Why isnt isnt it ok to sin?

[Dave-W]

It's irrelevant if it does harm, it their bodies.

If I buy something and break it, it doesn't matter. It only matters if I break someone else's property without consent.

Except that is not how this life as a saved person works:

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

 

[Paradoxum]

It would take a long time to paint that picture. The first thing that pops into my head is the impression that you're accustomed to talking your way out of trouble or to get what you want. Your posts seem to depend more on persuasion than substance.

I think I focus less on making waterproof logical arguments than when I joined here, as it can seem a waste of time. Too many people on here seem like idiots or blinding by belief, so logical argument wouldn't make a difference. I'd like to think there is a fair amount of substance, but I could do better.

It's not as if most others here are the height of intellectual rigor, so why do I in particular seem spoiled?

And in what way does being able to talk oneself out of trouble= spoiled.

I don't know whether I get what I want more than others. From my point of view, other people seem to be in relationships more than me. I definitely don't get my way in terms of being alone.

You present this odd mix of worldliness and naivete - as if you enjoy being "bad" but at the same time are completely unaware of how bad the world can be. What I can't ever know in an Internet forum is how much of this is an act.

Do I enjoy being 'bad'? Maybe, I'm not sure. If that means doing something I think is fine, but religious conservatives think is sin, I might get some enjoyment from that (not that that's the main reason for doing X).

Can I ask why you thought that?

As for not knowing how bad the world can be, I don't know what you mean. I know people are enslaved, raped, murdered, starved to death, tortured, etc.

I also don't get how this relates to being spoiled.

There are so many things that to pick just one makes the answer seem trite. I guess I'll just speak in generalities instead. Since I've been married I don't try to do everything myself. My wife does a lot of stuff for me. Likewise, she doesn't try to do everything herself. I do things for her. It's not like I couldn't survive on my own, but we've become comfortably codependent. We are at a place where taking responsibility for those things that help her feels the same as taking responsibility for my personal needs.

That's good, but I don't see how that answers the question. I thought we were talking about whether there is a time when one's partner (out of marriage?) consents to sex, but it would be wrong to do it.

I was think: If they want to have sex, but you know they need to get up early for something important, so perhaps you should leave it that night.

I think that's fair.

What good would that do? He's walked out on you and you realize he scammed you in some way, and your response is, "Hmm. I guess I shouldn't trust him anymore." That strategy sounds like a good way to be used.

I didn't know you were asking what I'd do if it happened to me... I thought you were talking in general.

If he's already cheated on and left me (I don't know what you have in mind), what is there to do?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Except that is not how this life as a saved person works:

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

I don't believe slavery is good, and I wont willingly accept a slave master. And if God is a slave master, God isn't good.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't believe slavery is good, and I wont willingly accept a slave master. And if God is a slave master, God isn't good.

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.

Becoming a slave of Messiah [Christ] is the ONLY WAY to life and to avoid eternal torture in hell. (aka death)

Slave now, torture forever; those are the only 2 choices. You pick.

 

[Paradoxum]

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.

Becoming a slave of Messiah [Christ] is the ONLY WAY to life and to avoid eternal torture in hell. (aka death)

Slave now, torture forever; those are the only 2 choices. You pick.

Don't you think that's very immoral. Imagine if a dictator said something similar. We'd say they were evil.

Do you think God is a tyrant? Forcing slavery or torture?

Anyway, I don't believe in God.

 

[Resha Caner]

I also don't get how this relates to being spoiled.

Certain aspects of language (which is all we have here) are difficult to pinpoint. One person can say, "I am committed to others," and I believe them. Others can say it and I don't believe them. I just don't find it believable when you say such things, but I guess I'm doing a poor job of explaining why. Or maybe I'm the only one who thinks it.

I've tried to list all the things that I think add up to give me the impression you're spoiled:
1) You have an attitude of, "I can handle it," without seeming to express any awareness of what your limits might be.
2) Because of #1, you seem to consider any restrictions on your behavior as unreasonable.
3) Even if it is true that you can handle some of these things, you seem unwilling to make a sacrifice for the greater good. For example, even though it's more efficient for society to apply the same rules to everyone, you want a special rule for you because you can handle it.
4) Not only are you unwilling to sacrifice, but you're more than willing to increase the tax burden on others through your risky behavior by expecting government to clean up your messes.
5) You give the impression you don't really consider the needs of others ... sometimes don't even consider them people (per some of our discussions on self-consciousness).
6) When we discuss the pain and/or needs of others, you seem unable to comprehend their situation. For example, you can't give a reason why you might need to take some responsibility for a sex partner other than that it might make them tired for tomorrow's work.

