Pre-marital sex--

[Korskin]

so, Korskin, let me get this straight: because people have pre-marital sex, they hire prostitutes....wouldn;t people who don;t get any hire the prostitutes since the people having pre-marital sex are getting some, and don;t need "extra"? same with rape. So actually, doesn;t pre-marital sex (and marital sex) actually prevent prostitution and rape?

 

 

Rape and prostitution are more likely premarital than marital sex. You probably don't rape the one your married to, neither do you a marry a prostitute and keep paying him/her money for sex. There is no guarantee of a happy and loving family but at least you have made a commitment and a promise to try.

 

 

Rapes do occur in marriages but they shouldn't if people stick to their vows.

 

 

 

 

You do understand you may have to make the choice someday? Some pregnancies threaten the life of the mother, and they have to choose to have an abortion to increase their chances of living, or not have one and possibly they and the baby could die. You do have an opinion, and this closed minded 'well I will never have to make that decision' crap doesn't work. You may have to.

 

 

 

On the subject of sex before marriage, who cares? It's not your choice to be calling people [bleep] or prudes depending on their views.having sex before marriage doesn't increase the chances of abortion, prostitution, STDs or any of that if you use proper protection, most of the 'I'm against' it views are flawed or biased. Probably the lack of sex before marriage would lead to prostitution rater than having sex. :lol:

 

You have a point by saying I need to consider abortion if the mother's life is endangered. That's why I said I wouldn't answer the same today. But I don't really see that happening in the west world with the modern medicine we have.

 

 

 

And by the way, saying who cares might not be very accurate considering you're replying to a 13 pages long thread.

[malo2]

i don't see marriage as anything important, or something that would mean a lot to me. Marriage is just signing some legal documents and having a big party, if you love someone, then you love them, you don't need to have some [developmentally delayed] preacher preach, tell you you can kiss your bride, then sign a few documents, and just eat a crap load of food. In my opinion marriage is there for legal reasons, or maybe also so that some people would recognize you as a couple.

[Guest]

Probably the lack of sex before marriage would lead to prostitution rater than having sex. :lol:

 

 

 

Although it was a joke, that statement contradicts itself in so many ways. Since when would people not having sex before marriage decide to be prostitutes? It just goes against the values they started with. Let alone the fact that prostitutes wouldn't have those values in the first place.

[warri0r45]

Point conceded. The point I was making is that following the bible does not automatically mean you'll end up avoiding all the nasties. It's not a balck and white issue (as Korskins pre-marital = STDs, rape, prostitution, abortion comment suggested) yet a very grey one as is the case with following any other system of morals to achieve a goal. Humans don't often follow a system of morals how they were intended to be followed and nor would you expect them to when they are imperfect. Irrespective of them being followed correctly or not, those populations who follow christian morals rarely have a better report card when it comes to STDs, rape, divorce and some others, it seems. Of course, I'd need to do more thorough study to come to a more definative conclusion but from what I originally posted, I'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from.

 

Just because many christians aren't able to live life according to the Bible doesn't it's wrong or that (1) we should disregard it. What you are proving is that (2) not many christians actually live according to the Bible. Although the point of following the Bible is not to avoid nastiness, just look what happened to the only man who was without sin. He ended up dying on a cross.

 

 

 

(3) Maybe I just wish that for once there could be a black and white issue. It's like one time in my religious class. The question was whether you were for or against abortion and my answer was pretty much: "I don't need to have an opinion as I won't ever be facing a decision whether to make an abortion or not." A rather naive answer perhaps and today I wouldn't answer like that but it derives from my values. I thought that if I wouldn't have sex unless I was prepared to face the consequence of a baby, abortion would never be an issue.

 

 

 

(1) Where did I ever say that?

 

(2) Yes, I conceded that point when Insane and Astra challenged me on it.

 

(3) Now I see your motives for trying to make it a black and white issue with your 'one side = bad and the other = good' comments. The intention of me challenging you was to tell you it's not a black and white issue. One side does not automatically = bad and conversely, the other does not automatically = good. If people followed the bible perfectly, then perhaps (I say perhaps because I'm not a theologian) your side of the argument would automatically = good. But let's look at my side of the argument. How does not following christian morals as dictated by the bible automatically equal all that bad stuff? It dosen't. It's not a black and white issue.

[Flametrooper]

Says the guy who takes one line of text out of context in several paragraphs of writing. I'm not talking about this thread though.

