Fornication. What really is the problem with it?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread I was talking about sexual urges and how our inherent human nature kicks in when it comes to sex. Automatically the Christian I was debating with assumed I was talking about some form of infidelity and that infidelity had serious consequences. I agreed. However fornication is far more than just adultry. Fornication includes any type of pre-marital sex too.

So if two consenting, SINGLE adults decide ot have premarital sex and they use protection, what really is the problem with it? Why is it so wrong and what are the ramifications. And please don't bother with the answer "Because God says it's wrong". Let's try to apply some reasoning and logic to this.

Why is it so sinful?

What are the ramifications of doing it?

If there are ramifications just how serious are they and how likely are they to occur?

[McCulloch]

I think you're missing one of my main points. The point is that according to your theory cheating is not wrong, but feels wrong. It feels wrong because the feeling evolved into our genes so we could survive. However, if I don't care if we survive or not, and I'm willing to suffer the consequences of cheating on a test, it's not wrong. I only feel wrong because of my genes. That would make cheating on a test okay as long as you're willing to accept the consequences.

If you do not care about humanity's survival, then you are what we consider a psychopath, a mutant who is not good for the survival of our species and who should be restrained from having any influence or action that may impact society.

It is not wrong because you do or do not accept the consequences. It is wrong because society has deemed that we will not accept the consequences. What you do, in isolation from society is not right nor wrong. Alone on a desert island, you are amoral. It is your impact on others that makes an act wrong or right.

[OnceConvinced]

It is wrong because a test is to determine one's knowledge on something or whether one can be entrusted with certain tasks. If one cheats, then they may be entrusted to perform tasks which they do not have the ability to do. This could have serious ramifications.

Not only that but the person who cheated gains benefits that they don't deserve, while others who work hard and fail get nothing. It's all about being fair to everyone and ensuring that everyone gets the same opportunities. A cheat wishes to find away around this and get something for nothing.

It's all about being fair to everyone? Why? You're saying you can't cheat because that's unfair. Why should I be fair? If I can get an A without having to work at it, I should be proud of myself. I should become a politician!

I believe I've already covered that. It's unfair because it gives someone an advantage they don't deserve. How is it fair when someone else has worked their butt off to pass the test and some person cruises through by doing nothing?

I also pointed out the fact that if a person cheats, they are very likely to be put into a position of responsibility, which could have far reaching consequences on others (mainly negative I would suggest).

Do you think that the politician who cheated is worthy of running your country?

As far as the "serious ramifications" are concerned, you're not saying cheating is "wrong", you're saying cheating is "dangerous". There's a big dif.

If the ramifications hurt others, then it is wrong. Just like murder is wrong, or theft is wrong.

Of course I don't advocate this view, I'm just pointing out that "you shouldn't cheat because it's unfair to the other classmates" seems to me as absolutely absurd

How is it absurd? Do you really believe that someone who puts no effort into a job should deserve rewards?

If you accept unconvincing evidence for the argument that cheating is wrong, then why can't you accept unconvincing evidence that premarital sex is wrong?

What unconvincing evidence? The evidence for cheating being wrong is very convincing, however I fail to see any evidence even unconvincing that consentual sex between two adult partners who take safety precautions is wrong. Please provide even a shred of evidence that it's immoral, as that is what I am asking for.

BTW, I would not advocate the death penalty for someone for cheating in a test. I wouldn't even advocate a prison sentce. Would you? Likewise, even if fornication could be shown to be imorral or sinful, it would still not warrent the death penalty. But I guess that's another debate.

He says we can't use God to say premarital sex is wrong, but if we can't use God, how can we decide if anything is wrong? So I selected cheating as an example, and I'm still waiting for a reply.

All I want is some reasoning and logic to determine what is immorral and wrong about fornication. Just saying "because God said so" is a cop out. Are you able to come up with some logic and reasoning about why it is immoral?

This is not about how I judge. It's about why God might judge it as immoral. Can you offer any explanation as to why?