If those don't resonate with you, I'm at a loss.

That's good, but I don't see how that answers the question. I thought we were talking about whether there is a time when one's partner (out of marriage?) consents to sex, but it would be wrong to do it.

Yes, I struggled to answer that question. Primarily because of #1-6 above. I don't see that you would get it even if I spent the effort. So, as I said, my attempts at an answer come off as trite.

Maybe if I ask you some questions first it might give me some direction. A) Are you aware of the powerful emotions associated with sex? I'm not being crude and referencing the act itself, but rather all the emotion that surrounds it. B) Are you aware that intense emotion often leads to irrational behavior? C) Do you not see how someone could manipulate those emotions through sex to produce specific irrational behavior (e.g. crimes of passion), and then leave the victim holding the bag?

If he's already cheated on and left me (I don't know what you have in mind), what is there to do?

I wasn't speaking of a situation where all that happened was he hurt your feelings. I specifically included in my question that he had scammed you. This is the problem I see. Because of the items listed in #1-6 it appears as if situations like the list in #A-C don't even occur to you.

If, for example, the result was to leave you with a financial debt or in legal trouble, would you just shrug and say, "What can I do? I consented." Not only yourself, but would you be concerned about what he might do to the girl who comes next?

 

[pittsflyer]

I know I am not the person you responded too but how does cheating on someone equate to debts and other finanical matters. That is MORE likely if there is a marriage licence and if you are the guy. If you are the guy then you can even be cheated on and still incure financial liability.

Because of the lack of accountability in our family law courts a legal marraige is actually worse than a non-legal arrangement because the courts only protect women even if the woman is the one at fault.

This is where the church has not caught up and at this point family law courts have been corrupt since the early 70's or earlier so I would say it has reached a point of intellectual dishonesty with regards to the churches.

I incured 35k in financial liability in 2 divorces, and the church was certianly there to pressure the legal marriages but I did not see them picking up my tab in the divorce even though they were largely not my fault.

Certain aspects of language (which is all we have here) are difficult to pinpoint. One person can say, "I am committed to others," and I believe them. Others can say it and I don't believe them. I just don't find it believable when you say such things, but I guess I'm doing a poor job of explaining why. Or maybe I'm the only one who thinks it.

I've tried to list all the things that I think add up to give me the impression you're spoiled:
1) You have an attitude of, "I can handle it," without seeming to express any awareness of what your limits might be.
2) Because of #1, you seem to consider any restrictions on your behavior as unreasonable.
3) Even if it is true that you can handle some of these things, you seem unwilling to make a sacrifice for the greater good. For example, even though it's more efficient for society to apply the same rules to everyone, you want a special rule for you because you can handle it.
4) Not only are you unwilling to sacrifice, but you're more than willing to increase the tax burden on others through your risky behavior by expecting government to clean up your messes.
5) You give the impression you don't really consider the needs of others ... sometimes don't even consider them people (per some of our discussions on self-consciousness).
6) When we discuss the pain and/or needs of others, you seem unable to comprehend their situation. For example, you can't give a reason why you might need to take some responsibility for a sex partner other than that it might make them tired for tomorrow's work.

If those don't resonate with you, I'm at a loss.



Yes, I struggled to answer that question. Primarily because of #1-6 above. I don't see that you would get it even if I spent the effort. So, as I said, my attempts at an answer come off as trite.

Maybe if I ask you some questions first it might give me some direction. A) Are you aware of the powerful emotions associated with sex? I'm not being crude and referencing the act itself, but rather all the emotion that surrounds it. B) Are you aware that intense emotion often leads to irrational behavior? C) Do you not see how someone could manipulate those emotions through sex to produce specific irrational behavior (e.g. crimes of passion), and then leave the victim holding the bag?



I wasn't speaking of a situation where all that happened was he hurt your feelings. I specifically included in my question that he had scammed you. This is the problem I see. Because of the items listed in #1-6 it appears as if situations like the list in #A-C don't even occur to you.

