Premarital sex-- immoral?

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by Awar

Human nature's closest relative is the ape, as you can see by archaeological evidence, and by the primitive peoples whose way of life survived unaltered.

We can theoretize about insects having the most perfect society,
but, without genetic engineering of humans, we can never reach that level of perfection, neither do I think it would be a good thing to do

Honestly, I don´t know anymore what we are discussing right now

[Awar]

You were like sayin' sumthing about cuckoos who are a very dishonourbale species

[bocian]

Originally Posted by Awar

...and humanity's past. The track-record, which among other things contains religion and traditional lifestyle which ultimately failed because it was too rigid to go along scientific advancements ( scientific advances which changed the economy, and thus required higher education than before, which wrecked old traditions ).

Too rigid? I highly doubt it, I think it has more to do with the fact that we have become lazy, complacent, irresponsible, and spoiled by the technology and 'advancements'. I don't see any reason why 'traditional' values cannot be upheld even in today's day and age.

I don't see who's over-complicating, or making excuses.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by bocian

Too rigid? I highly doubt it, I think it has more to do with the fact that we have become lazy, complacent, irresponsible, and spoiled by the technology and 'advancements'.

Indeed, the first agriculturalists were infinitely more 'lazy' than the palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, the modern carpenter is infinitely more 'lazy' than the average judean carpenter from year 01 AD.

But, that's just a product of advanced technology.

The more 'spoled' we are, the less happy we are,
but, out of this lazyness comes the extra time we have for
thinking, contemplating, loving, laughing etc.

Things we say make us 'human'.

I don't see any reason why 'traditional' values cannot be upheld even in today's day and age.

Indeed, the Amish are very successful at that.

But, they have an entire system which respects their lifestyle
and helps them preserve it. If they didn't have this support,
they'd become the victim of some group which doesn't uphold the same values.

Don't look at me. I just try to explain.

My goal in this discussion is not to be popular,
I could easily speak what people like to hear regarding religion, which would
make me appear very honourable and all-round great, but, that'd be rather pointless.

Jesus Christ and Galileo Galilei were victims to the same sort of people.

[Agrippa]

I will not talk and dispute about the whole moral issue, others already do, but I say just two things:

We need stable social structures to raise our children.
We need more children and positive plus negative Eugenik.

Now, in our times, marriage doesnt mean too much since, as I said, the basic function of having a spouse isn't at work nowadays. Neither form we a production unit in the classical sense, nor do we make bigger social groups and hold clans and tribes together, nor do we have enough children or man has more rights about a woman via marriage.

As I said, our problems root much deeper than just premarital sex or education, its the whole structure, way of living and thinking of our society which is counterproductive.
But one thing is important if we search for solutions of our people and for ourselves: Do we need to just go back some decades ago? Just implement old rules and thats it?
I dont think so, since we culturally evolved on, certain things from the past might still be useful, others not, we just have to search for solutions for the basic problems we face: instable social structures, no collective spirit, not enough children, contraselection...etc...

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I will not talk and dispute about the whole moral issue, others already do, but I say just two things:

We need stable social structures to raise our children.
We need more children and positive plus negative Eugenik.

Now, in our times, marriage doesnt mean too much since, as I said, the basic function of having a spouse isn't at work nowadays. Neither form we a production unit in the classical sense, nor do we make bigger social groups and hold clans and tribes together, nor do we have enough children or man has more rights about a woman via marriage.

As I said, our problems root much deeper than just premarital sex or education, its the whole structure, way of living and thinking of our society which is counterproductive.
But one thing is important if we search for solutions of our people and for ourselves: Do we need to just go back some decades ago? Just implement old rules and thats it?
I dont think so, since we culturally evolved on, certain things from the past might still be useful, others not, we just have to search for solutions for the basic problems we face: instable social structures, no collective spirit, not enough children, contraselection...etc...

I agree 100%

Though I agree there aren't enough European children being born,
I think neither a horde of children would be any more beneficial.

One of the main problems is of society trying to impose individualism
upon the masses, and the masses trying to impose conformism upon the exceptionals ( who are born individualists ). This all causes contra-selection.

Once, the church had the monopoly over education, and over attracting exceptional individuals, as well as on controlling the hopes, fears and dreams of the masses. This has changed.

I'm not 100% sure about all the causes why this has changed,
but, it has. It can't be dealt with by reverting to the past for all the answers.

[bocian]

Originally Posted by Awar

Indeed, the first agriculturalists were infinitely more 'lazy' than the palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, the modern carpenter is infinitely more 'lazy' than the average judean carpenter from year 01 AD.

But, that's just a product of advanced technology.

The more 'spoled' we are, the less happy we are,
but, out of this lazyness comes the extra time we have for
thinking, contemplating, loving, laughing etc.

Things we say make us 'human'.



Indeed, the Amish are very successful at that.

But, they have an entire system which respects their lifestyle
and helps them preserve it. If they didn't have this support,
they'd become the victim of some group which doesn't uphold the same values.



Don't look at me. I just try to explain.

My goal in this discussion is not to be popular,
I could easily speak what people like to hear regarding religion, which would
make me appear very honourable and all-round great, but, that'd be rather pointless.

