I believe that the difference of opinion came from @debateme13 and his comment that Christians hold sexual compatibility to a lesser degree than non-Christians. Which is flat out untrue. Christians just believe that having sex is not the “end all be all” in regard to seeing if a couple is sexually compatible. Now, in regard to sex before marriage being immoral, biblically speaking it is immoral. However, it is not something that you can’t be forgiven for. One need only ask for forgiveness with sincerity. FORNICATION – The English term, which generally refers to sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other, is used by the KJV and other versions a few times in the OT (e.g., Ezek 16:26), but primarily in the NT to render the Greek noun ‘porneia’ (usually translated “sexually immorality” in the NIV). Out of seven lists of evils in the writings of Paul, this Greek word (or the related adjective pornos) is included in five of them (1 Cor 5:11; 6:9; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5) and is first on the list each time. Because the term can be applied to various situations, its meaning must be determined by the context of each passage.• 1 Corinthians 5:11 - But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.• 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.• Galatians 5:19 - Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.• Ephesians 5:3 - But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.• Colossians 3:5 - Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.@daveykanabus, @sigfried, @nellyj_misesian, @mvineyard
@the_peoples_champ I said Christian's underrate sexual compatibility as a factor in determining a partner. The key phrase being "determining a partner."You continually misunderstood this.
@debateme13 ok, my response to that doesn’t change however. Christians do not underrate sexual compatibility as a factor in determining a partner. That is so untrue.
@the_peoples_champ if you don't have sex before marriage, then you don't factor sexual compatibilty into your decision on if that partner is good for you. You literally place a value of zero on sexual compatibility being part of the process. You might be able to work with each other's sexual kinks and desires later on, but it certainly wasn't part of your initial decision making on if you should marry the person.
@debateme13, so really you think sexual compatibility can only be measured by penetration, lol. No wonder you're single, lol. My young padawan.
@the_peoples_champ ..I don't think you want @debateme13 as a Padawan.... Good comments, BTW.Based on the voting, you can see the 'Millennial Generation' has very low standards. In 1986, George Gilder wrote a good book on marriage - Men and Marriage:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005IUXGXK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1The essence is that marriage is a civilizing influence on men...and helps make society more stable. With the destruction of marriage....society starts decaying. It is like removing the 'guard rails' on the road society travels....and more and more people are going off the road, and there are no guard rails to help limit the damage done. Women are finding it harder to find GOOD QUALITY men to marry...who desire married life, settling down, maybe raising children. Leftists in society want no condemnation of those who seek to re-define marriage into an 'anything goes'.
@the_peoples_champ when first determining if two people can please each other, you literally cannot know that until they have actually tried it.
@debateme13 if you wait till marriage that you don’t know what you’re missing. So you could never truly fail to please. But If one side waits and the other doesn’t then one has a expectations that the other won’t. It’s not that sexual chemistry or comparability is zero or even low but that actual physical sex is considered lower on the list and therefore when the sex gets “old” they can last because they didn’t build their relationship on that.
@nellyj_misesian This is a great point!
@the_peoples_champ I just read the first paragraph of you response, and I feel compelled to point out a clear error. Here is your first paragraph: "I believe that the difference of opinion came from @debateme13 and his comment that Christians hold sexual compatibility to a lesser degree than non-Christians. Which is flat out untrue. Christians just believe that having sex is not the “end all be all” in regard to seeing if a couple is sexually compatible."Do you not see the mistake? If, in your words, "Christians hold sexual compatibility to a lesser degree than non-Christians. Which is flat out untrue." But, then you go on to say that Christians just believe that having sex is not the "end all and be all." That implies that non-Christians do believe that having sex IS the "end all be all." I would conclude anyone - namely Christians - who believe having sex is NOTthe end all be all hold sexual compatibility to be less important than anyone who believe sexually compatibility IS INDEED the end all be all.
