Sex outside of marriage is an immoral and shameful sin; not many women want to live their entire lives without ever having sex.

says who?

Logic-101:

says who?

Go back to 1950 and ask just about anyone.

I mean, why else would schools refuse to provide beds for teenagers at the prom who want to step out and have sex, and then return to dancing? Why else would they refuse to allow boys and girls to share rooms when they go to out-of-town conventions (such as for Model U.N.)? Why else did we describe an adult who took the virginity of a young teenager as "contributing to the _delinquency_ of a minor"? (I mean, before we came down even harder by calling it rape? I mean, when you take a child to a ballgame we don't question the child's ability to give his/her informed consent.

Don't confuse respect for the privacy of adults with the legitimacy of their misuse of that privacy.

I just dis as you asked..They said your wrong..they just didnt talk about it...

I just did as you asked..They said your wrong..they just didnt talk about it...

Logic-101:

I just did as you asked..They said your wrong..they just didnt talk about it...

They told me they did it, but didn't talk about it because most people considered it immoral. And they certainly didn't say, "It's immoral now, because it's still 1950" or "It's immoral now, because times have not yet changed."

And you still haven't explained those other practices (or lack of them) I mentioned, which I can only attribute to the popular assumption that pre-marital (and non-marital) sex is immoral.

"popular assumption" need i say more? we all know what happens when you "assume" something, and whats right is not always popular, anymore than whats popular is not always right...

Logic-101:

"popular assumption" need i say more? we all know what happens when you "assume" something, and whats right is not always popular, anymore than whats popular is not always right...

Exactly. And I haven't heard any good reasons for change that, if told to the average adult in 1950 would have changed her opinion. The force for change in sexual morality has all been a matter of public relations and fashion. The burden of proof should be on those who want change.

morality is subjective, and, your talking in circles...

Logic-101:

morality is subjective, and, your talking in circles...

If morality is subjective, then there is no basis for criticizing people who oppose changing to permit gay marriage.

excuse me, do you know what "subjective" means? Your views on what is moral may differ from mine..THAT, is not subjective...btw, I say let anyone marry anyone, not my business, or concern..

<<<I mean, why else would schools refuse to provide beds for teenagers at the prom who want to step out and have sex, and then return to dancing? Why else would they refuse to allow boys and girls to share rooms when they go to out-of-town conventions (such as for Model U.N.)? Why else did we describe an adult who took the virginity of a young teenager as "contributing to the _delinquency_ of a minor"? (I mean, before we came down even harder by calling it rape? I mean, when you take a child to a ballgame we don't question the child's ability to give his/her informed consent.>>>

Why else would schools refuse to provide beds for teenagers at prom???

Why wait until prom???? Why not have a motel in highschools?

As for prom, the point is to go in for one last dance (and to some extent follow the law, morals, decency for a few more hours), then leave and go into the world. The true graduation.

Like away from the dance, and get your freak on, your drink on, maybe get into an fatal car crash, blow something up. Of course there is always fights where someone gets their face smashed in or the occasional drive by shooting.

When did 1950 become the Year of Moral Perfection by which all future years shall be judged? If I recall correctly, segregation was still very much in force then and the "average adult" agreed with it. Nor can I think of any argument that would have been likely to change their minds. But let's not stop with a mere 59 years. Why not 1850, when lots of people still thought slavery was a good idea? How about 1750, when monarchy was in vogue? Perhaps 50 AD, when crucifixion was the done thing?

Try putting forward an actual reason instead of appealing to the authority of hypothetical people in the past.