There’s no X. You don’t have to support people having casual sex. You don’t have to support people eating strawberry ice cream. You don’t have to support anything. But I find nothing wrong with it, I think it works out fine for most people who engage in it, and I am inclined to oppose any voices to the contrary.
Something does not avoid being immoral, or get considered acceptable, because some participants derive happiness from said thing. Ditto for whether being allowed to participate in said thing meets someone’s subjective idea of “freedom”.
That’s right. The survival of the human race is directly dependent on at least some people supporting, and participating in, procreation. That’s why we aren’t discussing the morality of procreation, because there is no one (other than those who would like to see an end to the human species) that doesn’t support it.
You are still yet to give an acceptable definition of ‘X’ from my previous post.
If there is no X, then there is no necessary reason to have casual sex.
So, while people continue to engage in an unneccessary act, that carries risk of negative consequences to the society the participants live in, it will never escape from being labeled “immoral” and unacceptable by some people.
As opposed to someone’s “subjective idea” of morality and acceptability ? Why, exactly, do the desires of the people who want to control what other people do in the bedroom deserve more consideration that those of the people who want to be left alone ?
Freedom and happiness are quite sufficient as far as I’m concerned.
It doesn’t have any special “negative consequences”. We aren’t talking about people building bombs in their basement; we are talking about consenting adults having sex. As for the “some people” who label it immoral; I think that THEY are immoral for doing so, and that them lecturing people about their bedroom behavior has “negative consequences”. Does that mean they should be forced to shut up ? Or does that sort of social control suddenly become wrong when it’s aimed in your direction ?
Sex before marriage is not a problem - it’s a choice.
Why would it be immoral to have sex? Church? Well, then God gave us the tools, he did not say, don’t use them.
There’s no necessary reason to ever drink alcohol/go bungee jumping/have cosmetic surgery/race cars/ride horses/play computer games either. Sure, lots of people want to do so, by and large it works out fine, life would be rather drab if we eliminated all pleasures, and so forth, but it’s possible to live without these, and they all carry risk of negative consequences (from alcohol poisoning down to carpal tunnel).
Well, it’s true that this kind of labelling happens. I don’t deny that. But I think it’s stupid. And, where labels turn into active attempts to suppress the freedom to safely engage in such activity, I think it’s evil (even if well-intentioned evil).
Everything Der Trihs says is right.
If there is no X, then in a couple of years all humans are gone, since we do not have kids anymore. Wouldn’t that be a blessing?
It is a necesseary act to consume, it is what drives people… Eat, Sleep and Sex
Everything else in between is filler or done to achieve one of the goals.
I agree that something does not become moral, or acceptable, due to someone’s subjective idea of what that means. Nor have I argued it. You, however, did argue in support of casual sex because it fell under your subjective view of freedom.
If what those two people are doing in that bedroom is risking damage to the society at large, then it deserves more consideration.
Ok then, “freedom and happiness” is why some people think casual sex is immoral, and hence might want to control it. According to you, this reasoning is quite sufficient, so I hope to not see you giving these opponents any grief.
I agree.
Unless you can demonstrate why these things pose a risk to the society of the participants, I’m scratching my head to see the relevance.
I don’t know what a risk to society is, but they’re definitely a risk to the participants, who are members of society…
Perhaps you’d be happier if the example was “drive cars on public roads”? This poses risks to both the participants and innocent bystanders, and, while most people enjoy the benefits it brings and consider them to outweigh the risks, it’s nonetheless certainly something it’s possible to have a society without.
I think you need to explain what makes pre-marital sex immoral, otherwise people are just guessing at your motives here. What do you see as the risk?
(PS. If it’s teenage pregnancy or single-parent families, how does that relate to accessibility and education about contraception or the high rates of divorce?)
Locked out of the edit window, but I should say, whatever “risk to society” means beyond “risk to individual people”, I don’t care about.
Marriage is an antiquated institution of theological predication (ie. based on fiction!)
To become ‘contractually bound’ to what you intend to be your one and only sexual partner 'TIL DEATH DO YOU PART!, without assaying your compatibility in said regard is not only imprudent, but utterly, face-palm inducingly stupid.
Sex isn’t everything in a relationship/marriage, but nor is money, attraction, honesty, commonality, love… the dynamic is a rich tapestry. If any one element of a relationship (including sex) is left neglected then London Bridge will come falling down. Oftentimes sooner than later.
To marry before you assess whether you’ll be sexually compatible is asking for a divorce. Give it a go and see! 
Indeed, driving is an analogy I like to use. All the various traffic safety measures don’t make driving 100% safe, and yet it’s explicitly condoned.
The fact that contraceptives are not 100% effective is not the real reason social conservatives support abstinence-only. They are just exploiting that in their attempt to preserve a taboo that is deeply imbedded in our culture, rather than anything reasoned. (And of course, you can combine more than one contraceptive method to further reduce the risks).
Casual sex risks damage to society? I don’t get it. How does getting a blow-job from a chick a party wrinkle the fabric of society?
How do you know if the suppression of casual sex to conform to society “rules” isn’t more damaging to society?
Do reiterate, for the benefit of my feebles neurons.
"Everybody does it AND THINK IT’S OK " is the sum total of your argument. You state that people no longer see it as bad. It’s you who said 95%.
Would a similar percentage convince you of things you think are wrong?
I din’t mention the word sin
Riddle me this, then: how is sex outside the Covenant of Marriage immoral?
I don’t support it in its current form. We are rapidly exceeding the carrying capacity of the land, which will result in, well, lots and lots of painful death. To overpopulate the world simply because you’re able to shag and pump out tons of babies is immoral because you’re creating people who are competing for resources that are insufficiently robust to be had by all.
Do you really believe that?