Fornication. What really is the problem with it?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread I was talking about sexual urges and how our inherent human nature kicks in when it comes to sex. Automatically the Christian I was debating with assumed I was talking about some form of infidelity and that infidelity had serious consequences. I agreed. However fornication is far more than just adultry. Fornication includes any type of pre-marital sex too.

So if two consenting, SINGLE adults decide ot have premarital sex and they use protection, what really is the problem with it? Why is it so wrong and what are the ramifications. And please don't bother with the answer "Because God says it's wrong". Let's try to apply some reasoning and logic to this.

Why is it so sinful?

What are the ramifications of doing it?

If there are ramifications just how serious are they and how likely are they to occur?

[OnceConvinced]

As for fornication, there are no real problems with it. As for what ramifications it brings, it really depends on the situation. It could pass on an STD or it could cause a pregnancy, but as long as you are careful, both of these can be by and large avoided. If you and your partner get tested before having sex, the risk is minimal, and if one or more methods are used as birth control, the risk of pregnancy is also relatively low. Provided it is handled responsibly, there is nothing wrong with sex.

It would seem to me that things like STDs and unwanted pregnancies would stil be a problem even in with sex in the confines of a marriage. They're certainly not exempt.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

As for fornication, there are no real problems with it. As for what ramifications it brings, it really depends on the situation. It could pass on an STD or it could cause a pregnancy, but as long as you are careful, both of these can be by and large avoided. If you and your partner get tested before having sex, the risk is minimal, and if one or more methods are used as birth control, the risk of pregnancy is also relatively low. Provided it is handled responsibly, there is nothing wrong with sex.

It would seem to me that things like STDs and unwanted pregnancies would stil be a problem even in with sex in the confines of a marriage. They're certainly not exempt.

Well, provided two partners are monogamous and don't have any STD's going into the relationship, there really isn't any risk.

There will always be a certain risk of unwanted pregnancies,however, they should not be too big of a deal for a married couple in a stable relationship. Not only that, but using several birth control methods (such as the pill and condoms together) together makes the risk of pregnancy very very minimal.

[McCulloch]

I don't understand how we could EVER be conditioned by evolution to be monogamous. Having sex a lot with multiple partners would, in fact ensure that your genes are not only passed on, but spread rapidly. Given the communal mindset of prehistoric man, these children would be about as likely to survive as anyone else within their tribe. It therefore stands to reason that evolution actually encourages man to sleep around, as any gene that encourages such behavior would be difficult to weed out. These people are much more likely to pass on their genes, as they are probably having more kids.

The more I learn about evolutionary morality, the more it seems like whatever morality society currently accepts, rather than how we have actually been conditioned to behave by evolution because it is completely counter-intuitive (at least to me) to suggest that monogamy has been encouraged by evolution.

It is interesting that primatologists have noticed that there is a corelation between monogamy and the lack of sexual dimorphism. Gibbons which are lifelong, monogamous partners are the same size. Gorilla males on the other hand, tend to be twice as big females and males take many partners. On the other hand testicle size tends to indicate female fidelity. In gorillas, the male testicles are very small. This is because female gorillas are faithful so the male only needs the bare minimum of sperm. At the other extreme bonobo chimps are very promiscuous. Because of their mate's promiscuity, the chimps have enormous testicles so that they can offer the maximum amount of sperm and hopefully out compete the other mates.

On both measures, humans are somewhere in the middle. Evolutionarily and biologically, somewhat monogamous.

(Note: Man applies to both sexes in this post. I use man to mean the species as a whole, not just the gender)

I tend to use human for the species and man for the gender. It avoids any chance of ambiguity.

[Defender of Truth]

It's clear according to the bible, that God is against it, but you don't have any ideas or theories about why God might forbid it?

On contraire, I very much have an idea why God might forbid it, for He tells us Himself.

God created sex for the husband and wife, therefore when you have sex outside of marriage, it violates God's design.

However, outside of God, I don't see why it would be wrong, as I said.

Then again, I could see how someone might say it was wrong, but this is just a guess.

Maybe they would say the society needs families, and if premarital sex was allowed than many people would abandon marriages, therefore it's wrong (according to McCulloch's standard of morality) because it hurts the society.

That's really the only reason I can think of other than God.

[McCulloch]

Maybe they would say the society needs families, and if premarital sex was allowed than many people would abandon marriages, therefore it's wrong (according to McCulloch's standard of morality) because it hurts the society.

That's really the only reason I can think of other than God.

I could see that as a reason for a prohibition on extra-marital sex, but not on pre-marital sex. In fact, if sex in marriage has as its purpose the propagation of our species and for families, then pre-marital sex should not be prohibited, it should be mandatory. There would be no childless couples if every bride were pregnant. No marriage license to be issued unless a baby is on the way.

[Defender of Truth]

Good point. My only point was that someone might say that several people get married so they can have sex, and if they can have it outside of marriage, then they wouldn't get married. However, you're right, if they say that then they're begging the question because people wouldn't wait for marriage to have sex if it wasn't wrong. They'd be assuming it was wrong to show that it was wrong.

So I'm back to my original statement. I don't see how it could be wrong outside of God.

[OnceConvinced]

Thanks DOT, that seems to be a valid and reasonable answer as to why. But I have to wonder, what, by biblical standards, is considered married? From my understanding, the whole wedding ceremony didn't come until a lot later, so therefore back in Adam and Eve's times, this might not have occurred. In fact I would suggest that the act of sex would probably have been considered the marriage between them. Even as a Christian I came to consider this possibility. Therefore I guess there would be no such thing as pre marital sex. The very first act of sex is the marriage. Any acts with anyone else after that would then be considered adultry.

I think McCulloch does raise some valid issues though.

And if sex is only for the confines of marriage, then there would be a lot of people getting married just for sex, not because of love.

[Sir Rhetor]

The reason it is seen as wrong is that when the rule was written, there was no birth control.

And the reason the law was written is that those in power are often eugenicists. They want to separate themselves from "common" folks. And if people have such complex genealogies, it is hard to do this. For example, dog breeders pay close attention as to not make the lineage "dirty" with other species. But if dogs become promiscuous, it makes it much harder.

[OnceConvinced]

The reason it is seen as wrong is that when the rule was written, there was no birth control.

Then I guess the law would no longer apply now, huh? Let's all go out and fornicate, just as long as we use birth control.

Was that really the reason for the law though? I doubt it. Remember that according to the bible, a baby is a blessing from God. God also gave the order of "go forth and multiply". So by rights going out and having sex should be a positive thing; be seen as obeying God's command and seeking out God's blessing.

And the reason the law was written is that those in power are often eugenicists. They want to separate themselves from "common" folks. And if people have such complex genealogies, it is hard to do this. For example, dog breeders pay close attention as to not make the lineage "dirty" with other species. But if dogs become promiscuous, it makes it much harder.

Yes, I don't think birth control was the reason, nor STDs (after all diseases were considered curses or punishments for imoral acts - the bible writers had no knowledge of viruses and bacteria). It was more to do with morality and for some reason the religious leaders at the time thought it was bad. And the above reason here is also a good one. Clean lineage. Make sure nobody has sex with someone that the church leaders don't aprove of. We don't want sinful blood entering our community.

I think another big reason is that probably they weren't getting any themselves, so why should everyone else?

[jwitness]