Why is fornication bad?

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And if these committed relationships of love occur outside of marriage?
I think Elman means the act only qualifies as 'loving' if it is "between two people who are commited to each otehr and their relationship". Otherwise, I'm guessing, it qualifies only as a physically enjoyable act.
 
Upvote 0

repentandbelieve

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2002
2,182
82
23
Visit site
✟2,742.00
Faith
Christian
Yeah, dont beat people who havent done anything wrong. Dont kill people who havent done.

Just for starters
What I find interesting Steezie is how both the theist and the atheist have at least this much sense of what "common sense" morality is.

I realize that what I am calling "common sense" morality has in reality varied somewhat between ages and cultures, but it has never completly differed.

It is evident that for thousands of yrs everyone has had some sort of built in sense of what right and wrong is. I've concluded that common sense morality is real thing because it exist and everybody has it, yet there is no scientific evidence to prove that it is real...
 
Upvote 0

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know. You seem to want to be involved with it. You seem to want the people who are involved to feel dishonored because their partner has had sex with someone else. Maybe they don't feel dishonored and don't want to.

Go ahead and be dishonored and don't marry someone who has had sex before. Don't expect everyone else to care.

I personally would have no respect for a woman thirty years old who had never had sex before. I would find her comical, and would expect to find some flaw, some reason why nobody wanted her.
That's cold man!
 
Upvote 0

faster_jackrabbit

IPU Stable Hand
Mar 10, 2006
12,791
408
Houston Texas vicinity
✟22,566.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What I find interesting Steezie is how both the theist and the atheist have at least this much sense of what "common sense" morality is.

I realize that what I am calling "common sense" morality has in reality varied somewhat between ages and cultures, but it has never completly differed.

It is evident that for thousands of yrs everyone has had some sort of built in sense of what right and wrong is. I've concluded that common sense morality is real thing because it exist and everybody has it, yet there is no scientific evidence to prove that it is real...
I pretty much agree with this. I think the concept of hurting people and not hurting people is pretty much inherent in society, however it evolved. It's all the arbitrary stuff in the bible, such as pretty much anything related to sex, that I disagree with.

The difference is likelihood/probability. I think the things that always hurt people (murder, rape, theft, assault) are immoral. But not the things that might hurt people under some circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

bammertheblue

Veteran
Feb 10, 2006
1,798
161
40
Washington, DC
✟10,377.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, that may be what people think they want. And in the long run, it may turn out just fine for most. But let me submit the alternative - why should any person be responsible for satisfying the sexual baggage their partner brings into the relationship. I would suggest that a couples sexuality is something that should be built exclusively internally and from the ground up. It should not matter what some other person not outside this relationship did or didn't do, liked or didn't like. Those things only become stumbling blocks to the couple building their own model of sexuality.

Lets face it, the physical aspects of sex are pretty simple and well known. It isn't as if anybody anymore enters a sexual relationship not knowing what goes where. The only thing that sex with others brings is preconceived notions about what you or your partner prefer. But what if your partner doesn't like such and such or they want to try this or that and you wnat nothing to do with it. Should that be a relationship stopper? I should hope not! In reality, prior sexual experience is wholely unnecessary and potentially detrimental to building a sexuality with the current partner.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sexual baggage". I think I need to understand that before I can really respond to this. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

flicka

Contributor
Supporter
Dec 9, 2003
7,937
616
✟36,120.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I personally would have no respect for a woman thirty years old who had never had sex before. I would find her comical, and would expect to find some flaw, some reason why nobody wanted her.
It's partially a reaction to the way some of them are smug about it, as if it's an accomplishment to not do something.

I KIND of agree. I would at least be suspicious that this person had some kind of problem with relationships or intimacy issues. It's not a given but it's a big red flag.
I also find it amusing when people of any age talk about being proud to be a virgin, as if they have done something special. As you stated, there is nothing to do! Everyone is born a virgin and as long as they don't go out of their way to have sex they will stay that way. I always assume they just have a low sex drive or never had the opportunity. I don't disrespect them for that, but neither do they deserve respect. It just is what it is.
 
Upvote 0

repentandbelieve

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2002
2,182
82
23
Visit site
✟2,742.00
Faith
Christian
It's all the arbitrary stuff in the bible, such as pretty much anything related to sex, that I disagree with.
Really, what is it about not prostituting our daughters, and causing them to become harlots; or not having sex with with our mother, our daugther, our daughter in law, our sister, our sister in law, our aunts, the wife of another man , other men, or animals that you disagree with.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

faster_jackrabbit

IPU Stable Hand
Mar 10, 2006
12,791
408
Houston Texas vicinity
✟22,566.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Really, what is it about not prostituting our daughters, and causing them to become harlots; or not having sex with with our mother, our daugther, our daughter in law, our sister, our sister in law, our aunts, the wife of another man , other men, or animals that you disagree with.
I think all of these things are fair game, as long as all the parties are consensual, birth control and disease prevention are performed, and no trust is being broken, i.e. the man in the "wife of another man" does not care. If all of these people (and animals) are unattached, do 'em all, I say. Note that I may not necessarily do these things myself, but I don't consider myself the moral watchdog to prevent other people from doing them.

Some caveats:

There is a big difference between "prostituting our daughters" and the daughters prostituting themselves. I have no problem with the latter if it is their choice.

Regarding incest: in the modern era where birth control is available, what is the actual harm of incest, as opposed to the harm caused by the censure of society?

My guess is that primitive man, after millennia, got it through his thick skull that doing it with sis made bad babies. So the taboo was formed and later somebody created religion and proclaimed "god" said it was bad. But if there are no children, I don't see a difference between incest and sex with somebody unrelated.

