NationStates Jolt Archive

This is meant to be a poll on it and a debate about it. On your mark, get set, go...
The poll is to help gather a quick and general idea as to the attitude of this forum at large towards pre-marital sex

(I can't belive I am posting a thread with a "point")

I see no poll...

I see no poll...
Here it is...

As far as pre-marital sex goes, that's an individual choice. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but there are risks to be considered. If you fall victim to one of the pitfalls (STD or pregnancy), you'll pay the price and there's no getting out of paying it.

Been there, done that and would do it again. IMO sex is part of a healthy marriage - and just like I'd prefer to marry someone with whom I can share things like a love for books I would like to be sure we're sexually compatible.

I picked other... I have, and might again. Depends if I ever get a boyfriend :(

Damn my warped attractions, which cause me to be single for annoyingly long periods of time.

Sex before marriage?

Those who say it is a "sin" need to be taught a lesson. *cracks knuckles* :D

Yes, sure i did "it". And i would not even consider marrying someone i did not had sex with on several occassions. No one buys a car he didnt test-drive.

I picked other... I have, and might again. Depends if I ever get a boyfriend :(

Damn my warped attractions, which cause me to be single for annoyingly long periods of time.
I think Myrth may be available. :D

I'm all for pre-marital sex. The only problem with it that I see is that some kids just take it too far, and get themselves pregnant with AIDS at 13 and and up in a right mess. So with that in mind, I'm also all for a very good sex-ed program at schools and at home. :fluffle: :D

Yes please....

I mean...

I did and will again.

And I don't really care what (or who) other people do.

I have and would again, but I just need to find another woman which will let me.

I see nothing special about marriage which I only believe exists to oppress women and therefore I think there is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage. I do however believe that sex should only take place between two people who love each other and are both happy to consent to it.

when people are willing to give their life to somebody else before they are willing to give their body, i see a gross distortion of priorities.

Yes, sure i did "it". And i would not even consider marrying someone i did not had sex with on several occassions. No one buys a car he didnt test-drive.


You want a car that's been test-driven by 1/2 the town?

You want a car that's been test-driven by 1/2 the town?
riiiight, because all people who have sex outside of marriage have sex with half the town...

I'm a Calvinist, and any sexual contact with anybody other than your spouse is grounds for being kicked out of the church. Sex is only allowed inside marriage, and marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime, and divorces are not allowed.

riiiight, because all people who have sex outside of marriage have sex with half the town...


It was an extreme example. But anyway, do you want a car that say 20-30 other guys have test-driven?

It's really for the best for everybody to wait till marriage.

I'm a Calvinist, and any sexual contact with anybody other than your spouse is grounds for being kicked out of the church. Sex is only allowed inside marriage, and marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime, and divorces are not allowed.
oooh, a Calvinist! you must need a hug :).

It was an extreme example. But anyway, do you want a car that say 20-30 other guys have test-driven?

again with the 20-30. are you aware that most people who have premarital sex have fewer than 4 sexual partners in their LIFETIME?

besides, dude, i can't afford a new car...i only buy used.

regardless, the difference is that a used car has less value, while a person who has had sex with other people does not have less value. i don't determine what a person is worth based on sex, because i believe it is wrong to value sex more than a person. i wouldn't marry somebody who was slutting around because i wouldn't marry somebody who had so little respect for themself (and for me), but my partner's sexual history before we met is their own business. the only reason i need to know is if they have an STD or a child somewhere that may come into our lives.


It's really for the best for everybody to wait till marriage.
that's your opinion, and you are more than entitled to hold it. however, i don't agree at all. in fact, i believe it is wrong for people to marry if they have not had sex. that's my opinion, and it's no more right or wrong than yours...isn't it cool how that works?

that's your opinion, and you are more than entitled to hold it. however, i don't agree at all. in fact, i believe it is wrong for people to marry if they have not had sex. that's my opinion, and it's no more right or wrong than yours...isn't it cool how that works?

Yay :)

I believe too that people should be allowed to do whatever feels right for them There just shouldn't be sweeping prohibitions made for all people, since everyone's an individual and different things work for different people.

again with the 20-30. are you aware that most people who have premarital sex have fewer than 4 sexual partners in their LIFETIME?

besides, dude, i can't afford a new car...i only buy used.

regardless, the difference is that a used car has less value, while a person who has had sex with other people does not have less value. i don't determine what a person is worth based on sex, because i believe it is wrong to value sex more than a person. i wouldn't marry somebody who was slutting around because i wouldn't marry somebody who had so little respect for themself (and for me), but my partner's sexual history before we met is their own business. the only reason i need to know is if they have an STD or a child somewhere that may come into our lives.


that's your opinion, and you are more than entitled to hold it. however, i don't agree at all. in fact, i believe it is wrong for people to marry if they have not had sex. that's my opinion, and it's no more right or wrong than yours...isn't it cool how that works?


Meh, I'd say I'm right, if I was ever in a position of power, I'd ban fornication. Although I can see why you hold your opinion, you're afraid that if you wait till you're married, you might find you and your spouse are not sexually compatible. But, if neither of you has anything to compare the other against, how would either of you ever know if the other one isn't that great?

Ideally though, everybody, male or female, wants a virgin partner, who wouldn't? So it's really only fair since I want a virgin wife, that I remain a virgin myself, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.

Although if the right woman came along, I guess her sexual history wouldn't matter, unless it involved homosexuality, bisexuality, miscegenation, or some sort of crazy satanic ritualism. But then again if she was the right woman, she'd not be into that. Right as in correct and right-wing. :D (You're either right or wrong)

How I see it is that marriage is a step which require other factors (which do not involve emotions) to be in place first which are not available/accessible for most people before a certain age. For example, steady employment/income, some form of accomodation, etc. Not having these things in place doesn't stop people from falling in love, and expressing their love for each other, e.g., through sex.

It is also biologically driven, and factors which delay marriage do not directly influence the physical factors which promote sex. The reason human beings are evolutionarily successful is that they have been successful in producing many fit offsprings, and to do that involves having sex. This points to the fact that biologically, people have evolved to be wanting and enjoying sex.

I think that if there is one criteria which people (mainly early teenagers) should consider before losing their virginity, it should be if they have the mental maturity to cope with the event.

I don't understand why a virgin partner is ideal. I don't think people go around interviewing potential partners as to whether they're a virgin or not, and making their decisions based on that. Shouldn't it be about whether the couple are suited in their personalities?

Yay :)

I believe too that people should be allowed to do whatever feels right for them There just shouldn't be sweeping prohibitions made for all people, since everyone's an individual and different things work for different people.

People are indeed allowed to do what they please. But the question to me is not whether we can engage in pre-marital sex, but whether or not we should.

Speaking from experience, it's a bad idea.

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the cleansing power of His forgiveness, so it is never too late. But, ideally, you will be smart and abstain from sex until you are married.

Sex was designed for one man and one woman in a life-long committed relationship. It is only in this context that making love can truly be experienced in all its glory. (Believe me...I know)

Sex outside of marriage is like a donut...fun on the surface, but empty in the middle. (And that was meant to be silly, by the way)

But do you see my point?
Sex is meaningless outside of the context of marriage.

I'm certainly not judging anyone (let he who is without sin cast the first stone). I'm just trying to help you all out. You will never be satisfied until you reserve sex for the marriage bed. It's an AMAZING thing. (God knew what he was doing when he designed it...why in the world wouldn't we trust Him to know how to use it?)

Just my thoughts from my experience and the experience of millions of others ;-)

I've had sex with a man once. I've had sex with women.... a lot.

Ideally though, everybody, male or female, wants a virgin partner, who wouldn't?
I would not, as i stated before. I dont know about your age, but in my category (mid-thirties) it is more likely to find a woman who had one or more partners before than a virgin. And these women know what they want and are able to express it, while a virgin in the mid-thirties is most likely shy and sexually repressed. Or a devout believer of a strict religion, which just would be another reason we would not get along.

i believe that sex post-marriage is why so many fundamentalists are angry so often.

But, if neither of you has anything to compare the other against, how would either of you ever know if the other one isn't that great?
If your partner isn't able to bring you to climax, that would be most people's bare bones definition of "isn't that great" regardless of prior sexual experience.

how would either of you ever know if the other one isn't that great?It's not just style but frequency and enthusiasm. how would you like to find out on your honeymoon or a few months in to your marraige that he/she isn't really into sex at all and would rather skip the whole thing? Premarrital sex pretty much rules out that possiblility.


Ideally though, everybody, male or female, wants a virgin partner, who wouldn't? So it's really only fair since I want a virgin wife, that I remain a virgin myself, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.Speak for yourself. I used to feel that way when I was 18-23 or so. what I came to reallize is that someone with more experience is much better at it and more likely not to lose interest. I think the whole "has to be a virgin" bullcrap is for guys who have little to no experience. mainly just envy.

Although if the right woman came along, I guess her sexual history wouldn't matter... Now your getting it. It's about what's between the ears not what's been between the legs. :fluffle:

reply to >Habervin, sex was not invented for one man for one woman, thats why animals have sex with LOTS of different partners. sex is about discovering your wants and desires and the only way to do so is to have sex a number of times. if you pick the right person straight away then your luckier than most. but in reality only people who are very disturbed will have ideas like yours. :headbang:

Sex was designed for one man and one woman in a life-long committed relationship. It is only in this context that making love can truly be experienced in all its glory. (Believe me...I know)

But do you see my point?
Sex is meaningless outside of the context of marriage.

You will never be satisfied until you reserve sex for the marriage bed.

Just my thoughts from my experience and the experience of millions of others ;-)

While all those are your personal experiences and feelings, you are nonetheless stating them as absolutes. Does sex within marriage become a sin retroactively once you divorce, because it wasnt a life-long commitment?

Sex has a meaning inside as relationship as well as within a marriage. And, best of all, it doesnt have to have a meaning.

I have been satisfied with having sex outside of marriage, a bed and the house. As for emotionally satisfying, where is the difference between having sex in a stable relationship that last for years and a marriage for the same time? Sorry, but some paper documents dont make a difference in the love you feel for someone.

And millions experienced otherwise. Anecdotal evidence doesnt count. ;)

Sex is meaningless outside of the context of marriage.


If people are in the mindset that they're in love, and that the person they're with is the person that they want to stay with, isn't that a marriage in everything but on paper?

but in reality only people who are very disturbed will have ideas like yours. :headbang:
How about you accept that other people have other points of view and respect his believes? Discuss and dont flame. If you cant argue it in a rational way you should completely abstain.

How about you accept that other people have other points of view and respect his believes? Discuss and dont flame. If you cant argue it in a rational way you should completely abstain.
You mean abstain from posting, right? :fluffle:

This thread needs more :fluffle:

Everybody-Don't forget to :fluffle: someone.

If you can't be with the one you :fluffle: ,
:fluffle: the one you're with.

You mean abstain from posting, right? :fluffle:
No. I meant from living.
Arguing, really. ;)

i'm never having premarital sex again. because I'm married. sex is fun. why do you have to get married to have fun? people who hold on to their virginity until they're married are welcome to their weirdness, but it's still weird.