If, for example, the result was to leave you with a financial debt or in legal trouble, would you just shrug and say, "What can I do? I consented." Not only yourself, but would you be concerned about what he might do to the girl who comes next?

 

[Paradoxum]

Certain aspects of language (which is all we have here) are difficult to pinpoint. One person can say, "I am committed to others," and I believe them. Others can say it and I don't believe them. I just don't find it believable when you say such things, but I guess I'm doing a poor job of explaining why. Or maybe I'm the only one who thinks it.

Well I don't think I even said I was 'committed to people'. I don't know what that means, or if it's good English.

I don't think I'm as heartless as you might think I am. I'm colder on some issues, but I think I care more than others on other issues. I suppose that's just being an individual.

And I'd like to be committed to someone romantically, and likely marry. It's not as if I want lots of one night stands.

I've tried to list all the things that I think add up to give me the impression you're spoiled:
1) You have an attitude of, "I can handle it," without seeming to express any awareness of what your limits might be.

I can handle what? I can handle making a cup of tea... I couldn't currently handle being a lawyer.

I don't understand what you mean here.

2) Because of #1, you seem to consider any restrictions on your behavior as unreasonable.

Well I'm not in favour of murder being legal (etc). So that's not true.

But I do believe in liberty, and I don't think the history of liberal progress has finished already.

Liberty is one of my prime values, so I think soft drug (and perhaps even hard drug) criminalisation is evil, and a form of slavery.

I don't see how this makes me spoiled though. It's a worldview or values difference.

3) Even if it is true that you can handle some of these things, you seem unwilling to make a sacrifice for the greater good. For example, even though it's more efficient for society to apply the same rules to everyone, you want a special rule for you because you can handle it.

I don't know where this comes from. I'm pretty sure I'm in favour of laws and morality that applies to all people.

4) Not only are you unwilling to sacrifice, but you're more than willing to increase the tax burden on others through your risky behavior by expecting government to clean up your messes.

That's true, and it applies to non-sexual things that most people don't complain about, like risky sports or leisure activities.

You think the obligation is on people not to be risky; I think the obligation is on society to accept risk as not only acceptable, but perhaps even good. Accepting risk increases liberty, and can make for a more fulfilling life (think mountain climbing, or sky diving).

5) You give the impression you don't really consider the needs of others ... sometimes don't even consider them people (per some of our discussions on self-consciousness).

I think I do consider the needs of others. But I don't think fetus' are people, if you mean that. I also don't think sheep are people either. Dolphins, elephants and other apes probably are though.

6) When we discuss the pain and/or needs of others, you seem unable to comprehend their situation. For example, you can't give a reason why you might need to take some responsibility for a sex partner other than that it might make them tired for tomorrow's work.

Well I actually gave a reason, you still haven't... so if anything you seem to be the one unable to give such an example.

It's not that I can't comprehend situations, it's that I don't know what you have in mind. I think if you gave me an example or two I could comprehend them.

If those don't resonate with you, I'm at a loss.

Well, they are reasons you disagree with me, but most don't really connect to being spoiled.

I think perhaps you should consider just thinking that we disagree, rather than trying to explain away my beliefs by a character vice.

Yes, I struggled to answer that question. Primarily because of #1-6 above. I don't see that you would get it even if I spent the effort. So, as I said, my attempts at an answer come off as trite.

If I said it was a struggle to give such an example, you'd call me spoiled. You can't even think of one. If you think it's so obvious it shouldn't be a struggle.

Maybe if I ask you some questions first it might give me some direction. A) Are you aware of the powerful emotions associated with sex? I'm not being crude and referencing the act itself, but rather all the emotion that surrounds it. B) Are you aware that intense emotion often leads to irrational behavior? C) Do you not see how someone could manipulate those emotions through sex to produce specific irrational behavior (e.g. crimes of passion), and then leave the victim holding the bag?

A) There can be powerful emotions.

B) I don't know how often it leads to irrational behavior, nor what necessarily counts as irrational.

C) I suppose that's possible.

You know I'm not in favour of using sex to manipulate people into committing crimes right? Or manipulating people in general. I want the consent to be genuine, and what they want.

I wasn't speaking of a situation where all that happened was he hurt your feelings. I specifically included in my question that he had scammed you. This is the problem I see. Because of the items listed in #1-6 it appears as if situations like the list in #A-C don't even occur to you.