 

 

 

And so what if I wanted to point out a glaring flaw without needing to pick apart every inane statement in that paragraph? Some of us have better things to do, most of the time.

 

 

 

Like have premarital sex.

 

 

 

z0mg i'm calling the gestapo

 

 

 

Hmmm, I'd say that translates to "z0mg i just lost".

[zeekyhbomb]

Probably the lack of sex before marriage would lead to prostitution rater than having sex. :lol:

 

 

 

Although it was a joke, that statement contradicts itself in so many ways. Since when would people not having sex before marriage decide to be prostitutes? It just goes against the values they started with. Let alone the fact that prostitutes wouldn't have those values in the first place.

 

 

 

I worded it wrong, sorry. If some guy doesn't have a girlfriend and therefore isn't having sex (you can assume), they would probably be more likely to revert to paying a prostitute for sex. Joke, yes, sorry.

[Lenin64]

 

Goddess I hope you realise people are lining up on my side of the argument over you, I recieved this pm just this morning:

 

Lining up eh? That looks like one person. I don't exactly call that lining up; whereas your opposition contains several people, such as Zonorhc, Suzi, and Goddess, all of whom are quite respected members of this forum. You're not. Also, Serephus looks like he was more making a joke than actually trying to insult someone. Also you spelled "received" wrong.

 

 

 

And me. I don't like him much either. Striker, you're a real [wagon], and while I may not be as respected as those other guys, I still think you should just shut up and and shut down.

[IGoddessI]

Goddess I hope you realise people are lining up on my side of the argument over you, I received this pm just this morning:

 

 

 

ONE person is not plural, it's singular, simpleton. PERSON not PEOPLE. I believe PEOPLE have just hated upon you publicly, however, how funny.

 

 

 

People even want to insult you THROUGH me, that's hilarious don't you think?

 

 

 

Pardon my capitals, I thought that since you have writing limitations, I would mirror image your ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâcreative writing skillsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ so you can understand my reply better. I even contemplated the spelling mistakes but thought that was stooping too much to your level.

 

 

 

Yes, I couldn't agree more that someone I tried to help through the kindness of my heart, whom cowardly sent you a PM trying to make his self feel better about his own insecurities, is hilarious. Oh dear, can you feel the sarcasm from my eternal sadness.

 

 

 

Also, why would you dub on someone who attempted to help you? Karma has my back Sep, even through tip.itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s greatest impaired .:wink:

[Leonn]

I will most likely have pre-marital sex, I don't wanna be a virgin when i'm married lol.

[rocketman089]

Man, you gotta try it before you buy it.

[Leonn]

Man, you gotta try it before you buy it.

 

 

 

=D> I love the way u put it lol

 

 

 

 

 

Leonn

[Guest]

Probably the lack of sex before marriage would lead to prostitution rater than having sex. :lol:

 

 

 

Although it was a joke, that statement contradicts itself in so many ways. Since when would people not having sex before marriage decide to be prostitutes? It just goes against the values they started with. Let alone the fact that prostitutes wouldn't have those values in the first place.

 

 

 

I worded it wrong, sorry. If some guy doesn't have a girlfriend and therefore isn't having sex (you can assume), they would probably be more likely to revert to paying a prostitute for sex. Joke, yes, sorry.

 

 

 

Oh yes, well that's how the prostitutes make their money. Desperate, single, 40 year old men.

[Zonorhc]

See, Korskin, I wouldn't have any problem with your reasoning with regard to marriage vows and the morality and things related to premarital sex, except you seem to be relying a little heavily on the vain hope that everyone will be good people at heart and adhere to an idealised set of morals. There is no possibility of everyone "being nice" and doing things like not raping their wives or lying about having STDs unless we go about using some highly unethical methods of conditioning people's minds in such a way that there is no possibility of them thinking anything out of line.

 

 

 

So whatever argument you may have that postmarital sex is in theory morally "better", with the assumption that nobody will lie about STDs or assume consent, is automatically debunked by the fact that you are trying to apply this to our species.

[IGoddessI]

See, Korskin, I wouldn't have any problem with your reasoning with regard to marriage vows and the morality and things related to premarital sex, except you seem to be relying a little heavily on the vain hope that everyone will be good people at heart and adhere to an idealised set of morals. There is no possibility of everyone "being nice" and doing things like not raping their wives or lying about having STDs unless we go about using some highly unethical methods of conditioning people's minds in such a way that there is no possibility of them thinking anything out of line.

