What is immoral about sex before marriage?

Yes I deny it.

I've accepted other peoples numbers before in arguments IIRC. No I can't link to them off hand. But I think it was at wordforge where I accepted someones statistics on whether you were more likely today to be murdered by someone you know or a stranger.

As I said to gul, I've accepted statistics that supported something that was not my position before.

You have never done it. And in this thread in particular, you specifically dismissed the other statistics out of hand. In essence, you said:

It precisely captures your view.

If that is your opinion you are welcome to it.

As for the "wordforge tradition" of altering peoples quotes, I think if this board considers itself EVER worthwhile for any serious discussion and debate then that is one "tradition" that needs to end, totally.

I'm glad to see you've seen the light.

So, as ed's data point out, the majority of Americans do not feel the way you do, despite your claim to the contrary. And your response to this is ...let me guess. "They're wrong and I'm right."

Yes. As I pointed out IIRC, a majority agreed with me a few decades ago. Why were they wrong then and right now?

If you're going on popular opinions regarding morals you can always find a time that people believed the other way.

So why are popular opinions about premarital sex "right" today as opposed to "wrong" a few decades ago. I choose to believe they were the correct ones a few decades ago.

^^^^
And here we have a statement that boils down to this:

Once again, I never said that. You are making it up.

That is what you said.

Statistics were presented that demonstrated that you were wrong, at which point you said:

So @gul is correct in his representation of your position.

Some people are capable of learning new things and changing their minds. Others, not so much. That is of course their privilege. Where it becomes problematic is where they presume to the right to legislate their morality on others.

You say it in nearly every post, along with a smattering of iirc and chicken coop sourcing.

I mentioned nothing about publications I might've stored in the barn in the past. Which I haven't done in a number of years. Since my dad had to go into assisted living, I store all my stuff in his house (my house now).

Post a link.

Fine Rick. I had lost track of the argument. In the case of public opinion in Ireland, I was wrong.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?search/1574640/

There's isn't any need to do so, we're all familiar with your frequent use of "IIRC", your referencing of material from the chicken coop, and your frequent dismissal of facts and data that are contrary to your statements. You did so in this very thread, you stated a percentage, you stated that a majority, and you also made statements that were disproved easily, which you dismissed by saying that numbers only count in some situations.

I understand completely. I used to be extremely paranoid about STIs, and it took me many years and a lot of effort and education to get over that paranoia. If I hadn't decided I wanted to become a sexuality educator, I probably wouldn't have gotten over it. I certainly don't expect other people to instantly get over similar fears just because I say so. However, the only way the stigma associated with STIs will lessen or disappear is if more people are outspoken about how and why the stigma is bullshit, so that's what I'm doing.

Routine STI screenings don't include herpes, and a handful of other things, and generally aren't recommended to patients unless they report herpes-like symptoms. While it's possible for an asymptomatic person to transmit the virus to others, its unlikely. People are usually only infectious right before and during an outbreak. It's that "right before an outbreak" part that results in most of the transmission.

A few years ago, the general consensus about STI disclosure was pretty much "yes, disclose everything about everything," but that's starting to change. There's a big debate in the gay community about HIV disclosure if one has an undetectable viral load. If one's viral load is low or undetectable, there's very little chance of them spreading the virus to others even through unprotected sex. If condoms are used, the risk is almost non-existent. In a lot of ways, people with undetectable HIV are safer than those of unknown HIV status, as HIV can be asymptomatic as well, and people can spread it without knowing they have it. However, many in the gay hook-up community see HIV as a complete deal breaker, yet will take people at their word when they say they're drug and disease free.

My personal feelings on the matter is that sexual health is one's own responsibility and no one is obligated to disclose anything unless they are asked. However, I'm comfortable discussing these things openly, and would prefer to be involved with those who feel the same way, so I disclose everything. Not because I feel an obligation, but because it's a good filter.

So, as to reasons why premarital sex is considered immoral:

Increased STI Risk: To sum up everything I've said so far: Interacting with other humans in any way means an increased risk of disease transmission. STIs are seen as a big deal because premarital sex is seen as immoral, not the other way around. THis is an effect, not a cause.

Holy Text/Religion Says So: Well, you have three options: 1: don't have premarital sex, 2: change religions, or 3: be a sinner. My religion does not have any such restrictions, so good for me.

So, premarital sex is immoral because some people believe it is immoral, essentially. Yeah, sorry but, persuading me to change my mind about issues of morality is no where near that easy.

There ain't a damn thing wrong with getting laid before marriage. How are you supposed to know what to do on your wedding night?

When a person insists that morality can only come from an external source, such as a collection of books written during the Bronze Age, isn't that person basically admitting that they have no internal moral compass?

It's also advisable to live together before marriage, too.

No kidding. You need to know if she's fucking crazy......although sometimes that doesn't work.

Bullshit!

​

I feel like disclosure before the act is legally, if not morally necessary. I was reading about how some states (California's was the most draconian) have laws that criminalize sex under certain circumstances if you have an incurable STI. And you could get a lawsuit brought against you for giving someone the herp and you didn't disclose it before sex. Of course the burden of proof for the plaintiff would be unrealistic in most cases, but it would be a concern.

In any case, I got my test results -- all clean. Let the lechery continue.

Youtube videos! You can learn how to do anything there. Just kidding, there's plenty of actual porn. That said the first thing you have to do is any of the following and you are halfway there already:
1. deliver a pizza
2. pick up a hitchhiker
3. console an upset, crying woman - in a jacuzzi

http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Beau...=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435755690&sr=1-5

Yet another way in which "hands on" experience trumps your book learnin'.

While I have nothing against extra-, much less premarital sex, that argument rings hollow. Some occasion will always be the first time, and yet people seem to manage, for the most part.

True enough. But is it better to have the first time be with somebody with whom you've just made a long term commitment? What if it turns out you are sexually incompatible? What will Paladin or the flashlight do if her panties come off, and they find a penis staring them in the face? Far better to get past such issues before betrothal.

I'm not sure whether "her" refers to @Flashlight or @Paladin in your post, but either way, with that union, aren't they both kind of asking for it?