Chastity

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Chastity

Post #1

Post by Miles »


.

The Bible says people shouldn't have sexual intercourse (sex) before marriage, and, in fact, deems sex so distasteful, even immoral, that god had to invent marriage to legitimize it.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

So, for whatever reason, god finds sex pretty reprehensible, for which he provides only a single remedy, and one not fitting everybody. However, according to the most recent statistics I could find, of never-married 18-22 year-olds, on average 74% of Christian females and Christian males have had premarital sex.


Image
source


Now, considering god's stand on premarital sex, to me them's pretty daunting statistics. Chastity be damned, as it were. Stats I would think to be more fitting the non-religious.

In fact, as of five months ago "half of U.S. Christians say casual sex between consenting adults is sometimes or always acceptable."
source (My emphasis)



So, what do you think about chastity and sex before marriage? In time will chastity no longer be a concern of Christianity?

And what group do you fall into? O:)


.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Chastity

Post #11

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:06 pm
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:31 amOther than death, no aspect of life comes with a guarantee of anything.
I'm failing to see how that counters my point of sex bringing a mix of happiness and unhappiness.
I presented: "The Moral Case For Sex Before Marriage: "

To which you said: "First, that's an incomplete picture. It makes people happy and (at the least) the possibility of making people unhappy without any way to guarantee that one will only experience happiness." Implying that a person should expect some kind of guarantee that "one will only experience happiness."

To which I replied "Other than death, no aspect of life comes with a guarantee of anything."

Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:31 amSometimes yes. Sometimes no. Not all of us are prone to crumpling with the dissolution of a sexual relationship, and few of us are going stay in bed all day just to avoid the possibility of undesirable consequences.
There are different levels of unhappiness.
So what?

Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:31 am
The Tanager wrote:Second, happiness that causes other harms to one's self and others is not a good path to happiness.
You talk as if sex before marriage is the only path to happiness. It isn't; although, it can certainly help.
I'm definitely not claiming that sex before marriage is the only path to happiness; I think it causes net-unhappiness. Do you mean that I'm saying sex within marriage is the only path to happiness? If so, I'm not. I think a celibate life can be just as fulfilling as married life. I am saying that a life with sex outside (which includes before) of marriage will not be as fulfilling as the other two.
Okay.


Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:31 amAs they can be without religion, music, dance, a good joke, new clothes, etc, etc. etc., etc...... so what?
I agree. Filipovic argues that sex before marriage is good because it makes people happy. In this argument Filipovic is saying happiness is the good thing to get. I'm saying you can get it without sex. Therefore, "it makes me happy," is not a good enough reason to have sex before marriage.
So, because you get happiness out of eating cake, there's no reason to get happiness out of eating ice cream. :no: "Let the cows loose and close down the factory. We ain't needed no more! Sara Lee is taking over"

Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:31 amNot sure what you mean by "human experience," but as guess, the way god rails against it one would think it's pretty fundamental. In fact, some sociologists recognize it as one of the three major drives in animals; the other two being sleeping and eating. So let's not be underrating it.
With few exceptions, it IS fundamental to the human experience.
Do you think that someone who never has sex is less than other humans? If so, then why? If not, then you are saying that sex is not fundamental to being a human.
Nope . Please read carefully. I said "it IS fundamental to the human experience."

People may think it is fundamental to who they are but they are wrong.
Why?

Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:31 amNot talking about sex outside marriage, but sex before it.
What I said applies to all sex outside of marriage, which includes premarital sex.
Movin' the goal posts a wee bit are we. :mrgreen:

We don't need premarital sex to relieve stress, boost immunity, help us sleep, make our heart healthy, help us to figure out what love is, what things we like, hot to negotiate our needs with someone else's, to become more well-rounded, compassionate, or self-assured.
Perhaps not, but then people also get along just fine, sometimes even better, without Christianity. In fact, that's exactly what the statistics are showing: people are abandoning the Jesus junket more and more every day, and obviously finding better options.

Premarital sex often works against many of these things, as well as bring other harms to us and those around us. Other activities can give us those positives without the negatives much better.
Like over eating, or drinking too much, or falling into the traps of mindless religious fervor, there are a lot of things we engage in that can be detrimental, but when weighed against the good they can bring, the good wins out, which is the case with premarital sex. There simply isn't that much wrong with it if practiced reasonably, and the fact is, sex, including the premarital kind, can be quite beneficial to a person's well being, which is good enough for me and the millions of others who enjoy it. Better than growing hair on the palms of your hands.



.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Chastity

Post #12

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmI presented: "The Moral Case For Sex Before Marriage: "

To which you said: "First, that's an incomplete picture. It makes people happy and (at the least) the possibility of making people unhappy without any way to guarantee that one will only experience happiness." Implying that a person should expect some kind of guarantee that "one will only experience happiness."

To which I replied "Other than death, no aspect of life comes with a guarantee of anything."
What my words logically imply is that if one could guarantee that only happiness or a net-happiness would result from premarital sex, then Filipovic's argument of "it makes people happy" would be stronger. We can't. That weakens Filipovic's argument on this particular point.