No. I meant from living.
Arguing, really. ;)
For a minute there a thought you didn't want him to :fluffle: anymore. :eek:

Yes, I did it, but now I am married, so I can't do it again.

People are indeed allowed to do what they please. But the question to me is not whether we can engage in pre-marital sex, but whether or not we should.

Speaking from experience, it's a bad idea.

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the cleansing power of His forgiveness, so it is never too late. But, ideally, you will be smart and abstain from sex until you are married.

I'm certainly not judging anyone (let he who is without sin cast the first stone). I'm just trying to help you all out. You will never be satisfied until you reserve sex for the marriage bed. It's an AMAZING thing. (God knew what he was doing when he designed it...why in the world wouldn't we trust Him to know how to use it?)

Just my thoughts from my experience and the experience of millions of others ;-)

As a Calvinist, (in my opinion the only true form of Christianity), I believe that God only forgives the Elect, Jesus Christ only died for His Elect. Anyway, if you know what you're doing is wrong, and do it anyway, how can you expect God to forgive you? But anyway, remember, God is the source of all sin, so if you sin, it's because He meant you to.

i'm never having premarital sex again. because I'm married. Sorry dude, That's depressing. :(
Oh wait I'm married too, that's more depressing :( :(

I need a fluffle.

But anyway, remember, God is the source of all sin, so if you sin, it's because He meant you to.Finally, a religion I can get behind. It wasn't the devil - God made me do it. That leaves a clear path for me now. :D

Finally, a religion I can get behind. It wasn't the devil - God made me do it. That leaves a clear path for me now. :D

Yeah, but unfortunately you aren't one of the elect, so whatever your excuse, you're still going to hell. On the plus side, there's no point being holy and good, because you're still going to hell.

Yeah, but unfortunately you aren't one of the elect, so whatever your excuse, you're still going to hell. On the plus side, there's no point being holy and good, because you're still going to hell.


Man cannot decide to be good and holy or evil, God decides. Faith in God is a gift that comes with Election into salvation. If you are meant to be saved, your conduct will be in keeping with one who is God's Elect, if you are reprobate, it will not matter, you're already headed for hell.

Man has absolutely NO free will of his own.

God is the ABSOLUTE sovereign of all things, and has predestinated all things.

reply to >Habervin, sex was not invented for one man for one woman, thats why animals have sex with LOTS of different partners. sex is about discovering your wants and desires and the only way to do so is to have sex a number of times. if you pick the right person straight away then your luckier than most. but in reality only people who are very disturbed will have ideas like yours. :headbang:


Thank you for your psychological evaluation. ;-)
Perhaps the wisdom of monogamy is part of what separates us from the "animals".

God is the ABSOLUTE sovereign of all things, and has predestinated all things.
Thus God is an asshole when he makes me sin and suffer for all eternity afterwards? Good to know i am just a plaything for him.

Man cannot decide to be good and holy or evil, God decides. Faith in God is a gift that comes with Election into salvation. If you are meant to be saved, your conduct will be in keeping with one who is God's Elect, if you are reprobate, it will not matter, you're already headed for hell.

Man has absolutely NO free will of his own.

God is the ABSOLUTE sovereign of all things, and has predestinated all things.

Wow, according to that description, God's an a$$hole.

Man cannot decide to be good and holy or evil, God decides. Faith in God is a gift that comes with Election into salvation. If you are meant to be saved, your conduct will be in keeping with one who is God's Elect, if you are reprobate, it will not matter, you're already headed for hell.

Man has absolutely NO free will of his own.

God is the ABSOLUTE sovereign of all things, and has predestinated all things.

so YOU say. I hear GOD disagrees.

considering the shrub wont let me get married to my mate you can say our fun is always and always will be "pre martial sex" but why would i want a union sanctioned by a religion that is ruled by several dickheads? i dont. happily anti-religious. go civil unions replacing marriages!

Man cannot decide to be good and holy or evil, God decides. Faith in God is a gift that comes with Election into salvation. If you are meant to be saved, your conduct will be in keeping with one who is God's Elect, if you are reprobate, it will not matter, you're already headed for hell.

Man has absolutely NO free will of his own.

God is the ABSOLUTE sovereign of all things, and has predestinated all things.
i made god give me a blowjob. he sucked horribly at it. my boyfriend does it better.

Sex was designed for one man and one woman in a life-long committed relationship. It is only in this context that making love can truly be experienced in all its glory. (Believe me...I know)
I would say that only in the context of being in love lets one experience sex in 'all its glory'. Believe me, I know! Plenty of couples and truly and completely in love without being married - I'm half of such a couple. Sadly, there are some married couples who are not in love...I'm sure their sex lives (with each other at any rate!) aren't as good as those of genuinely loving couples.

Meh, I'd say I'm right, if I was ever in a position of power, I'd ban fornication. Although I can see why you hold your opinion, you're afraid that if you wait till you're married, you might find you and your spouse are not sexually compatible. But, if neither of you has anything to compare the other against, how would either of you ever know if the other one isn't that great?

Ideally though, everybody, male or female, wants a virgin partner, who wouldn't? So it's really only fair since I want a virgin wife, that I remain a virgin myself, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.I personally wouldn't want a virgin partner at this point (at 23)... I'd start to wonder what had been holding him back all those years! If it was religious beliefs - well, I'm not religious, and while I don't want to press my views on someone else, I can't imagine we'd share enough similiar values. And if it wasn't religious beliefs - and a guy got all the way through college and beyond - well, as I said, I'd start to wonder!

Plus, there are advantages in having had sex - the experience, for one, that improves you as a lover. Plus, how would you know the person *IS* truly great if you have nothing to compare him/her to? See? It goes both ways.

In any case, I don't advocate sleeping around haphazardly - it's dangerous on many levels and indicates either low self-esteem or disregard for one's own safety. (However, I certainly don't consider it a sin.)

But having had responsible sexual relationships before settling down to marry? I whole-heartedly approve of that.

i made god give me a blowjob. he sucked horribly at it. my boyfriend does it better.
LOL

As a Calvinist, (in my opinion the only true form of Christianity),...
Man has NO free will at all...
VoteEarly, are you trying to be a bad example? Or are you just so pissed you don't care? Either is a bad option, and I would appreciate it if you would stop giving Christians a bad name. If you want to say pre-marital sex is a bad thing, then prove it. Show studies of divorce rates, or depression rates. They are out there. But stop talking like you are somehow better than everyone else on here. It isn't true, and you as a Calvinist should realize this, or didn't you get the memo about Total Depravity?

LOL
yeah he also said the clergy should try being on bottom during hawt anal mahn secks

While all those are your personal experiences and feelings, you are nonetheless stating them as absolutes. Does sex within marriage become a sin retroactively once you divorce, because it wasnt a life-long commitment?

<snip>

As for emotionally satisfying, where is the difference between having sex in a stable relationship that last for years and a marriage for the same time? Sorry, but some paper documents dont make a difference in the love you feel for someone.Nice arguments! :D

(In case you couldn't tell, I agree.)

advantage to going out with god. no one comes to bang on the van because it has a mysterious halo floating over it...

Nice arguments! :D
Thanks. I aim to please. With or without marriage. :p

i'm never having premarital sex again. because I'm married. sex is fun. why do you have to get married to have fun? people who hold on to their virginity until they're married are welcome to their weirdness, but it's still weird.

You said it. Sex is fun. It's recreational. Okay, it's procreational as well, but it doesn't have to be, and that's why I believe it's morally right for anyone to have sex with anyone else capable of consent.

@VoteEarly: Hey, if free will doesn't exist, I'm not responsible for anything I do! Wicked!

*goes to rob a bank, and will claim that "God made me do it!"*

What are you people - religious or something?

Sex is goooood.

You said it. Sex is fun. It's recreational. Okay, it's procreational as well, but it doesn't have to be, and that's why I believe it's morally right for anyone to have sex with anyone else capable of consent.

Hmmm, you said, "capable" of consent, technically anybody who is not retarded, is emotionally mature, and is able to talk, can make an informed decision and thus is capable of it. But you didn't say actually does consent...

:confused:

@VoteEarly: Hey, if free will doesn't exist, I'm not responsible for anything I do! Wicked!

*goes to rob a bank, and will claim that "God made me do it!"*


Have fun in hell, if you sin it's a sign you're not Elect and thus God has predestinated you for a life of sin, crime, and evil, because He knows you're going to hell.

You cannot blame God for anything, He owes mankind nothing, and it is with His generosity that His Elect are saved.

Hmmm, you said, "capable" of consent, technically anybody who is not retarded, is emotionally mature, and is able to talk, can make an informed decision and thus is capable of it. But you didn't say actually does consent...

:confused:You'll never win an argument by pointing out an easily-correctable error.

I'll fix it now, in fact... I believe Annatollia meant capable of free consent AND freely consents to each occasion.

I thought Calvinism went out with the butter churn. But hey, looks like you learn something every day.

Have fun in hell, if you sin it's a sign you're not Elect and thus God has predestinated you for a life of sin, crime, and evil, because He knows you're going to hell.

You cannot blame God for anything, He owes mankind nothing, and it is with His generosity that His Elect are saved.
you know god isnt slamming into your ass anymore. you can get off your knees any time now.

Let me chime in on the far Left side of this conversation, to balance our God fearing posters. Not only have I had premarital sex, I have it regularly both with my fiancee and trusted play parnters. There is nothing haphazard or trivial about these relationships, and I am very open, honest, and safe with all my partners. I am a Polyamorist, and am enriched by basking in the love and tolerance of those around me. It may not work for everybody, and society (certainly American society anyway) frowns on it blindly, but you'd be amazed at how alive having multiple sources of love can make you feel. I don't randomly 'sleep around', that is dangerous and irresponsible in today's world, and I would never promote such activity. However I do highly suggest, if for just a few minutes, imagining the love you may already have or have had in your life do nothing but grow from careful new experiences and the new viewpoints another partner brings to a relationship. Does a mother love any one child less if she has two or three? The same can be true with a responsible, intelligent, and tolerant couple. Even if it is nothing more than occasionally loving your partner enough to allow them to explore a fantasy, and trusting them enough to experience new joys. As egotistical and arrogant as we like to be, especially those blinded by faith or convention, you cannot be everything your parnter needs.

Have fun in hell, if you sin it's a sign you're not Elect and thus God has predestinated you for a life of sin, crime, and evil, because He knows you're going to hell.

You cannot blame God for anything, He owes mankind nothing, and it is with His generosity that His Elect are saved.So basically, once a person sins, it's a sign that he/she is totally damned for eternity anyway?

So what's to prevent us from repeating our mistakes, then? If I'm already in hell, end of story. It looks like there's no room for improvement.

So basically, once a person sins, it's a sign that he/she is totally damned for eternity anyway?