A-C don't occur to me personally, but I don't think I'm going to be crazy (I don't think giving money to a loved one is irrational). And if they did happen to me, its my stupid fault (depend on what you have in mind).

I don't see how this goes against my position.

If, for example, the result was to leave you with a financial debt or in legal trouble, would you just shrug and say, "What can I do? I consented." Not only yourself, but would you be concerned about what he might do to the girl who comes next?

Well this is about relationships not sex. You can be passionate about someone without sex.

If I was somehow convinced to give someone money, I'd be concerned about whether he did it to someone else. I don't know what I'd do about that though, other than be careful, or become a nun.

 

[Resha Caner]

You think the obligation is on people not to be risky; I think the obligation is on society to accept risk as not only acceptable, but perhaps even good. Accepting risk increases liberty, and can make for a more fulfilling life (think mountain climbing, or sky diving).

Sky diving is just an adrenalin rush. It has nothing to do with a fulfilling life. But you misunderstand my position. For some unattached guy with no debts, he can sky dive all he wants as long as he's not expecting me to pay his medical bills if it goes wrong and he survives. For a guy who has dependent kids, it's irresponsible. A person should consider those whom he is connected with (committed to) before engaging in risky behavior. It's impossible to eliminate risk, but you should seek a balance.

Well I actually gave a reason, you still haven't... so if anything you seem to be the one unable to give such an example.

I did in my last post.

Well, they are reasons you disagree with me, but most don't really connect to being spoiled.

I think perhaps you should consider just thinking that we disagree, rather than trying to explain away my beliefs by a character vice.

There are many here I disagree with, but only you have earned that moniker. I understand the difference.

C) I suppose that's possible.

You suppose? Is this the first time you've considered the possibility that people use sex for manipulation? What do you think a femme fatale is? Or, from the male side, the old legal charge of "breach of promise"? Using sex to manipulate is as old as the oldest profession.

So if your partner is one who has been hurt by such manipulation, or has grown up thinking manipulation is the purpose of sex, maybe you need to take some responsibility (if you care for people as you say you do) to help them.

I want the consent to be genuine, and what they want.

How do you know that?

I don't see how this goes against my position.

I assumed that would be the result before we even started. So it's as simple as this: You'll get no help from me unless you modify your behavior whether you understand why or not.

With that said, I'm perfectly aware you wouldn't seek my help anyway ... and probably couldn't given the distance between where we live. So, the whole conversation is moot. Still, that's my position.

 

[Paradoxum]

But you misunderstand my position. For some unattached guy with no debts, he can sky dive all he wants as long as he's not expecting me to pay his medical bills if it goes wrong and he survives. For a guy who has dependent kids, it's irresponsible. A person should consider those whom he is connected with (committed to) before engaging in risky behavior. It's impossible to eliminate risk, but you should seek a balance.

I think the obligation is on society to accept that people take risks, and that's not bad. There isn't anything unreasonable about taking risks. It's an expected part of life.

I used to ride a bike, and I could have been hit by a car, or could of fallen. Are bikes unacceptable to you (particularly riding for leisure)?

There are many here I disagree with, but only you have earned that moniker. I understand the difference.

It doesn't seem you do. You've been unable to connect disagreement back to being spoiled.

In regards to the points you made before:
1) was nonsense that you haven't bothered to explain;
2) was an ideological difference;
3) was false or an ideological difference;
4) is an ideological difference;
5) is false or an ideological difference;
6) is a misclassification of the problem

These are mostly ideological disagreements. You have no justification for calling me spoiled.

With (6) the issue is me not imagining the sort of circumstance you mean. In any other context you wouldn't call someone spoiled just because they don't know what you mean without good examples.

So again, give some example of times to take some responsibility for a sex partner. (As I explain below, your manipulation example isn't the sort I thought you meant. I thought you mean responsibility not to have sex).

You suppose? Is this the first time you've considered the possibility that people use sex for manipulation? What do you think a femme fatale is?

It's a sword in Lightning Returns (a game).

Or, from the male side, the old legal charge of "breach of promise"? Using sex to manipulate is as old as the oldest profession.

Anyway, I said I suppose because I'm not expert on examples of such things. So I was saying it happens, but I don't know alot about it.

So if your partner is one who has been hurt by such manipulation, or has grown up thinking manipulation is the purpose of sex, maybe you need to take some responsibility (if you care for people as you say you do) to help them.

