I do subscribe to this.
This means I don’t accept the traditional requirement of sexual purity that Christians (and Catholics) often want. The way I see it is, harm reduction. Your body is going to make you do it, and so you do it in ways that harms no one.
This goes with same sex relationship. There is no harm, only love, I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
People getting too focused on what the law says is missing the point.
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-20 NIV
“It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.”
1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 NIV
“So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the wilderness, where your ancestors tested and tried me, though for forty years they saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation; I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.’ So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ” See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.”
Hebrews 3:7-14 NIV
I like to hear some rational explanation why traditional standard of purity is so important. Otherwise I don’t accept that anything outside of that is “evil”. If two consenting adults want to do what they want, no unwanted pregnancies result, what is wrong with that? If there are no adultery involved (because neither of you are committed to anyone)?
Don’t Christians believe that the moral criteria stated in the Bible are “objective” and therefore trump their own ideas of what’s right and wrong? How can a Christian look at what the New Testament (the part of the Bible Christians can’t pick and choose from) and say they don’t accept what it plainly says and still call themselves believers? 
I’m not a Christian, but I assume that these strict sexual purity standards were deemed so important because the writers of the New Testament were astute enough to have predicted something along the lines of the societal decay that we’re starting to see today, with rocketing divorce rates and children growing up in single-parent families, etc. I’m pretty liberal and somewhat left wing, but I’m starting to see just from what’s going on around me that the writers of these ancient holy texts were rather prescient on these points, and encouraging traditional sexual purity is more crucial in maintaining a cohesive and healthy society than I ever realised.
I’m not saying you have to agree with me and I don’t want to separate this discussion into one about sexual morality, but I’m just making the point that there’s logic - perhaps even wisdom - behind these laws and prohibitions.
Why does that part have to be rational when so many other parts aren’t? All you’re doing there is picking and choosing which bits to believe and follow based on what you want to do. 
An extension of that, which you don’t want to do, would be making the rational decision to reject the whole thing and try to think critically on all topics.
Perhaps back in those days when women were mere properties… But today isn’t this way. Unless the writers of the new testament thinks women should be property for the good of all.
And it’s not like there’s no social decay back then.
This is, presumably, exactly why the NT authors put forth such strict sexual purity laws.
As to the point of women being treated like property back then, I don’t think any of the verses we’re discussing have that implication. You’re saying you don’t find the sexual morality of the NT logical and don’t accept what it plainly says. What the NT says about the status of women is a different issue and one, I think, is more difficult to reconcile in modern society.
In the OT, if a woman is raped, she must marry the rapist, if he pays the father for the damage.
Also homosexuality results in no damage, harm, or social decay.
Also countries with the most extreme sexual purity laws, also tends to treat women like properties, like the middle east.
Most Christians don’t believe this. The central theme running through much of Jesus’s teaching - and expounded upon by Paul - is that we live by ‘grace’, not by laws. The TL;DR version is that one must develop a well-functioning conscience. This is sometimes boiled down to “what would Jesus do?”, but I think that’s a rather trite, formulaic expression of what Christianity is. IMO this is best expressed in Revelation:
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
Just as you can ‘invite in’ demons and they will rule over your life, you can invite in Jesus with rather more positive results. You won’t need to ask ‘What would Jesus do?’ because it becomes intuitive. It’s incredibly hard to explain and sounds a lot like woo-woo if you try.
Paul (the putative writer of ‘Hebrews’ - there’s some debate, as usual) was a bit of a strange character and AFAIK even Catholics (to whom he is a Saint) wouldn’t take his word as “gospel”. OTOH Jesus does make some pretty unambiguous statements about marriage and the like, but he qualifies it with this: “The one who is able to do this, let him do it”. The implication (IMO) is that it’s an ideal for Christians to aspire to; a life choice that is likely to bring you fulfilment. It’s not exactly a ‘rule’ to be slavishly followed even when it leads to dysfunctional societies (see, for example, Afghanistan and other Muslim nations, which take ‘purity’ to aggressive extremes). No doubt you’re familiar with St. Augustine’s struggles: “Oh Lord, make me pure - but not yet!”
Quite. 
I believe there’s a correlation with countries with strict laws prohibiting pornography and treating women like properties.
Good reasons not to follow like a sheep and rather passively observe and take the good parts and expell the bad ones. Religions work well for those that are broken or without a direction. Once you gain aither, they become less important and can be used as examples to either take from or deny.
That’s true , as most people turn to God or pray as a last resort. Therefore Christians should give thanks for all the good things too. Count our blessings , and not just pray in the tough times , but the good times too. Pray for others as well. Whether or not someone actually believes praying for others leads to a scientifically good measurable effect, it’s still a positive and kind thing to do. A positive energy. Wishing good things for others. Praying for others not always oneself.
Absolutely. Wishing, hoping etc for everyone to have more positive lives is fantastic. When people are trained from birth that praying to their centralized control center is the way, things get sticky fast and loads of sad thungs tend to happen. Much better not to sweat the control mechanisms and just note the good parts of them and live an ethical life without the fine print and ultimatum Far healthier as people like the OP won’t constantly question themselves when they are doing nothing ethically wrong but might go against the control panels’ central planning department. If we cna take the good parts and dispose of religion, it would be a net positive. Of relevance is the homo sexual thing. Some religions are cool, some are extreme. Take the good, dump the executive branch bent on controlling our basic rights
Both Jesus and Paul were apocalyptic Jews; they thought the end times were coming. Paul thought that Jesus was coming within his lifetime, so he thought people should abstain from sex- eunuchs for the sake of the coming Kingdom, not because he was anti-sex, but because he thought people should concentrate on the coming apocalypse as the important thing.
Thus when he said it was better to marry than to burn, he didn’t mean burn in Hell, he meant burn with lust- you’re better off being like Paul, but if you can’t stand it, get married and get on with it, so you can concentrate on what’s important.
Of course Paul died, Jesus did not come again, and the whole thing got modified to having children so at least they’ll be there at the Second Coming.
No more coming please.
Just use another word ok?
What about the second coming?
Another additional branch of Popeyes on the way perhaps?
second coming takes longer, of course.
Even the postman comes twice … or something.
I’m pretty sure sexual purity had nothing to do with the second coming being very soon, as people were demanding sexual purity in OT times already, and they sure as hell wasn’t waiting for the second coming.
I think the demand for sexual purity is just there to repress women. Basically if women are properties then there needs to be a way to know who’s children she is bearing, thus the demand for sexual purity.
Maybe its also a preference? Nothing wrong with that. And there are reasons for that.
Of course, no one wants to care for and raise other people’s children while thinking they are their own biological children. That would be messed up.