Would you consider Sex Before Marriage is morally wrong?

Let me guess, you are not a religious person, are you? You are one of the many victims of today declining morale and family values.

 

Good guess. I don't need anyone to threaten me with eternal hell to be a good person, nor do I need some "holy"person to define what a good person is. I don't think the mere fact that I don't sit, confess, pray, and genuflect on Sundays in a church makes me immoral. I don't need anyone to pat me on the back and keep track of my good deeds, nor condemn me (other than myself) when I've done wrong.

 

Can you trust your own sense of rights and wrongs?

 

Yes. You?

 

I find it hard to believe that a healthier diet would reduce fecundity. That seems to suggest it's probably an unhealthy diet. But at any rate, I'd say that if something reduces fecundity that's an argument against it, at the very least, even if it's not enough to recommend against it when weighted against its benefits.

For example, I've also heard that plastic chemicals might reduce male virility. That fact may not be reason enough to advocate doing away with plastic, weighted against all it's advantages, but it certainly can't be considered a good thing.

I do think it would be positive for extended families to be at least more close-knit than they are now. This would require a society more conducive to stable and tightly knit local communities, and I'd say that that issue is also strongly connected to society's sexual values.

 

I once did, just like you. But I also realized our own sense of rights and wrongs could be easily influenced by our external environment. We are not as logical as we would like to believe. This is why I think spiritual enlightenment is the key to supplement our own sense of rights and wrongs.

 

No, I think an official, written contract is preferable from the standpoint of practical legal enforceability. But it doesn't have to be either/or. You can have that, while still acknowledging the possibility of binding common law marriages.

I don't know enough about ancient Israeli law to know what the precise standards were. My point is simply that sacramental aspect of marriage under traditional Western religion dovetails well with the contractual aspect.

 

The problem is that it takes stable families to have a stable "village."

 

How does a voluntarist support a contract which gives up voluntary association rights or would the marriage contract just be property related?

 

I have found that at times being a "good" person goes against making the logical choice in the situation, it will at times hurt you and there will be no one to say kudos for your troubles after. I can understand and have seen religion at its best, bringing people together to do good things and spreading good morals/ values/ deeds to those that needed it. Just don't be so close minded to think that religion it is a necessity in order to be a "good" person.

 

Life isn't perfect and no one has an ideal childhood. There were was civilization before the advent of marriage.

 

Well, I guess it depends on your position on the inalienability of rights. But insofar as marriage can be rooted in anything at all, it's rooted in a contractual union between two individuals.

 

No one's talking about perfection. It's preferable for a society to have stable familial structure.

 

you must not have had good sex before.

 

I agree, but I don't really approve of social engineering.

 

I can't remember ever having bad sex with my wife.

 

I agree that the government should stay out of peoples' bedrooms and only intervene in cases of aggression. "Family values" should be promoted solely through non-coercive persuasion.

 

If by "leave it to families, communities, religion, philosophy, literature and art" then yes I would agree.

If you mean we should create laws to persuade people, I would disagree.

A lot of Utilitarian laws were well-meaning, but actually are very destructive.

 

No, no laws. That's what I mean by non-coercive persuasion. Keep it out of the state and relegated to the market of ideas.

 

I'll give you the worlds major religions, but I think common sense is on my side of the argument. Every religion could state that sleeping is immoral, it wouldn't make it so for me.

 

Okay, I get what your saying and I agree with that. Well put.

 

The way things have gone over the last 10 years or so I'd say a major majority of chicks are a sure thing. It must be hurting the Pimping business.
Beyond that, what young guy wants a chick that done the deed with 50 maybe 100 guys before him.
Most of this has to do with pop culture. The hollywood thing. Its made young girls sluts and its meaningless I guess. Now, its be a gay promo time. Part of the bias agenda, Liberals are very sick people.
It disgusts me to see our society become so morelless.
Katie Curic tried to get through.. Telling young girls oral sex is not making out. It made no difference.

I can't stand Katie Curic by the way. She really has become quite the dog.

 

You know exactly what he means by "sex before marriage"; don't you . . .

 

FYI -- You misspelled the word "moral," as in "moral-less" (which I'm not sure is a word?).

But please note: social engineering is the most immoral thing government can do. The US government should not be concerned with who is having sex, unless a crime is being committed. People who enter willingly into relationships should be able to make their choices without government thinking for them and banning free behavior.

If you want society to be more moral, promote it on a grass-roots level, don't turn to legislation.