Premarital Sex is not a Sin

I feel like my opponent is making my case for me and let me show why. He quotes, "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute. " It is obvious my opponent does not understand what marriage is and specifically defines it moderately. Marriage 1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union . http://www.merriam-webster.com... We see that marriage is an intimate union. According to the description by my opponent we have the description by Paul to marry. We see Paul telling them to have their own husband and wife, how much more clearer could you have it. Why would Paul endorse marriage and suggest it instead of sexual relationships without marriage? It is clear that when a man chooses a woman to lay with then it is right to take her as his wife, but why? Because it is considered fornication, which is clearly a sin. My opponent bolded some quotes and wanted me to address them, so, I will. The first part I have no disagreement in them. Matter of fact it supports my case, as so, "each man should have his own wife", "have marital relations with", "have sexual relations with", all support me and the last one puts a bullet in my opponents case. The first two clearly show marriage in wife, martial, and the third links sexual relations with marriage itself. I'm left to not really know what point it is my opponent is trying to make because it does not help him. "the Bible clearly teaches that pre-marital sex is not a sin. There was no punishment upon either of them. The man was forced to pay her bridal price for otherwise her family could never recover the lost money. The marriage was obligatory upon the man if the parents approved it. " There was clearly a punishment and requirement placed on the male. Women having no choice to pick and choose men like today had no say. It is clear in the Bible that women had shame placed upon them if not married. Men having sex with a woman was required to take her in marriage. My opponent reads the words but simply ignores it or chooses to make a lite case on its texture. God is establishing that men and women should be married. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. " Exodus 22:16 "16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. " First, in Exodus we see that the text does not include virgin. Second, we should define maid and damsel. Maid 1. a. An unmarried girl or woman. b. A virgin. 2. A woman servant. 3. A housemaid or chambermaid. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Damsel 1. A young woman or girl; a maiden. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... We can assume that most women got married and did not wait for too long but some may have. Women married young then and we can see that a damsel has no link to a virgin. These two verses above is infact addressing virgins and non-virgins. We can also consider that a unmarried woman would still have these titles even when exceeding marrying age. My opponent must show that all non-married women are not damsel's and maid's. From these verses we see a requirement is placed on the man for lying with a woman. If non-marital sex was not sinful then why would God want men and women to marry and not commit adultery? "There is no passage that speaks against males, whether single or married, having sex with an unattached female. " My opponent ignores the requirements in Exodus and 1 Corinthians. He even further suggest that adultery is not a sin also, which makes me question his whole understanding of the Bible. My opponents links do not work but that is not surprising, he wants us to be deaf, dumb and blind. My opponent has run out of material because instead of addressing the rest of my passages in round 1, he ignores them completely and repeats his argument again. Porneiva- illicit sexual intercourse; adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, metaph. the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols. . http://www.biblestudytools.com...... My opponent has not refuted this link or source of Porneiva, validating my position. My opponent then goes on with the same thing and showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage. I would like to address some more passages from my round 1. Genesis 2:24-25 "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. " Here we see from the very beginning of the Bible that God has commanded that a man leave his mother and cleave unto his wife. God has given the language of husband and wife. God has made one male and one female. God has commanded that this ritual shall be continued. God has shown that marriage was His intention, as sex, and children. Therefore showing that sex outside of this relationship set forth by God is unnatural and deemed unintended, hence sinful. Corinthians 6:9,10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. " What does my opponent think this passage is referring? It is not fully about adulterers, or idolaters, or sodomites, or homosexuals but also fornicators. I have established that fornicators are people outside of marriage and in this passage we see that the other definitions of fornication is also included. This leaves pre-marital sex as the obvious target here. My opponent is stumbling fast. He is repeating his argument and dodging other verses. He told us a lie last round and said he would address all my verses and didn't. He is just doing verbal gymnastics, trying to sound convincing but actually he is confusing. He is making my argument for me. I await my opponents next round.