Is Sex before marriage immoral?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You would do well to apply your psychology to yourself, my friend. You write like a robot.

It applies to you as well RAM.

No, it does not apply to me in any way at all. I respond intelligently to the specific statements you make. You often do not respond to what I say, but rather change the subject. And when you do respond, you often merely repeat things I said like a child saying "I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

But more to the point: You have never indicated that you understand the point Rose is making, despite the fact that she has repeated it dozen's of times. Her point is simply that the Bible cannot be considered to be the "Word of God" because it biased in favor of males from beginning to end. That's her point. Do you understand that now? Will you now respond to it?

And I have been repeating a dozen times that there is nothing biased against the male in the Bible. It is just an error perception. If a father gave more food to his son rather than his daughter, is he biased to his son? It obviously seems do but it is not because the son is hyper-active and requires more energy. Therefore what is perceived as male bias in the Bible is not what is seems to be.

First, you got it backwards. Rose is saying the Bible is biased in favor of the male, not against the male.

Second, your assertion that the male bias is merely an "error of perception" is entirely false. The bias is real and you have never shown it is not. For example, the value of women in the Bible is literally half that of a male:

Leviticus 27:5 'and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels;

Likewise, giving birth to a female child makes a women twice as "unclean" as giving birth to a male child:

Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. ...5 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

And there are hundreds of other examples of a male bias in the Bible. Your assertion that there is no such bias is entirely false.

Furthermore, the Bible plainly states that women are to be in subjugation to men. They are not allowed to teach, and Paul connects this back to the story of the fall, saying that it is because it was the woman who was deceived. And then to top it all off, Paul establishes the male dominance over women by linking it to the very nature of God and his relation to humans, saying that the man is the head of the woman, just like Christ is the head of the man. The Bible is totally sexist from beginning to end.

If you really want to see how the Bible teaches sexism, listen to this video:



Here's a snippet from the transcript of what he said (courtesy of this site): "I want to say goodbye to America; it's over. My America is gone. It's unfortunate but it's over and short of God intervening, I don't see any turn around. I still have hope, I'm not hopeless, but I don't see any turnaround. I realize that one of the primary reasons that it is over for America, is because women are taking over. Women are taking over - they're in high, so-called powerful positions now. They're running companies, they're making decisions, and not all, not all, not all, let me say not all - see they're running to give me a funny face now. When I say not all, she's like yeah thank you. But not all, they are a few out there - there are some that are logical women can make sound logical decisions, but must cannot. The unfortunate thing is that they're in powerful positions, they're running businesses and things like that and the one thing I know for sure without a doubt, women cannot handle power. It's not in them to handle power in the right way - they don't know what to do with it."

I don't know how to account for Lot's behavior except to say that he is a fictional character in a book written by some men with primitive and defective morality. We see the same thing in Judges 19 when the Levite PRIEST offered his concubine to the mob who then raped her till she died. That's some very sick behavior.

I seems to be that anything sickening to you in the Bible is fictional, what logic is this? You can't account for Lot's behavior because you cannot accept such "sickening" behavior. I have asked a question, would you offer yourself as an alternative if President Obama is about to be raped by a mob in your house?

Where did you get that idea? I have not said that everything sickening in the Bible is fiction. For example, the stoning of people is sickening, but I never said it was fiction.

I said I could not account for Lot's behavior because no rational or loving person would offer his daughters to a mob.

Your question is irrelevant because Lot did not offer himself! He offered his daughters. So the correct question is "Would you offer your daughters to be raped by a mob to protect President Obama. My answer is NO.

Your mechanical mimicry of my words makes you look like a robot that doesn't understand what it is saying. I have written nothing to justify your question about my morality. I am the one who has the high moral standards. You are the one who is justifying all the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.

So am I with high oral standards. Please answer the following questions if you are a man with high moral standards?
Is premarital sex immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is promiscuity immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is fornication immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is adultery immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is teenage sex immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is watching pornorgraphy immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex is not the essence of morality.
Is divorce and remarry multiple times immoral? No.
Is free love and free sex immoral? You are obsessed with sex. Sex has is not the essence of morality.
Is taking narcotics immoral? Finally! A different topic! The answer is obviously "no" since doctors use narcotics.

My answers in red, of course.

And I said nothing about "approving" promiscuity.

Fine, then answer why do you hate promiscuity?

I didn't say I hated promiscuity. Why are you so obsessed with sex as if it were the only moral question in the universe?

The hymen may indeed have the purpose of preventing infections in young girls. The scientists don't really know. Your question "why male do not have a hymen?" is pretty silly. Where exactly would you think it should go?