Jesus Christ and Galileo Galilei were victims to the same sort of people.

There you go over-complicating again...

I do not see anything wrong with the progress of technology, and to tell the truth the Amish freak me out.

The point is, traditional values, morality, sense, have taken the biggest step back only in very recent times. De-evolution of conscience is the problem...this is what happens when religion and tradition is put on the back burner. It's the very basic principles that are important, not necessarily whether or not you believe in the Buddha or Jesus. Most organized religions have the same basic principles, whether they are simply figments of some clever people's imagination or true divinity is also irrelevant, it is the fact that these basic principles have guided human beings for a long time, and there really is nothing wrong with following them, nor is it really that hard to do. Does it really matter if the guiding force is fear or love? It doesn't as long as in the end people act in a moral, honourable manner.

The problem is that people have taken to personal interpretations of various dogma, in a very human way, and often forget the most basic of principles.

As much death and suffering as religion has caused, I can guarantee you that a world without religion or some sort of basic set of principles, will become an even scarier place.

If we discard the very principles which we are talking about in this thread, the world will become even more of a jungle than it already is.

Be good, it's quite simple.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by bocian

There you go over-complicating again...

Reality is complex. Besides, I want a discussion, not an exchange of one-liners. It's raining outside man!

I do not see anything wrong with the progress of technology, and to tell the truth the Amish freak me out.

The way things are complex and closely intertwined means
that whatever event occurs ( technological breakthrough )
it WILL affect other areas of life.

The point is, traditional values, morality, sense, have taken the biggest step back only in very recent times.

IMO, things just became more public, thanks to media.

De-evolution of conscience is the problem...this is what happens when religion and tradition is put on the back burner. It's the very basic principles that are important, not necessarily whether or not you believe in the Buddha or Jesus. Most organized religions have the same basic principles, whether they are simply figments of some clever people's imagination or true divinity is also irrelevant, it is the fact that these basic principles have guided human beings for a long time, and there really is nothing wrong with following them, nor is it really that hard to do. Does it really matter if the guiding force is fear or love? It doesn't as long as in the end people act in a moral, honourable manner.

I doubt that people were any more moral or honourable in the past.
Romanticizing the past is a form of escape from reality.

The problem is that people have taken to personal interpretations of various dogma, in a very human way, and often forget the most basic of principles.

...and replaced by new dogmas. So, now, the armies don't march as crusaders for christ, but, as crusaders for democracy. When, in the background, the true reasons are constant geopolitical ones.

As much death and suffering as religion has caused, I can guarantee you that a world without religion or some sort of basic set of principles, will become an even scarier place.

Not likely. There will always be a religion in one form or another.
The question is how much is the religion in accordance with reality.

If we discard the very principles which we are talking about in this thread, the world will become even more of a jungle than it already is.

Perhaps, or perhaps the true workings of things will just become more apparent.

Be good, it's quite simple.

Just like the good Christians who burned some of the greatest minds of their era, or the good Romans who crucified Jesus, or the good Americans who "keep us all safe from da terrarists"... ?

[bocian]

Originally Posted by Awar

Just like the good Christians who burned some of the greatest minds of their era, or the good Romans who crucified Jesus, or the good Americans who "keep us all safe from da terrarists"... ?

These are perfect examples of perversion of morality, goodness, and all that other mumbo jumbo...

I can guarantee you that in all of these examples, the perpetrators knew very well that they were committing doshonourable, 'bad' acts. They chose to ignore the basic principles in favour of politics, greed, or control through fear-- trying to play God.

I do not think that Jesus would have burned anyone at the stake.

[Ederico]

This question will induce each and every one us to provide different and occasionally divergent answers, which cannot be simple if a solid backing to them is to be provided, and which cannot be complicated if we expect our fellow men and women to adhere to our positions.

The failure of Traditional Society at the behest of Modernism, Liberalism, Atheism, and Moral Relativism has lead us into a "Civilisation" which has as its common bond its amount of Degeneracy perpetrated by the multitudes and promoted by Social Forces aiming to promote values such as Liberty, Atheism, Secularism, and in many cases Anti-Christian/Catholic positions.

Ergo, to cut a long story short. Pre-Marital Sex is immoral because it endangers the Social Fabric of Society and deals a blow to our conception in relation to the other sex and our own sexual functions. This immorality is not so only if the perpetrator is myself. Those women that indulge with me, and only with me, are pardoned and will evade the flames of Eternal Damnation in Inferno.

That being said in total seriousness (), I volitionally restrict myself to one woman, possibly for a matrimonial life which is intended to last "finché morte non ci sapari".

[Awar]

Originally Posted by bocian

These are perfect examples of perversion of morality, goodness, and all that other mumbo jumbo...

Which happen thanks to the 'system' being ambiguous,
not oriented on rational, worldly things, but on rather vague scriptures.

I can guarantee you that in all of these examples, the perpetrators knew very well that they were committing doshonourable, 'bad' acts. They chose to ignore the basic principles in favour of politics, greed, or control through fear-- trying to play God.

The power of fanaticism is great. You just need strong belief.

I do not think that Jesus would have burned anyone at the stake.

