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

premarital sex shouldn't be considered wrong per the old testament for males

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 605 times Debate No: 79082
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




there's no evidence to say otherwise


Yes it does say that pre-marital sex is wrong for men in the old testament.Exodus 20:14. It is literally one of the ten commandments, "You must not commit adultery." Adultery in this sense means any form of sexual immorality. It also says in Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel." In this scripture it even implies punishment for premarital sex. Are you satisfied with that answer?
Debate Round No. 1


adultery is defined as cheating on one's spouse. even if it was just general sexual immorality, that doesn't indicate that premarital sex is sexually immoral. there's complete sections dedicated to sexual sins in the old testament and no mention of premarital sex.
that deuteronomy quote is about laying with another man's wife, not banning premarital sex.


Ok i see your point, but you needed to define pre-marital sex. I will define it as sex with someone who you are not married to. And for this we need to look deeper.
I will show how the new testament scriptures reveal the old testament. Malachi 3:6 ("I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.)

1. Matthew 5:28 (But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.) this is from Jesus a.k.a. God in flesh. This is relevant to prove what lust is. After all you won't willingly want to have pre-marital sex with someone if you don't lust after them.

2. John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) This scripture proves that Jesus Christ was around even before the old testament was written making his words in the new testament relevant to the old testament. If you don't believe that the new testament is relevant to the old i can refer you to Malachi 3:6 ("I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.)

3. In conclusion I have proved that the old testament does prove that any form of lust is sinful, pre-marital sex is lust, due to the fact that Jesus himself says so and also due to the fact that God never changes. If Jesus held this view that lust is always wrong, it means that it was wrong even in the old testament.

By the way, I don't understand why you are trying to make this argument in the first place. with all due respect this argument is completely in its entirety is useless. The bible says Romans 8:2 (because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.). The old testament laws no longer apply because Jesus died for our sins and gave us redemption. I am curious to know why you would want to argue this in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2


con had insufficient basis in the OTestament so he had to go to the new. that shows how weak his basis is. plus what if you are a Jew and dont accept Jesus' clarification or addition as one may see it? i'm just arguing from the old testament alone, so any other additions are outside the scope of this debate.


In that case there are no scriptures in the old testament that say anything specifically about premarital sex for men. But what i can tell you is that God never changes, and if God finds any form of lust unacceptable in the new testament, then it means that he also felt the same way about old testament as well. Besides, the old testament is not valid in today's times anyway. Even Jews don't follow the commands of the old. No religion in the modern day follow all the commands of the old testament. The purpose of a debate is to find truth in something so that we can apply it to our daily lives and to inform others. This debate in general doesn't do any of that. This entire debate is worthless because the old testament no longer applies to us.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
Matthew 5:28, does not addressed married or unmarried women. ANY person looking at ANY other person is committing adultery "in their heart".

John 1:1 does not mention Jesus, even aside from begging the question. Indeed John states "There was a man sent from God whose name was John." Jesus isn't mentioned until 1:29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him". If the OT stated the NT applies to itself (with some criteria for determining what is the "New Testaments"), that would be a valid argument. Also, Jesus states that he was not changing any laws (albeit immediately contradicting himself).
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
Honestly Pro really didn't have much of an argument, but the scriptures Con offered really didn't prove the bible says it's sinful.

First: He says there are no unmoral sexual activity allowed, but he has to prove that premartial sex for males is an immoral sex act.

Next the scripture says that if a man has sex with a married woman they both gotta die. Seems a little extreme, but anyways that's not very relevant to the debate topic.

It doesn't imply premarital sex is wrong because the reason this scripture finds the act done wrong is because the woman was married.

So I guess by the information provided premarital sex for males isn't wrong.

WOOOOHOOOOO more premarital sex for me
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
How about running it by hand?
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Yeah restrictions for males are rare in a book written by misogynistic bronze-age Mesopotamians.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 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 Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, bad grammar on both sides. The only sources are from the bible... Although that's a clear win for Con, I don't feel quoting the bible here really counts as a "source" - plus Pro didn't have anything to source. Both suck on spelling and grammar. In regards to arguments, Con failed to establish any point where it states it, however, I'd like to point out that this is a reversal of the burden of evidence. Pro failed to establish it is NOT mentioned anywhere. None-the-less, I give it to Pro (if for no other reason than Con accepted the burden).