You talk so much about male and female equality, then tell me why God created a hymen for female but no hymen for male? A hymen for male would be a proof of male virginity.

I told you the scientists don't have answer to that question. So no one knows. And it is irrelevant to the question of male bias in the Bible.

You don't know what I'm talking about? How could I make it any plainer? It has everything to do with the Bible because the Bible promotes male domination over women and so it cannot be from God. Simple as that.

That's a wrong perception. There are scriptures in the Bible in which female dominates over males such as in the praises of women in Proverbs and Psalms and in Esther. If the Bible is written by men over women's domination, why sing such praises?

A few instances of women being praised does not undo the institutional domination of men over women that we see in the Bible and which has dominated Christian history for two thousand years. Women only began to be free when we as a society began to get free from the Bible.

The fact that some men want multiple women has nothing to do with the justification for polygamy that you suggested. My point was that your justification was just made up and is not supported by anything in the Bible.

My point is that given a choice, a man will want more than one wife. Just asked any man (yourself included), Christian and non-Christian and most will admit that one wife is not enough. I know Rose will vomit over this comment but it is something realistic.
Ask any men Christian or non-Christian and they will tell you they prefer virgin wife. Therefore, the value of female virginity has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity or race or culture.

It appears you have never been in a meaningful monogamous relationship. It seems you know nothing of the bonding and sexual pleasure that can be found by being faithful to one woman. That's a real pity.

The difference is that using a women for sex and then rejecting her because she didn't please you is an immoral law established by God in the Bible.

What is the difference between man divorcing his wife and marrying another multiple times? What is the difference between teenagers after having sex with his girlfriend and then rejecting her and then go for another? What difference is that compare to fornication?

The difference is that the women was not captured in war after watching her "husband" slaughter everyone she ever loved.

And yes, I agree that God abused the Israeli soldiers by commanding them to commit genocide.

If you agree that people like Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Mao should be killed, I see no reason why genocide of evil people should not be allowed.

Your phrase "the genocide of evil people" indicates that you don't know what genocide means. There is no moral problem if you are acting to save innocent people by killing people like Hitler. The problem is if you target all the innocent women and children and deliberately kill them all when there was no need. That is why God's genocidal commands in the Bible are so wrong. He order the murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land ... except the 32,000 sexy virgins, of course.

Modern morality does not approve of "sex with a girl with sweet talk of marriage and then got rid of her." Ask anyone - they'll tell you it is wrong. And since you think it is wrong, I presume you agree that the morality taught in the Bible is wrong, and therefore the Bible is not God's Word. Is that correct?

It is not what it seems to be in the Bible.

That's not an answer.

Is everything male and female equality always good?

Total equality in the sense of absolutely equal rights and freedom and respect - ABSOLUTELY YES!

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

No, it does not apply to me in any way at all. I respond intelligently to the specific statements you make. You often do not respond to what I say, but rather change the subject. And when you do respond, you often merely repeat things I said like a child saying "I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

Are we talking about the same thing?

First, you got it backwards. Rose is saying the Bible is biased in favor of the male, not against the male.

What difference doe it makes; it's still male bias.

Second, your assertion that the male bias is merely an "error of perception" is entirely false. The bias is real and you have never shown it is not. For example, the value of women in the Bible is literally half that of a male:[INDENT]Leviticus 27:5 'and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels;

So does this prove male bias? I can give you a hundred reasons why a male seems more valuable than a female but that does not mean a female is not valued equally. It's equal work for equal pay. A male life is expected to be much shorter than a female due to wars and hard labor. Therefore their lifespan worth is shorter compare to a female. The higher value is to compensate for the shorter life expectancy of a male. It's like a fair employer paying higher for someone who can only work 10 years and paying someone lesser but with a guarantee of lifetime employment.

Likewise, giving birth to a female child makes a women twice as "unclean" as giving birth to a male child:[INDENT]Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. ...5 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

So this prove male bias? There is a scientific explanation for this and perhaps other things that we may not have known. Obviously, a longer time is needed to rest and take care for a female baby:

But there are even more benefits in these instructions. While a new mother was unclean (7–14 days), she was free from the duties of cooking and ordinary housework—giving her time to regain her strength after delivering a baby. During the purification period (33–66 days), she remained in semi-isolation, thus avoiding crowds and contact with disease germs that could harm her or her newborn child. She was not required to travel to a place of worship to make an offering until the end of her purification period. Since travel was often arduous, this gave a nursing mother time for her breast milk to come in, to establish a feeding routine and for the baby to build antibodies and gain strength. The longer period for female babies was not due to male chauvinistic bias. Even today, female babies often have lower birth weights and higher mortality rates, so this longer period at home with the mother was meant to give them a better start in life.