So what's to prevent us from repeating our mistakes, then? If I'm already in hell, end of story. It looks like there's no room for improvement.
calvinsism has died off more or less because it stimulates crime

calvinsism has died off more or less because it stimulates crime

See, I thought that too, but it turns out that Crypto-Calvinists have been lurking since the 1500s. Also interesting, some Calvinist theologians have attempted to iron out the internal inconsistencies within Calvinist beliefs. This has led to an essentialized "Hyper-Calvinism" which most Christians (and most Calvinists as well) renounce as "destructive to the Christian faith" and a caricature of religion. Kind of interesting that the denomination is either a) internally conflicted or b) virulent.

calvinsism has died off more or less because it stimulates crimeHmm, that's a pretty interesting theory. Where'd you pick it up? (Or did you just come up with it?)

Just curious...

Have fun in hell, if you sin it's a sign you're not Elect and thus God has predestinated you for a life of sin, crime, and evil, because He knows you're going to hell.

You cannot blame God for anything, He owes mankind nothing, and it is with His generosity that His Elect are saved.

Do Calvinists read the Bible? If so, what verses back up your way of believing?

Hmm, that's a pretty interesting theory. Where'd you pick it up? (Or did you just come up with it?)

Just curious...
logic. any social system that is out of balence works to stablize it self through internal or external means. america causes anarchy in a country, america is the destablizing factor so things move to remove america from said country

Do Calvinists read the Bible? If so, what verses back up your way of believing?
they dont read the kama-sutra :(

Do Calvinists read the Bible? If so, what verses back up your way of believing?



http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/22-0008.htm


Malach 1:2-3

Romans 11:7

(just to name a few)

I'll get a long list going shortly.

http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/22-0008.htm
Malach 1:2-3
Romans 11:7
(just to name a few)
I'll get a long list going shortly.

I understand the part about elect (my beliefs just go more towards anyone who accepts Jesus being elect), but what about the "there is no free will," and that Jesus only died for his elect, while the rest are pretty well screwed. "It doesn't matter if you sin, it is for the glory of God"?!

http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/22-0008.htm


Malach 1:2-3

Romans 11:7

(just to name a few)

I'll get a long list going shortly.

make sure you just list the words that you think apply to you. i know how everyone loves to make ransome note style bible verses.

I understand the part about elect (my beliefs just go more towards anyone who accepts Jesus being elect), but what about the "there is no free will," and that Jesus only died for his elect, while the rest are pretty well screwed. "It doesn't matter if you sin, it is for the glory of God"?!
does accept jesus include mounting him? :P

what if you don't have sex before marriage and you find out your partner sucks in bed after your marriage ....



republicofgaea.tripod.com (http://republicofgaea.tripod.com)

Yeah, but unfortunately you aren't one of the elect, so whatever your excuse, you're still going to hell. On the plus side, there's no point being holy and good, because you're still going to hell.
How do you get the seat by the big brimstone, you know the one by the sceaming, self rightious, hypocritical, religious bigots. I love the shocked look on their faces as they land dead even with all of us other sinners.

How do you get the seat by the big brimstone, you know the one by the sceaming, self rightious, hypocritical, religious bigots. I love the shocked look on their faces as they land dead even with all of us other sinners.
its because angels keep mounting them. they think that makes them holy. no it just means god is fucking you

Man cannot decide to be good and holy or evil, God decides. Faith in God is a gift that comes with Election into salvation. If you are meant to be saved, your conduct will be in keeping with one who is God's Elect, if you are reprobate, it will not matter, you're already headed for hell.

Man has absolutely NO free will of his own.

God is the ABSOLUTE sovereign of all things, and has predestinated all things.


Sorry bud, predestination is a weak excuse for any of your actions. "Why did you screw that goat?" "God predestined me to be a goat-fucker!" But enough of Calvinists, back to topic.

Unlike women, a used car's value deteriorates with time and use. It shouldn't matter whether you can drive a truck between her legs, as long as she gives good head. Trust me on this one. You can pretend all you want that she's a virgin, but if she uses teeth while giving head, you need to keep moving.

Sorry bud, predestination is a weak excuse for any of your actions. "Why did you screw that goat?" "God predestined me to be a goat-fucker!" But enough of Calvinists, back to topic.

Unlike women, a used car's value deteriorates with time and use. It shouldn't matter whether you can drive a truck between her legs, as long as she gives good head. Trust me on this one. You can pretend all you want that she's a virgin, but if she uses teeth while giving head, you need to keep moving.
i belive in predestination for blowjobs. you suck at them. or your awesome. my mate isnt as good as i am so several people say

what if you don't have sex before marriage and you find out your partner sucks in bed after your marriage ....



republicofgaea.tripod.com (http://republicofgaea.tripod.com)

What if you find out she's a hermaphrodite? <collective shiver from all the men>

i made god give me a blowjob. he sucked horribly at it. my boyfriend does it better.
yeah he also said the clergy should try being on bottom during hawt anal mahn secks
you know god isnt slamming into your ass anymore. you can get off your knees any time now.
does accept jesus include mounting him? :P
its because angels keep mounting them. they think that makes them holy. no it just means god is fucking you
Yissing Scalies: Official Warning - Trolling. Any further violations of NationStates forum rules will result in a forumban.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Ask yourself this, is the need for self-gratification the greatest good? Certainly not. Yet, pre-marital sex is all about self-gratification whereas marital sex is focused on the other person. What good can come out of pre-marital sex? The only thing that people will say is, "Well, I want to have it, so I'm going to have it." This is not a good excuse for your actions. There is no morally acceptable excuse for pre-marital sex. You just want your own way without regard to anything else. Morality can not be extracted from the freedom of doing whatever you want, rather it is found in your choices. You can make choices for good and evil. If your desire is to just have sex because it feels good, then you are obviously making a selfish choice which destroys any sense of intimacy. Be honest guys, you want to have sex to get your rocks off and for no other reason. Instead of being selfish, shouldn't sex be a means of procreation or bringing husband and wife together? There is pleasure in sex and this is a blessing from God. The focus should be on how we use this blessing. If we abuse it and use sex for our own benefit without any regard for the other person, we destroy the true blessing in sex. Pre-marital sex is wrong, selfish and above all dishonoring to ourselves and to God.

I've known some people who shacked up for decades, even had a couple of kids before they bothered getting married.

What if you find out she's a hermaphrodite? <collective shiver from all the men>

except me. 2 for the price of one? how is that bad?

If we start from the persective of natural law, we can agree all men have moral law written on their heart. Granted, we often distort and misapply the law, it still exists. This is obvious if you look at the widespread philosophical traditions of the world. Several different cultures will hold up several individuals who all taught the same basic morality. This is true of Jesus, Muhammad, Confuscious, Lao Tzu, and Buddha. The mere fact that all these men taught the same moral principles and were at the same time praised by their individual cultures points to the fact that there is a common strain of morality running through us. Now, if we think of this natural law, we can suppose that the "goodness" of something is determined by how well it fulfills its function. For example, a knife that cuts well is an excellent knife. This brings us to the topic of sex. Let us ask, what is the function of sex? The most obvious function is to procreate, the less obvious is the union of husband and wife. Now, if we look at these two closely together, we can see that permarital sex almost always excludes the possibility of procreation, which denies the first function of sex. This immediately destroys the goodness, so to speak, of sex and brings it into the realm of disorder. Now given the procreative nature of sex, one could argue that sex outside marriage is irresponsible since (given the procreative nature of sex) it could lead to raising a child outside of a married environment. Naturally, this is unhealthy for the child. One could argue that the purpose of sex is pleasure, however are you prepared to defend every possible sexual act that produces pleasure as good? (i.e. incest, adultery, bestiality, etc.) For further discussion on the application of natural law, see Written on the Heart by Dr. J. Budziszewski or Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

Ask yourself this, is the need for self-gratification the greatest good? Certainly not. Yet, pre-marital sex is all about self-gratification whereas marital sex is focused on the other person.

Are you sure that everyone who has sex with someone to whom they are married is always thinking of the other person, and everyone who has sex with someone to whom they are not married is always thinking of their own gratification?
Are you absolutely sure?
Are you absolutely mad?


Pre-marital sex is wrong, selfish and above all dishonoring to ourselves and to God.

Can you please prove to me that when my wife and I weren't married, all the times we had sex we weren't bringing our relationship closer? Could you prove to me also that when our children were conceived, procreation was not part of our sex life?

I'm sorry, Militant, but the sex I had up until now was always about my partner, too.

But then again, I'm not a guy and not really into them either, so maybe that makes the difference. What is sex good for if not BOTH of the couple, or all of the group, have fun?

Fran

Ask yourself this, is the need for self-gratification the greatest good? Certainly not. Yet, pre-marital sex is all about self-gratification whereas marital sex is focused on the other person. What good can come out of pre-marital sex? The only thing that people will say is, "Well, I want to have it, so I'm going to have it." This is not a good excuse for your actions. There is no morally acceptable excuse for pre-marital sex. You just want your own way without regard to anything else. Morality can not be extracted from the freedom of doing whatever you want, rather it is found in your choices. You can make choices for good and evil. If your desire is to just have sex because it feels good, then you are obviously making a selfish choice which destroys any sense of intimacy. Be honest guys, you want to have sex to get your rocks off and for no other reason. Instead of being selfish, shouldn't sex be a means of procreation or bringing husband and wife together? There is pleasure in sex and this is a blessing from God. The focus should be on how we use this blessing. If we abuse it and use sex for our own benefit without any regard for the other person, we destroy the true blessing in sex. Pre-marital sex is wrong, selfish and above all dishonoring to ourselves and to God.


It's not just self-gratification if she gets her rocks off too, is it? To be clear, it's one of the most viscious things to take away someone's virginity only to be able to say that they've slept with a virgin. I had a friend do this, and it is morally reprehensible.

However, to condemn someone for making their own choices [or God's choice for the Calvinist] based upon sexual experience is discriminatory. If you have the chance, will you ask your girl/boyfriend about their specific sexual history? You will not be pleased by what you hear. Whether s/he's been ridden more times than Seattle Slew is irrelevant (to quote Jim Carrey) if you truly love your partner. The only sexual history you should want to know from your partner is for health reasons.

Besides, if she's smart and wants to trick you, she can start doing kegels.

If we start from the persective of natural law, we can agree all men have moral law written on their heart.
I think a lot of people disagree.

Several different cultures will hold up several individuals who all taught the same basic morality. This is true of Jesus, Muhammad, Confuscious, Lao Tzu, and Buddha. The mere fact that all these men taught the same moral principles and were at the same time praised by their individual cultures points to the fact that there is a common strain of morality running through us.

Several cultures have taught very different moralities. In polynesian cultures, premarital sex is the norm. In Nazi germany, murder was acceptable. Are these 2 things indicative of the common strain of morality running through us?


Now, if we think of this natural law, we can suppose that the "goodness" of something is determined by how well it fulfills its function. For example, a knife that cuts well is an excellent knife. This brings us to the topic of sex. Let us ask, what is the function of sex?

This is a very lame argument, misapplied. A knife has a function because we designed it with a function in mind. Who says sex has a function? Sex is fun.


