in eternal hell.

With that said, when a decision has to made, and there are two different opinions that cannot be reconciled, the man has the final word. This does not mean that the women has to live with this, she can terminate the marraige.

I think you are hung up on old testiment cultures influences in the bible. Of the Christians I know, I do not see this mentality of superiority of the man.

 

I noticed that but I also noticed that the people with the lowest moral standards are far right "liberals".

 

Much of the world has lived in times where there was a distinction between the role of a man and that of a women. Modern society is distorting these old ways, some for the good, some for the bad.

Yes, it is usually the women that gets pregnant, yes it is usually the women with the nurtuting skills. Yes, it is usual(not exclusive) for the man to provide the needs of the home.

I lost the battle to have my wife work while raising our girls. She wanted to be a stay at home mom. She wants me to be the breadwinner in the home. I do not force anything(other than our financial planning, which she willfully accepts) on her.

Maybe you need to do a survey of Christian women to see if they feel they are not treated equally.

 

I guess that explains why so many families with absentee fathers are doing so well. We have a definite problem of children bearing children. Young people having sex rarely take the proper precautions so it doesn't matter how many condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, etc. are available. Far too often they simply aren't used.

When children are born out of wedlock and the father is absent the state (you and me) is usually asked to act in loco parentis in money matters. We wind up paying all the expenses for the child's upbringing and we wind up bearing the consequences of children raising children. Sure, these young mothers say they are raising their children but who is really raising them? We are, that is who.

You said this is not the Dark Ages. I happen to know a bit about the Dark Ages and abortion was available at that time and if abortion was not the route taken there was a common practice of leaving new born children at a crossroads to be taken and raised by passing strangers, often members of monasteries. If you want to learn more about this practice read, The Kindness of Strangers The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance by John Boswell

 

From the perspective of the married guys with kids that I know, sex before marriage was the only sex they got. Now they work just to never have a dollar to spend while having to masturbate as much as a single dude. The question isn't sex before marriage, the question is marriage. I vote no.

 

With this mentality, I hope you never marry.

 

You and me both. Also, I was stating what I have learned through others experiences. I'm not sure what you could have learned of my "mentality" from such a short post. Why do I get the feeling you are one of those trapped fellows? Just so you know, after paying child support the money that was left would at least be yours, and you might finally get laid again.

 

That's why every male I know who had a father around is successful, as long as the father was, and every son raised by a single mother is either in prison or is lucky if they can hold down a minimum wage job. Courts are going out of their way in America these days to make sure fathers can see their children for the simple fact of the previous generation of women keeping their sons from fathers has had disastrous results on the males contributing to society.

 

I would just like to apologize for my other post. I read back farther and can tell you're religious, and since marriage is a religious institution, they tend to be very successful. I'm sure you and your wife are happy as pees in a pod. Good for you. The majority of people I know in unhappy marriages are those who are young and not religious. Non-religious people can have happy marriages, but it tends to be their 2nd or 3rd, when they are older and wiser and know what they truly want in a mate.