And there are hundreds of other examples of a male bias in the Bible. Your assertion that there is no such bias is entirely false

.
Show me all the hundred examples and I can show you there is no male bias.

Furthermore, the Bible plainly states that women are to be in subjugation to men. They are not allowed to teach, and Paul connects this back to the story of the fall, saying that it is because it was the woman who was deceived. And then to top it all off, Paul establishes the male dominance over women by linking it to the very nature of God and his relation to humans, saying that the man is the head of the woman, just like Christ is the head of the man. The Bible is totally sexist from beginning to end.

Funny, there were also female prophetess and preachers in NT, what was Paul talking about?

Where did you get that idea? I have not said that everything sickening in the Bible is fiction. For example, the stoning of people is sickening, but I never said it was fiction.
I have asked a question that goes unanswered, is swording equally "sickening" than stoning? Please answer.

I said I could not account for Lot's behavior because no rational or loving person would offer his daughters to a mob.
Was Lot's daughter of clean "character"? Why were they not married off? Why didn't the mob have sex with them? Why didn't anyone want them and they have to resort to incest? Would incest initiated by the daughters something any rational daughter would do? So it must be fictional right?

Your question is irrelevant because Lot did not offer himself! He offered his daughters. So the correct question is "Would you offer your daughters to be raped by a mob to protect President Obama. My answer is NO.

Your answer is No is correct but unfortunately you are playing a gamble by saying No, they might also raped you and your daughters as well. Isn't that worse? A better way is to negotiate with them which Lot did but to no avail. The purpose was to buy time for the angels to escape or be rescued. Obviously, Lot has trust in the Lord that they including his daughters and himself will be saved and that came true when the angels blinded the mob. Can't imagine what the mob will do next if they can't get the angels then....Lot and his daughters will be raped!

My answers in red, of course.

What nonsensical answers are these? - "You are obsessed with sex, sex is the essence of morality".

I didn't say I hated promiscuity. Why are you so obsessed with sex as if it were the only moral question in the universe?

If you do not hate promiscuity and you don't approve of it, then what is your stand? I am not obsessed with sex but I am asking questions pertaining to the thread, "Is premarital sex immoral?"

I told you the scientists don't have answer to that question. So no one knows. And it is irrelevant to the question of male bias in the Bible.

I do not know the answer either. But it is certainly an interesting question, "why no hymen in males?". Perhaps, it is not important to prove male virginity as they will have many wives but important to prove female virginity to ensure to the man that the child is his.

A few instances of women being praised does not undo the institutional domination of men over women that we see in the Bible and which has dominated Christian history for two thousand years. Women only began to be free when we as a society began to get free from the Bible.

Is it funny that such trait happens not only in the Christian world but all over the world when the female was view as the weaker sex? It has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, if not why did it occurs in every religion and race, be it Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, Indians, Negroes etc. It may prove male dominance but it does not prove male bias. Well, the saying goes, you are free to do anything you want as long as you are not caught.

It appears you have never been in a meaningful monogamous relationship. It seems you know nothing of the bonding and sexual pleasure that can be found by being faithful to one woman. That's a real pity

.
Funny if meaningful monotonous relationship is good, why did you divorced from your first wife? What difference is divorce and remarry compare to polygamy and polyandry?

The difference is that the women was not captured in war after watching her "husband" slaughter everyone she ever loved.

I am not sure if that love of their husband you mentioned ever existed, remember, most of them were married against their will. What difference was that to rape?

Your phrase "the genocide of evil people" indicates that you don't know what genocide means. There is no moral problem if you are acting to save innocent people by killing people like Hitler. The problem is if you target all the innocent women and children and deliberately kill them all when there was no need. That is why God's genocidal commands in the Bible are so wrong. He order the murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land ... except the 32,000 sexy virgins, of course.

Were the men, women and children innocent, that is the question? What if the children and women behaved or will behave like Hitlers?
We see lions, leopards killed young antelopes, zebra and their youngs, including pregnant ones, is this a moral question? If this is a moral question, let's kill all lions and leopards and all carnivores and see what will happen. Sometimes, what we see and do as moral without thinking of the consequences may results in disasters. That is worse than morals. I have asked the question, what will become of the world if the moral of not destroying Hitler and the Nazis was kept?

