What are your views on sex and marriage?

Why is morality only based on what happens to other people?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Why is morality only based on what happens to other people?

Funky_Llama

You're hurting yourself, so yes, I would consider that an immoral act. Why is hurting other people worse than hurting yourself?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Feelings, G_C are not so absolute and there are no boundaries in the process of turning one feeling to another. Everything is so fluid inside someones head and heart (metaphoricaly). As for the belief in God I think that's easy for me to answer. If a person is acting to me like the example you gave then I would think the following: 1: He/She may not even realy believe in God. The reason why people profess to believe in God but realy don't are not so obvious nor so cynical. As I said everything is very fluid even for someone with a steady character (that's just human imo). So when someone has faith, it is possible that at the same time has doubt and at the same time sadness because he/she felt a doubt about it. People most of times start to believe in God because other told them to. The process to doubting, or to totally reject is an ongoing one and has nothing to do with how this person feels about other people. This opinion of yours is too absolute to conclude to, imo.Genetic_Code

Quite possibly so. I think there are more atheists than people confess to be.

In fact, I remember when I became very religious two years ago, I used to think that perhaps 90% of Americans (and this was in the Bible belt) were atheists simply on the way they acted and took religion very insincerely and dressed it up as something I felt that it wasn't. I was so stunned to find that they were Christians.

I also think it's weird how I was so liberal when I was a Christian as though to bridge the differences between me and them, and then the more I dabbed with atheism, the more unsatisfied I became with liberalism.

As for your basis of my emotions, I will contend that you are partially correct in that, I'm basing this primarily on a perspective of mine more than something I can merely yield to as authoritative. To me, it is authoritative enough. It is a mechanism that shapes it own rules. Mind you, no third party is in harm's ways so any legal case I could bring in favor it is useless with what I have formulated, but I still contend that premarital sex is immoral.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Why is morality only based on what happens to other people?

Theokhoth

You're hurting yourself, so yes, I would consider that an immoral act. Why is hurting other people worse than hurting yourself?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Why is morality only based on what happens to other people?

Funky_Llama

You're hurting yourself, so yes, I would consider that an immoral act. Why is hurting other people worse than hurting yourself?

Hooray!

 And what the hell do you mean, "for once"?:x

[QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

I have to say, GC, that your view on this subject is pretty unusual. :P Sorry if you answered this somewhere else in the thread, but why do you find premarital sex to be immoral (seeing as you are an atheist)?

Genetic_Code

Theokhoth says it best that we shouldn't reduce people as objects to merely experiment with. That, and sex is a gateway that should be reserved for marriage. I have no problem with couples that get married and don't have sex. Actually, I have a problem with couples that get married just to have sex, which is what Paul seems to endorse in the Bible. That's another point that I'd like to emphasize.

But isn't that incorrectly making the assumption that all premarital sex is to "test drive" the person? Because I can tell you right now, that's definitely not the reason why I'd be having premarital sex. So I think in the end, it just comes down to a difference in opinions in the fact that you think sex is a gateway to a more emotional connection with the person, and I think it is a source of pleasure that both people can enjoy with each other.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

I have to say, GC, that your view on this subject is pretty unusual. :P Sorry if you answered this somewhere else in the thread, but why do you find premarital sex to be immoral (seeing as you are an atheist)?

Forerunner-117

Theokhoth says it ... which is what Paul seems to endorse in the Bible. That's another point that I'd like to emphasize.

But isn't that incorrectly making the assumption that all premarital sex is to "test drive" the person? Because I can tell you right now, that's definitely not the reason why I'd be having premarital sex. So I think in the end, it just comes down to a difference in opinions in the fact that you think sex is a gateway to a more emotional connection with the person, and I think it is a source of pleasure that both people can enjoy with each other.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Why is morality only based on what happens to other people?

Theokhoth

You're hurting yourself, so yes, I would consider that an immoral act. Why is hurting other people worse than hurting yourself?

Hooray!

 And what the hell do you mean, "for once"?:x

EDIT: Wait a minute... your avatar only has one wing! :x

Oh, I'm not going to bother telling you. You'll just get it wrong. By misinterpreting or something.

EDIT: Wait a minute... your avatar only has one wing! :x

Funky_Llama

You just noticed that? >_>

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Oh, I'm not going to bother telling you. You'll just get it wrong. By misinterpreting or something.