That other things can't be guaranteed either seems irrelevant. If a particular road is too damaged to ride on, it doesn't matter that other roads are also too damaged to ride on. Please note that this analogy concerns your point that other things can't be guaranteed, it is not meant as an analogy of premarital sex.
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pm
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Not all of us are prone to crumpling with the dissolution of a sexual relationship, and few of us are going stay in bed all day just to avoid the possibility of undesirable consequences.
There are different levels of unhappiness.
So what?
To me, 'crumpling' seems to denote people experiencing intense unhappiness and I wasn't arguing that. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point there. Neither was I saying that one should stay in bed all day to avoid anything negative happening. If it's "get the good this way with some bads" versus "get the good in another way without the possibility of those bads," then logic says to choose the latter.
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pm
I agree. Filipovic argues that sex before marriage is good because it makes people happy. In this argument Filipovic is saying happiness is the good thing to get. I'm saying you can get it without sex. Therefore, "it makes me happy," is not a good enough reason to have sex before marriage.
So, because you get happiness out of eating cake, there's no reason to get happiness out of eating ice cream. :no: "Let the cows loose and close down the factory. We ain't needed no more! Sara Lee is taking over"
No. If someone wants happiness, then because the suffering that can accompany premarital sex is worse than the suffering that can accompany other means of experiencing happiness, one should not have premarital sex. Perhaps there are other good reasons to choose premarital sex, but "sex makes me happy" isn't one of them.
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pm
Not sure what you mean by "human experience," but as guess, the way god rails against it one would think it's pretty fundamental. In fact, some sociologists recognize it as one of the three major drives in animals; the other two being sleeping and eating. So let's not be underrating it.
With few exceptions, it IS fundamental to the human experience.
Do you think that someone who never has sex is less than other humans? If so, then why? If not, then you are saying that sex is not fundamental to being a human.
Nope . Please read carefully. I said "it IS fundamental to the human experience."
I know you said that. I'm saying that if you answer my question with a "no," then you will be showing yourself to be logically inconsistent with what you just said. If sex is fundamental to the human experience, then it logically follows that one who never has sex will have an incomplete, a less-than human experience; they will not have been what it means to be fully human.
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pm
Not talking about sex outside marriage, but sex before it.
What I said applies to all sex outside of marriage, which includes premarital sex.
Movin' the goal posts a wee bit are we.
Not in the slightest. Let's say Joe is horrid at sports where you have to hit a ball with a bat. You ask Joe, "Are you good at baseball?" He accurately answers, "I'm not good at any sports where you have to use a bat to hit a ball."

What you just did here, analogically, is tell Joe, "Ah, but I asked about baseball, not all sports that use bats." Joe then says "but my answer covers baseball, which is what you were asking about." And then you say "Movin' the goal posts a wee bit are we?"
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmPerhaps not, but then people also get along just fine, sometimes even better, without Christianity. In fact, that's exactly what the statistics are showing: people are abandoning the Jesus junket more and more every day, and obviously finding better options.
What's that got to do with what we are talking about: whether premarital sex is good or not?
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pm
Premarital sex often works against many of these things, as well as bring other harms to us and those around us. Other activities can give us those positives without the negatives much better.
Like over eating, or drinking too much, or falling into the traps of mindless religious fervor, there are a lot of things we engage in that can be detrimental, but when weighed against the good they can bring, the good wins out, which is the case with premarital sex. There simply isn't that much wrong with it if practiced reasonably, and the fact is, sex, including the premarital kind, can be quite beneficial to a person's well being, which is good enough for me and the millions of others who enjoy it. Better than growing hair on the palms of your hands.
Why do you think the good of premarital sex wins out over the bad? What are the goods and how do they outweigh the bads? I've already shared some about the goods Filipovic points out, various bads and how we can get the goods without these bads. Getting goods without the bads is better than getting goods with the bads.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Chastity

Post #13

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:27 pm Why do you think the good of premarital sex wins out over the bad?
Because I accept everything in the best possible light until shown otherwise, on any particular issue the burden of proof is on those who dispute the soundness of my acceptance, and so far I've seen no convincing evidence that sex before marriage is worse than no sex before marriage.


.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Chastity

Post #14

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:52 pm
The Tanager wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:27 pm Why do you think the good of premarital sex wins out over the bad?
Because I accept everything in the best possible light until shown otherwise, on any particular issue the burden of proof is on those who dispute the soundness of my acceptance, and so far I've seen no convincing evidence that sex before marriage is worse than no sex before marriage.
To say that "premarital sex is good" is "accepting everything in the best possible light" seems to be begging the question. We are debating whether that is the best possible light or not. I, as your opponent, could just as easily phrase things in a way that I'm accepting sex in the best possible light and that you must therefore prove otherwise. To be clear, I'm not saying that.