The most obvious function is to procreate, the less obvious is the union of husband and wife. Now, if we look at these two closely together, we can see that permarital sex almost always excludes the possibility of procreation, which denies the first function of sex.

The first function of sex is to have fun. I think we all agree this, based on the common thread of sex fun visible in the cultures of hinduism, buddhism, taoism, and graeco-roman paganism.


This immediately destroys the goodness, so to speak, of sex and brings it into the realm of disorder. Now given the procreative nature of sex, one could argue that sex outside marriage is irresponsible since (given the procreative nature of sex) it could lead to raising a child outside of a married environment. Naturally, this is unhealthy for the child.
Who says it is unhealthy for the child? Who says the child knows whether ort not its parents are married?



One could argue that the purpose of sex is pleasure, however are you prepared to defend every possible sexual act that produces pleasure as good? (i.e. incest, adultery, bestiality, etc.)

You have argued that the purpose of sex is procreation. Are you prepared to defend every possible sexual act that produces children as good? (incest, adultery, rape, fornication)


For further discussion on the application of natural law, see Written on the Heart by Dr. J. Budziszewski or Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

Natural law my arse.

I wrote more to men than to women. Men are intrinsically horny. There's simply no doubt about this. If we use our sexuality to gain our own pleasure, then we are certainly doing wrong by the other person. Ask yourself this, what is the purpose of marriage? Why was it instituted? For that, we return to a theological discussion. It is my sincere belief that marriage was instituted to bring a man and a woman together for the purpose of sexual fulfillment. You may believe that you be sexually fulfilled through pre-marital sex, but the fulfillment is found in how much pleasure you get out of the experience. In marriage, sexual fulfillment is found in procreation and how much closer sex brings the husband and wife.

We have very strong natural instincts to have sex, with or without marriage, it's after all one of the few biological imperatives we have hardwired into us.

Trying to get people to ignore their biological imperatives is always going to be a losing game...

Looking at the poll I have decided ns board is a bunch of horny sluts

:) and I love it! go premarital sex!

I wrote more to men than to women. Men are intrinsically horny. There's simply no doubt about this. If we use our sexuality to gain our own pleasure, then we are certainly doing wrong by the other person. Ask yourself this, what is the purpose of marriage? Why was it instituted? For that, we return to a theological discussion. It is my sincere belief that marriage was instituted to bring a man and a woman together for the purpose of sexual fulfillment. You may believe that you be sexually fulfilled through pre-marital sex, but the fulfillment is found in how much pleasure you get out of the experience. In marriage, sexual fulfillment is found in procreation and how much closer sex brings the husband and wife.
Pleasure is cool :-D

You may believe that you be sexually fulfilled through pre-marital sex, but the fulfillment is found in how much pleasure you get out of the experience. In marriage, sexual fulfillment is found in procreation and how much closer sex brings the husband and wife.

Please prove to me that the fulfillment I got from the sex I had with my current wife before I got married was not about how much closer it brought us, and was not about the conception of my sons.

Please prove it to yourself. I still don't understand how you can say this over and over again without thinking what you are saying.

Did somebody tell you that unmarried sex is always selfish? Didn't you ask that person "How do you know? You haven't met everyone. You aren't in a position to judge the relationships of people you haven't met".

Sure pleasure is fun, but what is its purpose? I'm sure that committing adultury is pleasurable. Perhaps even murdering someone that you dislike is pleasureable, but is it good? What good is brought about by engaging in pre-marital sex? If self-gratifying pleasure is the only reason that people can give, then pre-marital sex is a selfish act, not a good one.

Sin :fluffle: :sniper:

Sure pleasure is fun, but what is its purpose? I'm sure that committing adultury is pleasurable. Perhaps even murdering someone that you dislike is pleasureable, but is it good? What good is brought about by engaging in pre-marital sex? If self-gratifying pleasure is the only reason that people can give, then pre-marital sex is a selfish act, not a good one.

Are you listening? self-gratifying pleasure is the only reason that YOU have given. YOU are the one defining premarital sex as a selfish act.

If I'm married, and self-gratifying pleasure is my only reason for having sex, is marital sex wrong too?

Personally I think you know darn well that if you thought about it for 30 seconds you'd have to admit to yourself that you've wasted a lot of time not having sex.

In marriage, sexual fulfillment is found in procreation and how much closer sex brings the husband and wife.
So a married couple that does not procreate does only get half the fulfillment, right? Are you propagating a "once a year" sex life?
And how about a non-engaged couple that are have a child? Because some people choose not to marry, even if they share a household and have children together.
And why does sex only bring married folks closer? Normally that is a phenomenon that all couples of all sexual orientations enjoy.

So a married couple that does not procreate does only get half the fulfillment, right? Are you propagating a "once a year" sex life?
And how about a non-engaged couple that are have a child? Because some people choose not to marry, even if they share a household and have children together.
And why does sex only bring married folks closer? Normally that is a phenomenon that all couples of all sexual orientations enjoy.

Militant Protestants is clearly so sexually frustrated that it has gone deaf, and its brain has ceased to function. It appears to be incapable of processing discussion.

Sure pleasure is fun, but what is its purpose?
Going to the movies serves no purpose, but is fun. Do you want to make something out of it?
Visiting an amusement park serves no purpose, but is fun. Is that a sin?
Taking a vacation serves no purpose, but it is fun. Is that evil?
ad libitum...

What the purpose of fun is?

Relief, maybe? Bonding (not bondage :P)? The fact, maybe, that I feel closer to someone I truely share my bed with then to my best friend?

True, you don't want to bond with a one-night-stand-partner, but I never had any of those.

Still, I see nothing wrong in anything that pleasures all participating persons. If everyone has fun, what can be wrong about it? If it is clear to all that "the act" will only be for fun and only this one time?

Fran

Please prove to me that the fulfillment I got from the sex I had with my current wife before I got married was not about how much closer it brought us, and was not about the conception of my sons.

Please prove it to yourself. I still don't understand how you can say this over and over again without thinking what you are saying.

Did somebody tell you that unmarried sex is always selfish? Didn't you ask that person "How do you know? You haven't met everyone. You aren't in a position to judge the relationships of people you haven't met".

What was your purpose in having sex prior to marriage? I think that people have pre-marital sex for a few reasons: pleasure, intimacy, acceptance. The pleasure question I have already addressed. Now let's look at intimacy. Intimacy is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "close or warm friendship." Do you believe that pre-marital sex bring a closer intimacy to a relationship? For a lot of relationships, it usually brings about the end to it especially if it results in pregnancy. Can be postulate that people can achieve intimacy without sex? I firmly believe that prior to anyone being married, they should achieve the intimacy as the American Heritage Dictionary defines it. This leads to a fuller and intimate sex life as a married couple. The idea that people need to have pre-marital sex to be accepted by their partner or those around them is a tragic state of affairs. The tragedy is that those that want to be accepting by their partner feel that they are not good enough on their own without giving in to having sex with them. Relationships which maintain sexual purity through marriage are the ones that will be more sexually fulfilling. It is a lie to say that sex in marriage is not as good as pre-marital sex. If we are pure until marriage, then the sex we have during marriage will be all that we dreamed of

Militant Protestants is clearly so sexually frustrated that it has gone deaf, and its brain has ceased to function. It appears to be incapable of processing discussion.
Come on, be fair, ridicule the viewpoint, but not the person.

Ah, the American Heritage Dictionary. Truly, the grade school assistant principal's best friend. The best and easiest way to begin an argument or an award-winning three-paragraph essay.

And yes, sex inevitably makes a friendship both closer and warmer. Some might even say "hotter" if a hot tub is involved. Don't make me go to the OED for definitions of "closer" and "warmer" to demonstrate this.

"I think a lot of people disagree."-independent homestead



"Several cultures have taught very different moralities. In polynesian cultures, premarital sex is the norm. In Nazi germany, murder was acceptable. Are these 2 things indicative of the common strain of morality running through us?"independent homestead

I'm not saying we agree completely, but we agree mostly. To quote C.S. Lewis, "if no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers-people who understood mroality better than their neighbours did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than any other, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standrd more nearly than the other. But the standard that measure two things is something different from either. You are, in fact , comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real RIght, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real RIght than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be about." -C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity Granted, the Christian would say our minor disgreements (for we all agree on major things, like don't walk around killing people at will, is due to our fallen nature. Perhaps a secularist would argue that no innate moral rule would be complete to address every issue, because then it would have to be an infinate ruler.


"This is a very lame argument, misapplied. A knife has a function because we designed it with a function in mind. Who says sex has a function? Sex is fun."-independent homestead
Are you suggesting there was no intended purpose of sex? (be it from intelligent design or evolution) If so, it would not exist. All things exist for a function. The knife is simply an obvious example because we created it. Fun is an accident of sex, not a purpose. You might get some enjoyment out of it, but that is not its function because sex for fun, if not procreative, will not extend the existance of the species. This is why, generally speaking, animals do not experience pleasure when they have sex.



"The first function of sex is to have fun. I think we all agree this, based on the common thread of sex fun visible in the cultures of hinduism, buddhism, taoism, and graeco-roman paganism."-independent homestead
You just said "we all agree on this"- which points toward some sense of natural law, written on the heart. Though I would disagree with you. Does this undermine your argument? Also, glutony can be fun, but is the purpose of food pleasure? Certainly not; the purpose of food is to nourish our bodies. Pleasure is an accidental property, a reason just to make sure we do it and that ensures the survival of the species.


"Who says it is unhealthy for the child? Who says the child knows whether ort not its parents are married?" -independent homestead
Obviously, children raised in a 2 parent home with stability (that exists in marriage) perform better in society. Statistics are abundent regarding this.




"You have argued that the purpose of sex is procreation. Are you prepared to defend every possible sexual act that produces children as good? (incest, adultery, rape, fornication)" -independent homestead
No, because I argued it has two functions, and if it fails to be within marriage, obviously it does occur within marriage, it does not conform to its purpose. Additionally, I would say there are further restrictions on it that come from more general rules (such as not enforcing ones will upon another without consent)

What was your purpose in having sex prior to marriage? [b] I think [b]that people have pre-marital sex for a few reasons: pleasure, intimacy, acceptance.

YOU THINK this. Not *it is a fact* but *you think*. Why do you think this? Why don't you think that my partner and I were brought much closer by our sex, and we procreated 2 children?

Do you believe that pre-marital sex bring a closer intimacy to a relationship? For a lot of relationships, it usually brings about the end to it especially if it results in pregnancy.

Can you give statistics for the number of relationships that end the minute because people have had sex? And if they do, isn't a good thing to say *I'm not going to waste any more time having a relationship with you because the sex is crap* ?

Relationships which maintain sexual purity through marriage are the ones that will be more sexually fulfilling.

You have absolutely no reason to think that this is the case. Who told you this? How did that person measure sexual fulfilment?

It is a lie to say that sex in marriage is not as good as pre-marital sex.
It's not just a lie, it is completely non-sensical. I have never ever heard anyone say that.

If we are pure until marriage, then the sex we have during marriage will be all that we dreamed of
Doesn't that depend on what we dreamed of?

