Is premarital sex immoral?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, very much so (leftist, abnormal).

is not focused on enough by Evangelicals

well that part's just simply not true

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"It's between consenting adults" works well as a legal argument, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see at least some posters restraining themselves to using it as one, but as a moral argument it's too presuppositional of a generally libertarian and individualistic moral framework to convince anybody who doesn't share those presuppositions. It's sort of like the "it's my First Amendment right" of sexual morality.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Perhaps moral foundations theory is a better way to communicate what I mean than "libertarian"/non-"libertarian". It's in any case not obvious to me that all sex that isn't a serious felony can be assumed to be moral, although right now isn't the best time to explain why not since I'm supposed to be at work.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Just got home from work. I'm not really concerned about the "it's between consenting adults" argument in the specific case of premarital sex as such, nor am I really interested in arguing the subject at all these days; while as a Christian I don't agree with them, arguments like afleitch's a couple of posts ago are perfectly natural and compelling ones to make from a perspective in which marriage isn't seen through a religious lens. What I think are presupposition-driven and bizarrely cavalier are quasi-dogmatic statements that this is the only moral question that needs to be asked about any sex act. While I don't doubt that uselectionatlas dot org slash FORUM has an unusually high concentration of people who sincerely believe this, I doubt nearly as many members of the general public believe it as say they do, since when the subject turns to, say, infidelity, or sex in which one's partner is engaging as a form of self-harm, people's opinions tend to get a lot more nuanced even if they avoid using "moral"/"immoral" language.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For those of you who said “yes” in answer to the OP, what are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that believing that something is immoral does not automatically mean wanting it legally prohibited and punished as a federal sex crime (literally sane).