EDIT: Wait a minute... your avatar only has one wing! :x

Theokhoth

You just noticed that? >_>

This means he won't fly, he'll just flip over onto his head - remove it at once, it's a disgrace to aeronautics. :xFunky_Llama

Somebody never watched Sephiroth in action.

One-winged angel.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

This means he won't fly, he'll just flip over onto his head - remove it at once, it's a disgrace to aeronautics. :xTheokhoth

Somebody never watched Sephiroth in action.

One-winged angel.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

This means he won't fly, he'll just flip over onto his head - remove it at once, it's a disgrace to aeronautics. :xFunky_Llama

Somebody never watched Sephiroth in action.

One-winged angel.

Heretic.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]You don't really give evidence as to why sex before marriage is immoral... it just seems to be a negative emotional reaction on your part. :?Genetic_Code

It's not for reproductive reasons and additionally, you're risking creating a life that you should not be allowed to abort. Also, having sex with multiple people ruins the effect of bonding with one person. If that's the drum you march to, fine.

On this on GC I have to respectfully disagree again.  I've summed up what I think in a longer paragraph.  But on having sex with multiple people, I know some will disagree, but sex with everyone is different.  I'd be divorced if I married the first person I had sex with, there has to be a trust & caring level that isn't always obvious when just dating.  If anything the number of people I had sex with before I was married make me appreciate my wife even more, and she's said something to that effect as well.

???????????????Teenaged

Where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?                          

Now there he go!
There he go!
There he go!
There he go!

Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!

Now do the peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat!
Do the peanut butter jelly,
peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat!

Now where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?

Now there he go!
Thee he go!
There he go!
There he go!

Now peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!

Now do the peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat!
The peanut butter jelly,
peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat!

Now break it down and freeze!
Break it down and freeze!
Now break it down and freeze!
Now break it down and freeze!

Now where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?

Now there he go!
Thee he go!
There he go!
There he go!

Now peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!
Peanut butter jelly!

Now do the peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat!
The peanut butter jelly,
peanut butter jelly,
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat!

Now freestyIe, freestyIe, freestyIe, freestyIe
FreestyIe, freestyIe, freestyIe, your styIe!

Now where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?
Where he at?

Now there he go!
Thee he go!
There he go!
There he go!

Theohoth, why are you making fun of me? :(Teenaged

I'm not making fun of you. >_>

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Theohoth, why are you making fun of me? :(Theokhoth

I'm not making fun of you. >_>

I put the questionmarks because evrybody in the discussion vanished and there was just you and Llama making fun of each other.

?????????????????????????? :cry:

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Theohoth, why are you making fun of me? :(Teenaged

I'm not making fun of you. >_>

I put the questionmarks because evrybody in the discussion vanished and there was just you and Llama making fun of each other.

?????????????????????????? :cry:

We went off on a tangent, which was funny, and then you did the question marks, which was funnier, so I decided to be random as hell for teh lulz.>_>

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Theohoth, why are you making fun of me? :(Theokhoth

I'm not making fun of you. >_>

I put the questionmarks because evrybody in the discussion vanished and there was just you and Llama making fun of each other.

?????????????????????????? :cry:

We went off on a tangent, which was funny, and then you did the question marks, which was funnier, so I decided to be random as hell for teh lulz.>_>

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Theohoth, why are you making fun of me? :(Teenaged

I'm not making fun of you. >_>

I put the questionmarks because evrybody in the discussion vanished and there was just you and Llama making fun of each other.

?????????????????????????? :cry:

We went off on a tangent, which was funny, and then you did the question marks, which was funnier, so I decided to be random as hell for teh lulz.>_>

A tangent is like a detour in conversation.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Theohoth, why are you making fun of me? :(Theokhoth

I'm not making fun of you. >_>

I put the questionmarks because evrybody in the discussion vanished and there was just you and Llama making fun of each other.

?????????????????????????? :cry:

We went off on a tangent, which was funny, and then you did the question marks, which was funnier, so I decided to be random as hell for teh lulz.>_>

A tangent is like a detour in conversation.

Teenaged I wouldn't have known you were Greek judging by your posts a while back.  If English is your second or third language your doing great.btaylor2404

We went off on a tangent, which was funny, and then you did the question marks, which was funnier, so I decided to be random as hell for teh lulz.>_>

Theokhoth

I LOL'd. That banana is... hypnotic. o_O

Its always wrong

but I will not force it upon people. The only victims of this offense are the participants and God.

of course, they will one day have to stand before god and give an account. Belief in ultimate accountability for injustices is probably one of the reasons I could never be an Atheist.

danwallacefan

I haven't read the whole thread but do I smell a hint of the naturalistic fallacy?domatron23

Well GC asked a very, well odd/interesting question, and it kinda went downhill on page two.  Read the first and part of the second page.

Ok now what the hell happened with this intriguing topic, is everyone across the pond asleep and nothing left but us smart ass Americans?btaylor2404

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

This means he won't fly, he'll just flip over onto his head - remove it at once, it's a disgrace to aeronautics. :xTheokhoth

Somebody never watched Sephiroth in action.

One-winged angel.

Heretic.

Ok now what the hell happened with this intriguing topic, is everyone across the pond asleep and nothing left but us smart ass Americans?btaylor2404

Why? :? Oh God, this is going to end up as an abortion debate.

But that doesn't necessarily render the means immoral

Funky_Llama

You can accept the right to abortion. That's fine, because the legality of abortion isn't relevant to my point. It's the morality of abortion. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm going to readdress this issue.

Question: Is premarital sex wrong?

Let's look at the intent of why someone would have sex before marriage. The most common answer is that sex yields pleasure. However, mere pleasure in itself does not make something moral. Sex is not in line with love as well, hence why prostitution is such a successful business.

Let's look at the consequences of sex. If one has sex before marriage, they are likely to feel not committed to that person, and therefore they will go on and have sex with another person. This is not right because someone wouldn't want their partner to have sex with someone else. It's a direct violation of the Golden Rule, a moral concept ingrained into almost all humans.

Additionally, a pregnancy could result. The way some approach this "mistake" is to sweep it under the rug by killing the fetus. We can argue about how to react to the "mistake" in another thread; that's another issue. However, if it is a mistake which the opposition would confess it to be, wouldn't it be better to have avoided it in the first place?

Therefore, one has to ultimately conclude that it is immoral to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

Additionally, getting married for the sake of having sex is also wrong. I will argue that having protected sex when you are not married is better than marrying someone you don't love just so you can have sex with, even though the marriage is an unfaithful marriage and may very well result in divorce, which I view as worst than fornication, especially if your marriage yielded children, because it does most of its damage to children.

I'm not surprised that more atheists don't feel this way however.

Llama your one of the one's I was talking to, you and Theo :)!btaylor2404

I'm going to readdress this issue.

Question: Is premarital sex wrong?

Let's look at the intent of why someone would have sex before marriage. The most common answer is that sex yields pleasure. However, mere pleasure in itself does not make something moral. Sex is not in line with love as well, hence why prostitution is such a successful business.

Let's look at the consequences of sex. If one has sex before marriage, they are likely to feel not committed to that person, and therefore they will go on and have sex with another person. This is not right because someone wouldn't want their partner to have sex with someone else. It's a direct violation of the Golden Rule, a moral concept ingrained into almost all humans.

Additionally, a pregnancy could result. The way some approach this "mistake" is to sweep it under the rug by killing the fetus. We can argue about how to react to the "mistake" in another thread; that's another issue. However, if it is a mistake which the opposition would confess it to be, wouldn't it be better to have avoided it in the first place?

Therefore, one has to ultimately conclude that it is immoral to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

Additionally, getting married for the sake of having sex is also wrong. I will argue that having protected sex when you are not married is better than marrying someone you don't love just so you can have sex with, even though the marriage is an unfaithful marriage and may very well result in divorce, which I view as worst than fornication, especially if your marriage yielded children, because it does most of its damage to children.

I'm not surprised that more atheists don't feel this way however.

Genetic_Code

As for the pregnancy thing... factoring in the positive effect of the pleasure of sex means that there would have to be some negative effect to balance it out - and that effect is argued to be the killing of an embryo. So - alas :( - abortion is relevant.

I'm going to readdress this issue.

Question: Is premarital sex wrong?

