she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.

“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)

A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.

Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.

Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)

This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.

This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.

Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.

Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.

Others may find them stifling.

You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.

If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.