Seems like you're one of those atheists who supports everything Christians are against, just to annoy them.
Well I'm against making it illegal but I'm not in favor of promoting it as healthy
Yes, it seems like Ana had to anticipate what Dave might say.It's kind of hard to make a string defense when you don't know what you are defending against.
Believe as you like. Think to be "wise" as you like. "Flee sin" as you like.Well the Bible doesn't really say anything about not living together. But it does say that fornication is sin. What exactly is that? Fornication is sexual sin and while there is no verse in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not have sex before marriage" a careful reading and understanding of scripture clearly indicates such. Take for example Jesus dealing with marriage in Matt. 19. A man leaves his father and mother and joins to his wife and they become one flesh. Indicating sex is for marriage. Also Paul's teaching about getting married so you don't give in to sexual sin. So there are plenty of teachings about sex outside of marriage being sinful.
So what do we do with that and living together. Well the Bible also gives us plenty of earnings to flee from temptation. 2 Tim. 2:22 tells us to flee youthful lists. Eph. 4:27 Tells us not to give place to the devil. So you see it may not be a "sin" to live together it is VERY unwise because it puts us in a position to give in to temptation to commit sin.
We as believers must be wise!
It's kind of hard to make a string defense when you don't know what you are defending against.
It's why I decided not to participate, even though I was interested. It gave him an unfair advantage, and the logic he was using to defend his desire to go second made no sense. He was the one making the positive statement that co-habitation is immoral, yet he was claiming that the person who had to argue that it wasn't immoral was making the positive statement.This. Calling for the debate, making the claim, and demanding that his opponent go first with absolutely no indication of his argument for his claim is quite ridiculous. Those aren't reasonable terms. They leave the first post shooting in the dark, trying to guess wildly why one party of the debate is against something which is legal and widely morally accepted. It's really a matter of personal freedom - if you'd like to make the case that something is immoral, you should be the one opening, as "personal freedom" is necessarily a winning argument until you bring up anything. The person on the defensive should not be opening.
(This is also a reason why I don't want to start a debate on whether the Christian god exists or not - because my position, as a skeptic, necessarily boils down to "I do not accept that the evidence present justifies the existence of this God", and as a result, I could not open the debate in any meaningful way. Asking someone else to open in a debate you want to start is, in my opinion, more than a bit of a faux pas.)
Well I never advocated for this to be put in the legal code. I think the OP might have something concerning that in the post but I don't t hink it should legislated. There are some things that are best left between God and man rather than man and the government.Believe as you like. Think to be "wise" as you like. "Flee sin" as you like.
But as soon as you want to incorporate your beliefs into the legal code, you need something more than a bible verse.
the logic he was using to defend his desire to go second made no sense.