Is unmarried sex always harmfull?

[Damocles]

You said it was usually a bad choice.



Not usually.



So what? The person who engages in out of wedlock sex would have never done so if their parents had not engaged in sex or if they just had not chosen to breathe.

There are other choices/actions that have a direct causal relationship to the negative things you mention. Out of wedlock sex does not need to lead to any of the things you mention.

Further, all of the things you mention may result from sex within marriage or a committed relationship.

However, I did not say that it usually led to conception. That is a distraction and a straw man. The ramifications when it does are far more reaching than the benefit we get from sex without commitment.

I agree that all that I mention may happen even if within a committed relationship, however the risk is less while in a committed relationship (IMO, it doesn't have to be 'wedlock'...) than in random sex acts.

 

[Damocles]

What harm? The possibility of surgical side effects from the woman's abortion? That's like a 1 in 100k chance of a 1 in 1000 chance. Jesus. You may as well say that you should never drive because the money you get from work is worth risking your life.

And here you are regretfully unaware of psychological negatives as well as ones that can happen due to the procedure directly.

You ignore risk in order to justify your choice in order to please yourself, it is what humans are best at. There is zero chance at all if you simply avoided the casual sex to begin with. And the benefits to society far outweigh the risk in driving.

 

[Jarod]

So lets pretend that there was a contraception device that was 100% (it already exists its called hystarectomy) effective...

Then would sex out of wedlock always be bad?

 

[Timshel]

So...

Are all abortions or single parent households the preceded by out of wedlock sex.
No.

Does out of wedlock sex always lead to abortion or single parent households.
No.

You might have an argument against sex in general (as that would change the answer to the first question), but not against just out of wedlock sex.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.9]

Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned.

 

[Damocles]

So lets pretend that there was a contraception device that was 100% (it already exists its called hystarectomy) effective...

Then would sex out of wedlock always be bad?

Only in risking the health of another. Let's say it was 100% effective contraception and STD protection. Then we should all treat our bodies as playgrounds and have sex as much as possible.

The problem is when it is ineffective it is far more reaching than just to the two (or more) participants in the night of pleasure.

 

[Jarod]

Only in risking the health of another. Let's say it was 100% effective contraception and STD protection. Then we should all treat our bodies as playgrounds and have sex as much as possible.

The problem is when it is ineffective it is far more reaching than just to the two (or more) participants in the night of pleasure.

Same as when seatbelts and airbags are not effective...!

No, but is all unmarrried sex "treating our bodies as playgrounds?"

 

[Damocles]

So...

Are all abortions or single parent households the preceded by out of wedlock sex.
No.

Straw man again. Does it happen far more often because of casual sex?

Does out of wedlock sex always lead to abortion or single parent households.
No.

However, when it does the effects are far more longstanding and reaching than the benefit of the night of pleasure.

You might have an argument against sex in general (as that would change the answer to the first question), but not against just out of wedlock sex.

The reality is, such decisions should be preceded by much more thought than we give them. Introspection and an actual review of the ramifications "if" the "worst" happens and a careful consideration of the benefit that may come from it leaves casual sex with a bit more negatives than positives.

 

[Damocles]

Same as when seatbelts and airbags are not effective...!

No, but is all unmarrried sex "treating our bodies as playgrounds?

All casual sex is treating you and your partner's body as a playground, it is the purpose of such sex to begin with. If there were zero chance of negative result there would be nothing wrong with doing so.

 

[Timshel]

All casual sex is treating you and your partner's body as a playground, it is the purpose of such sex to begin with. If there were zero chance of negative result there would be nothing wrong with doing so.

There is not a zero chance of negative results in any action. Especially, when you are really not requiring a direct causal relationship between the action and the result.

 

[Jarod]

All casual sex is treating you and your partner's body as a playground, it is the purpose of such sex to begin with. If there were zero chance of negative result there would be nothing wrong with doing so.

I see a difference , sure its about enjoyment and connection and a spiritual place from within..... thats not merely treating your body like a playground.

But even if it were, arnt we designed to enjoy our bodies? Is dancing treating your body like a playground?

 

[Jarod]

Some people drive on the interstate simply for the pleasure of doing so... Is that wrong?

You could haved a deadly accident killing innocents!

 

[Timshel]

Straw man again. Does it happen far more often because of casual sex?

It's not a strawman. I am arguing that there is no direct causal relationship. This demonstrates that.

I do not know if it happens more often. I would, guess so. But you are missing the point. Whether it happens in either case is the actually the result of later actions/choices.

However, when it does the effects are far more longstanding and reaching than the benefit of the night of pleasure.

And the effect themselves may be of benefit. I am sure most of us raised in single family homes find the effects beneficial.

The reality is, such decisions should be preceded by much more thought than we give them. Introspection and an actual review of the ramifications "if" the "worst" happens and a careful consideration of the benefit that may come from it leaves casual sex with a bit more negatives than positives.

Well, let's put it this way... casual sex with protection is less likely to have any connection to the negatives you mention than unprotected sex inside marriage or a committed relationship.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.10]

When Yadkin Valley men have sex with their boys there are no consequences.

 

[Damocles]

There is not a zero chance of negative results in any action. Especially, when you are really not requiring a direct causal relationship between the action and the result.

That was a scenario he put forward, not me.

 

[Damocles]

It's not a strawman. I am arguing that there is no direct causal relationship. This demonstrates that.

I do not know if it happens more often. I would, guess so. But you are missing the point. Whether it happens in either case is the actually the result of later actions/choices.




And the effect themselves may be of benefit. I am sure most of us raised in single family homes find the effects beneficial.



Well, let's put it this way... casual sex with protection is less likely to have any connection to the negatives you mention than unprotected sex inside marriage or a committed relationship.

It is ridiculous to state that there is no direct causal relationship to the spread of STD and unplanned pregnancies.

 

[Damocles]

Some people drive on the interstate simply for the pleasure of doing so... Is that wrong?

You could haved a deadly accident killing innocents!

It would depend on the relative danger to others as opposed to the benefit. But yes, putting others in danger for your own pleasure is a net negative.

 

[Damocles]

I see a difference , sure its about enjoyment and connection and a spiritual place from within..... thats not merely treating your body like a playground.

But even if it were, arnt we designed to enjoy our bodies? Is dancing treating your body like a playground?

There is no chance of spreading STD to others or unwanted pregnancy from dancing. The difference would be in the relative danger you put others in for your pleasure.

 

[NOVA]

Stupid and adolescent thread from the get-go

 

[cancel2 2022]

If the Christians are right, then no matter how I "feel" about things it would still be wrong to have sex out of wedlock.

As it stands, I don't know if they are right. However sex out of wedlock, or at least a strong commitment of some sort, risks children with only half of the teaching tools they need for the best chance at success. Or it risks something worse, IMO, taking a life for your own convenience or risking the life of another to bring unplanned life into being....

It is usually a bad choice and can lead to unintentional harm to others. It is best avoided regardless of strong beliefs, or disbelief, in Western gods.

You do surprise me.