Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Basically what I believe marriage is that two people make a covenant before God to live together in Holy Matrimony through bad times and good times.
I'll remind you again we're not discussing the morality of the situation. We're discussing the harm. You asked why it would cause harm. I said the emotion of it is being manipulated. You asked why I considered it manipulation. I answered that it is manipulation because it involves suppressing the natural purposes connected to sex. As such, I haven't changed the argument. Rather it seems you're losing track of the chain of questions you've asked.
Now it's your turn. You say sex serves purposes other than procreation and the bonding of caregivers. What would those other purposes be?
I'll remind you again we're not discussing the morality of the situation. We're discussing the harm. You asked why it would cause harm. I said the emotion of it is being manipulated. You asked why I considered it manipulation. I answered that it is manipulation because it involves suppressing the natural purposes connected to sex.
Sex feels good. Sex relieves a natural urge. Some people have sex because they enjoy having sex. And when these people engage in consensual sex, it would be foolish to claim they are being manipulated, or harmed.Now it's your turn. You say sex serves purposes other than procreation and the bonding of caregivers. What would those other purposes be?
I'm concerned about morality. If harm isn't immoral, why does it matter?
Why is suppressing the natural 'purposes' of sex bad? Or necessarily harmful?
I said sex could have purposes other than procreation. Intimacy (unrelated to children) could be one. Enjoyment could be another, but I'm less sure about that one.
By the way, I don't think nature has objective purposes. It's just an anthropomorphic way of talking about it. So really, there is no purpose for sex. There are just causes that lead to it existing as it does.
If you see unmarried sex as manipulation, if you see unmarried sex as suppressing the natural purposes connected to sex (whatever that means) thats fine. But you shouldnt assume everybodys views on sex is the same as your view on sex, and you shouldnt make false statements about sex because you assume everybodys views are.
Sex feels good. Sex relieves a natural urge. Some people have sex because they enjoy having sex. And when these people engage in consensual sex, it would be foolish to claim they are being manipulated, or harmed.
[#1]If a person says;
"I believe what you are doing is wrong because the bible says it is wrong, and I believe what the bible says"
That is perfectly fine! I can respect that because he is expressing his opinion and keeping it in the context of what the Bible says.
[#2]If on the other hand, the person says;
By definition; what you are doing is wrong! And he doesn't keep this opinion in the context of his religious beliefs, or how his religion defines things; then he will be asked to back it up.
I expect you to back up the claim that by definition all sin violates, harms, and destroys.Are you expecting me to comment on every sin ever committed, or just the one being discussed in this thread?
Of course it has to be the God I believe in. That would defeat the entire purpose of believing what I believe and who I believe in if I believed in other Gods.Does it have to be your God? Or could it be a God you are convinced does not exist.
Ken
I never said you didSo, first of all, I never said premarital sex is, by definition, wrong.
I said sin was, by definition, harmful
Note: The logical argument against what I said would be that you are not aware of premarital sex causing harm. As such, you don't think it should be prohibited, which means you don't think it should be listed as a sin.
Since I disagree, I thought you were asking me to demonstrate apart from the Bible that it causes harm. You can ask that question, but don't then accuse me of not backing up what I said or departing from my religious position.
If you want to point to the bible, thats fine. But if you are going to say BY DEFINITION this is harmful; youre wrong because the bible is not used to define what is harmful to society.Second, when you asked why I thought that, I replied my primary reason is the Bible. I can point you to that post as well.
Of course it has to be the God I believe in. That would defeat the entire purpose of believing what I believe and who I believe in if I believed in other Gods.
I have no problem with it labeled as a sin, just dont call it harmful.
If you want to point to the bible, thats fine. But if you are going to say BY DEFINITION this is harmful; youre wrong because the bible is not used to define what is harmful to society.
What are you talking about? Anyone can have sex within the rights of marriage. All I am saying is it is emotionally harmful to people who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage as it is a sin. I have seen it emotionally destroy relationships with my own friends.
Why? So you can dismiss it as an arbitrary rule?
Perhaps you can repeat your question; I didn't know I missed itSo now you're ignoring both my questions and my responses? Random, unfounded comments are not a discussion. I'm going to ask you to summarize what I said before we proceed so I know you actually read it.
Perhaps you can repeat your question; I didn't know I missed it
I consider sin a religious term defined by religions. I define harm a secular term defined by secular laws,
Didn't you say (paraphrasing) a covenant is required with your God and nobody else's before a relationship can be called marriage? Didn't you also say sex outside of marriage is harmful? It seems to me you are saying only christians who worship your God should have sex since they are the only ones capable of marriage. We could also take it a little further and include those christians who do not have direct contact with God and are incapable of establishing a convent with him. If I am misunderstanding you tell me where am I going wrong here?
Ken
As I've mentioned before, it came in post #155. Seeing as how the nature of the conversation has changed, I'm not sure it's relevant anymore.
Hmm. Religions have no concept of harm? I don't see how harm is only a secular concept. Are you saying only secular institutions are concerned with people's welfare and religious institutions aren't? Are you saying secular law is the only way to address harm?
If religions make lists of sins, why do they do so if they have no concern for people?
Because it hurts.
Opposing any force (physical, emotional, or otherwise) has the potential to hurt.
As I said earlier, it's a matter of balancing the risks of harm, which is not an individual decision unless you can manage to live without a connection to anyone else.
Of course we disagree on whether things have a created purpose, but for this discussion I'm OK with saying its just an anthropomorphic description. I still say there is a sense in which sex has a purpose. In your parlance it exists because procreation, protection of offspring, and cooperation among the caregivers provides a selective advantage.
You can speculate all you want that it can exist for pleasure alone apart from those purposes, but as I said, I'm not aware of an asexual species that has "evolved" sexual behavior.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?