Then they came for the Amish ...

[Ken]

Thus the main objection comes up.
Sex outside of marriage is sin and it’s a serious stretch to interpret it any other way.

That isn't my point at all. My point is that it is dishonest to argue that the only (or even primary) purpose of sex is reproduction. Or to claim that the only Biblical purpose for sex is reproduction. When most sex even in marriage is not for the purpose of reproduction but desire and pleasure. And most people obsess about it for reasons other than the desire to procreate. And, in fact, even the Bible is full of stories about sexual desire.

[Soloist]

Thus the main objection comes up.
Sex outside of marriage is sin and it’s a serious stretch to interpret it any other way.

That isn't my point at all. My point is that it is dishonest to argue that the only (or even primary) purpose of sex is reproduction. Or to claim that the only Biblical purpose for sex is reproduction. When most sex even in marriage is not for the purpose of reproduction but desire and pleasure. And most people obsess about it for reasons other than the desire to procreate. And, in fact, even the Bible is full of stories about sexual desire.

Then why did you say this?

So the real argument is that sex is NOT just for reproduction, but also about passion, sexual desire, and pleasure. But nevertheless it is still only reserved for married heterosexual couples and single people, gay people etc. are not allowed to enjoy or experience any of it. That is an argument Christians can and do make and wield scripture to make it. But it is a harder argument to make to single people who can't find spouses and gay people generally. And it comes across as sort of hypocritical, especially if you are also telling gay people they can't get married either. Or if you are making it to people who don't share your particular interpretation of Christianity.

[Ken]

Thus the main objection comes up.
Sex outside of marriage is sin and it’s a serious stretch to interpret it any other way.

That isn't my point at all. My point is that it is dishonest to argue that the only (or even primary) purpose of sex is reproduction. Or to claim that the only Biblical purpose for sex is reproduction. When most sex even in marriage is not for the purpose of reproduction but desire and pleasure. And most people obsess about it for reasons other than the desire to procreate. And, in fact, even the Bible is full of stories about sexual desire.

Then why did you say this?

So the real argument is that sex is NOT just for reproduction, but also about passion, sexual desire, and pleasure. But nevertheless it is still only reserved for married heterosexual couples and single people, gay people etc. are not allowed to enjoy or experience any of it. That is an argument Christians can and do make and wield scripture to make it. But it is a harder argument to make to single people who can't find spouses and gay people generally. And it comes across as sort of hypocritical, especially if you are also telling gay people they can't get married either. Or if you are making it to people who don't share your particular interpretation of Christianity.

I'm not arguing whether it is a sin or not. I'm just saying it is harder to make the argument to single people that they should avoid sex if you are honest and admit that sex is not just about biological reproduction but also about passion and pleasure. That is why we have people like Josh here who are dishonestly (in my opinion) trying to argue that sex is simply or mainly about reproduction "so nothing for single people to see here". No one actually buys that.

And it is harder still to make the argument to people who don't share that religious viewpoint. Which is what state laws against fornication were actually about.

[Robert]

That is why we have people like Josh here who are dishonestly (in my opinion) trying to argue that sex is simply or mainly about reproduction "so nothing for single people to see here".

Can you show where he says that. I want back and could not find it.

[Ken]

That is why we have people like Josh here who are dishonestly (in my opinion) trying to argue that sex is simply or mainly about reproduction "so nothing for single people to see here".

Can you show where he says that. I want back and could not find it.

Here you go. As I read this comment it is that birth control is bad and that God intends sex to be for reproduction. And that it is "Godless and immoral" to use things like birth control in order to have sex without reproducing.

Personally I don't think for most people that marriage is a bright line that prevents or allows them to have sex.

And this is, essentially, a consequence of widespread birth control.

God’s design and plan for man is that men and women should be married to each other before having children. And God’s design is also that sexual activity, generally speaking, results in having children.

It is a sign of a godless, immoral society when these obvious biological realities are ignored and attempted to be removed.

[Robert]

As I read this comment it is that birth control is bad and that God intends sex to be for reproduction. And that it is "Godless and immoral" to use things like birth control in order to have sex without reproducing.

You seem to be reading into this things that were not posted. I see neither of your claims in this post. It might be helpful to post more slowly and really read, with an open heart, what others are posting. Taking things in the most negative way really degrades discussion and it is not what Paul guides us to do. WE should try to see the best in others.

[temporal1]

God’s design and plan for man is that men and women should be married to each other before having children. And God’s design is also that sexual activity, generally speaking, results in having children.

Please feel free to explain how sexual activity does not, generally speaking, result in pregnancy and having children. This is extremely apparent from a simple reading of the Old Testament.

If this weren’t the case, there would not be widespread birth control.

Remove artificial birth control and for profit abortion, and watch how “sexual activity” becomes about procreation in a NY minute. It’s not that sex ALWAYS results in pregnancy, sometimes it tragically does not.

But traditional marriage was always the nearly universal construct to provide shelter and context in the event of conception.
Not the only purpose. Probably #1. Not confined to Christians.

Marriage is not a necessity for cohabitating. HIV AIDS pressed “monogamy” (or risk ugly death) - then they got greedy and wanted perks+benefits created for others, not caring about why those benefits originated. Godless covetousness cares not.

Unfortunately, the arguments against reflect how common it now is to think of sex as purely recreational, for everyone.
Pregnancy is optional, so many ways to prevent, or eliminate, after the fact.

God have mercy.

[steve-in-kville]

My opinion on the matter?

I personally like sex. There, problem solved.

[temporal1]

My opinion on the matter?
I personally like sex. There, problem solved.

yes, most people value sex and physical love. a high-value privilege that formerly people were willing to wait for, work and sacrifice to have. not just Christians!

wrt fornication laws, the state used to recognize the value of monogamy for providing shelter for resulting children, to levelize morality, to prevent the spread of disease. not just Christians!

so many contemporary western policies have proven destructive. laws now promote+fund fornication and carnal sin.
not for consenting adults, alone! no one even has to save their money to pay for the privilege of intimacy.
Uncle Sam’s got this!

People value what they are personally invested in. Count on it!

[steve-in-kville]

My opinion on the matter?
I personally like sex. There, problem solved.

yes, most people value sex and physical love.

Nothing in the past few pages made sense anymore, so I decided to add my two bucks.