Relationships which maintain sexual purity through marriage are the ones that will be more sexually fulfilling.
Excuse me, but how would you know? I surely dont buy it when a blind man explains me colours. You are blinded by your belief, which is fine by me, but it surely doesnt make you the expert on this issue.

Hey, if you think that sex is only good if it is done with the other partner's pleasure in mind, you must have a special affinity for oral, eh, MP?

I, for one, think that it's simply stupid to engage in sexual relations with more than a few different partners for the reason that this increases one's opportunity to get infected with a disease that'll make one's nuts fall off while taking a piss in the toilet. It's just dumb, and that's all she wrote. However, I think that it's perfectly healthy to have a few different romantic relationships in one's lifetime. If you treat sex intelligently, as with alcohol, it will do more good than harm. If you behave like a bloody moron, it'll certainly harm you. I think that the snoot is more effective than anything else at discouraging sexual stupidity. If we attribute a person's frequent changing of partners to an inability to keep one for more than a month, others will try harder to hold onto a woman to prevent themselves from fitting into this classification in the constant drive to fit into the social upper ranks. People don't mind being immoral; in fact, some revel in it. Nobody, however, likes being seen as a member of the slave class or having their abilities questioned. Also, instead of looking upon premarital sex as a negative, let's make marriage or equivalent a positive. Let's make it like a rite of passage. Elitism does have its uses, and this is possibly one of them. I think that this would solve the problem of excessive one-night liasons.

The only problem with it that I see is that some kids just take it too far, and get themselves pregnant with AIDS at 13 and and up in a right mess.
I've never seen anyone give birth to AIDS.

This will be my last post for right now and I just wanted to post a website that I hope will foster more discussion....

http://www.intervarsity.org/slj/sp95/sp95_why_wait_for_sex.html

I'm not saying we agree completely, but we agree mostly. I'm saying we disagree. There is no such thing as a natural law to which people naturally lean.


Are you suggesting there was no intended purpose of sex? (be it from intelligent design or evolution) If so, it would not exist. All things exist for a function.
Who says? What is the function of Pluto?

This is why, generally speaking, animals do not experience pleasure when they have sex.
Plenty of primates masturbate, have homosexual sex and have sex when a female involved is not in heat. I think they are doing these things because they are fun. I also think that what animals do is irrelevant.

You just said "we all agree on this"- which points toward some sense of natural law, written on the heart.
I said it to mock you. Sorry. My point is that lots of cultures think sex is fun. Get over it.

Obviously, children raised in a 2 parent home with stability (that exists in marriage) perform better in society. Statistics are abundent regarding this.
You are conflating 2 parents and stability with marriage. They are not the same thing at all.

This will be my last post for right now and I just wanted to post a website that I hope will foster more discussion....

http://www.intervarsity.org/slj/sp95/sp95_why_wait_for_sex.html


Translation: I have no thoughts of my own, and nothing to justify my beliefs, so I'm running away before I have to face up to my inconsistency. Please read the rubbish that I got my ideas from - I hope you'll accept it as blindly as I did.

Sure pleasure is fun, but what is its purpose? I'm sure that committing adultury is pleasurable. Perhaps even murdering someone that you dislike is pleasureable, but is it good? What good is brought about by engaging in pre-marital sex? If self-gratifying pleasure is the only reason that people can give, then pre-marital sex is a selfish act, not a good one.
Personaly I like pleasuring her more ;)

This seems a little like the arguments about ab*rtion (thought it isn't, and I don't want it to be) in that one side is arguing for the personal choice of those involved and the other for an absolute decision on whether the act is inherently "wrong" or "right".

I don't believe there's any way to resolve the two points of view, though some of the arguments put forward (sex is somehow "better" inside/outside of marriage? What? It destroys relationships? Not in my experience.) seem strange.

In these days of drive-thru weddings and divorces, can there be said to be a difference between the two? </joke>

Ask yourself this, is the need for self-gratification the greatest good?

Who said premarital sex is about self gratification? Masturbation and rape are about self gratification, sex is cogratifying (unless you are doing it wrong my friend).

What good can come out of pre-marital sex?

Starting with simple recreation, exercise, and hormonal balance... ending with experience, self and partner discovery, trust, intimacy, and love. I see nothing sinful in that list, nor destructive.



There is no morally acceptable excuse for pre-marital sex.

EXACTLY what is amoral about this... other than what you are told following whatever scripture you are bound to? Faith is a powerful ally, blind faith is a crime on humanity. Take a real good look inside and tell me, from your own heart, what is wrong with two consentual adults making love? Is love not what God wants in this world?

There is pleasure in sex and this is a blessing from God.

If a person never finds their true mate, should this blessing be forever forbidden to them?

The focus should be on how we use this blessing. If we abuse it and use sex for our own benefit without any regard for the other person, we destroy the true blessing in sex.

Amen, no quarrel with that statement.

Pre-marital sex is wrong, selfish and above all dishonoring to ourselves and to God.

Done with mutual respect and love, pre-marital sex is right, generous, and above all enlightening to ourselves and encouraging to the holiest of all emotions, love, which honors all constructive religions.

I think it would be very selfish for anyone to give themselves as a virgin, to their bride or groom.

You should at least have practised the principles - be familiar with the territory, and have a few basic skills, before you commit someone else to a contract vis-a-vis sex, which is what a 'marriage' would be.

Anyone who DOESN'T take the time and effort to become an accomplished lover is goiong to be inflicting a lack of skills and technique on the person they CLAIM they love.

How selfish is that???

I think it would be very selfish for anyone to give themselves as a virgin, to their bride or groom.

You should at least have practised the principles - be familiar with the territory, and have a few basic skills, before you commit someone else to a contract vis-a-vis sex, which is what a 'marriage' would be.

Anyone who DOESN'T take the time and effort to become an accomplished lover is goiong to be inflicting a lack of skills and technique on the person they CLAIM they love.

How selfish is that???
answer : very

answer : very

This kind of goes back to the repugnant used car metaphor. Somebody asked whether you'd want to buy a car that half the town has driven. Conversely, who in the hell buys a car without taking it for a drive themselves? I'll tell you who. Gremlin owners.

Done with mutual respect and love, pre-marital sex is right, generous, and above all enlightening to ourselves and encouraging to the holiest of all emotions, love, which honors all constructive religions.

I agree. Love is what counts. Love in all its forms is our basic sacrament, we honour life and those that gave us life through love. Sex in a loving relationship is, I think, the way we celebrate our own act of Creation.

On another note, it's also great fun to just have sex with someone you feel like having sex with. Pure recreation. No relationships to destroy, no hard feelings.

This kind of goes back to the repugnant used car metaphor. Somebody asked whether you'd want to buy a car that half the town has driven. Conversely, who in the hell buys a car without taking it for a drive themselves? I'll tell you who. Gremlin owners.
Hey (silly thing is its true) I bought a truck with 230k miles on it ... best vehicle I have ever had (including my 03 allero)

Hey (silly thing is its true) I bought a truck with 230k miles on it ... best vehicle I have ever had (including my 03 allero)

reduce, reuse, recycle.

rock on.

http://www.intervarsity.org/slj/sp95/sp95_why_wait_for_sex.html
This fine link states, among other blatantly partisan conclusions, that the best sex is reached ten to twenty years into marriage. I wonder if that comes from the fact that the people involved now have ten+ years experience or that marriage somehow is magical and does transform the partners into higher beings compared to non-married couples that are in a stable relationship for the same time.

Hey, yeah. Let's threadjack this into a truck talk. Best vehicle I've ever had, and what I'm driving now, is a thirty-one year old Blazer that that saw hard use at the hands of half the state of Oregon. I'd give mileage, but it's only a five-digit odometer, so that information is strictly between the truck and God.

Back on topic, what's this reduce, reuse, recycle crap? All good premartial sinners know you're only supposed to use a girl once and then get a new one.

This fine link states, among other blatantly partisan conclusions, that the best sex is reached ten to twenty years into marriage.

Yeah, that Viagra runs a hell of a skewed website.

Ok. The sex and self gratification argument is the only thing between the two sides of this debate. I think the position of premarital sex is being pretty weakly defended.
1. Pre-marital sex is not JUST self gratifying because you are actually gratifying the OTHER PERSON. Unless you are alone. Then you're premaritally masturbating. That's probably for a different thread.
2. There is no inherent moral law in man because
a) The universe is chaotic.
b) Humans do both good and bad.
c) The conception of morality varies throughout the entire world.
d) Imposing your will on someone else IS naturally immoral. When sex is consensual, no one is imposing. When you push the view on others, you are imposing. (I mean in public schools and such, not on a messageboard.

I could probably go onabout the nautr of man, but forget it. Unless we're going to at least talk Mencius or Confucius or someone else with a better interpretation for why we are naturally moral then it's not even interesting.

3) The unwillingness to satisfy the self is often from fear implanted early on insociety before a person truly acquires rights in their country of residence. The fact is, there are thousands of stupid laws that we break every day, from jaywalking to certain statutory sex measures to smoking pot. The government doesn't want you to do things, the people around you often don't want you to do things... it's everywhere. Censorship is rampant in American TV, radio, and most other mainstream forms of media. Newspapers base their ideas on sensationalizing issues in order to affect how people react to certain agendas, because they don't want them doing things. All nations o our size are that heavily affected. To argue against self gratification is the tool that's used. They attach a moral meaning to it. They tell you drugs breed communism.
That link, my friend, is as close to the idea that premarital sex is immoral because it is self gratifying. And the entire idea of such philosophy has been driven into your brain.
Sorry to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

4) Two semantic interpretations are acceptable.
a) All people are selfish. That can mean gratifying philanthropical urges like Mother Theresa did or gratifying your deathwish like Kurt Cobain. It is all a matter of what our self wants as to whether we act good or bad, and nobody is entirely either one. The only time you have done something bad is when you coerce someone else.
5) We are all self -interested, but to be selfish is to act only in favor of the self all the time, or too much of the time.
ICE CREAM! Both self gratifying, and moral, correct? But if you sat on your butt and ate it all day when your family was scraping by, that wouldn't be a moral action.
What you would essentially have to prove to us is that the body is a temple that shouldn't be violated until after sex... which is impossible. You can't prove a statement like that because it doesn't have real meaning in our existence. You have the right to think whatever you want about G-d, but we ARE NOT A THEOCRACY. I think it would make more sense to establish programs to stop 12 and 13 year olds from becoming pregnant then to argue against older teens making booty calls.

reduce, reuse, recycle.

rock on.
Yup

My theory that if it even matters to you how many partners she has had (as long as she makes sure for std's) your love for her should overcome
If not you best evaluate how much you love that person and what your priority's are

Hey, yeah. Let's threadjack this into a truck talk. Best vehicle I've ever had, and what I'm driving now, is a thirty-one year old Blazer that that saw hard use at the hands of half the state of Oregon. I'd give mileage, but it's only a five-digit odometer, so that information is strictly between the truck and God.

Back on topic, what's this reduce, reuse, recycle crap? All good premartial sinners know you're only supposed to use a girl once and then get a new one.