I doubt he would. But, this brings us to the vast differences between
Jesus' teachings ( and examples ), the church ( and its deeds through history ), the religion ( and how the masses understand it ), and the combined effects this all had on humanity ( and the reactions humanity is currently having after the era of absolute rule of religion ).

[Agrippa]

I would just add that Liberalism is heavily influenced by what I would call "Neo-Christianity".

The whole "freedom of the individual", "(god given) human rights" and "no ideology or state should influence us, the market is objective (almost like god)" thing wouldnt have been possible without a very typical secular form of Christian belief, especially the late and heavily Calvinistic and Jewish influenced one.

Religion is just open to interpretation most of the time, so whats more important is how interpet and analyse the world than which religion you have.
Of course Catholicism had his dogmas, and made the worldview more homogenous, but this is a special case and the homogenity is long lost as the most useful parts of it, unfortunately.
Though I still have a certain respect for it.

[bocian]

Originally Posted by Awar

Which happen thanks to the 'system' being ambiguous,
not oriented on rational, worldly things, but on rather vague scriptures.

Not at all, things like that happen not because of scriptures, but because of human nature. Give human beings anything, and sooner or later they will manipulate it beyond recognition. Dogma or no dogma, people will always find a way to mess up.

The power of fanaticism is great. You just need strong belief.

I agree with both statements, however, I do not connect them.

I doubt he would. But, this brings us to the vast differences between
Jesus' teachings ( and examples ), the church ( and its deeds through history ), the religion ( and how the masses understand it ), and the combined effects this all had on humanity ( and the reactions humanity is currently having after the era of absolute rule of religion ).

You make good points, but again, I feel you are wrongly blaming religion for mankind's weakness.

Religion, if anything, has probably served to 'civilize' the masses, and if there ever was a reason to have religion (faith, or a basic set of principles, fear or love of a greater entity) surely it must be because it has served as a sort of human 'defense mechanism' against barbarity and lawlessness. It has been manipulated by the few in power, and religion or no religion, this will probably always be the case.

[ænginn]

Premarital sex-- immoral?

What is or isn't immoral is relative... It's a matter of personal opinion that varies from one person to the next, as it should. Humans are unique, freethinking creatures that dictate their lives and choices by what principles and beliefs they hold their merits upon. For some, it's dictated by religion, or persieved societal values, and for others it's common sense (or lack thereof).

I think that premarital sex can be both moral, and immoral depending on the context with which it is applied. When used in the context of a monogamous, or serious relationship I don't see it as immoral, per se...

But if one is simply fornicating through life, concerned only with how many knotches he, or she for that matter, can apply to their belts, than that IMO is pretty immoral. Yes, copulation is one of our most natural and instinctual urges... but so is killing, thievery and greed. Whether or not we give into those "animalistic" yearnings is what sets man apart from beast.

We now the dangers, both emotional and physical, of loose sexual encounters, yet there are still those who persistently engage in at risk situations...Thus the overwhelmingly alarming rates of STD's, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, etc.

Why has non-commital 'sex' become, (or has it always been?), such a casual, nonchalant activity? Has it no real value besides a fleeting moment of sensation and release? Hopping from bed, to bed...person to person seems so negligent and disrespectful of one's personal sanctity.

With that being said, I think that "saving yourself" for marriage is merely a romantic notion, lacking any practicality (besides healthful reasons, and a championesque display of self-control ).

Marriage should be a permanent bond between two compatible people... If you find someone whom you enjoy completely - physically and emotionally - and wish to build a life with them, then marriage is a joyous way to solidify the beginning our your union. But marriage isn't just a slip of paper saying that you belong to the other person, and vice versa, it is a functioning partnership that demands rigorous efforts to keep it healthy, strong and productive.

Sexual relations is one of the most essential functions between two married persons. It is a way to convey your love, devotion and honour to your partner, but it is also a vitally physical way to relieve stress, sadness, anger, agression, passion, etc. If your mate cannot fulfill you sexually, other areas of your relationship will surely suffer. It is easy to feel contempt toward one's partner if they cannot adequately accomodate your own needs, and with contempt breeds a host of other destructive emotions. Deprivation of sexual satisfaction is probably one of the biggest causes of cheating, and in a lot of cases divorce.

It is very important, and necessary IMHO to "shop around" a bit when you are looking to find a life mate. You wouldn't marry a complete stranger with whom you have never conversed, so why would you marry someone with whom you have never had sex with? What a lousy feeling it would be to find out, after you have already pledged yourself to someone, that you do not feel comfortable with them sexually, or they with you, and there is no "pleasure" in that so very essential part of your union? Would you, or could you, just pretend that everything was okay, yet inside you pitied their, or your, inadequacies? It's a bad idea, and ultimately a destructive, unhealthy thing to venture into without having tested the waters first.

We, as humans, are physical beings... Nearly everything that we do is a sensual experience in of itself, so naturally we feel the need to parttake in the act of physical pleasure; sex. It is something that we need in our lives, and a vessel (when used properly) that is truly a wondrous gift... It would be nice if it were treated as thus, and not something so casual as a sip of wine or an annoying song on the radio.