Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmI presented: "The Moral Case For Sex Before Marriage: "
To which you said: "First, that's an incomplete picture. It makes people happy and (at the least) the possibility of making people unhappy without any way to guarantee that one will only experience happiness." Implying that a person should expect some kind of guarantee that "one will only experience happiness."
To which I replied "Other than death, no aspect of life comes with a guarantee of anything."
What my words logically imply is that if one could guarantee that only happiness or a net-happiness would result from premarital sex, then Filipovic's argument of "it makes people happy" would be stronger. We can't. That weakens Filipovic's argument on this particular point.
That other things can't be guaranteed either seems irrelevant. If a particular road is too damaged to ride on, it doesn't matter that other roads are also too damaged to ride on. Please note that this analogy concerns your point that other things can't be guaranteed, it is not meant as an analogy of premarital sex.
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmSometimes yes. Sometimes no. Not all of us are prone to crumpling with the dissolution of a sexual relationship, and few of us are going stay in bed all day just to avoid the possibility of undesirable consequences.
There are different levels of unhappiness.
So what?
To me, 'crumpling' seems to denote people experiencing intense unhappiness and I wasn't arguing that. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point there. Neither was I saying that one should stay in bed all day to avoid anything negative happening. If it's "get the good this way with some bads" versus "get the good in another way without the possibility of those bads," then logic says to choose the latter.
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmI agree. Filipovic argues that sex before marriage is good because it makes people happy. In this argument Filipovic is saying happiness is the good thing to get. I'm saying you can get it without sex. Therefore, "it makes me happy," is not a good enough reason to have sex before marriage.
So, because you get happiness out of eating cake, there's no reason to get happiness out of eating ice cream.
"Let the cows loose and close down the factory. We ain't needed no more! Sara Lee is taking over"
No. If someone wants happiness, then because the suffering that can accompany premarital sex is worse than the suffering that can accompany other means of experiencing happiness, one should not have premarital sex. Perhaps there are other good reasons to choose premarital sex, but "sex makes me happy" isn't one of them.
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmNot sure what you mean by "human experience," but as guess, the way god rails against it one would think it's pretty fundamental. In fact, some sociologists recognize it as one of the three major drives in animals; the other two being sleeping and eating. So let's not be underrating it.
With few exceptions, it IS fundamental to the human experience.
Do you think that someone who never has sex is less than other humans? If so, then why? If not, then you are saying that sex is not fundamental to being a human.
Nope . Please read carefully. I said "it IS fundamental to the human experience."
I know you said that. I'm saying that if you answer my question with a "no," then you will be showing yourself to be logically inconsistent with what you just said. If sex is fundamental to the human experience, then it logically follows that one who never has sex will have an incomplete, a less-than human experience; they will not have been what it means to be fully human.
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmNot talking about sex outside marriage, but sex before it.
What I said applies to all sex outside of marriage, which includes premarital sex.
Movin' the goal posts a wee bit are we.
Not in the slightest. Let's say Joe is horrid at sports where you have to hit a ball with a bat. You ask Joe, "Are you good at baseball?" He accurately answers, "I'm not good at any sports where you have to use a bat to hit a ball."
What you just did here, analogically, is tell Joe, "Ah, but I asked about baseball, not all sports that use bats." Joe then says "but my answer covers baseball, which is what you were asking about." And then you say "Movin' the goal posts a wee bit are we?"
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmPerhaps not, but then people also get along just fine, sometimes even better, without Christianity. In fact, that's exactly what the statistics are showing: people are abandoning the Jesus junket more and more every day, and obviously finding better options.
What's that got to do with what we are talking about: whether premarital sex is good or not?
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:51 pmPremarital sex often works against many of these things, as well as bring other harms to us and those around us. Other activities can give us those positives without the negatives much better.
Like over eating, or drinking too much, or falling into the traps of mindless religious fervor, there are a lot of things we engage in that can be detrimental, but when weighed against the good they can bring, the good wins out, which is the case with premarital sex. There simply isn't that much wrong with it if practiced reasonably, and the fact is, sex, including the premarital kind, can be quite beneficial to a person's well being, which is good enough for me and the millions of others who enjoy it. Better than growing hair on the palms of your hands.
Why do you think the good of premarital sex wins out over the bad? What are the goods and how do they outweigh the bads? I've already shared some about the goods Filipovic points out, various bads and how we can get the goods without these bads. Getting goods without the bads is better than getting goods with the bads.