Total equality in the sense of absolutely equal rights and freedom and respect - ABSOLUTELY YES!

Agree but equal rights and freedom and respect to females does not mean everything must be equal. Equal rights, freedom and respect can come in other equal forms such as you look after the children, I'll protect the family; You do the house chores, I maintained them; you do the cooking, I provide the food... Each playing their roles unequally but towards the same goal. Imagine wife and husband doing everything, this is chaotic ...look after the children, do the house chores, home maintenance, cooking, getting food, work on their own....where is the organization and teamwork, where is the bondage and efficiency?

God Blessed.

[Alternate]

There is no hard and fast answer to this. This is yet another subject that must be approached on a case by case basis. In many circumstances it may well be immoral to engage in sexual activities outside of marriage while in other situations the act of unmarried sex is neither moral or amoral.

A bigger queston to ponder is that of marriage and its true value. Many would say marriage is something that is holy and ordained by a higher power, but realistically if we really examine it, what we find is that it was a construct that evolved in order to help promote the survival of the human race and particularly the perpetuity of the male gene pool into the next generations.
If mankind were to somehow figure a way to harness and transfer the neural network that seemingly enables the individual to be self aware so that that network does not meet its end with the demise of the human body, what we would discover is that marriage, along with other things we value, is of far less importance than we believe it to be. Marriage is more a survival mechanism than it is a matter of innate morality.

Hmm. Such a cynical view. Still, it hits some important matters.

The case is, if you think about it more thoroughly, moral acts help promote the survival or the human race and in my view there is nothing wrong with that. In a way morality is related to survival. And what if morality is a survival mechanism? That does not negate the value of morality. In a way, morality helping the survival of humanity give it more value.

If things don't have value because they are survival mechanisms... so what now? You want the human species to be extinct? It's ok to live in chaos and anarchy? You want death and destruction?

Then to the original topic; the value of marriage. I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in the holiness of the holy scriptures. I don't almost believe in God. Still, I value marriage highly. As, I value love, and friendship. As, I value my parents. It doesn't matter to me if they are survival mechanisms. I don't care if marrying my woman is an instrument for me us to have babies and care for them together. I don't care if love and friendship is a mechanism for us to help each other survive. I don't care if my parents love and affection for me is so to ensure that their gene that they passed to me would flourish. I know that, but that facts would not degrade these things in my eyes. They are good and that for me is a big enough value.

[sylvius]

Hmm. Such a cynical view. Still, it hits some important matters.

The case is, if you think about it more thoroughly, moral acts help promote the survival or the human race and in my view there is nothing wrong with that. In a way morality is related to survival. And what if morality is a survival mechanism? That does not negate the value of morality. In a way, morality helping the survival of humanity give it more value.

If things don't have value because they are survival mechanisms... so what now? You want the human species to be extinct? It's ok to live in chaos and anarchy? You want death and destruction?

Then to the original topic; the value of marriage. I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in the holiness of the holy scriptures. I don't almost believe in God. Still, I value marriage highly. As, I value love, and friendship. As, I value my parents. It doesn't matter to me if they are survival mechanisms. I don't care if marrying my woman is an instrument for me us to have babies and care for them together. I don't care if love and friendship is a mechanism for us to help each other survive. I don't care if my parents love and affection for me is so to ensure that their gene that they passed to me would flourish. I know that, but that facts would not degrade these things in my eyes. They are good and that for me is a big enough value.

It is just that I was crazy about her, not to have together babies with, or to promote the survival of the human race, but to have sex with her. It might be that I am an exception in that.
I still don't bother much about the survival of the human race, although I did father four children.

[Alternate]

It is just that I was crazy about her, not to have together babies with, or to promote the survival of the human race, but to have sex with her. It might be that I am an exception in that.
I still don't bother much about the survival of the human race, although I did father four children.

Hahaha. I don't bother much about survival of the human race too.

Well, you did brought up an important facet of the matter of marriage and morality, and you give an implication that this makes them less important because of that facet. That is rather a big thing as it is applicable to all good things about humanity.

I also understand the desire for sex... who don't?

What I find almost ridiculous about all this marriage stuff is that they value the celebration and the paper but fail to value what was celebrated and what was represented by the paper. Its like celebrating a birthday party with the celebrators not knowing whose birthday it is; the celebrant could be on the other side of the world for all they know. For me the very act of sex itself is a form of marriage. Sex, no matter what you think it is, in essence is an act of procreation, thus for me sex carries heavy responsibility. The couple engaging in it should take that responsibility seriously. That for me is a very large part of what marriage is.