Premarital sex-- immoral?

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Relativising is judaic.

EYTYXEITE!
Preciseness, not!
Kindest regards!

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moral

immoral

adj 1: violating principles of right and wrong [ant: moral, amoral] 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn: base, dishonorable, dishonourable, unethical] 3: morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior" 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life" [syn: bad] 5: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, perverse, perverted, reprobate]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immoral

EYTYXEITE!
Really an excellent elaboration of the subject. The only I must add is that this specific elaboration using terms as "goodness", "right", "wrong" turns round a religious "vocabulary". Of course, I think, this is acceptabtle by some people unlike me. I'd rather "virtue" instead of.
Kindest regards!

[AlphaOmicron]

Pre-marital sex is a reality.

We can close our eyes to this reality.
Until we end up doing exactly what we condemn.
And then we will find high-sounding excuses (such as "true love") to justify ourselves.
Or, if we are too bored to invent excuses, we just drop the subject altogether and pretend we never condemned pre-marital sex.

I think it would be better if we were honest from the beginning and recognised that in the present conditions, pre-marital sex is necessary for a healthy development of mind, body and emotion.



.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Phlegethon

Not in my world. Marriage is the only sacrament between humans. Break it and you are excommunicated, no matter hwat the masonic New Age church thinks about it.

Excommunicated by who? We are not all Catholics, you know. And this is 2006, not 976.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Loke

Excommunicated by who? We are not all Catholics, you know. And this is 2006, not 976.

Yeah btw, what's your family's religious background Loke? Protestant?


Premarital sex? Well, after the so called sexual "liberation", women have completely differentiated sex and procreation, sex and love. That's where the problem stands IMO. If it's with one and only one partener, that's ok, but when they begin to visit more beds... That's how one destroys a society. Women are the base of our society. "Liberate" women and birthrate decrease, and our society dies.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

Yeah btw, what's your family's religious background Loke? Protestant?

Yes. I am no longer religious, though.

Premarital sex? Well, after the so called sexual "liberation", women have completely differentiated sex and procreation, sex and love. That's where the problem stands IMO. If it's with one and only one partener, that's ok, but when they begin to visit more beds... That's how one destroys a society. Women are the base of our society. "Liberate" women and birthrate decrease, and our society dies.

The problem is probably not the sexual liberation, but the liberal dogma that went along with it... and especially the increasing usage of contraceptives. People should be able to have sex when they want with whoever they want (except obvious taboos like pedophilia, which is abuse).

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Loke

The problem is probably not the sexual liberation, but the liberal dogma that went along with it... and especially the increasing usage of contraceptives.

And precisley, why this increasing usage of contraceptives? Because of sexual liberation. The sexual liberation is part of the liberal dogma (thanks to feminism and May 68 after effects). So far, women had always been more conservatives than men. That's why they had to break these traditional values, to destroy family's hearth and from that the base of any society.

People should be able to have sex when they want with whoever they want (except obvious taboos like pedophilia, which is abuse).

Whoever they want? So like people sleeping with anyone and with any races. So you agree with "nordish"/"non-nordish" relations? And much worse, Europid/non-Europid ones.

I'm not against sex, but too much sex kills sex.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

And precisley, why this increasing usage of contraceptives? Because of sexual liberation. The sexual liberation is part of the liberal dogma (thanks to feminism and May 68 after effects). So far, women had always been more conservatives than men. That's why they had to break these traditional values, to destroy family's hearth and from that the base of any society.

You are probably right.

Whoever they want? So like people sleeping with anyone and with any races. So you agree with "nordish"/"non-nordish" relations? And much worse, Europid/non-Europid ones.

I strongly disagree with interracial sex, and would strongly campaign against it. Yet I would not be able to force people into not doing it. People still have their own wills.

I'm not against sex, but too much sex kills sex.

Yeah, damn... too much sex!

[Carnyx]

[quote=Loke]You are probably right.

Do you know why marxist socialists didn't want women to vote in France -it was in the early XXth century? Because women were, at that time, believers, and therefore, would have voted for a traditional and rightist party, not for socialists (agents of decline). So they were radicaly opposed to female voting and these one waited untill 1945 to vote. How ironic when you hear today leftists explaining you "women's rights"...

I strongly disagree with interracial sex, and would strongly campaign against it. Yet I would not be able to force people into not doing it. People still have their own wills.

People wills? They've no will but wish, and overall needs. Sitcoms, booze and sex...
Wills? Libertarianism sucks.

Yeah, damn... too much sex!

Or should I have said : too much sex (that's, with too many parteners) is a good way to dissociate sex and procreation. That's what I meant. Why do you think they're trying to whorerized (?) european women from their very young age (cf. lolita style)?

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

People wills? They've no will but wish, and overall needs. Sitcoms, booze and sex...
Wills? Libertarianism sucks.

Well, in South Africa interracial sex was forbidden by law until little more than a decade ago, and it worked quite well.

Or should I have said : too much sex (that's, with too many parteners) is a good way to dissociate sex and procreation. That's what I meant. Why do you think they're trying to whorerized (?) european women from their very young age (cf. lolita style)?

I find this extremely sickening as well.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Loke

Well, in South Africa interracial sex was forbidden by law until little more than a decade ago, and it worked quite well.

Yes and no. Unfortunately, when different groups live beside each others, there's always contacts and relations... -even if exceptional. I heard about the case of that Negroid females with two tainted blood "Europid" parents in South Africa.

To avoid mixing, we need repatriation, no apartheid.

I find this extremely sickening as well.

At least something I agree with you.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

To avoid mixing, we need repatriation, no apartheid.

Yep, agreed too...

[Wilkolak]

I think it's fine, as long as they protect themselves, stick to their race and keep it within the respective country's age limit (be it 16, 18, 21, or whatever). It's not like it's a sin or crime to have sex before marriage, it's natural, unless you are a Catholic, then I guess you are missing out on a lot, hehehe...

[newenstad]

Human nature...

[Delbáeth]

I'm waiting untill i'm married

[Fallen Angel]

Moral, immoral, all such relative concepts. I don't think premarital sex is "immoral" in any way. Folks who restrain themselves from having sex until marriage are no fun. Besides it's kind of impossible me thinks. Men at least start having their physical needs after a certain age and if their partners don't supply them with needed sex, they will look elsewhere. In my opinion restraining from having sex before marriage could mean losing a relationship.

[Susi]

Hum, I'm not entirely against the idea of premarital sex, but I think one should be careful. The reasoning that one would be "no fun" if one didn't indulge in sex before marriage is silly, and it is not impossible, despite what some people may think (not everyone is like you! remember this!). i'd rather lose a relationship than lose my self-respect.

[Weltschmerz]

Demographically speaking, it is bad. And morally as well. Mostly, it's a cultural problem, in my opinion. It has become so accepted that you hear, from people who finally settled down with someone, that "now they had their fun", which is a very sad thing to hear.