What is immoral about sex before marriage?

I see that Dayton has been having a pop at Bristol Palin and pursuing his usual "sex before marriage is bad" schtick.

But my question is why? What is the religious and/or social justification for it being taboo? I've never understood this. I mean, history records that the word marriage as only dated back some 800 or so years and the idea of a sole, ceremonial union between a man and woman is about 4000 years old. Furthemore the idea that a religious official must bless the marriage to validate it is only about 500-600 years old. So not only is it clearly man made, but that there is likely no divinity about it at all. But the concept of immorality and taboo isn't just coming from people like Dayton. Many religions and/or cultures have a concept of it, and some take it further, considering that, for instance, an unmarried couple simply living together isn't an ideal scenario.

I realise the obvious answer to the thread title is "it's not", but I am curious about the reasoning for those who think it is.

Good thread!

It's worth noting that the OT attaches no shame to sex before marriage, only a resultant obligation to marry. That's tied up in inequal gender roles there, but I think a modern version might be the question of whether we want (not saying we do!) parenthood and perhaps even in general family structures to be protected against a tendency towards a general isolation of people in a society that never recognizes any kind of long-term commitment, preferring instant gratification.

Invisible sky fairy wants the pee-pees and hoohoodillys to hook up in exactly the right way, at exactly the right time, with exactly the right rituals.
Lot of instructions and paperwork for pee-pees and hoohoodillys.
They're like cell phones.

Dayton thinks all sex is icky. Extramarital sex and gay sex are, in his view, just ickier.

Case closed.

Anything that defies the control of the religious institutions is "immoral".

Not a damn thing.

There is nothing wrong with it, so long as all participants understand potential consequences. Not to say that a marriage license means you have that understanding, but at least it theoretically means you are in a life phase more likely to be able to take on post sex responsibilities.

To be clear, I favor pre-marital sex. People should have it as often as possible with as many people as possible. But we need to couple it with education so that idiots like Bristol Palen don't become pregnant when they don't mean to do so.

In the eyes of the "CHURCH", the goal of sex(For Married couples) is to multiply. If you multiply you create more church goers, therefore create more future tithers. It has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with MONEY and controlling what people do. Don't have sex until your married because "I" said so, do it because "GOD" said so.

Also, it takes an entire village to raise a child and the Church wants to be that village. It is also hoped that the more they reproduce, the more dependent they will become on the " village".

Not to mention more faithful whom they can extort for money on pain of "you will go to hell unless you pay for my extravagant life style."

In the eyes of Mormons, sex is playing with the power of creation, ie procreation, something godly, only to be invoked by a couple married in the eyes of the law. Premarital or extramarital sex is a violation of that power.

Which is why mormon marriages are automatically dissolved in the eyes of the mormon church when a couple becomes known to lack interfertility.

I some cases (not all) it's about women being considered property. Who generally makes the rules/religions? Powerful men who want to stay powerful. That hot little chick at the watering hole might make a great third wife, or even a concubine. If she shacks up with that handsome young stud across the street that's one less hot little chick you might have. And for the young stud he is having fun but he's not an important man so he hasn't paid his dues. That's not fair! Notice all the religions that say sex outside of marriage is bad don't have a problem with a man marrying more than one woman. Since winners get all the women they figure it's better for a woman to be property of a winner (yourself, the guy or his buddies who make the rules) than hook up with someone we don't know. Again, just one scenario.

Uh, no.

I just touched on that. Good example! And amazingly enough all that procreation will be done by the church leaders. Hence 60 year old rich men marrying 14 year olds. True the "official" Mormon church doesn't practice poligamy anymore but that is how marriage was considered godly - if god says it's the only way to fly, who are we to argue?

Because in a patrilinial society, you gotta know who the daddy is.

Why?

Why not?

That is not an answer. gul made an active claim as to being in favor of it an elaborated by emphasizing details. So it it incumbent upon him to answer the question.

Because it is an important part of experiencing the human condition. As the most evolved critters on this ball of rock, we can enjoy sex without procreation.

Seems like an awfully thin claim to base something with such inherent risks on.

That's really the key issue here, women as chattel.

Risks?

Premarital babies innit!

And STDs.

The risks that come from sexual repression are not inconsiderable.

Controlling sex is how you control the population. Nothing more. For me, pre-marital sex isn't only something I'm okay with, it's something I heartily endorse, especially for super religious conservative young adults. Get laid. You're only young once, and God ain't keeping count of how you hold your pecker.

pregnancy, STDs, regular diseases.

And don't talk about how with the appropriate protection you can avoid pregnancies and STDs. There are every possible protections available (in American anyway) for both pregnancy and STDs yet we have millions to both in total every year.

What makes you think that?

Jealous husbands...