Debating Christianity and Religion

I'll ask a very simple question.

In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, sex is allowed only within marriage.

Of course there are some believers who do not really agree with this, but my question is for those who do agree with it.

Can someone (Christian, Muslim, or Jew) explain why sex outside of marriage is wrong, but without citing any religious text(s)?

dbohm wrote:

RUSLAN wrote: I'll ask a very simple question.

In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, sex is allowed only within marriage.

Of course there are some believers who do not really agree with this, but my question is for those who do agree with it.

Can someone (Christian, Muslim, or Jew) explain why sex outside of marriage is wrong, but without citing any religious text(s)?

Because sex makes people and you are morally responsible for those people i.e. children.

Are you saying that unmarried people can't be responsible parents?

I know of plenty of unmarried people who are. I also know of married people who are extremely irresponsible parents and some who IMO shouldn't even be allowed kids.

Seems to me that whether you are married or not is irrelevant.

Yahu wrote:
Sex outside of marriage is just taking a concubine.

Is taking a concubine a sin? Many Godly people in the bible took concubines.

I see concubines as more of a sex slave though. They have no choice in the matter. Any woman I've had sex with outside of marriage has always done so willingly and has never been forced to remain with me.

What is forbidden is a woman with multiple partners or a man taking another man's wife and incest.

Ah yes, the double standards of the bible. It's ok for a man to have multiple partners, just not a woman. The woman has to dedicate herself to his man and woe betide anyone who has sex with MY future wife!

Is there any good reason why having multiple partners is a sin? I'm not talking about multiple partners at the same time, I'm talking about multiple partners over a period of time.

It makes sense to limit women to a single partner so the father of any child isnt disputed. It is for the protection of the women and their children.

Interesting point. But is it sinful for a woman to have kids from multiple fathers just because there may be disagreements over who the father is?

Also does having only one father guarantee the protection of the woman and her children?

Of course now days it's easily determined who the father is by DNA tests. Is it ok NOW for a woman to father kids from multiple partners? My ex wife now has kids from three different partners including myself, but they seem to be quite safe and there has never been any squabble over whose kid belongs to who.

dbohm wrote:

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote: Because sex makes people and you are morally responsible for those people i.e. children.

I'm sure you know about contraception.

No form of contraception is 100% reliable.

Withdrawing (pulling out) on time is 100% reliable, especially in combination with a contraceptive.

Also oral sex defintely won't get anyone pregnant.

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote:

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote: Because sex makes people and you are morally responsible for those people i.e. children.

I'm sure you know about contraception.

No form of contraception is 100% reliable.

Withdrawing (pulling out) on time is 100% reliable, especially in combination with a contraceptive.

Actually there is danger of sperm getting through even without an actual full-on ejaculation. Not so much danger if wearing a condom though.

The whole idea of pre-martial sex being wrong because of the danger of unwanted pregnancies seems like a strawman to me. Even married people have unwanted pregnancies and even married people can be irresponsible parents.

When God ordered mankind to "go out and multiply" he never put any conditions like marriage on it.

Like anything you have to take responsibility. If you're not willing to take responsibility, then the sin is not the sex, its the you not being willing to take responsibility for it.

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote:

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote: Because sex makes people and you are morally responsible for those people i.e. children.

I'm sure you know about contraception.

No form of contraception is 100% reliable.

Withdrawing (pulling out) on time is 100% reliable, especially in combination with a contraceptive.

Also oral sex defintely won't get anyone pregnant.

You know what they call people who depend on the withdrawl method??

Parents.

Divine Insight wrote:Prov.23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

This is supposedly God's instructions on how to property correct a child.

How is this new non-spanking society of ours working out? Are children behaving even better than they used to? Are more children growing up to be productive members of society than before?

Let's look at Proverbs 23:13 in contemporary English so no one misconstrues "beatest" to mean abuse:

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die." (NIV)

OnceConvinced wrote:

dbohm wrote:

RUSLAN wrote: I'll ask a very simple question.

In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, sex is allowed only within marriage.

Of course there are some believers who do not really agree with this, but my question is for those who do agree with it.

Can someone (Christian, Muslim, or Jew) explain why sex outside of marriage is wrong, but without citing any religious text(s)?

Because sex makes people and you are morally responsible for those people i.e. children.

Are you saying that unmarried people can't be responsible parents?

I know of plenty of unmarried people who are. I also know of married people who are extremely irresponsible parents and some who IMO shouldn't even be allowed kids.

Seems to me that whether you are married or not is irrelevant.

At the very least, your answer indicates that you would agree that sexual relations outside of a relationship willing to provide a stable home environment for the rearing of children is morally dubious. And this would render most casual sexual encounters such as 'one night stands' and 'flings' as immoral.

OnceConvinced wrote:

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote:

RUSLAN wrote:

dbohm wrote: Because sex makes people and you are morally responsible for those people i.e. children.

I'm sure you know about contraception.

No form of contraception is 100% reliable.

Withdrawing (pulling out) on time is 100% reliable, especially in combination with a contraceptive.

Actually there is danger of sperm getting through even without an actual full-on ejaculation. Not so much danger if wearing a condom though.

The whole idea of pre-martial sex being wrong because of the danger of unwanted pregnancies seems like a strawman to me. Even married people have unwanted pregnancies and even married people can be irresponsible parents.

When God ordered mankind to "go out and multiply" he never put any conditions like marriage on it.

Like anything you have to take responsibility. If you're not willing to take responsibility, then the sin is not the sex, its the you not being willing to take responsibility for it.

The reason there is such a thing as sexual morality is not because a divine decree has been made by an Almighty God. It's primarily because sex is intrinsically linked to reproduction, and reproduction as you've noted above carries the responsibility of child rearing.

Sexual appetite is a powerful instinctual drive and unless directed and channelled in healthy ways can have ruinous consequences on ourselves and others, especially for children who result from sex. Most cultures and civilisations throughout history have recognised this and understood that sexual activity needs boundaries for the good of all society. Most therefore have an institution analogous to traditional conceptions of marriage. Religious conceptions of marriage are a refinement and idealised form of what is only a natural arrangement between rational animals such as ourselves.

From Post 28:

dbohm wrote: The reason there is such a thing as sexual morality is not because a divine decree has been made by an Almighty God. It's primarily because sex is intrinsically linked to reproduction, and reproduction as you've noted above carries the responsibility of child rearing.

Only to some. Others will decide to abort, abandon, or otherwise not deal with the product of such copulations.

dbohm wrote: Sexual appetite is a powerful instinctual drive and unless directed and channelled in healthy ways can have ruinous consequences on ourselves and others, especially for children who result from sex. Most cultures and civilisations throughout history have recognised this and understood that sexual activity needs boundaries for the good of all society. Most therefore have an institution analogous to traditional conceptions of marriage.

Appeal to tradition.

dbohm wrote: ...
Religious conceptions of marriage are a refinement and idealised form of what is only a natural arrangement between rational animals such as ourselves.

Or the outdated, outmoded product of prudes.

RUSLAN wrote:

McCulloch wrote: [Replying to post 1 by RUSLAN]

Marriage is a contract between two people to be sexually exclusive. Sex outside of marriage, therefore is a violation of the contract.

Simple, interesting answer.

Now, if the marriage hasn't occurred, and a contract hasn't been made yet, can you say why sex before marriage is wrong? (Again without religion.)

No.
In fact, I would encourage you to have sex with someone before you vow to have sex with them and only them until death do you part. Less divorce this way IMO.