What is immoral about sex before marriage?

Which is probably why no one implied that Christianity or The Bible were obscure; just your "unique" and highly uncommon interpretation of them.

You got it. Unfortunately, it's not in favor of women - men get their harem; heaven forbid women marry more than one man!

So can Mormon widows remarry, and if so, what does their afterlife marriage hold for them?

As usual, you're wrong again. But again that's a common theme for you.

Whereas, in 1973, 71% of the population felt that pre-marital sex was always wrong, by 1994 this proportion had fallen to 32%. The ISSHR survey of 2005 found that just 6% of respondents thought that pre-marital sex was ‘always wrong’ (see chapter four).

And this is taken from "The Irish Study of Sexual Health and Relationships".

Do you ever get tired of being so ill informed on just about everything?

He's not mental equipped to be correct about things. He'd be lost.

Well, his is an endless abyss of despair and madness. But then again, fornication is nice.

They can, but they are sealed to their first husband, as are any children she has with her second husband.
If this is husband 2's first wife, supposedly he'll be well compensated upstairs.

Ever get the feeling that arguing with Dayton is something like this?

When I clicked the link it had "piebald" on the side. I know that word! Deer sometimes get that way - like a weird color pattern, the hair all mesed up and faded out in different areas.

also: Adultery § Christianity and Fornication § Christianity and premarital sex
Extramarital sex is considered to be immoral by most Christian groups, who base this primarily on passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It is listed as a sin here and in other passages (along with idolatry, theft, greed, lying, and sexual perversion). While the next verse from the above passage is quick to point out that although some Christians used to practice those sins—that they have since been "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and are thus forgiven their sins—extramarital sex has historically been considered to be one of the more serious and damaging sins, possibly because of passages like 1 Corinthians 6:18 that speak of it as sinning against one's own body.

Incorrect Chardperson

That is referring to extramarital sex, not premarital sex. Here is the results of a study on premarital sex.

also: Adultery § Christianity and Fornication § Christianity and premarital sex
Extramarital sex is considered to be immoral by most Christian groups, who base this primarily on passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It is listed as a sin here and in other passages (along with idolatry, theft, greed, lying, and sexual perversion). While the next verse from the above passage is quick to point out that although some Christians used to practice those sins—that they have since been "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and are thus forgiven their sins—extramarital sex has historically been considered to be one of the more serious and damaging sins, possibly because of passages like 1 Corinthians 6:18 that speak of it as sinning against one's own body.

Numbers do not make morality.

So, after 101 replies, has Dayton shown how sexual sins break an arm, or pick a pocket, or is it all still a bunch of "invisible boogeyman doesn't like it, so evil magic!!!"?

Yet you claim that most, majority, many agree with you. You even made the claim of "90% or more". But now when presented with evidence to the contrary you're trying to dismiss numbers. Daytard.

Nothing you just spewed forth supports your nonsensical interpretation of Matthew 5:18, which is the "unique" and highly uncommon interpretation I was talking about. So you've hardly proven me wrong, dipshit, as you've not even addressed that. John apparently found your interpretation odd as well.

I really don't know what that block of text was meant to accomplish anyway, because I'm not a Christian. I reject the validity of your God, and his supposedly holy book, so I hardly accept its definitions of what is, and is not, moral/righteous/etc.

Numbers mean something in some situations. Nothing in others.

Your own information is that for most of American history, Christians believed in the immorality of premarital sex.

You would dismiss those numbers as being irrelevant would you not?

Why are recent numbers relevant?

With white women who's daddys were landowners.
Slave wenches were fair game.

Then you have no moral, ethical, or logical right to make any kind of argument about how a bibical passage is interpretated.

If you reject the validity of God, then deal yourself out of the game and shut up.

Most Americans never owned slaves so your slur has no validity even if taken at face value.

Nah.

Changing views as time changes. You've even stated that what applied in the Bible before doesn't necessarily apply now. Which makes @Chardman's point even more relative. Your view point is skewed and flawed, as you choose what to follow and not to follow from the Bible.

Recent numbers are more relevant since they indicate the recent viewpoint and the recent beliefs of people. You claim to be a superb historian, but you fail to recognize that times change, view changes, and that progress constantly continues and changes the world view of the people that live on it.

Times change.

But morality does not change. The morals outlined in the New Testament haven't changed.

If a non Christian doesn't have any say in Christian views, then why should a non Christian accept Christian views. After all less the 32% of the world's population is Christian. Or do numbers not matter simply because your view doesn't coincide with factual data.

Then provide proof that morality does not change. You can't.

Because Christians are directed to spread out and spread the word of God. They have a mandate and direct instructions to do so.

On the other hand non religious people have no such mandate or instructions.

Religion does nothing but make hypocrites and zealots.

All you have to do, is crack open that book for 5 seconds to see it.
The fact they felt they had to make all these sex rules means people were doing it all.
The fact people got stoned to death after the rules were put in place means they KEPT doing it.
Some deterrent!

They couldn't even get this shit right IN the Bible.
IN the times!

Even the saints were hypocrites, look at Augustine.

The only way to not be a hypocrite is to follow that book so close, you end up a wacko.
But good luck trying, with all the contradictions.

You contradicted yourself right in that post.
The fact that there's a NEW testament shows morals change.
Why wasn't the Old Testament good enough forever, and ever, and ever?
Because the dipshits that wrote it thought we'd be desert goat herders 'til the end of existence.
How'd that work out?

And they are failing at that, once again changing views indicate a shift in the thoughts and beliefs of people.

Case closed.

Yet you reject the validity of thousands of Gods, yet think yourself anywhere near the game? Dipshit. Your faith is not the only faith. Your God not the only God. Even without my Gods, I have every moral and ethical right to make an argument about yours. And I've got a fucking degree in Biblical studies that says I have every right to make an argument about how a biblical passage is interpreted.