I think trucks are immoral. I bet it even has a gasoline engine. My lil diesel car has 112000 miles and I'm going for 140000 before i get another lil diesel car.

I think trucks are immoral. I bet it even has a gasoline engine. My lil diesel car has 112000 miles and I'm going for 140000 before i get another lil diesel car.

Not only does it have a gasoline engine, it runs on hydraulic pressure rather than combustion. I need to have a constant flow of gas pushing the pistons like a waterwheel. This means I only get about four feet to the gallon and all the runoff goes directly out of my exhaust pipe and into drains that run directly to duck sanctuaries.

I'd like to be more enviromentally aware though, so my next vehicle will probably be a hybrid that will run equally well on regular gas or rendered mink and whale oil.

Not only does it have a gasoline engine, it runs on hydraulic pressure rather than combustion. I need to have a constant flow of gas pushing the pistons like a waterwheel. This means I only get about four feet to the gallon and all the runoff goes directly out of my exhaust pipe and into drains that run directly to duck sanctuaries.

I'd like to be more enviromentally aware though, so my next vehicle will probably be a hybrid that will run equally well on regular gas or rendered mink and whale oil.

:eek:

(i never used a smiley before, but this occasion demands one)

Other: I am not married, but there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex.

22 people voted that it is a sin? Why?

22 people voted that it is a sin? Why?
religious

22 people voted that it is a sin? Why?

because they are weird

religious

Why do religous people think it is a sin? I don't understand, God wouldn't have given it to us, then made it necessary fot the survival of all animals if it was wrong. :headbang: :headbang:

"There is only 2 infinite things, The universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first 1.

He was right! :D :eek:

Why do religous people think it is a sin?
Because in their belief system the holy scripture defines it as such. Sin is only defined within this system. And they have every right to believe such. While it isnt based on rational reasons it is nonetheless fully valid. They are not stupid, but have different outlooks on such issues. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to grasp the concepts of respect and tolerance.

22 people voted that it is a sin? Why?

Obviously, because they are not, as they say, getting any.

Because in their belief system the holy scripture defines it as such. Sin is only defined within this system. And they have every right to believe such. While it isnt based on rational reasons it is nonetheless fully valid. They are not stupid, but have different outlooks on such issues. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to grasp the concepts of respect and tolerance.

I just don't understand why it is a big sin if everyone does it. Wake up people, the animals do it! :headbang: If sex is wrong, why not Eating, drinking, or sleeping? :rolleyes:

Obviously, because they are not, as they say, getting any.

Harsh... yet, as they say, fair.

:)

Why do religous people think it is a sin? I don't understand, God wouldn't have given it to us, then made it necessary fot the survival of all animals if it was wrong. :headbang: :headbang:



Umm...AFAIK marital sex isn't against Bible ;)

Umm...AFAIK marital sex isn't against Bible ;)

Then why are people against it? What does AFAIK mean?

Umm...AFAIK marital sex isn't against Bible ;)

Neither is 'pre-marital'.... since the act of consummation was considered consonant with the concept of marriage.... thus, making 'pre-marital' sex an impossibility.

Adultery might be against the bible....

Of course... pick your verses well, and you can justify impregnating your own children, or dashing baby-brains out on rocks....

Meh, I'd say I'm right, if I was ever in a position of power, I'd ban fornication.

it must be nice having such an inflated sense of self-importance. unfortunately, i can't bring myself quite to that level of arrogance.


Although I can see why you hold your opinion, you're afraid that if you wait till you're married, you might find you and your spouse are not sexually compatible.

no, that's not really my reasoning (though it is a minor consideration). i want my partner and i to know each other as completely as possible before we commit our lives to one another, and our sexual selves are a part of who we are. not the most important part, not even necessarily a major part at all, but a part none the less. i believe it is dishonest to promise my life to another person without making every possible effort to determine who they are and whether i can honestly make that commitment.


But, if neither of you has anything to compare the other against, how would either of you ever know if the other one isn't that great?

why would i want that?! i want to KNOW that my partner is choosing me with their eyes fully open! i want them to have something to compare me to. i want them to know that i am the best person for them to be with, rather than keeping them ignorant of alternatives out of fear they won't like me enough. i want to know my partner has checked out their options and consciously decided i am the best...i don't want them to just stick with me because they've never tried anything else and don't know what they might be missing.

wanting to marry a virgin so she won't know any better if you are a crappy lover seems pretty sad, to me. obviously you are afraid that you won't measure up in bed, which is a natural fear, but you shouldn't let that fear dictate your relationships or your sexuality.


Ideally though, everybody, male or female, wants a virgin partner, who wouldn't?

NO! i would never, under any circumstances, want to marry a virgin. any person who believes they should promise to share their life with another person before they are willing to share their body is somebody i cannot respect. they are basically saying that their oath for life is more cheaply given than sex, and that puts far too much importance on sex for my taste. i think that is a disgusting set of priorities, to be honest, and i don't think i would every be comfortable in a relationship with somebody like that, let alone consider marriage to them.


So it's really only fair since I want a virgin wife, that I remain a virgin myself, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.

now THAT is true. if you are going to put such ludicrous emphasis on preservation of ignorance, then it is only fair to expect you to remain as ignorant as your partner.

Although if the right woman came along, I guess her sexual history wouldn't matter, unless it involved homosexuality, bisexuality, miscegenation, or some sort of crazy satanic ritualism.

aah, a homophobe, racist, and religious bigot, all rolled into one...what a catch.

I just don't understand why it is a big sin if everyone does it. Wake up people, the animals do it!
How many people do it does in no way constitute an argument. E.g. If you believe that modern technology deters you from the communication with God, like amish do, than that belief is more important to you than the fact that most other denominations think otherwise. Belief is a personal thing that need not be rational and thus cannot be discussed.

wanting to marry a virgin so she won't know any better if you are a crappy lover seems pretty sad, to me. obviously you are afraid that you won't measure up in bed, which is a natural fear, but you shouldn't let that fear dictate your relationships or your sexuality.

aah, a homophobe, racist, and religious bigot, all rolled into one...what a catch.


Nope, I have no fears.


So I'm a homophobe because I don't like gay sex? Homophobes are people who go out and start bashing queers with a bat or otherwise attack them. Not liking gay sex doesn't make me a homophobe, it just makes me, NOT GAY!

I've never had gay sex (or any sex for that matter) and never will have gay sex (I will though, someday, have normal sex).

Wanting a woman who hasn't been exposed to risks of STDs (50% of blacks have genital herpes, and 40% have syphilis, black males are 14x as likely as white males to have HIV) doesn't make me a racist, just a realist. Wanting a woman who is a cultural preservationist is nothing evil. I am a cultural preservationist and as such, a race-mixer would not be compatible with my morals and values.

I'm a religious bigot because I don't want a woman who has all sorts of sexual perversions that involve Satanism?

Wow, I'm glad you know the buzzwords to use to try to silence those you disagree with. But I'm also glad it didn't work, I'm not silent.

Been there, done that.

The argument with STDs is a bit weak, there's protection, you know. But then again *knows many males who "can't do it with condom"* yeah right :rolleyes:

So I'm a homophobe because I don't like gay sex? Homophobes are people who go out and start bashing queers with a bat or otherwise attack them. Not liking gay sex doesn't make me a homophobe, it just makes me, NOT GAY!

try the dictionary, it's helpful when you need to learn new words:

HOMOPHOBIA (n): "Fear of, dislike, or contempt for homosexuals and/or homosexuality."

by your own words, you are a homophobe. deal with it.

I've never had gay sex (or any sex for that matter) and never will have gay sex (I will though, someday, have normal sex).

that's nice.

Wanting a woman who hasn't been exposed to risks of STDs (50% of blacks have genital herpes, and 40% have syphilis, black males are 14x as likely as white males to have HIV) doesn't make me a racist, just a realist.

ever compare the STD rates of straight women with lesbians? hint: lesbians do not have higher rates of STD infection.


Wanting a woman who is a cultural preservationist is nothing evil. I am a cultural preservationist and as such, a race-mixer would not be compatible with my morals and values.

hey, don't get me wrong, i am delighted that you have restricted your field of view when it comes to women...that reduces the number of women at risk of being hit on by you, and i consider that a positive.


I'm a religious bigot because I don't want a woman who has all sorts of sexual perversions that involve Satanism?

the very fact that you specify "sexual perversions that involve Satanism" answers that question.


Wow, I'm glad you know the buzzwords to use to try to silence those you disagree with. But I'm also glad it didn't work, I'm not silent.
"buzzwords"? honey, you discriminate based on race: you are racist. you discriminate by sexual orientation: you are a homophobe. you discriminate based on religion: you are whatever the word for a religious "racist" would be. that's not using buzzwords, that's using the dictionary.

try the dictionary, it's helpful when you need to learn new words:

HOMOPHOBIA (n): "Fear of, dislike, or contempt for homosexuals and/or homosexuality."



So any man who won't be open to having homosexual sex because he dislikes the idea, is a homophobe?

I'm glad to see that the left has invented a word that they can use to describe 95+% of straight men, to bash them into silence with if they need to.

So any man who won't be open to having homosexual sex because he dislikes the idea, is a homophobe?
No, those who are just neutral on the issue because they are not oriented in that way are not called anything special. And they constitute the majority.

So any man who won't be open to having homosexual sex because he dislikes the idea, is a homophobe?

I'm glad to see that the left has invented a word that they can use to describe 95+% of straight men, to bash them into silence with if they need to.
the definition says nothing about whether or not you personally would enjoy homosexual sex. read more carefully.

Well, Bottle, in VoteEarly's defense, the connotative meanings that those words entail nowadays does indeed include a level of violence or unreasonableness that he obviously is not guilty of. Thus, using those to throw him in a category in inherently unfair, since, regardless of what the dictionary says, what truly matters is what people think of when they hear it.
The term "homophobe" connotates a gay-basher,which he is not. "Racist" would make him out to be a KKK member in hiding, who dreams about killing blacks and asians. And a "religious bigot" brings to mind fundamentalist christians, elitist catholics, and radical muslims. Thus, I would say, speaking connotatively, that your use of those terms is uncalled for. of course, the dictionary meanings are much broader. However, their extreme contexts are how they are normally used, and so they carry a negative implication.
By the way, you most certainly did use those terms strategically to make him out to be an ignorant, racist, homophobic, religious bigot who is inherently unreasonable because of his beliefs. No point in denying, and it really doesn't concern me. Attacking a debatee's image is entirely appropriate in debate. Undermine their credibility, and you have already won.



Back to the poll: I have had pre-marital sex, many times, and I will do it again. Read A Picture of Dorian Gray, specifically Lord Henry's comments, to learn my philosophy on life. A philosophy of pleasure, with a focus on beauty, and relying on the senses. That is my lifestyle. And it's rather enjoyable too. Sex, and my philosophy.

the definition says nothing about whether or not you personally would enjoy homosexual sex. read more carefully.
Now THIS is rather hypocritical. You called him a homophobe for stating that he would never partake in homosexual sex, or have relations with a woman who had. However, when he calls you out for the misuse of a term, you then tell him that he is using the wrong definition? Perhaps YOU should determine precisely what context you are using "homophobe" in. Spell it out, perhaps.