 

 

 

So whatever argument you may have that postmarital sex is in theory morally "better", with the assumption that nobody will lie about STDs or assume consent, is automatically debunked by the fact that you are trying to apply this to our species.

 

 

 

I swear you read my mind... Tell me the truth...

[ChickyBee32]

One thing I've noticed is that several people have expressed the opinion that a couple shouldn't have children out of wedlock. Would anyone be able to expand on that?

 

 

 

 

 

And chalk me up as another person who's disagreeing with striker.

[Guest]

One thing I've noticed is that several people have expressed the opinion that a couple shouldn't have children out of wedlock. Would anyone be able to expand on that?

 

 

 

Here's a nice post Astra wrote which I thought was quite correct on the issue. Well written as well. Maybe a little browsing over previous pages next time and you could of found it yourself. :wink:

 

 

 

Let me attempt to push this thread back in the direction of the topic...

 

 

 

I'm saving myself for wild, passionate, awkward, honeymoon sex. I want the woman I spend my life with to be the first and only woman I'm that intimate with. It's a way of showing her how much respect and love I have for her, and I plan on marrying someone who would give her future husband those same considerations.

 

 

 

I believe that premarital or extramarital sex is unwise. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, but it's also a powerful, dangerous thing. To use a fairly common analogy, fire is wonderful if you keep it in the fireplace. If you take it out of the fireplace, it burns down the house. Premarital sex takes a powerful physical and emotional connection and removes it from the fireplace of a commitment. Either that, or it cheapens it, reducing sex to a mere physical pleasure, a bodily function. Promiscuity takes something that I believe ought to be a grand adventure embarked upon by a husband and wife and removes the wonder, reduces it to a handshake.

 

 

 

I'm not willing to play with fire outside of the fireplace, nor am I willing to reduce the fire to embers. I want a bright, blazing, beautiful fire that warms the house, rather than burns it. So I plan to keep the fire in the fireplace.

[ChickyBee32]

One thing I've noticed is that several people have expressed the opinion that a couple shouldn't have children out of wedlock. Would anyone be able to expand on that?

 

 

 

Here's a nice post Astra wrote which I thought was quite correct on the issue. Well written as well. Maybe a little browsing over previous pages next time and you could of found it yourself. :wink:

 

 

 

Let me attempt to push this thread back in the direction of the topic...

 

 

 

I'm saving myself for wild, passionate, awkward, honeymoon sex. I want the woman I spend my life with to be the first and only woman I'm that intimate with. It's a way of showing her how much respect and love I have for her, and I plan on marrying someone who would give her future husband those same considerations.

 

 

 

I believe that premarital or extramarital sex is unwise. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, but it's also a powerful, dangerous thing. To use a fairly common analogy, fire is wonderful if you keep it in the fireplace. If you take it out of the fireplace, it burns down the house. Premarital sex takes a powerful physical and emotional connection and removes it from the fireplace of a commitment. Either that, or it cheapens it, reducing sex to a mere physical pleasure, a bodily function. Promiscuity takes something that I believe ought to be a grand adventure embarked upon by a husband and wife and removes the wonder, reduces it to a handshake.

 

 

 

I'm not willing to play with fire outside of the fireplace, nor am I willing to reduce the fire to embers. I want a bright, blazing, beautiful fire that warms the house, rather than burns it. So I plan to keep the fire in the fireplace.

 

 

 

 

 

I did see that and I thought that was a great way of describing it. I'm not sure how to apply it to a couple who are completely committed to each other having a child without being married though. (But then, it's late here, and I'm tired enough to not be thinking clearly)

[Tigra00]

Man, you gotta try it before you buy it.

 

 

 

The upper-class car sales places don't allow test drives. ;)

 

 

 

If ya' get what I'm sizzayin'.

[How2PK]

Man, you gotta try it before you buy it.

 

 

 

The upper-class car sales places don't allow test drives. ;)

 

 

 

If ya' get what I'm sizzayin'.

 

 

 

Yea, they're rich enough to buy another one if it doesn't fit their needs.

 

 

 

If you get what I'm saying. ;)

[Korskin]

 

(1) Where did I ever say that?

 

(2) Yes, I conceded that point when Insane and Astra challenged me on it.

