Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

" Pro must prove that no God exists which condemns such an act as punishable with a negative consequence." The bible admonishes people to be sexually pure and to abstain from sexual immorality, which some translations define as premarital sex, but the consequences are not described for such actions. I think the only consequence that they really had knowledge of back then was the possibility of pregnancy and that is not a guarantee. In today's world, with the help of contraception, this consequence is easily avoided and the social stigma attached to premarital sex is not so prevalent today either, so both possible consequences for premarital sex in the Bible are not consequences experienced today (except for occasionally). Since I'm arguing that permarital sex can be done without any real consequences, this is a moot argument. There is one other place that talks about a situation of premarital sex. Exodus 22:16-17 ESV / 2 helpful votes "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. In this text, the consequence is once again, possible pregnancy and also the "ruining" of a virgin, considered as a loss of goods for the father of the virgin. Clearly, women are no longer property, so there is no "loss of value" when a woman loses her virginity. In Bible times, the consequence for deflowering a virgin was that the male was to marry her, save her from "disgrace" and pay her father for her hand in marriage. No longer do we impose such regulations on men who deflower women. Women are no longer disgraced by such an act and now have full choice about whether they want to continue a relationship with their sexual partner of choice or not. So once again, the consequences described in the Bible no longer apply today so that Bible is not a good judge of whether or not permarital sex has and must always have negative consequences. "2) Using the above two definitions the resolution argues that one could engage in premarital sec without risk, this obviously impossible as there will always be risks no matter how many precautions are taken as risks can never be eliminated. [3,4,5]" My argument does not address whether or not there is risk. I would agree though and say that there is risk, because almost anything we do (if not everything) has some sort of risk. But, this was not my argument. My argument was that premarital sex (despite risk) does not result in any negative consequences every time. My thinking is that if premarital sex is intentional, between consenting adults and with the necessary precautions, will have much less chances of negative consequences, if not being able to avoid any. If it was in a committed and loving relationship, then even less consequences are usually experienced. I realize my argument is not very flexible and actually a little facetious, but I have no need to deny risk or to deny the existence of God in order to show that premarital sex can be engaged in without negative consequences.