I agree, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a responsibility not to have sex with someone who consents.

I'd think that someone having 'sex issues' means being caring, considerate and communicating feelings etc, while having sex (and before and after).

I've never said that sex should be without care. I was only talking about consent and risk; you can still care for someone while you both consent to some risk.

How do you know that?

That reply doesn't make sense. I was only talking about what I want... and I know what I want.

I assumed that would be the result before we even started. So it's as simple as this: You'll get no help from me unless you modify your behavior whether you understand why or not.

With that said, I'm perfectly aware you wouldn't seek my help anyway ... and probably couldn't given the distance between where we live. So, the whole conversation is moot. Still, that's my position.

The reason I don't understand some of your points is because of your poor explanation. Even if I disagree with someone, I'd hopefully still understand where they are coming from

I understand some of your points, but others from you seem more confused and ill-explained. What I'm trying to say is, don't blame me.

 

[Jesse2014]

For me, sin hardens my heart. It makes angry at God. It keeps me from having a relationship with God. Just like stealing from a friend will severe your relationship with him/her, so would our sin.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think the obligation is on society to accept that people take risks, and that's not bad. There isn't anything unreasonable about taking risks. It's an expected part of life.

That's your opinion. And? It's not my opinion.

I used to ride a bike, and I could have been hit by a car, or could of fallen. Are bikes unacceptable to you (particularly riding for leisure)?

Sigh. I said risk needs to be balanced. I didn't say it needs to be eliminated. Did you read that part? Society balances such a risk by requiring a license to drive. It is an attempt to insure proper training so drivers don't hit bikers.

If someone refuses to get a driver's license, they can still drive on their private property all they like. But if they get hurt ... or hurt someone, they can't expect help in paying their medical bills. They can expect to be charged with negligence.

It doesn't seem you do. You've been unable to connect disagreement back to being spoiled.

Now you're shifting the goal posts. You asked why I thought you were spoiled - not to convince you that you are spoiled. A spoiled person is someone who is narcissistic and overindulgent (see here).

My main focus was in saying that you seem narcissistic (e.g. self-centered). But I also made a few comments about your apparent overindulgence (e.g. an adrenalin junkie - sex, sky diving, and now possibly biking depending on how you do it).

So again, give some example of times to take some responsibility for a sex partner. (As I explain below, your manipulation example isn't the sort I thought you meant. I thought you mean responsibility not to have sex).

I did. I'm sorry it wasn't obvious to you that in speaking of someone who has been manipulated in the past with sex that it might not be the best idea to have a one night stand with them.

I understand some of your points, but others from you seem more confused and ill-explained. What I'm trying to say is, don't blame me.

Maybe they have been ill-explained. You mentioned that in the past you tried harder to explain in depth, but have decided too many people "seem like idiots". And then you chastise me for attributing disagreements to character flaws. Hmm.

Anyway, I said early on this was "not worth the effort." You said you would like me to reply anyway. So, you get what you get. Did you really expect me to throw my heart into helping you understand? It hasn't worked in the past.

 

[Paradoxum]

Sigh. I said risk needs to be balanced. I didn't say it needs to be eliminated. Did you read that part? Society balances such a risk by requiring a license to drive. It is an attempt to insure proper training so drivers don't hit bikers.

If someone refuses to get a driver's license, they can still drive on their private property all they like. But if they get hurt ... or hurt someone, they can't expect help in paying their medical bills. They can expect to be charged with negligence.

I meant a pedal bike.

Having a license doesn't stop accidents completely, just like contraception doesn't stop all sex risk. So if you accept a license, isn't it also reasonable to think contraception is also a good balance?

Now you're shifting the goal posts. You asked why I thought you were spoiled - not to convince you that you are spoiled. A spoiled person is someone who is narcissistic and overindulgent (see here).

I was going to quote that page too, to prove I'm not spoiled.

(Quickly: I consider others (though I might not come to the same conclusions as you); no temper tantrums; I handle delay of gratification as well as anyone; and I accept not getting my own way.)

My main focus was in saying that you seem narcissistic (e.g. self-centered).

In the previous post I explained that most of the points you made were just ideological difference.

I do care about other people. It empathetically hurts me to see others hurt, emotionally or physically. I try not to hurt or embarrass people with my words; I try to think of others before I speak.