I wrote a science fiction novel in the late eighties, and one of the characters was from a genetically enhanced species that had direct conscious control over pregnancy. She couldn't get pregnant unless she wanted to. Therefore no accidental pregnancies, and no incest taboo. The word didn't even exist in her society.
 
Upvote 0

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not sure what you mean by "sexual baggage". I think I need to understand that before I can really respond to this. Thanks.
I'm dropping out of these two premarital sex threads because it is just too exhausting to keep up. I'll tell you what I mean and leave the last word to you.

I mean all of the preconceptions and peferences about what "good" sex is that you aquire through sexual experience with others (and exposure to sexuality in the media). Now, I certainly acknowledge that those experiences can lead to continued "good" sex with your current partner. But they can also cause great heartache and discontent.

I'll give you a couple of examples from my own life, trying not to be too explicit:

When I was in college, several girls I dated were inclined to provide me with a particular sexual favor rather than have intercourse. It got to the point where I truely preferred this mode of satisfaction over intercourse itself. My model for sexuality was built around this activity and performing it became a prerequisite for any future girlfriends I might have. I carried that preference and prerequisite into marriage. My wife, although not necessarily disinclined to engage in such activity on occassion, was not thrilled at all that I preferred that over having sex with her. That prior sexual experience became "baggage" for me in my marriage. It caused a great deal of pain, made me a very angry person, drove me to an addiction to inappropriate contentography, and literally almost ruined my marriage. It was innocent enough with (most of) the other women I had known. But it was a stumbling block to my building a unique model for sexuality in my marriage (a model that does still include that activity, but in a way that is acceptable to my wife).

We had a foreign exchange student living with us a couple of years ago. A movie was on and during the movie, a fairly passionate scene came on. No sex but heavy kissing and some "petting". I chose not to watch the scene because it was of no profit to me to see how other people went about being romantic. The FES said I should watch, maybe I would learn something. My explanation was that: "all I need to know about romancing my wife I will learn by romancing my wife. What works for others is irrelevant to what works for her".

My point is that aquiring preferences for certain things outside of marriage is not at all necessary once you are in the marriage and can be quite damaging. What is important is that you and your spouse explore and develope your sexual model together, not based on what you or they did with other people.
 
Upvote 0

repentandbelieve

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2002
2,182
82
23
Visit site
✟2,742.00
Faith
Christian
I think all of these things are fair game, as long as all the parties are consensual, birth control and disease prevention are performed, and no trust is being broken, i.e. the man in the "wife of another man" does not care. If all of these people (and animals) are unattached, do 'em all, I say. Note that I may not necessarily do these things myself, but I don't consider myself the moral watchdog to prevent other people from doing them.

Some caveats:

There is a big difference between "prostituting our daughters" and the daughters prostituting themselves. I have no problem with the latter if it is their choice.

Regarding incest: in the modern era where birth control is available, what is the actual harm of incest, as opposed to the harm caused by the censure of society?

My guess is that primitive man, after millennia, got it through his thick skull that doing it with sis made bad babies. So the taboo was formed and later somebody created religion and proclaimed "god" said it was bad. But if there are no children, I don't see a difference between incest and sex with somebody unrelated.

I wrote a science fiction novel in the late eighties, and one of the characters was from a genetically enhanced species that had direct conscious control over pregnancy. She couldn't get pregnant unless she wanted to. Therefore no accidental pregnancies, and no incest taboo. The word didn't even exist in her society.
So you believe that consentual/protected sex is right but unconsentual/unprotected sex is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

faster_jackrabbit

IPU Stable Hand
Mar 10, 2006
12,791
408
Houston Texas vicinity
✟22,566.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So you believe that consentual/protected sex is right but unconsentual/unprotected sex is wrong.
Close. I believe that unconsentual sex is wrong and unprotected sex is merely stupid.

I make no restrictions at all on the nature of the sex, which can have any number of participants, in any combination of genders, and can be absolutely any sex act that does not harm someone who does not wish to be harmed.

And again, it is wrong if it breaks a trust, as in a husband cheating on his wife, when the wife expects him to be only with her. On the other hand, if the wife participates in the orgy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lanakila
Upvote 0

repentandbelieve

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2002
2,182
82
23
Visit site
✟2,742.00
Faith
Christian
Close. I believe that unconsentual sex is wrong and unprotected sex is merely stupid.

I make no restrictions at all on the nature of the sex, which can have any number of participants, in any combination of genders, and can be absolutely any sex act that does not harm someone who does not wish to be harmed.

And again, it is wrong if it breaks a trust, as in a husband cheating on his wife, when the wife expects him to be only with her. On the other hand, if the wife participates in the orgy...
So there are kinds of sex that are right and kinds of sex that are wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
83
Texas
✟39,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
And if these committed relationships of love occur outside of marriage?

I think the marriage ceremony as we have it today is a few hundred years old at best. I think it was much different and more simple usually in ancient times and in many cultures. I don't think the kind of cermony, i.e. church or civil, or even common law makes a lot of differemce. I do think it is important however to handle ones sexual realtions responsibly and not cause harm and pain to others.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

levi501

Senior Veteran
Apr 19, 2004
3,286
226
✟19,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am not agreeing that sex without commitment is safe from anyone getting hurt. Are we saying the same thing or different things?
I think we are saying the same thing.
But it seems to pain you to admit that a meaningful committed loving relationship can happen outside the institution of marriage.

I think once you acknowledge or refute that we'll actually get some where.
 
Upvote 0