Neither is the burden of proof on people who disagree with you. Otherwise, in conversations no one would have the burden of proof because people both disagree with each other. And, surely, you aren't saying the burden of proof is on everyone not 'named' Miles. The burden of proof is on both the one against premarital sex and the one for it to support their positions. I've been supporting my position and responding to your critiques with support.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: Chastity

Post #15

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #13]

Getting goods without the bads is better than getting goods with the bads.[./quote]
How so? How can you know if it's good without knowing any of the bad?
Surely you can see the good and bad from a distance, but that often times means little to the personal experience.
Isn't much of what's good and bad up to individual interpretation?
Beyond for the reason of discussing it, it is really anyone's business outside those partaking in such activities?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

mauricee
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:47 am

Re: Chastity

Post #16

Post by mauricee »

Honestly, I think that sex should not start before the wedding, because in my opinion when young people get married they should be innocent of each other and just share the bed together. In a marriage, love and respect must be above all, and sex is just a way to ignite the passion between you with greater intensity. That's all. Too bad there are very few who respect this now, because of this there are many who have a loveless marriage.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Chastity

Post #17

Post by The Tanager »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:33 am
Getting goods without the bads is better than getting goods with the bads.

How so? How can you know if it's good without knowing any of the bad?
Surely you can see the good and bad from a distance, but that often times means little to the personal experience.
Isn't much of what's good and bad up to individual interpretation?
Beyond for the reason of discussing it, it is really anyone's business outside those partaking in such activities?
I see no reason to believe that one must experience premarital sex to know the possible good and bad consequences of it. Dangers do not have to be experienced to be seen as bad. Neither do I think what's good and bad is up to individual interpretation. If you are right, then you have a good critique of the reasonings I've given. So, what reasons do you think good and bad is up to individual interpretation here? And I'm not inserting myself into other people's lives. If they want to consider my reasons to inform their choices or thinking, then they are free to do so or to ignore it. I'm discussing a debate that is common to all kinds of people.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Chastity

Post #18

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:37 am
Miles wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:52 pm
The Tanager wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:27 pm Why do you think the good of premarital sex wins out over the bad?
Because I accept everything in the best possible light until shown otherwise, on any particular issue the burden of proof is on those who dispute the soundness of my acceptance, and so far I've seen no convincing evidence that sex before marriage is worse than no sex before marriage.
To say that "premarital sex is good" is "accepting everything in the best possible light" seems to be begging the question. We are debating whether that is the best possible light or not. I, as your opponent, could just as easily phrase things in a way that I'm accepting sex in the best possible light and that you must therefore prove otherwise. To be clear, I'm not saying that.

Neither is the burden of proof on people who disagree with you. Otherwise, in conversations no one would have the burden of proof because people both disagree with each other. And, surely, you aren't saying the burden of proof is on everyone not 'named' Miles. The burden of proof is on both the one against premarital sex and the one for it to support their positions. I've been supporting my position and responding to your critiques with support.
It's not begging the question because I never put forth an argument wherein I presented premises that assume the truth of a conclusion.

You said: "Why do you think the good of premarital sex wins out over the bad?" and I told you; however, maybe I should have begun by saying, "I start off by assuming all particulars of the universe are good until shown otherwise." So like my default position on killing others for fun is good, my default position on premarital sex is that it is also good. Subsequently I've been convinced that killing others for fun is not good, but that premarital sex remains to be shown to be bad. So I'm left believing it's good.
Now, as I said, if you want to dispute the soundness of my assumption (acceptance), the burden of proof is on you. If you don't care to dispute it then there's no burden. Image


.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: Chastity

Post #19

Post by brunumb »

Miles wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:51 pm "I start off by assuming all particulars of the universe are good until shown otherwise." So like my default position on killing others for fun is good, my default position on premarital sex is that it is also good.
I'm with you as far as saying that the default position is that premarital sex is not bad. It is then necessary to set up some criteria that we can use to determine whether or not it should be generally regarded as bad. If there are some instances of bad outcomes does that mean that we declare premarital sex as bad in general? Every year thousand are killed in vehicle accidents. Does that mean that driving vehicles should be declared as bad? What level of fatalities would have to be reached before we came to that conclusion? Where do we draw the line? At this point in time I do not regard premarital sex per se as being a bad thing. As I said, there may be instances where there are bad outcomes, but then you have to consider whether or not those outcomes are unique to the practice of premarital sex. If not, then the issue is much more complicated.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Chastity

Post #20

Post by Miles »

brunumb wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:24 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:51 pm "I start off by assuming all particulars of the universe are good until shown otherwise." So like my default position on killing others for fun is good, my default position on premarital sex is that it is also good.
I'm with you as far as saying that the default position is that premarital sex is not bad. It is then necessary to set up some criteria that we can use to determine whether or not it should be generally regarded as bad. If there are some instances of bad outcomes does that mean that we declare premarital sex as bad in general? Every year thousand are killed in vehicle accidents. Does that mean that driving vehicles should be declared as bad? What level of fatalities would have to be reached before we came to that conclusion? Where do we draw the line? At this point in time I do not regard premarital sex per se as being a bad thing. As I said, there may be instances where there are bad outcomes, but then you have to consider whether or not those outcomes are unique to the practice of premarital sex. If not, then the issue is much more complicated.
E..X..A..C..T..L..Y..!
Image


.

Post Reply