Narcissism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read these: I've have friendships that have lasted over a decade; I'm good at understanding other peoples thinking, and that's been commented on before; I have strong empathy, and I feel it alot; I know there are people with minds other than my own; I am a bit sensitive to insults (but I'm also a naturally shy person); I don't really ever feel shame, I'm more likely to feel guilt; etc, etc.

But I also made a few comments about your apparent overindulgence (e.g. an adrenalin junkie - sex, sky diving, and now possibly biking depending on how you do it).

I've never sky dived, and I haven't done anything like roller coasters in the last few years. I used to ride a pedal bike (never a motor bike). I haven't had sex in numerous months, and I've never had a one night stand as far as sex, and not much otherwise (and never with complete strangers). I haven't done a load of illegal drugs either.

Just because I might talk about things being morally acceptable, that doesn't mean I'm even averagely indulgent in them, or that I don't go about them in a considerate or compassionate way. My ideals of care can go beyond my ideas of moral acceptability.

I did. I'm sorry it wasn't obvious to you that in speaking of someone who has been manipulated in the past with sex that it might not be the best idea to have a one night stand with them.

It wasn't obvious... it would be helpful if you explained that. It's not that that's a crazy idea... it's that I'm not a mind-reader.

If they are a stranger, you probably wouldn't know their sexual past.

I'm not sure sex in that case would be a bad idea. If they are sure they want sex, and I make clear my intentions... keeping true to those intentions would show them sex which isn't manipulation. It wouldn't be love, but it would be honest sex without manipulation.

Maybe they have been ill-explained. You mentioned that in the past you tried harder to explain in depth, but have decided too many people "seem like idiots". And then you chastise me for attributing disagreements to character flaws. Hmm.

And I agree that 'idiots' isn't the correct way to describe the issue. You don't have to push me hard to get me to admit that was wrong.

Anyway, I said early on this was "not worth the effort." You said you would like me to reply anyway. So, you get what you get. Did you really expect me to throw my heart into helping you understand? It hasn't worked in the past.

I wanted to show that your bad thoughts about me weren't justified. That though we disagree, I have good intentions and I care about others.

Maybe I sound cold sometimes (because I want to be to the point), I just hoped people wouldn't assume bad character from that. I didn't think I'd constantly have to talk of care beyond moral acceptability.

 

[Jess90]

We all sin everyday. There isn't a person in this entire world with the exception of Jesus himself that has not sinned. The thing is if you're purposely sinning against God and not repenting those sins that is where it can really lead to trouble for you.

 

[Resha Caner]

Having a license doesn't stop accidents completely, just like contraception doesn't stop all sex risk. So if you accept a license, isn't it also reasonable to think contraception is also a good balance?

Since the issue I raised was emotional in nature, contraception wouldn't help. Further, I would be concerned both about people who have been manipulated and those engaged in sexual activity who don't form emotional attachments.

I wanted to show that your bad thoughts about me weren't justified.

I understand that is your objective, but I don't understand why it matters to you. Many probably agree with you, so you don't have to convince them. If anyone does share my opinion, it's unlikely I was the one who led them to it.

And you don't care what I think. Unless you're someday shipwrecked on an island where I'm king, it's all moot.

 

[Ken-1122]

You can prove to me it does no harm?

I can prove to you on a case by case basis that sex outside of wedlock is unharmful.

Ken

 

[Jess90]

I can prove to you on a case by case basis that sex outside of wedlock is unharmful.

Ken

Sure sex is harmless to the body outside of wedlock, but to someones emotional state it can be very detrimental. I have seen many of my friends who have confided in me that they have had sex before marriage that they were very distraught at the path they have taken.

 

[Resha Caner]

I can prove to you on a case by case basis that sex outside of wedlock is unharmful.

You've got some ill-considered phrasing in that statement.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sure sex is harmless to the body outside of wedlock, but to someones emotional state it can be very detrimental. I have seen many of my friends who have confided in me that they have had sex before marriage that they were very distraught at the path they have taken.

Not everybody is like your friends. I personally know people who are not married and have sex, and nobody is being harmed. I also know of cases of married people having sex, and one of them was being harmed.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

You've got some ill-considered phrasing in that statement.

Do you understand the point I was making? Or would you prefer I rephrase it.

K

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you understand the point I was making? Or would you prefer I rephrase it.

You might have to be a bit more explicit about your point.