The morality of casual sex

[Sundiata]

I agree, that's why priests don't administer the sacrament of marriage- the couple does.

There are plenty of people who are committed but not married. Who aren't interested in being married for whatever reason. Saying that this invalidates their true love is insulting.

It's not an easy teaching.

[Neanderthaland]

There are plenty of people who are committed but not married. Who aren't interested in being married for whatever reason. Saying that this invalidates their true love is insulting.

It's not an easy teaching.

It's a false teaching.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not an easy teaching.

It's a false teaching.

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

[Neanderthaland]

It's a false teaching.

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

Well then he can say it.

[Purple Rats]

It's a false teaching.

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

Maybe in God's eyes, but not for his, as he has said, that nobody should enter to relationship without intention to marry.
IIRC he even mentioned about "wasting woman's time"- which is nonsense, imo.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

Maybe in God's eyes, but not for his, as he has said, that nobody should enter to relationship without intention to marry.
IIRC he even mentioned about "wasting woman's time"- which is nonsense, imo.

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

Well then he can say it.

It's important to keep in mind that for much of Christian history, marriage was a covenant that people entered into of their own accord, without much church involvement. People moved in together and that was considered good enough to be married. It wasn't even until the 10th century that priestly officiating became a big thing.

[Tarsonis]

Maybe in God's eyes, but not for his, as he has said, that nobody should enter to relationship without intention to marry.
IIRC he even mentioned about "wasting woman's time"- which is nonsense, imo.

Well then he can say it.

It's important to keep in mind that for much of Christian history, marriage was a covenant that people entered into of their own accord, without much church involvement. People moved in together and that was considered good enough to be married. It wasn't even until the 10th century that priestly officiating became a big thing.

Note, while weddings were not an overly widely done thing, marriage was still no less considered a sacrament.

[The Alma Mater]

It's a false teaching.

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

No, I think he is truly saying that any union not before God (his God, not that of another religion) is meaningless and devoid of true love.

[Tarsonis]

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

No, I think he is truly saying that any union not before God (his God, not that of another religion) is meaningless and devoid of true love.

He distinctly said to blave

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think what Sundiata is saying is that marriage and that kind of commitment are synonymous in practice in the eyes of God.

No, I think he is truly saying that any union not before God (his God, not that of another religion) is meaningless and devoid of true love.

What union is not before God, pray tell?

[Kernen]

No, I think he is truly saying that any union not before God (his God, not that of another religion) is meaningless and devoid of true love.

What union is not before God, pray tell?

I suppose that depends on what you mean about being before god. If god is omnipresent, all of them. If you take a more particular reason as evoking the witnessing by and approval of god as an essential part of the action, far fewer.

My own marriage was not before god in the latter sense whether you believe or not. But it would be hard to argue it was not in the former sense if you accept omnipresence as an essential part of god.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What union is not before God, pray tell?

I suppose that depends on what you mean about being before god. If god is omnipresent, all of them. If you take a more particular reason as evoking the witnessing by and approval of god as an essential part of the action, far fewer.

My own marriage was not before god in the latter sense whether you believe or not. But it would be hard to argue it was not in the former sense if you accept omnipresence as an essential part of god.

It would be far fewer in the latter sense, but I don't think it would be as exclusive as you take it to mean.

[Kernen]

I suppose that depends on what you mean about being before god. If god is omnipresent, all of them. If you take a more particular reason as evoking the witnessing by and approval of god as an essential part of the action, far fewer.

My own marriage was not before god in the latter sense whether you believe or not. But it would be hard to argue it was not in the former sense if you accept omnipresence as an essential part of god.

It would be far fewer in the latter sense, but I don't think it would be as exclusive as you take it to mean.

That's why I broke it down. It depends on what precisely one intends to mean.

[The Alma Mater]

No, I think he is truly saying that any union not before God (his God, not that of another religion) is meaningless and devoid of true love.

What union is not before God, pray tell?

A union in which God is not involved as far as the participants are concerned. For instance because they see it as something between themselves or because they involve another deity.

[Nemohsis]

I think it's interesting that I once saw a study which says sex with the same person multiple times- actually, even one time!- will change the chemical composition of your brain so you will be more inclined to be biased towards them ( ). That kinda defeats the purpose of casual sex, hm? Gotta social distance the feels!

[Cekoviu]

I think it's interesting that I once saw a study which says sex with the same person multiple times- actually, even one time!- will change the chemical composition of your brain so you will be more inclined to be biased towards them ( ). That kinda defeats the purpose of casual sex, hm? Gotta social distance the feels!

mind telling us which study that was?

[United Muscovite Nations]

What union is not before God, pray tell?

A union in which God is not involved as far as the participants are concerned. For instance because they see it as something between themselves or because they involve another deity.

That doesn't necessarily mean that God does not approve of the union.

[Rojava Free State]

I think it's interesting that I once saw a study which says sex with the same person multiple times- actually, even one time!- will change the chemical composition of your brain so you will be more inclined to be biased towards them ( ). That kinda defeats the purpose of casual sex, hm? Gotta social distance the feels!

I believe in mastering my feelings through strict meditation and mental fortitude.

I will admit that when you have sex with a woman, it can cause a connection to form. That's why you have to be strong, because otherwise you'll make a fool of yourself.

[Senkaku]

I think it's interesting that I once saw a study which says sex with the same person multiple times- actually, even one time!- will change the chemical composition of your brain so you will be more inclined to be biased towards them ( ). That kinda defeats the purpose of casual sex, hm? Gotta social distance the feels!

I believe in mastering my feelings through strict meditation and mental fortitude.

I will admit that when you have sex with a woman, it can cause a connection to form. That's why you have to be strong, because otherwise you'll make a fool of yourself.

the toxic masculinity jokes are writing themselves at this point, my guy

[Tarsonis]

I believe in mastering my feelings through strict meditation and mental fortitude.

I will admit that when you have sex with a woman, it can cause a connection to form. That's why you have to be strong, because otherwise you'll make a fool of yourself.

the toxic masculinity jokes are writing themselves at this point, my guy

For real.

[Ayytaly]

Casual sex is more of a toxic feminism attribute than it is for its male counterpart. It's a relic of our primal past that the sex revolution revived, and has bred a generation of anti-intellectuals.

[Cekoviu]

Casual sex is more of a toxic feminism attribute than it is for its male counterpart. It's a relic of our primal past that the sex revolution revived, and has bred a generation of anti-intellectuals.

what?

[Rojava Free State]

Casual sex is more of a toxic feminism attribute than it is for its male counterpart. It's a relic of our primal past that the sex revolution revived, and has bred a generation of anti-intellectuals.

Ah, so telling people what they can do with their own body is big brained then.

[Nemohsis]

A union in which God is not involved as far as the participants are concerned. For instance because they see it as something between themselves or because they involve another deity.

That doesn't necessarily mean that God does not approve of the union.

True. I think there's the example of God being like 'don't marry this person' but it was done anyway

[Nemohsis]

Casual sex is more of a toxic feminism attribute than it is for its male counterpart. It's a relic of our primal past that the sex revolution revived, and has bred a generation of anti-intellectuals.

I do believe that when most ppl talk about sex it involves a guy

just look at teenage guy talk...

But I do agree the emphasis on sex seems pretty ridiculous and kinda regressive almost ngl