..................
So please, can we get back to the question I posed in the thread. I really don't want to turn this thread into a debate on where morals come from or how mankind establishes what is wrong or right. There have been enough threads debating that. Let's just keep this to what is wrong with fornication please.

[Defender of Truth]

It's unfair because it gives someone an advantage they don't deserve.

I wasn't asking why it was unfair, I was asking why being unfair is wrong. McCulloch gave me the answer.

Thank you, McCulloch, I was trying to determine as to what evolutionists say is the standard of morality. I had heard that they believe in an objective standard, and I heard of an evolutionist who argued that evolution was an objective standard other than God, and I argued that evolution was subjective, but that's what you were saying all along. According to this quote

It is wrong because society has deemed that we will not accept the consequences.

I see that it's false that evolutionists believe evolution is an objective standard. Hmm... I suppose it varies from evolutionist to evolutionist. I will certainly add this to my findings.

Thank you both very much for answering my questions. One more question. Do evolutionists believe in "Might is Right"? I would assume so if you believe that society is standard, but then again, which society? The society of man? Or individual societies like Germany?

[Goat]

It's unfair because it gives someone an advantage they don't deserve.

I wasn't asking why it was unfair, I was asking why being unfair is wrong. McCulloch gave me the answer.

Thank you, McCulloch, I was trying to determine as to what evolutionists say is the standard of morality. I had heard that they believe in an objective standard, and I heard of an evolutionist who argued that evolution was an objective standard other than God, and I argued that evolution was subjective, but that's what you were saying all along. According to this quote

It is wrong because society has deemed that we will not accept the consequences.

I see that it's false that evolutionists believe evolution is an objective standard. Hmm... I suppose it varies from evolutionist to evolutionist. I will certainly add this to my findings.

Thank you both very much for answering my questions. One more question. Do evolutionists believe in "Might is Right"? I would assume so if you believe that society is standard, but then again, which society? The society of man? Or individual societies like Germany?

Have you ever heard of 'game theory' and Reciprocal ethics ? Do you like suddenly bringing up things as red herrings that have nothign to do with the topic, and attack that?

[McCulloch]

Thank you, McCulloch, I was trying to determine as to what evolutionists say is the standard of morality. I had heard that they believe in an objective standard, and I heard of an evolutionist who argued that evolution was an objective standard other than God, and I argued that evolution was subjective, but that's what you were saying all along.

I don't think that evolution as such, has a dogmatic view on the standard of morality. I expressed one view of morality based partially on evolutionary theory. There are other views.

According to this quote

It is wrong because society has deemed that we will not accept the consequences.

I see that it's false that evolutionists believe evolution is an objective standard. Hmm... I suppose it varies from evolutionist to evolutionist. I will certainly add this to my findings.

I am not sure where you got the impression that evolutionists would have a consistent doctrine on the origins and meaning of morality. Evolution is a science not a religion. If nothing else, I am grateful that we have opened your eyes to the fact that this is an open question.

Do evolutionists believe in "Might is Right"?

Just when I thought that we were making progress. This is a philosophical not a scientific question. I strongly suspect that you can have evolutionists on either side of this question. Please re-read your own insights into evolution expressed above.

I would assume so if you believe that society is standard, but then again, which society? The society of man? Or individual societies like Germany?

This in itself has evolved. There is a kind of evolutionary process going on between tribes, cultures, nations, politics and ideologies. Those which embody principles that lead to successful societies thrive; those which do not fade.

[Scotracer]

I seriously don't understand the "Evolutionist" moniker.

I mean, accepting the Theory of Evolution as valid science and a proper interpretation of reality doesn't change...well, anything. It's like someone changing because they accept General Relativity or Germ Theory. It's totally preposterous.

More people in the world accept Evolution as valid than don't...even in "Jesusland" aka the USA. It is totally irrelevant to someone's philosophical viewpoint on the world as it's the study and analysis of varying allele frequencies throughout a population.

I take it I'm a Gravitationalist because I accept the understanding of gravity and that all matter attracts. I'm sure someone could form a philosophical viewpoint out of that statement...but it would still be irrelevant.

The idea of morality shifting (as Dawkins put it - the changing moral Zeitgeist) doesn't need an evolutionary understanding to realise that morality does change. 50 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to oppress a people because the melanin content in their skin was different. Or in a similar time-frame many countries wouldn't allow Women to vote. I mean, read this quote from Thomas Huxley:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.

And Huxley was seen as a visionary ahead of his time!

Another, more brutal example of the moral Zeitgeist changing is the fact that when foreigners (i.e. our ancestors) arrived on Mauritius and saw the gentle Dodo's walking around they didn't give it 2nd thought to club them all to death. At no point did they stop to think that making a species go extinct was anything negative at all. And it's not like they were doing it for food - many sailors said the meat was almost inedible it was so vile.

It is a fact that morals shift...now, why they shift is an interesting point. Evolution wont have the answer as it happens far too quickly for it to be an evolutionary shift (sometimes as short as a decade for a "culture shift") so there's another answer out there. What is it? Well, I'm no behavioural biologist or psychologist so you should probably ask one of them...

[OnceConvinced]

It's unfair because it gives someone an advantage they don't deserve.

I wasn't asking why it was unfair, I was asking why being unfair is wrong. McCulloch gave me the answer.

Thank you, McCulloch, I was trying to determine as to what evolutionists say is the standard of morality. I had heard that they believe in an objective standard, and I heard of an evolutionist who argued that evolution was an objective standard other than God, and I argued that evolution was subjective, but that's what you were saying all along. According to this quote

It is wrong because society has deemed that we will not accept the consequences.

I see that it's false that evolutionists believe evolution is an objective standard. Hmm... I suppose it varies from evolutionist to evolutionist. I will certainly add this to my findings.

Thank you both very much for answering my questions. One more question. Do evolutionists believe in "Might is Right"? I would assume so if you believe that society is standard, but then again, which society? The society of man? Or individual societies like Germany?

Now would you like to have a go at answering the question on this thread or did you just come in to try to divert the topic onto other matters?

Questions:

Fornication. What really is the problem with it? (ie, why does God deem it to be sinful and immoral?)

What are the ramifications of it and how serious are those rammifications?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I don't understand how we could EVER be conditioned by evolution to be monogamous. Having sex a lot with multiple partners would, in fact ensure that your genes are not only passed on, but spread rapidly. Given the communal mindset of prehistoric man, these children would be about as likely to survive as anyone else within their tribe. It therefore stands to reason that evolution actually encourages man to sleep around, as any gene that encourages such behavior would be difficult to weed out. These people are much more likely to pass on their genes, as they are probably having more kids.

The more I learn about evolutionary morality, the more it seems like whatever morality society currently accepts, rather than how we have actually been conditioned to behave by evolution because it is completely counter-intuitive (at least to me) to suggest that monogamy has been encouraged by evolution.

(Note: Man applies to both sexes in this post. I use man to mean the species as a whole, not just the gender)

Edit: I should have read the entire topic before posting. Sorry OnceConvinced, I won't comment on this subject any further in this thread.

As for fornication, there are no real problems with it. As for what ramifications it brings, it really depends on the situation. It could pass on an STD or it could cause a pregnancy, but as long as you are careful, both of these can be by and large avoided. If you and your partner get tested before having sex, the risk is minimal, and if one or more methods are used as birth control, the risk of pregnancy is also relatively low. Provided it is handled responsibly, there is nothing wrong with sex.

[Defender of Truth]

Now would you like to have a go at answering the question on this thread

I would certainly like to, however, the OP prohibits me from doing so : )

Outside of God, I personally don't see how anything would be wrong with pre marital sex.

[OnceConvinced]

Now would you like to have a go at answering the question on this thread

I would certainly like to, however, the OP prohibits me from doing so : )

Outside of God, I personally don't see how anything would be wrong with pre marital sex.

It's clear according to the bible, that God is against it, but you don't have any ideas or theories about why God might forbid it? I'm more than happy to hear opinion on this one.