Let's look at the intent of why someone would have sex before marriage. The most common answer is that sex yields pleasure. However, mere pleasure in itself does not make something moral. Sex is not in line with love as well, hence why prostitution is such a successful business.

Let's look at the consequences of sex. If one has sex before marriage, they are likely to feel not committed to that person, and therefore they will go on and have sex with another person. This is not right because someone wouldn't want their partner to have sex with someone else. It's a direct violation of the Golden Rule, a moral concept ingrained into almost all humans.

Additionally, a pregnancy could result. The way some approach this "mistake" is to sweep it under the rug by killing the fetus. We can argue about how to react to the "mistake" in another thread; that's another issue. However, if it is a mistake which the opposition would confess it to be, wouldn't it be better to have avoided it in the first place?

Therefore, one has to ultimately conclude that it is immoral to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

Additionally, getting married for the sake of having sex is also wrong. I will argue that having protected sex when you are not married is better than marrying someone you don't love just so you can have sex with, even though the marriage is an unfaithful marriage and may very well result in divorce, which I view as worst than fornication, especially if your marriage yielded children, because it does most of its damage to children.

I'm not surprised that more atheists don't feel this way however.

Genetic_Code

GC, I disagree, only from personal experience.  I do agree protection needs to be used unless two are married.  But, and if anyone else here is married I believe they'll back me up, sex is a major part of marriage.  Now if it's good it's a non-factor, if it's bad, it's a huge deal.  I would never commit to spend my life with someone without making sure we were compatible sexually.  This stems from two main examples for me.  Two of the most beautiful women I've ever had sex with were, well horrible.  We were great together, except for that.  And it eventually became a deal breaker for me.  If you love someone sex is an integral part of a relationship.  My wife recently had surgery, we had to abstain for 6 weeks and it drove us nuts.  Hope that made sense.

I'm going to readdress this issue.

Question: Is premarital sex wrong?

Let's look at the intent of why someone would have sex before marriage. The most common answer is that sex yields pleasure. However, mere pleasure in itself does not make something moral. Sex is not in line with love as well, hence why prostitution is such a successful business.

Let's look at the consequences of sex. If one has sex before marriage, they are likely to feel not committed to that person, and therefore they will go on and have sex with another person. This is not right because someone wouldn't want their partner to have sex with someone else. It's a direct violation of the Golden Rule, a moral concept ingrained into almost all humans.

Additionally, a pregnancy could result. The way some approach this "mistake" is to sweep it under the rug by killing the fetus. We can argue about how to react to the "mistake" in another thread; that's another issue. However, if it is a mistake which the opposition would confess it to be, wouldn't it be better to have avoided it in the first place?

Therefore, one has to ultimately conclude that it is immoral to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

Additionally, getting married for the sake of having sex is also wrong. I will argue that having protected sex when you are not married is better than marrying someone you don't love just so you can have sex with, even though the marriage is an unfaithful marriage and may very well result in divorce, which I view as worst than fornication, especially if your marriage yielded children, because it does most of its damage to children.

I'm not surprised that more atheists don't feel this way however.

Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

If one has sex before marriage, they are likely to feel not committed to that person, and therefore they will go on and have sex with another person

Funky_Llama

No, it is not. Marriage is a physical form of commitment. It is the most definitive way to show the bonding of two individuals. You can argue that you can still love an individual outside of marriage, but sex is the apex of that bonding and it should only be accessible within the most definitive version of commitment.

The only mistake in that quote is my quote that "They will go on...". I should change it to "They will more likely go on..." because I'm certain there are some people who have a one night stand that decide never to have sex. However, they are a minority and even then, it shows how "free" sex has become.

As for the pregnancy thing... factoring in the positive effect of the pleasure of sex means that there would have to be some negative effect to balance it out - and that effect is argued to be the killing of an embryo. So - alas :( - abortion is relevant.

Funky_Llama

Two wrongs don't make a right.

My wife recently had surgery, we had to abstain for 6 weeks and it drove us nuts.  Hope that made sense.

btaylor2404

I guess it wouldn't for me. :?

Also, I want to elaborate on my position on atheist marriages. Yes, atheists can get married, but because marriages tend to be religious, I don't think atheists or particularly atheist couples should get married. I think it's inadvisable and they're better off celibate. I think it might be okay for them to get married to people who are religious, but because so many religions don't promote that, I'm unsure of its acceptance in the mainstream.