So any man who won't be open to having homosexual sex because he dislikes the idea, is a homophobe?

I'm glad to see that the left has invented a word that they can use to describe 95+% of straight men, to bash them into silence with if they need to.
No doing something out of personal prefferance is different from making hate speach and belittling others who make that personal choice for themselfs

Nope, I have no fears.


So I'm a homophobe because I don't like gay sex? Homophobes are people who go out and start bashing queers with a bat or otherwise attack them. Not liking gay sex doesn't make me a homophobe, it just makes me, NOT GAY!

I've never had gay sex (or any sex for that matter) and never will have gay sex (I will though, someday, have normal sex).

Wanting a woman who hasn't been exposed to risks of STDs (50% of blacks have genital herpes, and 40% have syphilis, black males are 14x as likely as white males to have HIV) doesn't make me a racist, just a realist. Wanting a woman who is a cultural preservationist is nothing evil. I am a cultural preservationist and as such, a race-mixer would not be compatible with my morals and values.

I'm a religious bigot because I don't want a woman who has all sorts of sexual perversions that involve Satanism?

Wow, I'm glad you know the buzzwords to use to try to silence those you disagree with. But I'm also glad it didn't work, I'm not silent.


How does your personal view of gay sex, have anything to do with what another person might do? And yet, you wouldn't 'accept' a girl who had had a homosexual encounter?

That sounds like a 'fear' of homosexuals, to me. That makes you a 'homophobe'.

Your statistics are unsupportable. 50% of blacks have genital herpes? Do you have a citation for that? Can yo provide ANY evidence for any of your 'claims'?

I suspect not - which makes your assertions nothing more than prejudice - which means you discriminate on race... which would make you a 'racist', and a 'bigot'.

I would be curious to see what 'culture' you belong to. The concept of 'cultural preservation' is an absolute nonsense, with the possible exception of certain South American Natives.... there ARE NO pure cultures apart from that. So, which 'pure' culture do you claim?

You are a religious bigot entirely because you have made a prejudicial judgement about someone's sexual practices, without any information other than their preferred deity. Perhaps you are unaware that 'Satanism' doesn't necessitate ANY special sexual practises? Ignorance is no defense, my friend.

You are correct on one point, though.

You most certainly are not silent.

Wrong, yes.... provable and repeated.

Silent... no.

I really don’t think that premarital sex is a big issue. What people choose to do behind closed doors is their business. A bigger problem we have is safe sex or the appropriate age people should be having sex. Sex can come with consequences and people should make sure they are ready for those consequences before they have sex weather they are or are not married.

Now THIS is rather hypocritical. You called him a homophobe for stating that he would never partake in homosexual sex, or have relations with a woman who had. However, when he calls you out for the misuse of a term, you then tell him that he is using the wrong definition? Perhaps YOU should determine precisely what context you are using "homophobe" in. Spell it out, perhaps.
sorry, i was basing my evaluation in part on other posts he has made...i should have been more precise, you're right.

feel free to ask him to clarify his views on homosexuals and homosexuality, though.

How does your personal view of gay sex, have anything to do with what another person might do? And yet, you wouldn't 'accept' a girl who had had a homosexual encounter?

That sounds like a 'fear' of homosexuals, to me. That makes you a 'homophobe'.

Your statistics are unsupportable. 50% of blacks have genital herpes? Do you have a citation for that? Can yo provide ANY evidence for any of your 'claims'?

I suspect not - which makes your assertions nothing more than prejudice - which means you discriminate on race... which would make you a 'racist', and a 'bigot'.

I would be curious to see what 'culture' you belong to. The concept of 'cultural preservation' is an absolute nonsense, with the possible exception of certain South American Natives.... there ARE NO pure cultures apart from that. So, which 'pure' culture do you claim?

You are a religious bigot entirely because you have made a prejudicial judgement about someone's sexual practices, without any information other than their preferred deity. Perhaps you are unaware that 'Satanism' doesn't necessitate ANY special sexual practises? Ignorance is no defense, my friend.

You are correct on one point, though.

You most certainly are not silent.

Wrong, yes.... provable and repeated.

Silent... no.


Hear hear! exactly what I was going to say

But better then I was going to be able to say it :)

Well, Bottle, in VoteEarly's defense, the connotative meanings that those words entail nowadays does indeed include a level of violence or unreasonableness that he obviously is not guilty of. Thus, using those to throw him in a category in inherently unfair, since, regardless of what the dictionary says, what truly matters is what people think of when they hear it.

i totally disagree. i make an effort to use words appropriately, rather than simply going along with whatever misconceptions the masses might have about a particular word.

The term "homophobe" connotates a gay-basher,which he is not. "Racist" would make him out to be a KKK member in hiding, who dreams about killing blacks and asians. And a "religious bigot" brings to mind fundamentalist christians, elitist catholics, and radical muslims.

as i have shown, the actual definitions of all those words apply to him. he is racist. he is homophobic. he is religiously "racist." that is what those words mean. if he doesn't like having them applied to him then he might want to reconsider his views.


Thus, I would say, speaking connotatively, that your use of those terms is uncalled for. of course, the dictionary meanings are much broader. However, their extreme contexts are how they are normally used, and so they carry a negative implication.
By the way, you most certainly did use those terms strategically to make him out to be an ignorant, racist, homophobic, religious bigot who is inherently unreasonable because of his beliefs. No point in denying, and it really doesn't concern me. Attacking a debatee's image is entirely appropriate in debate. Undermine their credibility, and you have already won.

i wasn't "making him out" to be anything that he isn't. i used the words for his beliefs. whether you, he, or anybody else attaches other connotations to those words is not my problem.

So any man who won't be open to having homosexual sex because he dislikes the idea, is a homophobe?

I'm glad to see that the left has invented a word that they can use to describe 95+% of straight men, to bash them into silence with if they need to.

50% of 'straight' men have homosexual encounters at some point.

So - your 95% number is a fiction, yes?

Your statistics are unsupportable. 50% of blacks have genital herpes? Do you have a citation for that? Can yo provide ANY evidence for any of your 'claims'?

I suspect not - which makes your assertions nothing more than prejudice - which means you discriminate on race... which would make you a 'racist', and a 'bigot'.


Well, I at least can help out with this one.
Look Here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press_Releases/AfAmericans2000.htm)
Gonorrhea Rates are 30 Times Higher in African Americans than in Whites

Infection rates were higher among women (52 percent) visiting the clinics than men (32 percent), and higher among African Americans (48 percent) than whites (30 percent).

No doing something out of personal prefferance is different from making hate speach and belittling others who make that personal choice for themselfs

Exactly - the homophobic behaviour extends back to the previous post, not just the most recent.

UT sums it up, in a nutshell.

The originl poster is not homophobic because of his preference, but because of how his preference prejudices his decisions.

i totally disagree. i make an effort to use words appropriately, rather than simply going along with whatever misconceptions the masses might have about a particular word.

as i have shown, the actual definitions of all those words apply to him. he is racist. he is homophobic. he is religiously "racist." that is what those words mean. if he doesn't like having them applied to him then he might want to reconsider his views.


i wasn't "making him out" to be anything that he isn't. i used the words for his beliefs. whether you, he, or anybody else attaches other connotations to those words is not my problem.
The fact that I am aware of the actual meanings is irrelevant. The fact that you are is irrelevant. If you use terms that you know the majority of people on these forums have prejudices that kick into play when they hear said terms applied to someone, then whether you used them appropriately or not is immaterial. You knew quite well that it would make him appear to be worse than he was. As long as you understand, I don't care if you do it. it is, as I said, a key element of debate.

Exactly - the homophobic behaviour extends back to the previous post, not just the most recent.

UT sums it up, in a nutshell.

The originl poster is not homophobic because of his preference, but because of how his preference prejudices his decisions.
Just want to add not only his personal decisions but his attempts to make decisions on how others should be able to live

50% of 'straight' men have homosexual encounters at some point.

So - your 95% number is a fiction, yes?
Dont you know that 85% of statistics are made up?

Exactly - the homophobic behaviour extends back to the previous post, not just the most recent.

UT sums it up, in a nutshell.

The originl poster is not homophobic because of his preference, but because of how his preference prejudices his decisions.
I would say that his preferences are entirely entitled to play into his decision for a mate. If he disapproves of homosexual encounters, then how can you tell him he must still be open to having sex with someone who obviously approves of them?

After all, if being forced to stand during the pledge can be considered "supporting" the phrase "under God", then I believe he is most definitely acting in accordance with his preferences. That does not make him "homophobic," it just makes him as stubborn as any liberal. If he chooses to support his beliefs by his lifestyle, then I cannot agree that that makes him homophobic. However, my words are not likely to make an impression, based on posts of yours that I have read in past months, etc.

Well, I at least can help out with this one.
Look Here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press_Releases/AfAmericans2000.htm)
Gonorrhea Rates are 30 Times Higher in African Americans than in Whites

Infection rates were higher among women (52 percent) visiting the clinics than men (32 percent), and higher among African Americans (48 percent) than whites (30 percent).

The key word here is "clinics." This study is based on study of clinics rather than the population at large and thus is more indicative of economic status than race. Why? Because odds are that anyone who isn't in the lowest income quintile is going to go to their doctor rather than to an STD clinic. These figures don't get tabulated into the clinical studies, so as a whole, I can guarantee that minorities, being overrepresented in lower income brackets are likewise overrepresented at clinics.

The fact that I am aware of the actual meanings is irrelevant. The fact that you are is irrelevant. If you use terms that you know the majority of people on these forums have prejudices that kick into play when they hear said terms applied to someone, then whether you used them appropriately or not is immaterial. You knew quite well that it would make him appear to be worse than he was. As long as you understand, I don't care if you do it. it is, as I said, a key element of debate.
i don't believe it does appear to make him "worse than he was," so no, i don't "know quite well." those terms mean exactly what i used them to mean, and they apply to him. he isn't better or worse than i made him out to be.

if i use the term "puse" to refer to a color, but many people mistakenly think "puse" is a lighter form of red, that doesn't mean i am making that color out to be different than it is. it simply means that people who don't know what the term really means are going to get the wrong idea from my description.

The key word here is "clinics." This study is based on study of clinics rather than the population at large and thus is more indicative of economic status than race. Why? Because odds are that anyone who isn't in the lowest income quintile is going to go to their doctor rather than to an STD clinic. These figures don't get tabulated into the clinical studies, so as a whole, I can guarantee that minorities, being overrepresented in lower income brackets are likewise overrepresented at clinics.
Very true problem of a non represented sample
(also want to note NON random sample size which throws the confidence level in this ‘poll’ WAY out of whack)

it simply means that people who don't know what the term really means are going to get the wrong idea from my description.
You have already, here, admitted to precisely what I was claiming.

Hear hear! exactly what I was going to say

But better then I was going to be able to say it :)

Why, thank you, Mr Thrust.

