Read your own posts..

Touche, LMAO . That's what I get when I drink and post .


AGG

Ok... but you just contradicted yourself again. This is not logically consistent. Do you not see how this worldview is inconsistent and self refuting? You outright reject the concept of universal morals, but then go onto say that all morals have value.

That does not make any sense.


But you just said you do not accept the concept of universal morals so this "moral" is not universal. It only applies to you. it wouldn't apply to others. Wouldn't you agree?

Were you PUI?? You bad boy!

AGG,

Do we need it install a "Blow N' Go" on your computer??

Please!!!! Keep talking! This is exactly the kind of input I was looking for from everyone! Loving the convo!

Yup... exactly why I'm moving slow on this. I once told a man that I wouldn't sleep with him because I have alot of little eyes watching my every move. I didn't stay with him (obviously)... He wanted us to nap together with my girls watching tv in the other room. I left.

Well stated, ML! I have to agree on this one.

While personally, I must agree with you, I cannot agree with you outside of myself. I cannot apply my own morality to others. Even God himself leaves morality up to each individual. Therefore, morality really is in the eye of the beholder. That is why God introduced grace. We needed it since our moral thermometers are off a bit sometimes

I agree too, in fact Dr Harley, seems to go further and says it INTERFERES with determining overall compatability. (not that I have read him say this anywhere, I am going by what other posters say)

If, as posters say here, he has told women on the radio that the emotions connected with sex are overclouding their judgement, it's more likely you will end up in an incompatible relationship, rather than a compatible one by having sex while still making your decision about a person.

I think we all know that sex quickly vanishes when a relationship starts to go pear-shaped, so if the overall compatibility is not right, then the good sex found initially, won't last.

Dr Harley says the way to determine optimal sexual compatibility is to choose someone with a similar energy level. The rest can be sorted out with POJA and EN meeting after marriage. Points other posters have made about possible hidden sexual problems like impotence can be addressed using radical honesty.

I've put this together using a lot of guesswork and third-hand info from the discussion here, but I hope it is the sort of MB rationale that the OP was looking for.

Dr Harley doesnt appear to have come out and lambasted premarital sex in the same way he has said living together before marriage is a disaster, but from the way he has mentioned problems with women being pressured to have sex, and not making smart decisions due to sex, it would appear that he considers posters with the OP's attitude to have a clear headed advantage in choosing a life partner. It will be a decision uncomplicated by sex.

Plus one of the five key tests for compatibility is having the same values. Since the OP is not just looking for pragamtaic arguments as to why it is a bad idea, she is offended on a deep level by the concept of premarital sex. So anyone who wants her to do that is likely to have very different values and they would butt heads for life if they were to pair up in marriage.

Yes, God does leave it up to each one of us to follow moral absolutes, but that does not mean each person gets to make up their own morality. Murder is immoral regardless of who agrees. Each person does not get to make up their own morals. They only get to decide what they choose to follow. Doesn't mean that wrong becomes right!

Depends on what your definition of murder is. Was Osama Bin Laden murdered? Was his killing immoral?

A lot of people in the Western world would say his killing was not immoral. But if you ask his family members and religious allies, I bet they would say he was murdered and it was immoral.

Who gets to define what is right and what is wrong?

KL.
You should really go meet the dotnetdave thread guy.
All right and wrong is defined by cultural and religious standards. It always has been.

Afraid so ...

And that is exactly my position too lamby.

As KL predicted, there will be no agreeing on this topic. Philosophers have argued about this for millennia, so it�s no surprise that we will not manage to resolve it here.

I�m a live and let live kinda guy, and that is my message here � live by the standards you believe in, but don�t try to impose your standards on others who may have different standards.

I don�t agree with the �absolute and universal morality� concept that is promoted by some here. What may seem as absolutely or universally moral or immoral here today, was and is considered totally the opposite in other times and other places. It would be pretty narrow minded to expect that our little zone of absolute �truth� applies to everyone else.

Some thoughts:

Is it moral to own slaves?

Is it moral to buy goods made by people working in slave-like conditions?

Is it moral to not allow women to vote?

Is it moral to not allow women to drive?

Is it moral to not allow a black kid to go to school with white kids?

Is it moral to drink?

Is it moral to speed?

Is prostitution moral?

I suspect that as we keep asking more and more such questions, we'll find out that every single one of us will have some different answers on what is moral and what is not - and that is my point. If things were black and white and �universal�, we would have never had any debates on what is moral and what is not, but that has never been the case and I suspect never will be.

Ok, I need to go tile a bathroom floor .

AGG

But whose morality must each person follow, if not their own? The Bible? The Koran? Do we not have countless subdivisions within each religion that offer different views of what is moral and what is not? How is that universal? And what about those poor suckers who do not subscribe to organized religion, are they by definition immoral?

AGG

as for sexual compatibility, There is a questionaire in SAA book that could be completed with complete honesty to determine if there were major issues

I am not religious and do not care to get into that discussion.

As to the ORIGINAL discussion, here is one reason why no sex before marriage ('buying') is a good idea (at least from my female perspective).

Dr. Harley suggests dating 30 people before picking your marriage partner. Many people date far less than that, and often cling to poor partners, especially women, due to emotional attachment resulting from sex.

My first boyfriend of 2 years (no sex due to his religion), was much easier to "get over" than a guy I had a crush on and slept with ONCE. That sounds ridiculous, but that is how many women (particularly younger ones looking for a first husband) think. We get so emotionally attached through sex.

A lot of people are horrified that Dr. Harley recommends having 30 sex partners (!!!) because they don't realize that one can date without sexual contact! And when you do, and you actually stick to that, you can see that it really is about finding a compatible partner and it's not such a bizarre thing.

alis, its not just women.
I had sex with my ex wife and married her (even though I secretly didnt want to) because she became pregnant.

So sex can have consequences for both men and women; and I dont think it benefits either sex prior to marriage