Is premarital sex immoral?

[HillGoose]

Even if you think premarital sex is immoral it's none of your business to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do in the bedroom. If you think premarital sex is immoral, just don't do it lmao. Leave the rest of us alone.

Individual autonomy ftw, big government is pure evil.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sex, to be moral, involves a giving over of oneself to the other person, and a willingness to commit to them.  Marriage is the niche that allows this to be nurtured and defended.  To have sex outside of marriage then is, at least, inadvisable - whether or not it is immoral in itself, it is morally dangerous.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Yes. God intended the sex as a way for a married couple to raise children to serve in His name, not as a way of pleasure.

[afleitch]

Is 'pre-marital' sex wrong if a jurisdiction does not recognise certain marriages?

My first sexual experience was illegal because the age of consent at that time was illegal.

Subsequently experiences were pre marital until 2005 or 2015 respectively.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The only kind of sex I ever had was of the premarital kind.

[DavidB.]

"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.

I'm far from a libertarian, whether from a political or from a moral standpoint, but when it comes to the issue of premarital sex I still have trouble finding it immoral for this reason.

Immoral is a strong word. For someone who is not a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox and Orthoprax Jew - but I think Jews would overall be less likely to emphasize the immoral aspect of it-), consent just seems the most logical basis on which you can judge the morality of it.

[parochial boy]

"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.

I'm far from a libertarian, whether from a political or from a moral standpoint, but when it comes to the issue of premarital sex I still have trouble finding it immoral for this reason.

Immoral is a strong word. For someone who is not a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox and Orthoprax Jew - but I think Jews would overall be less likely to emphasize the immoral aspect of it-), consent just seems the most logical basis on which you can judge the morality of it.

Yeah, I mean, coming from a totally non-religious perspective, I don't understand how something could possibly be immoral if it has absolutely no negative impact on anyone or thing - as far as I am concerned, something is moral or not depending on the impact that it has; things aren't inherently moral or not by themselves.

If two people consent to pre-marital sex, even if it totally devoid of any emotional connection, it doesn't actually have any impact on anyone outside the couple, so I don't see what rationale there could be for it being immoral.

[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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Regardless of our theological affiliations, I would hope that’s we could agree the unimpeded transfer of reproductive agents without any intention to deal with the result is immoral.

[°Leprechaun]

Regardless of our theological affiliations, I would hope that’s we could agree the unimpeded transfer of reproductive agents without any intention to deal with the result is immoral.

I would hope that we could all agree that war is the greatest evil, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Regardless of our theological affiliations, I would hope that’s we could agree the unimpeded transfer of reproductive agents without any intention to deal with the result is immoral.

Conclusion: only heterosexual sex is immoral before marriage.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

Agreed here. Much of our society has failed to distinguish between immoral and "should be banned", even though the distinction ought to be relatively simple.

[afleitch]

Is marriage moral? From which to then hand this presupposition? I mean, I love mine, but what's the difference between a long term relationship and a long term (or not so long term) relationship that's a matter of public record? I have good friends who are unmarried and have two kids together. I can't see how there can be anything remotely objectionable about that.

[PSOL]

Consensual (no force or coercion, whatever that may look like) sex between individuals of similar age and mental capacity is objectively not an immoral activity.

[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.

[°Leprechaun]

There is no circumstance in which it is acceptable for people to have sex outside of the confines of a Biblical marriage.  The "religious right" is right to condemn homosexual sex as wrong, but it is not strong enough about condemning all heterosexual sex between unmarried men and women

[etc etc]

Why has nobody challenged this (highlighted words). Is this ok, simply because so called Christians do this? The idea that it is ok to condemn others is not Biblical in the first place (cf Matthew 7) To say that much evil is done in the name of religion (female circumcision, sanctimonious judgements, war and terrorism), is not to imply that all of religion is evil, and certainly not to imply that religious people are evil, but am I the only one troubled when so called religious people use their religion to judge and condemn or even worse to do evil deeds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

[Free Bird]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

I, err, wouldn't dwell on this argument for too long. One of the best things about human civilisation is the taming of the selfish gene. Although we are by nature a polygamous species, most societies have independently arrived on monogamy as a good rule of order - it's one of those artificial societal constructs that seem to be pretty adequate. Society would not change for the better if we obeyed our hormonal whims.

That said, there are lots of very very good reasons to fall back from treating premarital sex as immoral. Not least because almost all cultures have a significant double standard on what gender gets away with such shenanigans. Tbh a lot of neo-traditionalist sentiment strikes me as tryhard edginess, especially if people try and claim it's not for religious reasons.

[HillGoose]

It's hilarious because even if someone thinks premarital sex is immoral and gains enough power to try to outlaw it, they won't be able to enforce it without some Sovet style totalitarianism (and brainwashing) on steroids.

I'd guess at least 95% of the US population has had sex before marriage. It's a very small minority that hasn't.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, but among the immoral acts that people can commit it is among the less serious. There is a reason why Dante placed the lustful in the second circle, before all of the other deadly sins.

[Senator Spark]

Yes

[Crumpets]

What is sex? (Atlasian)

[Big Abraham]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

I, err, wouldn't dwell on this argument for too long. One of the best things about human civilisation is the taming of the selfish gene. Although we are by nature a polygamous species, most societies have independently arrived on monogamy as a good rule of order - it's one of those artificial societal constructs that seem to be pretty adequate. Society would not change for the better if we obeyed our hormonal whims.

That said, there are lots of very very good reasons to fall back from treating premarital sex as immoral. Not least because almost all cultures have a significant double standard on what gender gets away with such shenanigans. Tbh a lot of neo-traditionalist sentiment strikes me as tryhard edginess, especially if people try and claim it's not for religious reasons.

Finally, an actually reasonable response to people who make this argument. Thank you

[Antonio the Sixth]

not (or in your case not really, correct me if I'm wrong) Christian

I don't even know anymore at this point, tbh. I feel like I have a lot in common with Clement Attlee in that we both didn't have religious beliefs but still embraced most of the core moral principles of Christianity (although with quite a few distinctions for me, of course). Make of that what you will.