[
Replying to post 41 by bluethread]
That is not my point. Address sexual promiscuity without the baggage of sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy. I suspect that you can agree that by taking off the table for a debate about sexual promiscuity that debate then takes on a focused regard for what the Bible really says.
In the OT pregnancy had everything to do with a man's property; his worth. This concern was what adultery addressed. There was laws governing man's property. But those laws had nothing to do with what was sexual. Actually, I'd challenge anybody to come up with a biblical passage that speaks to human sexuality.
So, returning to what is sexually immoral about promiscuity, with disease and pregnancy off the table, what is the morality of sexual promiscuity? I did address what sexual immorality was biblically defined as in my first post as well as setting the stage for debate regarding how morality is defined.