 

(3) Now I see your motives for trying to make it a black and white issue with your 'one side = bad and the other = good' comments. The intention of me challenging you was to tell you it's not a black and white issue. One side does not automatically = bad and conversely, the other does not automatically = good. If people followed the bible perfectly, then perhaps (I say perhaps because I'm not a theologian) your side of the argument would automatically = good. But let's look at my side of the argument. How does not following christian morals as dictated by the bible automatically equal all that bad stuff? It dosen't. It's not a black and white issue.

 

(1) You didn't. I thought of removing it once I wrote it but I decided to point that out again.

 

(2) See (1)

 

(3) How does it automatically equal bad stuff? I could argue that living immorally is bad stuff and then it automatically leads to it. However, I can't say it automatically equals all that bad stuff, but I think chances of experiencing bad stuff caused by sex increase if you choose to have premarital sex. It's like if you've been given a map on how to get to a certain location, but instead of following the map you throw away the map and think that you can find the way on your own. You might find the way on your own but chances increase that you will have some problems getting there.

 

 

 

See, Korskin, I wouldn't have any problem with your reasoning with regard to marriage vows and the morality and things related to premarital sex, except you seem to be relying a little heavily on the vain hope that everyone will be good people at heart and adhere to an idealised set of morals. There is no possibility of everyone "being nice" and doing things like not raping their wives or lying about having STDs unless we go about using some highly unethical methods of conditioning people's minds in such a way that there is no possibility of them thinking anything out of line.

 

 

 

So whatever argument you may have that postmarital sex is in theory morally "better", with the assumption that nobody will lie about STDs or assume consent, is automatically debunked by the fact that you are trying to apply this to our species.

 

So my views are being punished by the fact that humans are idiots incapable of following a set of morals? I don't want to interfere with peoples free will to do whatever they want. My goal is just to express that I believe that the world would be a better place without premarital sex.

[1canadian1]

Man, I wish girls came in automatic ^^

[Necromagus]

Man, I wish girls came in automatic ^^

But manual is so much more fun once you get the hang of it...

[Led-Zeppelin]

Hate it when it pops out of gear just as you're about to hit top speed.

[Nadril]

Hate it when it pops out of gear just as you're about to hit top speed.

 

 

 

Best one yet. :lol:

[warri0r45]

 

(1) Where did I ever say that?

 

(2) Yes, I conceded that point when Insane and Astra challenged me on it.

 

(3) Now I see your motives for trying to make it a black and white issue with your 'one side = bad and the other = good' comments. The intention of me challenging you was to tell you it's not a black and white issue. One side does not automatically = bad and conversely, the other does not automatically = good. If people followed the bible perfectly, then perhaps (I say perhaps because I'm not a theologian) your side of the argument would automatically = good. But let's look at my side of the argument. How does not following christian morals as dictated by the bible automatically equal all that bad stuff? It dosen't. It's not a black and white issue.

 

(1) You didn't. I thought of removing it once I wrote it but I decided to point that out again.

 

(2) See (1)

 

(3) How does it automatically equal bad stuff? I could argue that living immorally is bad stuff and then it automatically leads to it. However, I can't say it automatically equals all that bad stuff, but I think chances of experiencing bad stuff caused by sex increase if you choose to have premarital sex. It's like if you've been given a map on how to get to a certain location, but instead of following the map you throw away the map and think that you can find the way on your own. You might find the way on your own but chances increase that you will have some problems getting there.

 

 

 

See, Korskin, I wouldn't have any problem with your reasoning with regard to marriage vows and the morality and things related to premarital sex, except you seem to be relying a little heavily on the vain hope that everyone will be good people at heart and adhere to an idealised set of morals. There is no possibility of everyone "being nice" and doing things like not raping their wives or lying about having STDs unless we go about using some highly unethical methods of conditioning people's minds in such a way that there is no possibility of them thinking anything out of line.

 

 

 

So whatever argument you may have that postmarital sex is in theory morally "better", with the assumption that nobody will lie about STDs or assume consent, is automatically debunked by the fact that you are trying to apply this to our species.

 

So my views are being punished by the fact that humans are idiots incapable of following a set of morals? I don't want to interfere with peoples free will to do whatever they want. My goal is just to express that I believe that the world would be a better place without premarital sex.

 

 

 

Now you're getting it. Not black and white. :wink: