How is sexual immorality is done?
95946
Hey Nene\nYou don't 'do' sexual immorality, mate ! You happen to become 'sexually immoral', if you do not restrict your physical relationships to your legally wedded spouse, or trusting lover - and go and seek your pleasures from other, and others' partners !
632946
Immoral, but dont worry... you wont have any such chance ;)
907849
Of course it's ok, BUT can be dangerous in terms of STDs or even violence, so one has to be very careful and wise, to say the least, and then there is still a risk.  I see nothing morally wrong, but potentially physically dangerous.   So be very cautious and savvy, my friend.  :)
1042565
I am immoral and look down on no one, raised a catholic but rejected religion dince age five, proud indepent and free thinking person, not sure about the chicken egg, but the pill and oral sex are grounds for excommunication and only whores going to hell like myself do that, you may only have sex with your hudband and only for the purpose of reproduction for it to not be a sion, so there are alot of frikkin hypocrites who need to be excommunicated or find a new religion cause their god and pope do not approve and reject them,condoms are a sin since you must be trying to reproduce ,
620822
Good Afternoon!\n \nMorals are objective, and subjective.  That is, genocide is always wrong.  Rape?  Wrong.  This morally so.  But person's intention has to be taken into account.  Take for existence a man putting a knife into another man's heart, and the second man dies.  Was the first man action morally wrong?  If his intention was to kill or harm the other man, yes, his action is morally wrong.  It is never right to intend harm on another.  But maybe he was surgurn performing emergency surgery on a patient, and the patient died despite the doctor's attempt to keep him alive.  So his action is not wrong, becuase the intention to save a life.\n\nThat is there a many actions that are morally wrong.  When Deciding if the person is cupable fo a wrong act one most consider three things: 1 whether the person knows the act is wrong.  2 whether the person has considered what they are doing and 3 whether or not they choose to do it freely, with out coersion.  \n\nThere are morally wrong and right acts.  If someone steals from you something they do not need, you will know that is wrong, no matter where you are.  But the act must be veiwed with the intention included.  Maybe it was someone who did not the object was yours, and thinking it belonged to some one they knew, would borrow and return it.  However, in this case it is not stealing, and is simply a mistake. \n\nLastly, one can never choose a moral wrong intentionally for the sake of another good.  That is always wrong, no matter what the more distant intention is, becuase the immediate intention is wrong.\n\nPeace be with you.\n\nsorry about typographical errors, I'm in a hurry.
184686
Anything that immoral has to be fun : )
44149
Heb 13:4  Let marriage be kept honorable in every way, and the marriage bed undefiled. For God will judge those who commit sexual sins, especially those who commit adultery. \n\n1Co 6:18  Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1020518
i bet you already know the answer to this question. because you said "and how is it done." that implies that you know that foreplay can be done somehow. thats like asking 'what is an apple and how does it taste." doesnt that tell you that i know youre suppose to eat an apple? anyway, maybe you should just go ride your bike or something.
422901
First of all, the Constitution does NOT guarantee the "pursuit (or persuit) of happiness".  That expression appears in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  On substance, I doubt very much time and energy is spent in enforcing laws relating to prostitution in relation to other offenses. Finally, will you admit to any role for morality in criminal law?  I mean, take laws relating to age of consent -- why is consensual sex illegal for, say, 15 year olds but not 16 year olds?  In other words, how do you draw a line?
1169113
there is no right or wrong\n\nits your sexuality to enjoy \n\ndont seek or accept others judgment
452978
Problem is deeper. It's a Phylosofical problem (usually are not practic). Condom is not the problem, but behavior is.\n\nYou are not allowed to do sex before marriage. \nOnce married you are not allowed to have sex relations with other person. \nAnd MOST important of all: When you do sex, you do to have children and not to have pleasure. After 60's Pope told that having pleasure during the sex is not sin. ... since you are respecting all rules above. \n\nThese are main rules and as a Catholic, you cannot avoid it. If Catholic church allow to use condom, it means that they allow to do those wrong things too. \n\nIt's just a matter of Ethics and cause and consequence about rules. Religion cannot be flexible as moral is. Change this concept means change part of what has been teach during so long time .... and it has consequences.
177176
The key here is how you said immorality.  Not a little more open minded than you or less inhibited,  but immoral.  I don't like people that have no morals, they remind  me of goats in heat and about as attractive.  Be very careful, you said yourself its  a warning.Common sense isn't a lot of fun until you maybe realize it could have saved you a lifetime of heartache maybe!  Hope you meet someone with standards that you deserve.!
524487
Your sexual orentation is considered part of your morals.. And because morals are based more on Socail Norms. If you don't fit the Social Norms then you are not considered a moral person...\nNow in a court when a crime is commited much of the consideration between right and wrong is based off of your moral stands and beliefs... (A man poching is more likly to get the charges dropped if it is the middle of winter and his famly is starving... He committed a crime for a morally right reason.)\n\nSo if you are shown to be a nonmoral person then the impact of what you say has less meaning. Non moral people are considered as liers and such. Thats why a lawer will always try to discredit someone when they are on the stand so what they say doesn't have a very big impact on the case.
66636
In addition to the idea that there are universal morals (such as killing and stealing), just because morality is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist.\n\nAttitudes towards sex are a great example of moral relativity.  Even in our own country we've become very accepting of pre-marital sex. This doesn't mean we still don't have a set of morals about sex, it just means they've changed over time.  Morality shifts, but still exists.
648681
it is immoral but not illegal
919580
there is no proper way to do it, sex is to be done so it goes in the woman, after all the point is reproduction, wear a condom and fill that up.
1154592
I suppose it all depends on your own morality. Breaking the law does not necessarily make you an immoral person i.e. a father stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. Its a slippery slope, though, because sometimes the letter of the law overrides the intent. Some laws seem immoral to me. Any law that deprives people of personal liberty is immoral, be it looking at what books you read at the library or banning cigarette smoking in a bar.