Well, it is immoral if you are part of a religious tradition that says it is immoral. It is not immoral if you aren't.Though those in such a tradition will judge those outside one and vice versa, such is morality.For my part, I don't find it immoral. No one is generally harmed so long as it is consensual, and you have taken precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy and so forth. Also provided everyone is of an appropriate age and no one is using some kind of leverage on the other person etc...I had sex before marriage. It was mostly very moral and very pleasant. I can't say my first time was without challenge, but I would say that I am happy that by the time I got married I had the whole sex thing pretty well figured out. Marriage is challenging in some ways, and I'm not sure figuring out your own sexuality inside of it would make it much eaiser.But, and I like big BUTS, I don't think to wait for when you get married is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, you might find some challenge in your sexual preferences, but if you are committed to the marriage, you should be able to work those out if you are the sort of people that can work out problems and challenges, which is something marriage is all about.I also strongly feel that marriage is a good social institution and that kids are better off inside a marriage than not. Really, the more family a kid has growing up (provided they are not abusive) the better. A kid with two parents, two grandparents, and a couple uncles and aunts all in the same house has hit the family jackpot! But you don't see that in the US hardly ever but in imigrant families.Thus, it is morally irresponsible to have sex that has a decent chance of leading to children outside of marriage unless you have a real plan for raising a child and giving them a very loving and supportive home. Sex is significant, it has consequences, and it is meaningful. It can be had for fun, but it's not something I think should be treated too casually.I am a sex-positive person, meaning I think sex is a good thing, a moral thing, and a loving thing. But it does have a lot of potential for evil as well so it is a topic of moral interest.
If you think sex before marriage is immoral, then fine don't have sex before marriage. I'm 65 and I've had scores of sexual partners without ever being married, so I must be immoral to you. I think we all have different views of morality. I for one think it's immoral to try to force your opinions on someone else, so long as their actions don't injure anyone else. Some might say, if you're trying to force your view of morality on the actions of two consenting adults, you're actually the immoral one.
@dorothy8532 If all morality is subjective doesn’t it because meaningless? At the very least it loses its value as being a guiding force in perspcritive questions about the way society ought to be.
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance Nope, no more or less prescriptive than a large number of competing objective views. In the end the more people that come to agreement, whatever their rationale the stronger the moral force they can weild.
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance Yes, I think I can agree with you here. Morality is very subjective and therefore essentially meaningless. For example, I'm an atheist/agnostic, and I basically follow MY one moral rule which may or may not be from the Bible, but I think it's pretty much-so all-encompassing. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, I challenge you to tell me why that is not the ONLY moral law I need to follow in EACH AND EVERY circumstance. Please identify your brand of morality that disagrees with what I just wrote.
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance morality is the general consensus of the greater population concerning right and wrong over time. Meaning, if the entire human population considered and viewed dumping all of its garbage into the oceans as acceptable, then it would no longer be immoral. It's not subjective, it's dependant on the greater collective view of humanity, which in many instances can be swayed and changed with proper nudging. The only reason we view killing as immoral is because of how society then views the individual for performing the act. If nobody cared about it, there would be a lot more murders.The same goes for any subject, we don't have inherent morality, such is taught individually to each of us in our lives and what we learn when we are young and growing is how we judge and base our views of morality and ethics from then on.That's the problem with humanity; Everyone gets taught different versions of right and wrong and it causes this enormous spectrum of "belief" on reality and reality based experiences that then cause endless problems amongst the entire species.
Where do you get your morels from (FYI I agree, I'm just probing)?
The more sex one has before marriage, the more dissatisfied they are with spousal sex.
@meta_self Can't agree with that. I think some women (maybe most) feel more sexually satisfied by a bigger penis. My personal perspective is some men...even me to some extent...feel more satisfied by someone with bigger tits. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but bigger tits don't really have an impact on my orgasm...it's all pretty much so the same...but I think it could be different for women. I'll never knnow.
@dorothy8532 There's studies that demonstrate this fact.
Sex before marriage is only immoral if you identify and align with certain religious organizations who preach this; humanity has existed for more than 55 million years.Assuming that the idea of marriage and the "immorality" of sex associated with it.. before its introduction into human thought roughly 6000 - 8000 years, we can conclude that everyone prior to 8000 years ago was immoral.So that's 54 million 994ish hundred thousand years of immorality just plaguing humanity. I wonder how any of them ever lived with themselves???The reality is, this view of immorality is created by man, brainwashed into the minds of religious people and taught that they are awful humans if they perform their EXCESSIVELY natural BIOLOGICAL tendencies.For those of us who NEVER want to get married because we don't agree with the INSTITUTION (a man made creation of law designed to have religious influence over a couple).. are we all immoral for having sex?Overall this is an excessively close minded thing to say.