I gather I sound very preach on that last subject, as though I'm talking to Romans. When in Rome...

No, it is not. Marriage is a physical form of commitment. It is the most definitive way to show the bonding of two individuals. You can argue that you can still love an individual outside of marriage, but sex is the apex of that bonding and it should only be accessible within the most definitive version of commitment.

The only mistake in that quote is my quote that "They will go on...". I should change it to "They will more likely go on..." because I'm certain there are some people who have a one night stand that decide never to have sex. However, they are a minority and even then, it shows how "free" sex has become. Genetic_Code

So you can't have a couple who don't want to marry and who don't have sex with other people? :?
Besides which, people aren't somehow morally obliged to commit to a person.

Plus... you still haven't provided any reason why casual sex is actually wrong...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Genetic_Code

Given that this assumes that it is wrong, and that that it is wrong is the conclusion of your argument, this is begging the question.

So you can't have a couple who don't want to marry and who don't have sex with other people? :?

Funky_Llama

Huh? Well, they can't be forced to be with other people if they don't want to be, if that's what you're saying.

Besides which, people aren't somehow morally obliged to commit to a person.

Funky_Llama

They are when they are married or when they have a child.

Plus... you still haven't provided any reason why casual sex is actually wrong...

Funky_Llama

Would you eat if you don't feel hunger? Would you drink alcohol when you are sober? Then why have sex if one can be satisfied being abstinent?

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Funky_Llama

Given that this assumes that it is wrong, and that that it is wrong is the conclusion of your argument, this is begging the question.

See my previous points as to why it is wrong.

I'd have to respectfuly disagree as well GC.

If you're an atheist, there is no logical reason that you can find the act of sexual intercourse inherently disgusting or immoral.

There is nothing to dictate that position.

If you're an atheist, there is no logical reason that you can find the act of sexual intercourse inherently disgusting or immoral.

MetalGear_Ninty

You may disagree with me on morality if you want to, but taste is a different matter entirely that is dependent on the individual. I'm nitpicking however. ;)

The burden of proof may lie on me, but I want you to elaborate on why you think it is morally acceptable to engage in premarital intercourse if you haven't already. Thanks.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

If one has sex before marriage, they are likely to feel not committed to that person, and therefore they will go on and have sex with another person

Genetic_Code

No, it is not. Marriage is a physical form of commitment. It is the most definitive way to show the bonding of two individuals. You can argue that you can still love an individual outside of marriage, but sex is the apex of that bonding and it should only be accessible within the most definitive version of commitment.

The only mistake in that quote is my quote that "They will go on...". I should change it to "They will more likely go on..." because I'm certain there are some people who have a one night stand that decide never to have sex. However, they are a minority and even then, it shows how "free" sex has become.

As for the pregnancy thing... factoring in the positive effect of the pleasure of sex means that there would have to be some negative effect to balance it out - and that effect is argued to be the killing of an embryo. So - alas :( - abortion is relevant.

Funky_Llama

Two wrongs don't make a right.

My wife recently had surgery, we had to abstain for 6 weeks and it drove us nuts.  Hope that made sense.

btaylor2404

I guess it wouldn't for me. :?

Also, I want to elaborate on my position on atheist marriages. Yes, atheists can get married, but because marriages tend to be religious, I don't think atheists or particularly atheist couples should get married. I think it's inadvisable and they're better off celibate. I think it might be okay for them to get married to people who are religious, but because so many religions don't promote that, I'm unsure of its acceptance in the mainstream.

I gather I sound very preach on that last subject, as though I'm talking to Romans. When in Rome...

Really GC this is quite a shocking train of thought, of course I respect your view, I still don't understand where your coming from.  An Atheist stay celibate?  Why on Earth?  My wife and I rented a place in a resort town, and had the Justice of the Peace come marry us, no real reason it just worked well in that small town.  Marriage is incredible, no religion or non-religion has a monopoly on it, and if your with the right person I cannot describe to you how important it is to know someone is there for me, and on my side 24/7.  Imagine your best friend in life, multiply it times at least 10+your attracted to him/her.

Sorry I added yours & F_L's quote train, I never delete them right and wanted yours in my answer.