Do you think it is wrong or right to have sex before marriage

Welcome to the site!Before I start I'd like to say, since you are pro, you have to offer arguments. You can't just try and refute mine.The BoP is on you to show why it's wrong, although to be fair I'll offer argumentsSemantics:Wrong:ImmoralHowever what is immoral?Moral: Act's that promote the greatest well-being.Immoral: Act's that produce negative well-being.If you don't agree with my definitions, please state why and what moral system you propose.Utilitarianism: The ethical system that my following semantics come from.Syllogism:P1 Acts that produce well-being are moralP2 Sex marginally produces well-beingC. Sex is marginally moralI assume you agree with P1 and C follows from P2, so the contention can only be P2.Calculation: R = P * [(I * D ) + (F * E) - (X * E)] (Equation to determine moral acts)R is resultsI is intensity (scale of 1 to 10)D is duration (scale of 1 to 10 for simplicity)F is fecundity(1 to 10)E is Extent ( 1 to 10 for simplicity)X is ImpurityValues of sex:I=1o(Sex is really pleasurable)D=10 (the whole time sex last, it is pleasurable)F= 6 (you having sex doesn't directly relate to the pleasures of others, but it may indirectly. Those hesitant about having sex will likely feel more comfortable prospect and thus more likely to have sex, thus indirectly producing pleasure.)E=9( sex is a big factor for all people, save the asexual and celebate.)X=1(derivation from I)R=(10x10) + (6x9) -(1x9)R=145R Of sex= 145Let's now calculate not having sex. It is easily derived from the values of X and I.R= (0x10) + (4x9) - (9x9)= -45R(s)> R(ns)Sex is moral.The only way to overturn this is to drastically change I and X, which I think even you agree with.Waiting Until Marriage: I don't see how waiting until marriage effect's the pleasure of sex.I'm a nihilist in some regards, I don't even see what's so great about marriage, I do recognize it's meaningful to a lot of people, however I don't see how that effects sex.Explain to me how waiting effects sex.No Good Reason To Wait: The only reasons asserted to wait are god and religion.If there's not a personal god religion is false and meaningless, thus there is no good reason to wait.1.There is no good reason to think any gods exist.2.There is even less of a reason to think a personal god exists.3. There's no good reason to wait.If I show god to not exists or highly unlikely to exist then there is no good reason to wait.God: 1. There is no evidence for god, however there is anti-evidence.-The problem of evil: This a huge problem for theism, many chalk it up to free will, but this is inadequate.Logic:God exists.God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.Evil exists (logical contradiction).Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.Gratuitous evil possess an even bigger problem. Babies born with cancer is no one's free will, it naturally occurs. How can one reconcile this? NO-Omnipresence and eternality/ infinite being:It is also agreed that god is eternal and given god has omnipresence, it follows that god has been present everywhere forever. It is accepted that the universe has existed for thirteen point seven billion years, but given god is eternal, god existed prior to that. However it is also accepted that there was nothing before the universe, so it follows that god was present everywhere when nothing existed. It logically follows at that time god was nothing. This is often avoided by saying god exists outside of space time. For this to be the case, the word exist would have to be used in a way that is completely different from its usual definition. If one was to say god existed before time, it is the same as saying god existed for no unit of time, and in the general usage of the word exist, if something exists for no unit of time, it doesn't or didn't exist. In regards to space, the same problem arises; if god was to exist before space, it is the same as saying he existed in no space, and consequently if something exists no space, it does not actually exist. It can still exist as an abstract concept, such as numbers, but the definition of god is that god actually exists. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the concept of god.Hell is a huge problem. Now I will concede that if my agnostic atheism has harmed anybody, or caused me to harm anybody and god thinks I need to be punished, then fine, but not forever. The point of a punishment is to bring about more well being for the individual later. What greater good can possibly come from someone being in hell forever? NONE. "God has all wisdom. He works everything out for the good of his people ", obviously not, because eternal suffering is to no one's greater good. What does this say about the character of individuals in heaven? They can manage to enjoy themselves, while countless people burn in agony. Let's add god's omniscience. An infinite amount of years ago god was aware of your birth, death and fate. Propose you end up in hell, god knew this for all eternity, yet he let you be born, only to suffer, and yet he is going to fault you, even though he knew. You know this is not characteristic of a loving god.Conclusion: I can't think of any reason to wait besides religion/ god. If my opponent can't make god/ christianity reasonable, she doesn't have a reasonable reason to wait.http://philosophy.lander.edu...http://plato.stanford.edu... http://plato.stanford.edu...