The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Do you think it is wrong or right to have sex before marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 58556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




Well i think it is wrong but let me hear you guys opinion?


Welcome to the site!
Before I start I'd like to say, since you are pro, you have to offer arguments. You can't just try and refute mine.
The BoP is on you to show why it's wrong, although to be fair I'll offer arguments

However what is immoral?

Moral: Act's that promote the greatest well-being.
Immoral: Act's that produce negative well-being.

If you don't agree with my definitions, please state why and what moral system you propose.

The ethical system that my following semantics come from.

P1 Acts that produce well-being are moral
P2 Sex marginally produces well-being
C. Sex is marginally moral

I assume you agree with P1 and C follows from P2, so the contention can only be P2.

Calculation: R = P * [(I * D ) + (F * E) - (X * E)] (Equation to determine moral acts)

R is results
I is intensity (scale of 1 to 10)
D is duration (scale of 1 to 10 for simplicity)
F is fecundity(1 to 10)
E is Extent ( 1 to 10 for simplicity)
X is Impurity

Values of sex:
I=1o(Sex is really pleasurable)
D=10 (the whole time sex last, it is pleasurable)
F= 6 (you having sex doesn't directly relate to the pleasures of others, but it may indirectly. Those hesitant about having sex will likely feel more comfortable prospect and thus more likely to have sex, thus indirectly producing pleasure.)
E=9( sex is a big factor for all people, save the asexual and celebate.)
X=1(derivation from I)

R=(10x10) + (6x9) -(1x9)
R Of sex= 145

Let's now calculate not having sex. It is easily derived from the values of X and I.

R= (0x10) + (4x9) - (9x9)= -45

R(s)> R(ns)
Sex is moral.

The only way to overturn this is to drastically change I and X, which I think even you agree with.

Waiting Until Marriage: I don't see how waiting until marriage effect's the pleasure of sex.
I'm a nihilist in some regards, I don't even see what's so great about marriage, I do recognize it's meaningful to a lot of people, however I don't see how that effects sex.
Explain to me how waiting effects sex.

No Good Reason To Wait: The only reasons asserted to wait are god and religion.
If there's not a personal god religion is false and meaningless, thus there is no good reason to wait.
1.There is no good reason to think any gods exist.
2.There is even less of a reason to think a personal god exists.
3. There's no good reason to wait.

If I show god to not exists or highly unlikely to exist then there is no good reason to wait.

1. There is no evidence for god, however there is anti-evidence.
-The problem of evil: This a huge problem for theism, many chalk it up to free will, but this is inadequate.
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.

Gratuitous evil possess an even bigger problem. Babies born with cancer is no one's free will, it naturally occurs. How can one reconcile this? NO

-Omnipresence and eternality/ infinite being:
It is also agreed that god is eternal and given god has omnipresence, it follows that god has been present everywhere forever. It is accepted that the universe has existed for thirteen point seven billion years, but given god is eternal, god existed prior to that. However it is also accepted that there was nothing before the universe, so it follows that god was present everywhere when nothing existed. It logically follows at that time god was nothing. This is often avoided by saying god exists outside of space time. For this to be the case, the word exist would have to be used in a way that is completely different from its usual definition. If one was to say god existed before time, it is the same as saying god existed for no unit of time, and in the general usage of the word exist, if something exists for no unit of time, it doesn't or didn't exist. In regards to space, the same problem arises; if god was to exist before space, it is the same as saying he existed in no space, and consequently if something exists no space, it does not actually exist. It can still exist as an abstract concept, such as numbers, but the definition of god is that god actually exists. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the concept of god.

Hell is a huge problem. Now I will concede that if my agnostic atheism has harmed anybody, or caused me to harm anybody and god thinks I need to be punished, then fine, but not forever. The point of a punishment is to bring about more well being for the individual later. What greater good can possibly come from someone being in hell forever? NONE. "God has all wisdom. He works everything out for the good of his people ", obviously not, because eternal suffering is to no one's greater good. What does this say about the character of individuals in heaven? They can manage to enjoy themselves, while countless people burn in agony. Let's add god's omniscience. An infinite amount of years ago god was aware of your birth, death and fate. Propose you end up in hell, god knew this for all eternity, yet he let you be born, only to suffer, and yet he is going to fault you, even though he knew. You know this is not characteristic of a loving god.

Conclusion: I can't think of any reason to wait besides religion/ god. If my opponent can't make god/ christianity reasonable, she doesn't have a reasonable reason to wait.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok Thanks but i still don`t understand some of that stuff


Since pro did not offer any arguments or refutations, I will just clarify some points.

Nature of debate: Pro must offer argument's, not just try and refute mine.BoP is on pro.

Morality: What ever promotes more well-being than poor well-being is moral.
Sex promotes well being, thus it is moral (substantiated by the Felicific calculus)

I don't see why it makes any difference if you wait until marriage to have sex(which I asked you to explain why it does).

The only reasons to wait are god and religion, but those are bad reasons because god and religion are nonsense.
Which I gave arguments for why they are nonsense.

