Sex before marriage is it OK?

Is your argument that “man made” = bad? Aren’t their laws all around us that govern and guide our instincts within society? Is it natural for man to not govern himself, and what kind of outlook do you have in regards to someone who is driven by their impulses vs a person who acts on wisdom and prudence?

Most religions hold no sex before marriage for a couple of reasons; 1. They understand sex is pleasurable and good but they also believe humans tend to overdue/abuse pleasure, so the precept of no sex before marriage is to weed-out those who seek to use you rather than love you. 2. It is because they know that love requires mutual self-giving and that it’s not all about romance. The time of courtship before marriage is for two people to get to know each other, share beliefs, and share hopes and dreams. It is to make sure you can stand each other’s company and be a unified teams and a solid foundation if kids are to come. It’s to acknowledge that the relationship is more than just sex. 3. The rule is meant to protect us from bad sex since comparison is the thief of joy and since humans are prone to dwell on pleasure; these rules try to protect us from viewing others superficially; to end the moments where couples say “I love them but the sex wasn’t as good as my ex. This relationship won’t work”. That kind of thinking reduces a persons worth to the level of pleasure they bring to the relationship, and that dehumanizes the other person. If you do not have any sex before marriage then technically you can never have bad sex since you have nothing to compare your married sex to. 4. Vows are natural to love. We do them all the time when we love our kids we vow to do everything we can to protect them. When we love our family and friends we vow to be there for them. When we love our partners we vow to be faithful.

So you might say marriage is “man made” and I’ll say even so, marriage takes into account the nature of man both in terms of his frailty and in terms of his strength. For that reason marriage is a good thing.

 

Bros,

I think marriage is a good thing and like some have said, has documented benefits for families. That’s a fact. But I still don’t see why any of the pro-marriage arguments prove that sex outside marriage is objectively immoral. It might be immoral within their religion, world view, or personal values, but to others, it could be totally moral and part of a healthy life. To assume that because you, or most people, or religious people have “moral” married sex lives, does not make that the ONLY way to have a “moral” sex life.

I wonder what kind of marriages were going on in 150,000 BC? What kind of marriage-related questions men considered when deciding whether or not to continue his species. Gosh, I’m sure he was real concerned about divine retribution or having a nice, meaningful life and raising kids together, right after he figures out how not to starve anymore.

Sex exists as a part of a species’ survival- that much is proven. Is it only moral inside a marriage? Uncertain. Let’s agree to disagree, please?

 

This is interesting, but not so long back!
1000-100 B.C. back would make sense.
150,000 B.C. ago, even the Cro- Magnon Man didn’t exist!
Forget Marriages!

 

I think we are all here to either challenge each other’s views or understand each other’s views. There is no reason to agree to disagree, in fact we can just agree to keep a civil discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

I do think you bring up some key points though and that is morality. If morality is objective then one side is right and one side is wrong. If morality is subjective then neither side is right or wrong. Either way, we know there has to be some form a morality attached since man is a moral agent. Also, I do take issue with people acting as if no sex before marriage is strictly a religious thing. You can be a humanist or atheist and believe in no sex before marriage. Back when I was atheist I followed a no sex before marriage life because I’m also against abortion and never want to be someone who contributes to it. By following the no sex before marriage I not only prevent abortions and unwanted pregnancies, I also prevent the spread of diseases.

Also, it’s kind of ironic that the same western society that bitches about objectification, rape, and people having a lack of self-control, also abhors the idea of abstinence and in fact teaches kids about birth control; which is neither pro birth or control. Then people are shocked that the same kids they taught to be weak willed, eventually grow up into weak willed adults.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want kids, make sure birth control is being used, and then it's fine as long as it doesn't happen too often. A lot of women get burnt out later on from having a lot of sex and then they're just never in the mood for it anymore, and it can be alarming for the guy because he'll think there's something wrong with the relationship, but that's a whole other topic. If you're asking if it's morally right to or not, that's kind of something you have to decide for yourself.

If you DO want a kid, then definitely marry first. Don't disadvantage your kid/s by making them grow up in a house without family structure.

 

Lots of good advice

 

So you agree, then, that premarital sex is fine as long as couples are informed about the consequences? Why did it seem you were arguing against premarital sex this whole time?

What are you even talking about? Birth control exists because people like to fuck but don't want to have a million kids. Most people are aware that abstinence is the best form of birth prevention. But most people would prefer to have sex than to not have sex. Hence, birth control. You lost me on the fetus part.

That's literally not even true. And who cares about porn? We are talking about marriage and sex. Let me try and understand your argument:
"Porn is bad. Porn requires people to have sex outside of marriage [false, but ok] and contraception [also false], and abortion [???]. Therefore, sex outside of marriage is bad."
Now if I understand you correctly, you are trying to imply that most porn involves unmarried people who use contraception. That is generally true. But I have two major problems with this. Number one, I disagree with the premise that porn is bad or should be reduced in some capacity. Secondly, I reject your conclusion that because some unmarried people are porn actors, therefore unmarried sex is wrong. This is a nonsensical argument.

By the way, you can ignore all of my rebuttals, but I will keep responding to your bad arguments because I want other people to understand why you are wrong.

 

Forget sex. The question for me is is marriage ok? My answer is no it's not because it has a negative effect on a couple.

 

Can you please elaborate the sources?

 

https://www.talkingpoliticspodcast.com/blog/2019/184-talking-politics-guide-to-marriage

 

This reasoning is flawed because you are making an unwarranted generalization about people. It's like if I said "if you don't like animals, then you must be a hunter." But some people don't like animals, and also aren't hunters. Just like some people are opposed to the idea of marriage, but aren't affiliated with the porn industry.

You fail to explain what marriage has to do with communism, and you are literally assuming the message of a book based on its title alone. In other words, you are literally judging a book by its cover.

Try to post one comment that isn't riddled with faulty reasoning and based entirely on unfounded assumptions, I challenge you.

And honestly, you seem to try to desperately connect every argument you disagree with to the porn industry somehow. If someone says something you don't like, you try to poison the well by saying "oh well that's what a porn advocate would say." Can we please stop using dirty debate tactics and have an actual conversation?

 

Interesting, but he forgot the most important part of the human development which Jung mentions in his many essays, some which can be found on:

https://www.amazon.com.br/desenvolvimento-personalidade-Obras-completas-Gustav-ebook/dp/B01926XC7U

Or the equivalent in your language. Which is the importance of a family for the children.

He clearly states the importance of the parents during the kid's development, specially in which entails the different personality traits and responsibilities that both a father and a mother have and the vacuum that mostly can be found on kids raised by single parents specially given the lack of balance between these traits.

 

Why can't you have a family without marriage?

 

You def can, but as much as we hate generalization and its true that archetypes not always survive singular experience from individuals, the studies show that kids with both parents tend to have a much more stable upbringing and thus a healthier emotional development.

So, its not that a single mom or father can't raise a children alone, but they do face much more trouble and more often than not leave some aspects of the child's development, like charisma and empathy or even a sense of duty underdeveloped.

So, on a LARGER scale, families tend to be good by definition of its purpose for human beings as can be even seen in similar animals which are highly sociable like monkeys.

Edit - Just a side note, it doesn't mean that just because a kid have two parents his life is set, specially if the parents are idiots.

And before someone asks, I don't think there is any evidence that proves that gay couples can't lead a successful family either, I don't think anyone knows, it's still uncharted territory for the most part in terms of study.

 

I would dispute that. You can be committed to someone without being married to them. Unless you mean marriage as a symbolic union, or a long-term partnership. We can talk about the benefits of long-term partnership, which I won't deny, but marriage is nothing more than a tradition in my view.

 

Oh, if we are making distinction between marriage and long term partnership, then honestly I don't know. Can't form a response, I guess it boils down to semantics in the end, if the end result is still a family.

 

Well, divorce is a thing. Jordan Peterson, tends to agree with you though, he thinks that when you "try"to live together it leaves the underlying impression that you can, give up once you find something better and marriage helps you to COMMIT further. As a general rule I tend to agree.

But again, most marriages are unhappy though and people stick to it due to being afraid to being alone, so even if marriage is better, its by no means a perfect solution.

 

Postpone it till marriage

 

I wish I could provide it, but I've read in an article a long time ago. Not that you have provided sources for anything, but I get where you are coming from, feel free to disregard that part if you wish.