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

this verse doesn't mean only sex within marriage is permissible. it is merely stating.....

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: 8/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 60135
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




1 Corinthians 7 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

this verse doesn't mean only sex within marriage is permissible. it is merely stating a way to have moral sexual relations.

is it fair as a matter of logic to say 'if there are no sexual immoralities, you don't have to have sex with just your own wife'?


Hello, I shall begin my first argument with a simple math analogy and some anthropological data based on an article by F. Engels.

Given an even men/women distribution, {women in age to wed} and {men in age to wed} have same cardinal. As such the application that sends each man to a woman and each woman to a man is a bijection. And thus, saying "each man is to have his wife" AND "each woman is to have her husband" is equivalent to "each man is to have no other woman than his" and "each woman is to have but one man" (injectivity).

Therefore the verse implicitely states that any other way is immoral, given that every other is exclusive to the one proposed. However it says nothing against "trading" wives and husbands.

According to this introduction:
This state of affairs is a way to reliably establish fatherly descendence, at times where one would know a mother but no (or many) father. Given the chronological progression (take it for what it's worth, but Engels associates the Orestie to the time this was being implemented, so ancient Greece) and the christian moral inheritance, it is only reasonnable to assume "immoralities" means "polyandry" and "polygyny" in this verse.

Whether these immoralities exist or not to you; they did to the person who wrote this verse.

PS: It is not, "because" is an implication: "P (immoralities) => Q (one-on-one weddings)" <=> "non(Q) => non(P)" and NOT non(P)=>non(Q)! For example "I ate because I was hungry" does not mean "I was not hungry therefore I did not eat". I might just like cakes a lot.

Debate Round No. 1


he was merely stating a moral way to have sexual relations. not excluding other ways that would be moral.


Pirate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


rrrrr matey, i be a pirate. you be a pirate. pirates we be.


Pirate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. Arguments for the lack of response. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.