You must offer arguments for why waiting makes a difference and why it's better to wait and you have to give a good reason for why.
Debate Round No. 2


always_rightgir forfeited this round.


Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3


always_rightgir forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited and offered no arguments. Vote con
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
You have misunderstood me. In regards to satisfaction, I was speaking not only sexually, but emotionally and financially. If you are not emotionally connected to someone, you are not going to stay with them.
I am not saying sex is the only mechanism to achieve happiness, but it is a mechanism.
On assigning values, you are right that it is subjective. It made the scale as such, because It's simple and if used infinity, R would equal infinity, which is confusing(because we have to get set theory and Cantor's theorem). They are subjective, however through rational thought, I think we end up in the same ball park. My conclusion would stand unless we drastically change values, which I don't think there's a rational base for. Also I think abortion averts many of the problems you raise. I don't think the bible is a god reason to believe. On that basis every holy book is a reason to believe. The bible has many problems and false information
Posted by thing789 2 years ago
a) I would define Morals to be something that causes the greatest well being for all, now and in the future.
b) For the formula to make sense, D has to be the duration of the activity, sex will not last longer than a day. Most activities in the human life would last more than a day, definitely more time than sex would take, so I would make the duration aspect about 2/3.
c) You cannot say the average experience of sex is the most pleasurable activity possible, as your 10 suggests, as there are ways of making sex more pleasurable.
d) Anyway, I would say that you cannot assign any values to these scales, as all these aspects are subjective and for things like time, the minimum value for this is 0 and the maximum value of this is infinity, therefore, to extend this to a scale of 0 to 10 can only be achieved if the thing you are talking about lasts for 0 or Infinity years.
e) A major reason to leave sex to after marriage, is that with sex, you can make children, even with a condom, which has a likelihood of 98% of breakages when applied properly (after 7 years, on average with 100 people, there will be 13 breakages), higher if not applied properly (highly likely when drunk).
If you have children when you are not married, you are 4 times more likely to split up and also if you have children when you are not able to support yourself or them, this might damage their life.
I would therefore say that you might make the conclusion that you should either only have sex when you would be able and prepared to look after children with your current partner, or be very careful when having sex, to not have children, or leave sex till after marriage, when you are confident that you will be able to support any children which might arise.
f) You say that there is no good reason to think that god exists - there is - the bible was written - it says that god exists, which has been around for ~2000 years, with real events that happened in peoples lifetime to verify.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
You seem to be of the opinion that the only way you can achieve happiness is by sex. Sorry but there are FAR more ways of gaining happiness. Activities and sports, going places and doing things with you current partner. Your attitude of "of course you are not going to stay with a partner who does not satisfy you" is extremely immature and is precisely the attitude that I am talking about. The fact that you praise Utilitarianism when it involves PEOPLE is also what I am talking about. Essentially Utilitarianism is using something to its maximum benefit. The operative word is "using".

There is two words that you have failed to use. One is "relationship" and the other is "commitment". If you actually think that a good marriage is based on sex then you are sorely mistaken. The goal of meeting others is not to see if you can get them into your bed but to try to build a relationship based on honesty and respect. A serious love relationship cannot last unless both make a commitment to it. That does not mean that you always get what you want because it is that that makes YOU happy.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
happiness is a part of well being so consequently acts that make one happy cause well being, thus the act is moral. Of course youre not going to stay with a partner who does not satisfy you. However satisfaction is not only sexual, it can also be emotional or financial. Once again, what is your alternative to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not hedonism.
Posted by Jelera 2 years ago
I think everyone puts too much thought into sex. It's sex. You can say no. You can say yes. It's a personal choice. You don't even have to have a partner and that's another choice.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
Essentially you are promoting hedonism.... the personal pleasure is the only good. Sorry but I totally opposed to that philosophy. Having sex without a love commitment.... and I mean COMMITMENT, not "I luv ya baby!" you definitely are using the other as a toy. The other exists for your satisfaction, and when you grow tired of the other you just get a new one. That is treating a person as an object. It abases the person as well as yourself. It makes no difference if the sex were consensual.... that is just two people using each other for their own personal satisfaction. And yes, it is getting used to treating people as an object that exists to satisfy you that is the cause of so many divorces.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
What ever promotes well being is good.
I would like to hear your alternative ethical system.
Who said you can't have sex for fun and still love your partner. A"toy" really?
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
Khalif your argument is akin to the argument "If it makes you feel good, do it". While you focus on how it makes one feel you ignore long term results. Premarital sex essentially reducing the other person to the status of an object that exists to satisfy you. Your partner becomes a toy that you simply throw away when you are finished with it. It becomes a learned behavior and is in fact the main reason why marriages fail. Once you start treating another person as a object it is a hard habit to break because for the most part we are unaware that we are doing it.

Check out this article:

All eight of these common reasons for divorce are related to the idea of belittling the status of the other person.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
Sorry. Majorly*.
When I said marginally, I meant to say majorly lol.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF