morals...........

[Nadril]

I agree that we are not going to change each other's views. That's not my goal. I saw a bunch of people blasting someone for staying a virgin before marriage which I think is ridiculous on a number of levels.

 

 

 

I just wanted to present a rational view for why people support chastity prior to marriage so that people don't think everybody who believes in chastity before marriage is a closed minded fundamentalist who has never seen the real world and questioned the way things are.

 

 

 

I agree that blasting someones views isn't right, was just presenting my side of it :).

[dwarfdude3]

wow, someone finally realizes that its not good to go with the crowd, and what happens? Everyone just picks his statements apart and criticizes him.

[Flametrooper]

wow, someone finally realizes that its not good to go with the crowd, and what happens? Everyone just picks his statements apart and criticizes him.

 

I don't see why people are so "don't go with the crowd", myself. I go with a crowd and I have fun and I get into trouble, but not terrible bad trouble. Just the kind of trouble that gives a good laugh and that you can look back on with a smile when you're older.

[hellbellz]

I don't see how losing your virginity to your wife/husband is a big deal. Isn't it about the times your having/going to have? Who cares if it's their first time having sex, as long as you're having sex. 8-)

[Make7upu101]

I don't see how losing your virginity to your wife/husband is a big deal. Isn't it about the times your having/going to have? Who cares if it's their first time having sex, as long as you're having sex. 8-)

 

 

 

Although the point of marriage is not just to "finally be able to do it," it can be a pretty special and emotional time for people that have waited with the idea of sharing the special time with the one they will be spending the rest of their lives with.

[Zealot]

All sin has the same out come. The wages of sin is death.

 

 

 

No. Death is the logical consequence of life.

 

 

 

[

But through forgiveness we can have eternal life

 

 

 

I find this utter bull droppings.

 

 

 

Anyway. Wait till your hormones begin racing through your body. The the virginity story all of a sudden becomes A LOT harder (no pun intended). If you should marry before having sex, well that only leads to more divorces.

 

 

 

And NOT all sins are equal. There might even be a bible/koran/religous book reference of that, but I don't know any of them by heart.

 

 

 

You need to lossen up a bit. If you want. I won't judge you for it if you don't. But it's just a LOT easier!

 

 

 

Why is death the logical consiquence of life? Is it just because you have never observed a case where life did not end in death? If so, then your evidence isn't necessarilly good depending on the nature of existance and the true nature of reality. Just because science has no way of looking beyond the nature that we inhabit does not necessarilly mean that what is beyond it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

A lot of the rest of what you say is quite accurate. For instance, yes, when hormones begin to flow remaining faithful will become much, much more difficult. I am engagued to be married next June. I am going to be 23 in a few days. I did not lose my virginity until about 9 months ago. I wish that I had the strength of character to wait until my wedding night, but the truth of the matter is that the flesh is far more powerful then evangelical Christians like to admit. Paul was very much correct when he said to flee from sexual temptation. So long as I did that I was ok, but the moment that I thought that I was strong enough (I've been engagued for almost 3 years now so I thought I was justified in that belief) I fell flat on my face.

 

 

 

Also, I would like to clarify that what Christians mean by eternal life is not what you are thinking by eternal life. For a Christian, life is entailed by having a relationship with one's Creator. Death is entailed by not having a relationship with the Source of Life. What you probably think about by eternal life is existing and being self-aware in some sense forever. I hate to say it but if any religion in the world other then Atheism or Satanism is true (some sects of Buddhism too I suppose) then that is a given. The only question to be answered is how are you going to spend forever? If it is the case that the God of the Bible is the God who is real then it is also the case that all you need to do to spend forever with HIM is accept HIS gift of forgiveness. If it is not the case that the God of the Bible is the God who is real, then... well, everybody else has some form of escape clause so I'm not too worried. And it won't matter to me if I just stop existing so whatever... Actually that is too cynical. I believe the Bible because it makes the best sense. I can from that possition be pragmatic about what if I am wrong, but I want it to be clear that I don't believe because it is a good way to hedge my bets.

 

 

 

I would also like to clarify the possition of the majority of Christian theologans regarding the hierarchy of sin. There are some sins that are in a sense worse then other sins. These are the ones which cast God in a bad light. For example, since I am a Christian, and believed to be a relatively mature Christian, the fact that I did not have the strength of character to wait to have a sexual relationship until I was married, that would be viewed by a theologan as a worse sin then if somebody who does not believe in the God of the Bible were to do the same thing. A crusaider who spreads death in the name of the God of life is guilty of a greater sin then a Muslim suicide bomber who does not follow the God of life. However, the Muslim is guilty of a greater sin then one who rejects God entirely and acts violently such as the VT shooter.

 

 

 

I don't know that I believe that to be the case entirely. Paul said that the wages of sin is death. He didn't isolate specific sins and say "these ones give you death but this one over here will only earn you a flogging." Regardless of the specifics, the general consiquence is the same. However, in some of the apocolyptic writings it is implied that there is a gradiation of punishment based on something about the nature of the acts committed by various people. So all I can say is meh. At least I know that the One to whom I belong is faithful and promised to rescue me. So I don't have to fully understand how God deals with sin.

 

 

 

Anyway, back to the case at hand. I think that it is good to have a clear set of moral principles to live by. And I think that every rational human being on the planet will agree with me from a purely pragmatic point of view. If I don't want somebody to kill me for no reason then I shouldn't kill somebody else for no reason. The only real question is where do you draw the line and on what grounds to you draw the line there?

 

 

 

I draw the line where I do because I believe that is as close as possible to a "perfect" moral code. (by that I mean one which can not be improved upon) Aristotle said that for every virtue there are to vices. There is the vice of inadaquecy which would be cowardice to the virtue of courage. There is also the vice of surplus which is in this case foolhardiness. The way that Aristotle would want to draw the line is based on the outcome. The end which courage seeks to achieve is acting well in a dangerous situation. If one is too brave and gets killed because of it (ie. running into a collapsing building to save somebody) then they did not act well. On the other hand if the person knows that there is a good chance that they have a few minutes to help others to safety but they do not act because of fear then they did not act well.

 

 

 

The end which a moral code seeks to achieve is creating a cohesive and just society. Obviously we do not have that and never have had that in the history of the world. However we have had hints at what it takes to achieve it. Go too far and instead of a society you have slavery and aristocracy. Don't go far enough and you end up with disorder and injustice. When I read Acts what I see is that to the extent that the moral code found in the Bible is implimented in a non-governmental way, the society affected is moved toward coherence and justice. Based on that I believe that were it possible to achieve a perfect application it would be possible to achieve the purpose of a moral code, making the moral code of the Bible a good moral code.

 

 

 

Based on this, I believe that it is good to follow this moral code even when it is not what your friends are doing or what you want to do. And I am both tired and booring you so I am going to bed now.

[Tigra00]

I hope that every guy here arguing FOR premarital sex realizes that EVERY girl completely regrets having sex with you, and if she doesn't...Well, then...We know what kind of girl she is, don't we? ;)

 

 

 

There's one thing I find common in all girls - They regret every single guy they've ever had sex with, even if it was good or bad. Why? Because it was meaningless. Women are all about emotional, not physical. Men, who are very physical and not as emotional, cannot impress them with their BS. It'll be fine for the moment, but she'll wish it never happened later. If a girl has had sex once, twice...100 times, and regrets every time, I consider her respectable at the very least. There is nothing nastier than a girl who's had sex 100 times and regrets none of them. You know what that's called? A [bleep].

 

 

 

But, don't be offended by that statement, ladies. I'm not saying you can't enjoy yourself and not regret it. But there is a certain point where things just become completely unacceptable for a "lady". You're not a lady if you're out screwing guys left and right, you're a [bleep]. Anyways, as I was saying, don't be offended if you do go out and enjoy yourself (especially if it's only with one guy of just a few in your life), because ALL men are [bleep]. Know how many men have sex and regret a single one? Almost zero.

 

 

 

I had a...Uhhh...Close call, I guess you could say :lol:, and I regret that it ever happened. Why? Because it was meaningless. Maybe it's just me, but there is nothing more empty than being in a bed with someone and feeling NOTHING for them. When you're kissing someone passionately and saying "I love you" isn't approperiate. That's freakin' awkward. It's horrible. I went to a birthday party of my sisters' and one of her skanky little friends showed up drunk and wouldn't get off me, and the entire time, since I'm a nice guy, I didn't shove her off and go "EWW!" like I wanted to. I didn't want to give the poor girl a complex thinking she was disgusting her whole life, but at the same time, I was disgusted BY her. I literally knew her for 3 hours and she was trying to have sex with me...Now, that's just not freakin' cool. The entire time I wanted to just leave, go home and reconsile with my ex because the experience opened my eyes to how lucky a guy is to actually have a girl who respects herself. I did just that, and I'm happy with my descision, and I think the saddest part is that some of my friends, and probably most guys here, are going to think "Wow, man...What are you, gay?" and to that I can only say have fun being a worthless man-[bleep] your whole life. I hope it's worth it.

 

 

 

I don't understand why guys worship sex like it matters. It isn't THAT spectacular. I'd rather jerk off than stare into the empty soul of some girl who doesn't respect herself. That crap will haunt me for years. It's sad. It's pathetic.

 

 

 

Now, if you're in a relationship with someone you love (18+ prefered, if you're under 18, it's almost always meaningless reguardless of love or not just because of the fact that you're both curious and perhaps only THINK you love eachother) and aren't married, I think it's okay to have sex. I think you should probably at least have TALKED about getting married or something first, so you know you're both serious. If you're a girl and can talk to a guy about marrying him and he doesn't dump you on your [wagon], he's probably pretty serious.

 

 

 

*Shrug* Nothing I say can change anyones mind about anything, but I hope you guys and girls out there who are disrespecting yourself know that you will grow up to hate yourself and your decisions (ladies) and that you will grow up and think you're awesome, but everyone else will think you're a loser (guys). ;)

[Lionheart_0]

:? Can someone please tell me why they are putting sex on such a high pedistle (sp?)? Sex is the action of a male and female (well this can change depending on species) putting together two half cells to make a whole cell in which the newly created cell comes to life and continues on the species. thats all sex is. Its only us humans (and dolphins) that actually find it an enjoyable activity.

 

 

 

Why is it that sex has become something that is sought after for purposes other then continuing the species? Why must it now be something that two special people can only do together? In nature, there are some species which keep with the same partner from the first time they have sex, this is true. But what about those that don't? When its mating season for some animals, they just go at it, and don't stop till they impregnate as many of the opposite gender as possible.

 

 

 

Some of you will say "This doesn't apply, we are civilized, they are not". We are still animals, something of nature. This society, this civilization is nothing more then a separate reality that we have dreamed up and made to suit us. Who is to say that this civilization thing is right? Perhaps we would of been better off roaming around, living as nomads.

 

 

 

 

 

On another topic, who says we all need to be married. I personally wish not to get married, and will only do so if my future spouse demands it and will have no other way (I wont be happy though). To me, marriage is nothing more then a materialistic showing of love, which i don't think should even exist. If two people actually do love each other, they will be together, forever, in a never ending bond, that is much greater then any ceremony can ever create.

 

 

 

Remember, you are just an animal.

[Wisp]

 

 

 

 

 

On another topic, who says we all need to be married. I personally wish not to get married, and will only do so if my future spouse demands it and will have no other way (I wont be happy though). To me, marriage is nothing more then a materialistic showing of love, which i don't think should even exist. If two people actually do love each other, they will be together, forever, in a never ending bond, that is much greater then any ceremony can ever create.

 

 

 

 

About this part, it's a good point.

 

Not all people want to get married, for various reasons. An common one of these is (especially for the male) if for some reason something goes wrong, you can lose a huge sum of money in a divorce settlement.

 

And some people just don't believe in marriage.

[assassin_696]

insane, if you want a specific critique...

 

 

 

I know a much better gift to your spouse than your virginity: knowing how to do it well.

 

 

 

Seriously, right now I'd rather sleep with someone who knows what they're about rather than someone who's been "waiting all their life for this moment". Makes for a better experience.

 

 

 

Your "argument" is wrong for a few reasons.

 

 

 

1) It assumes that you can't learn to "do it well' with your spouse.

 

2) It implies that you will be basing who you marry on how well they perform in bed. Not only is that shallow, it leaves little to be desired when you're aged and discover that you're impotent.

 

3) Saying it "makes for a better experience" implies that you have experienced the other side, which you obviously haven't.

 

 

 

Re: 1. Learning how to do it isn't the point, it's about making the first time with your actualy spouse special, and it's probably going to be more special if you're not awkwardly fumbling around. I say probably because people are different.

 

Re: 2. Again, he's not saying that, he's saying having a good sex life (not awkward or timid) is part of a healthy relationship. Let's face it, you really wouldn't want to marry a girl and spend the rest of your life with her if she was completely against sex would you? On the flip side if you're more laid back and you find out your girlfriend is a nymphomaniac you might not be so happy. I know that sounds terribly shallow, but the point is there are probably some things you want to find out about your future partner before you get married, and their attitude to sex is a biggie in my mind.

 

 

 

If anything, premarital sex has strengthened my current relationship with my girlfriend.

 

 

 

That is incredible vague and lacking in substance. Blanket statements only cover gaping holes in arguments.

 

 

 

What, do you want specifics? People are different, you have to accept that his statement holds for his relationship because there isn't really an obvious way to prove it. I'd hardly call it vague.

 

 

 

To say that it's wrong because it violates the sanctity of marriage stinks of conservative prudishness.

 

 

 

You're right. In fact, I'm arguing for conservative prudishness. So all you're saying is that my argument is consistent with my beliefs. And you added a bunch of emotionally loaded (aka. logically empty) terminology to make me look bad.

 

 

 

Using emotional langauge doesn't make it irrelevant to the point, he's just pointing out it has political bias.

 

 

 

You're not "taking intimacy" from them like it's a strictly one-way act. The pleasure is mutual.

 

 

 

It is mutual at the present time. I'm not sure how many women are thankful they slept with their boyfriends after their boyfriends turn around and sleep with someone else or ditch them for someone that "performs better". And that's my entire point - you don't know, if you aren't married, if you are in a long-term relationship. You're taking a gamble. You're looking at sex from a "live for the present" mindset.

 

 

 

After criticising him for making assumptions you actually just made a few of your own.

 

 

 

1. That all boyfriends who sleep with girls before marriage then cheat on them.

 

2. That boyfriends base who they date solely on how they perform in bed.

 

 

 

I tell you what's taking a gamble, not knowing what your future life partners attitude to sex is. I can't see how that's healthy for a long term relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. I don't see how it has to be your 'first' to be special.

 

 

 

Oh really. So the more you do something, the more special and unique it gets? Give me a break. The more people you have sex with, the less meaningful it will get with each person. That's so obvious I don't even have to explain it to you. Ever heard of the term "the novelty just wore off"? Maybe with your 10th partner you'll still consider it "special", but it definitely won't be as special as if they were your 1st.

 

 

 

Yeah, sometimes. Sex isn't a novelty, it's a beautiful thing between two people who care about each other. I don't think couples who are deeply in love think for many years "well the novelties worn off now", it can still be magic.

 

 

 

But honestly, it's all down to the individual. What some people want would never work for others. But I don't think you should remain a virgin until marriage because you feel you have to, if you want to do it as a moral principle that's fine but don't feel obliged to then try and defend it with added morals (not saying you were, generalised statement).

[insane]

Learning how to do it isn't the point, it's about making the first time with your actualy spouse special, and it's probably going to be more special if you're not awkwardly fumbling around. I say probably because people are different.

 

 

 

I guess it's just a matter of opinion, but I disagree. I don't think it's going to be more special if you've practiced countlessly on other people.

 

 

 

I think awkward honeymoon sex is going to be a hilarious good time; it would only be awkward if you and your spouse aren't comfortable around each other which would beg the question why you two got married. I can't wait. I don't want to be one of those bored honeymoon couples because the resort doesn't offer enough entertainment.

 

 

 

Let's face it, you really wouldn't want to marry a girl and spend the rest of your life with her if she was completely against sex would you? On the flip side if you're more laid back and you find out your girlfriend is a nymphomaniac you might not be so happy. I know that sounds terribly shallow, but the point is there are probably some things you want to find out about your future partner before you get married, and their attitude to sex is a biggie in my mind.

 

 

 

I know that I have attitudes about sex, and I've never had sex before (oh look, cats out of the bag!). You don't have to have had sex before to have attitudes towards sex, and I'm sure the same goes for all people. It's not like I'm not going to talk with my SO about sex prior to marriage and find out what they think?

 

 

 

What, do you want specifics? That was a weakish counterargument in my eye. People are different, you have to accept that his statement holds for his relationship because there isn't really an obvious way to prove it. I'd hardly call it vague.

 

 

 

That's true. I guess all I was trying to say was that there wasn't really a way to prove his statement as he hasn't experienced the opposite and thus cannot make a comparison.

 

 

 

Emotional langauge doesn't make it irrelevant to the point, you're going off track here.

 

 

 

I don't understand. I said he was correct in saying that it was a conservative statement. I then said that he added a bunch of unnecessary terms to make me look bad, which he did. What's your point? Just because something is conservative doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

 

That all boyfriends who sleep with girls before marriage then cheat on them.

 

 

 

I didn't say that. I said that if someone's boyfriend were to sleep, then cheat, they would regret sleeping with them. I didn't say everybody did this. That's why I said it was taking a gamble. because you just don't know.

 

 

 

That boyfriends base who they date solely on how they perform in bed.

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

I tell you what's taking a gamble, not knowing what your future life partners attitude to sex is. I can't see how that's healthy for a long term relationship.

 

 

 

See above. You can discuss sexual attitudes before having sex. Of course, having sex might change these attitudes but I don't think people are going to go from wanting it to hating it. I don't think I've ever heard of someone hating sex with the exception of wives whose husbands are emotionally distant.

[SuziAngel]

There's a little thing called freedom of choice. What people do behind closed doors is totally their own business. We all choose to live our lives the way we want to and it's not up to any one else to judge someone on whether they've had sex outside of wedlock or not - as Lionheart correctly pointed out, not everyone is going to get married. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but I think some of you may become more open-minded towards sex once you've experienced life a little more. There's so much more to sex than intercourse.

[insane]

There's a little thing called freedom of choice.

 

 

 

There's a little thing called consequences.

 

 

 

What people do behind closed doors is totally their own business. We all choose to live our lives the way we want to and it's not up to any one else to judge someone on whether they've had sex outside of wedlock or not

 

 

 

What is a good criteria to judge someone on?

 

 

 

- as Lionheart correctly pointed out, not everyone is going to get married. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but I think some of you may become more open-minded towards sex once you've experienced life a little more. There's so much more to sex than intercourse.

 

 

 

The funny thing is that Lionheart was the one that viewed sex as "just intercourse".

 

 

 

It is my opinion that the people that view sex as "just intercourse" are probably the people that don't give a rip whether they wait for their future spouse or not. But of course, not everyone is going to get married, that is true. Have sex all you want then, as you've got nobody to live for (relationally) but yourself.

[IGoddessI]

Wow, I'm glad you're not my first by the sounds of you I would have fallen asleep before you got your pants around your ankles.

 

 

 

By the way, statistically speaking, women are happier in a marriage with a good sex life. When sex life goes down the drain so does a lot of marriages and I shall definitely find you a source for that when I get home from work, for now I shall scoot, I'm running late.

 

 

 

Btw I did learn that in relationship psychology I'm not pulling it out of my arse. However, it doesn't take rocket science to figure that out on your own.

 

 

 

If you want people to listen to what you have to say, don't shove your opinion down their throats.

[warri0r45]

There's a little thing called freedom of choice.

 

 

 

There's a little thing called consequences.

 

 

 

What people do behind closed doors is totally their own business. We all choose to live our lives the way we want to and it's not up to any one else to judge someone on whether they've had sex outside of wedlock or not

 

 

 

What is a good criteria to judge someone on?

 

 

 

- as Lionheart correctly pointed out, not everyone is going to get married. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but I think some of you may become more open-minded towards sex once you've experienced life a little more. There's so much more to sex than intercourse.

 

 

 

The funny thing is that Lionheart was the one that viewed sex as "just intercourse".

 

 

 

It is my opinion that the people that view sex as "just intercourse" are probably the people that don't give a rip whether they wait for their future spouse or not. But of course, not everyone is going to get married, that is true. Have sex all you want then, as you've got nobody to live for (relationally) but yourself.

 

 

 

You make it sound so selfish. :(

[SuziAngel]

There's a little thing called consequences.

 

 

 

Absolutely and they need to be accepted.

 

 

 

What is a good criteria to judge someone on?

 

 

 

Good question. Their behaviour maybe, but not their sexual activity.

 

 

 

The funny thing is that Lionheart was the one that viewed sex as "just intercourse".

 

 

 

Lionheart is still young. His opinions may change. :D

 

 

 

My point was that it's not up to you (I mean you in general, not you specifically) to say whether people should or shouldn't be having sex. It's their choice. I'm not saying that either choice is a better one than the other. It's down to personal preference.

[insane]

You make it sound so selfish.

 

 

 

Hmm... it wasn't intentional, but I wonder if it is selfish? The word selfish has alot of negative connotations attached to it. All I meant is that you aren't going to owe anyone anything - living as a couple without marriage is selfish to degree, as you're leaving yourself an out. You want all the benefits of marriage with the option of ditching your SO whenever you feel like it. At least I can't see any other reason why you wouldn't get married. I could be wrong though.

 

 

 

 

Good question. Their behaviour maybe, but not their sexual activity.

 

 

 

Is not sexual activity a behaviour? Or do you mean public behaviour?

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was that it's not up to you (I mean you in general, not you specifically) to say whether people should or shouldn't be having sex. It's their choice. I'm not saying that either choice is a better one than the other. It's down to personal preference.

 

 

 

Again, my reasons for starting this debate wasn't to force my ideas on anyone, it was to present a rational view towards chastity, and to give this topic a direction.

 

 

 

Do you think every behaviour is down to personal preference though? If so, why do we have laws? Personal preferences can be detrimental. Or are you talking about private behaviour this time?

[IGoddessI]

So insane... I gather you don't do public places? :anxious:

[insane]

So insane... I gather you don't do public places? :anxious:

 

 

 

Come again?

[IGoddessI]

Come again?

 

 

 

Oh you are generous :XD:

[insane]

Come again?

 

 

 

Oh you are generous :XD:

 

 

 

Oh don't be so innuendous. :P

 

You fail the test.

[IGoddessI]

Laugh, you know it was funny :wink: :P

[Lionheart_0]

You want all the benefits of marriage with the option of ditching your SO whenever you feel like it. At least I can't see any other reason why you wouldn't get married. I could be wrong though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was hoping you would comment on the no marriage thing.

 

 

 

Personally, the reason I wish not to have marriage is for the simple fact that marriage does, and always will have a religious background. I really want as little to do with any religion in my life. I know I've spoken on this board before about this with someone else, and they said "Not all marriages are done religiously, some are done by judges". It's not the fact that its usually done in a church, or by a priest, but tis the fact that the history behind marriage is a religious one.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, personally I see marriage as the cultural norm these day for couples in love. I want to stray as far away from the cultural norm as possible. If I really am in love with a woman, i wont want to leave, thus leaving the "You don't want to be married so you aren't leagly attached" argument void.

 

 

 

If so, why do we have laws?

 

 

 

We, as a society, have laws because there are some views that are shared by the majority, that we wish to keep (No stealing, no killing, blah blah blah), and its just become the norm in society to let the government decide what is right and wrong, so we don't have to.

[warri0r45]

Come again?

 

 

 

Oh you are generous :XD:

 

 

 

Massive lol points for Goddess. :P :lol:

[mad4u689]

Morals, and everything else, are all relative.

 

(haha... get it? :D see? :D yeah... anyway :x)

 

 

 

Do you think every behaviour is down to personal preference though? If so, why do we have laws? Personal preferences can be detrimental. Or are you talking about private behaviour this time?

 

 

 

Oh, sigh. Where that line is drawn - between allowing for personal preference and creating legislation to disallow such personal preference - has been the source of most of my disagreement with you.

 

 

 

I argue that personal preference should be allowed when it doesn't directly or significantly indirectly harm anyone other than those who are doing the preferring. (Yes, yes, get into fine details about what would be significant indirect harm, and the debate continues... but you get my general idea). In this case, that would be people choosing to have or not to have sex.

 

 

 

 

Hmm... it wasn't intentional, but I wonder if it is selfish? The word selfish has alot of negative connotations attached to it. All I meant is that you aren't going to owe anyone anything - living as a couple without marriage is selfish to degree, as you're leaving yourself an out. You want all the benefits of marriage with the option of ditching your SO whenever you feel like it. At least I can't see any other reason why you wouldn't get married. I could be wrong though.

 

 

 

Hmm, isn't that exactly it? Not just that you "have the option of ditching your SO whenever you feel like it," but you realize that you aren't mature enough in the relationship to create a lifetime commitment. I think it's much better to wait and not get married right away, then rush it and have a significant chance of just getting divorced later. I think this is an entirely separate issue from sex, now that improved birth control means that you can have have sex without a significant risk of getting pregnant and having kids and being "forced" into commitment and starting a life together, and testing methods available and other barrier methods mean you'll have very low risks of getting an STD.

 

 

 

I think that in the modern day, someone can choose whether or not to have sexual activity before marriage, and that's fine. Someone who wants to wait til marriage - power to them. Someone who wants to have sex with someone they love and are in a serious relationship with, but aren't ready to marry - power to them. Someone who wants to have sex casually without thinking twice about it - well, power to them, too, I guess, if they're actually having fun and enjoying it and not screwing up their lives.

 

 

 

I do think chastity is a very rational decision. However, I think sex before marriage is just as rational a decision. That's why personal preference should rule, and it's not really our place to judge someone negatively, either way. Personally, I don't see any real negatives to having sex before marriage in today's age, as long as you are careful about it.