I think you have been making perfectly eloquent points, thus far, however.

:)

You have already, here, admitted to precisely what I was claiming.
no, you said that i knew people would take it a certain way, and that i used the terms deliberately to get that effect. i have no way of knowing what bizarre misconceptions my fellow General Forum posters will have, so i don't concern myself with playing to such misconceptions. there may be people who think puse is a light red, but i don't know or care...i am going to use the word correctly, and if they misunderstand me that's their problem. i will clarify if they ask me to, but i'm not going to quit using words or start using words incorrectly just to fit in.

anything with Bottle, UT and GNI...... i want in on....

What kind of sex ? ohh premarital...... right.

Very true problem of a non represented sample
(also want to note NON random sample size which throws the confidence level in this ‘poll’ WAY out of whack)
I see. So, you ask that fool, whatever his name was, for statistics, and when someone offers them you disagree? Well, lets pull a few more and see if they are all reasonably close.

http://www.globalherbalsupplies.com/herpes/stats.html
Genital herpes infection also is more common among African Americans (45.9%) than among White Caucasian (17.6%).

By the way, there is a flaw with you argument towards the statistics. The fact is that the minorities are, indeed, overrepresented. However, that means that the majority of those minorities are going to go to a health clinic. In that case, the statistics would not be that far off, by your own reasoning.

What your reasonning would imply is that the rates among caucasians would be LOWER, since the majority of caucasians would not be likely to go to a clinic, and the ones who did would be far more susceptible to Being infected.

no, you said that i knew people would take it a certain way, and that i used the terms deliberately to get that effect. i have no way of knowing what bizarre misconceptions my fellow General Forum posters will have, so i don't concern myself with playing to such misconceptions. there may be people who think puse is a light red, but i don't know or care...i am going to use the word correctly, and if they misunderstand me that's their problem. i will clarify if they ask me to, but i'm not going to quit using words or start using words incorrectly just to fit in.
Wrong, by the comment I just quoted, you showed that you were, indeed, aware of the effect. You even used a very appropriate analogy for it. I am not condemning your action. It is entirely appropriate for debate. But don't be ridiculous and try to deny it afterwards.

Well, I at least can help out with this one.
Look Here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press_Releases/AfAmericans2000.htm)
Gonorrhea Rates are 30 Times Higher in African Americans than in Whites

Infection rates were higher among women (52 percent) visiting the clinics than men (32 percent), and higher among African Americans (48 percent) than whites (30 percent).

No help, actually.

The original poster claimed that blacks have a 50% incidence rate of Genital Herpes.

The source you cited doesn't give ANY figures for racial infection ratios. All it says is:

"More than one in five Americans is estimated to be infected with genital herpes".

No help, actually.

The original poster claimed that blacks have a 50% incidence rate of Genital Herpes.

The source you cited doesn't give ANY figures for racial infection ratios. All it says is:

"More than one in five Americans is estimated to be infected with genital herpes".
Did you not notice the part I specifically pulled out and quoted, with a 48% infection rate? It appears that you are either blind, or actually attempting to ignore statistics. Accept them and move on, or provide evidence to discredit it, but don't be ignorant.

EDIT: By the way, its under the second section, about women. Why they placed it there I'm not sure, because the way they broke it down was rather general.

Afraid I must be off to work. I wish I had more time, but it has been fun. I would stay on a little longer, but when you work for a lawyer it is rather inadvisable to do anything that might provoke their wrath.

anything with Bottle, UT and GNI...... i want in on....

What kind of sex ? ohh premarital...... right.

You are opting in for premarital sex?

(Might be a bit late...)

I see. So, you ask that fool, whatever his name was, for statistics, and when someone offers them you disagree? Well, lets pull a few more and see if they are all reasonably close.

http://www.globalherbalsupplies.com/herpes/stats.html
Genital herpes infection also is more common among African Americans (45.9%) than among White Caucasian (17.6%).

By the way, there is a flaw with you argument towards the statistics. The fact is that the minorities are, indeed, overrepresented. However, that means that the majority of those minorities are going to go to a health clinic. In that case, the statistics would not be that far off, by your own reasoning.

What your reasonning would imply is that the rates among caucasians would be LOWER, since the majority of caucasians would not be likely to go to a clinic, and the ones who did would be far more susceptible to Being infected.
No I was not flawed in my argument accurate polls have to be RANDOM sampling … which the first site of yours did NOT do as they took them from the same type of clinics
NON RANDOM

And as for your second source of information let me point out some information on the pages sources

… Kaiser Family Foundation, 1998.


Fleming DT, et al. Herpes Simplex Virus type 2 in the United States, 1976 to 1994. NEJM 1997;337:1105-11.





National Academy Press, 1997.



Lol nothing newer then what 7 years (with infection rates as they are …. Not even close) lol

Hey Im not saying what you are saying is not true (that may be other arguments but not mine) mine is that the first page was not a correct poll to apply to a population

Hell if you get me the info such as sample size … population application size and some other averages I can do the confidence level calculations for you if you wish

You are opting in for premarital sex?

(Might be a bit late...)






You should talk..... ;)

By the way, there is a flaw with you argument towards the statistics. The fact is that the minorities are, indeed, overrepresented. However, that means that the majority of those minorities are going to go to a health clinic. In that case, the statistics would not be that far off, by your own reasoning.

Your rebuttal does not make sense.

Point #1: The data you quote is drawn specifically from a study of 5 STD Clinics. This is stated clearly in the link you post.

Point #2: Clinics are used more heavily by lower-income individuals. More prosperous individuals are able to go to their GP.

Point #3: Because minorities constitute a larger percentage of the lower income individuals in the country, minorities are more likely to visit a clinic when they have a problem than to visit a private practitioner.

Point #4: Because of this, the sample is not indicative of what percentage of herpes sufferers *in the country* are black, but rather of what percentage of herpes sufferers *who visit STD clinics* are black.

Sex before marriage?

Those who say it is a "sin" need to be taught a lesson. *cracks knuckles* :D

damn straight :mp5:

Honestly, this all just reminds me why I don't consider marriage a desirable thing. When you attatch so much BS to a ceremony and a piece of paper that can be done when you're 16...

I've had sex, and shall have it, outside of wedlock, for years to come.

I've had a near-virgin, and, frankly, it wasn't all that impressive. ...I've also had some of that 'uses teeth' action... ...honestly, of all the places to bite.. argh...

As for the Calvinist: Yep, by definition you're a racist, homophobic, biphobic religionist. There's a lot worse than you, but you're still in their number. I bow to your at least being fair enough to remain virginal yourself, but you're still a bloody nut.

As for STDs... you know.. you can get those TESTED for... The women I have contact with have always been tested prior, leaving me clean as a whistle. I'm even perfectly willing to go and get a blood test myself JUST IN CASE, should a partner want to be absolutely sure, even though my chances for having STDs is zero. (I don't play with anyone I don't have good reason to trust, after all.)

As for the polyamorist, bravo, and good luck. I myself tend more towards monogamy, but I also tend to have the whole of my relations with bisexual women, some of whom seem to be interested in each other from time to time, so who knows. So long as everyone's being honest fair and, most importantly, truly caring and careful, its all good.

Can't we all just... get a long... night of hot sweaty sex?

How does your personal view of gay sex, have anything to do with what another person might do? And yet, you wouldn't 'accept' a girl who had had a homosexual encounter?



Because my religious beliefs and personal morality is not compatible with something like that. It's my right to believe what I want and keep my own set of beliefs.


Your statistics are unsupportable. 50% of blacks have genital herpes? Do you have a citation for that? Can yo provide ANY evidence for any of your 'claims'?

I suspect not - which makes your assertions nothing more than prejudice - which means you discriminate on race... which would make you a 'racist', and a 'bigot'.

Somebody recently posted something that proves I was right about that.




I would be curious to see what 'culture' you belong to. The concept of 'cultural preservation' is an absolute nonsense, with the possible exception of certain South American Natives.... there ARE NO pure cultures apart from that. So, which 'pure' culture do you claim?


I want to preserve my idea of Americanism, who cares if a culture is pure or not. I don't mind a culture that is a blend of all the wonderful white nations of the world. What I do mind is a racially bastardized culture which has no roots and is just a messed up melting pot ready to explode. I don't have a problem with ethnic diversity, I like it, I think America was founded on it (English, Irish, Italian, German, French, Spanish, etc). What I HATE is racial diversity (White, black, mexican, etc). All groups are inherently better off sticking with their own kind, mostly for the reason that stability is greater and there is no racial strife and animosity.


[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
You are a religious bigot entirely because you have made a prejudicial judgement about someone's sexual practices, without any information other than their preferred deity. Perhaps you are unaware that 'Satanism' doesn't necessitate ANY special sexual practises? Ignorance is no defense, my friend.
[QUOTE]

I've seen documentaries on the Church of Satan, their women lay out on their altars while men take turns on them, the whole male body of the congregation will get into orgies with the women...

Did you not notice the part I specifically pulled out and quoted, with a 48% infection rate? It appears that you are either blind, or actually attempting to ignore statistics. Accept them and move on, or provide evidence to discredit it, but don't be ignorant.

EDIT: By the way, its under the second section, about women. Why they placed it there I'm not sure, because the way they broke it down was rather general.

You might wish to watch your tone, friend.

You are dangerously close to flaming.

Anyway... the point I'm making is:

"Overall, 40.8 percent (1,684) of the study participants were infected with HSV-2. Infection rates were higher among women (52 percent) visiting the clinics than men (32 percent), and higher among African Americans (48 percent) than whites (30 percent)".

This specifically refers to study rates. It also isn't clear from this element whether or not "Genital Herpes" and "HSV-2" are absolutely interchangable.

And, within that study (with what appears to be a peculiarly high incidence rate - I had heard 25% of Americans might be infected with Genital Herpes, versus the presented 40%), 48% of black males THAT ATTENDED THE CLINICS, were found to be infected with HSV-2.

That is FAR FROM THE SAME as saying that "50% of blacks have Genital Herpes".

You should talk..... ;)

OH... if it was the EXTRA-Marital sex you were looking for, I might be able to help you... ;)

Men are intrinsically horny. There's simply no doubt about this.

So are women. ;)

Ask yourself this, what is the purpose of marriage? Why was it instituted?

History would suggest it was originally a property transaction.

Pre-marital sex? Anytime.

I wouldn't have sex with someone I don't love and have a solid relationship with, however. Or at least I don't think I would. I'm very I waited until I met someone I loved before doing it for the first time.

But waiting to get married? Jesus, that might've been a good idea back when they were commonly marrying kids of 14-16 years old, but today it's not very realistic. Who would wait until after getting married around 25+ years old to have sex? That would be wasting the best years of our sex-drive.

OH... if it was the EXTRA-Marital sex you were looking for, I might be able to help you... ;)


Oh yeah? You know where I can find any tall guys, who write poetry, and speak with an English accent? They dont just grow on trees you know ;)

Because my religious beliefs and personal morality is not compatible with something like that. It's my right to believe what I want and keep my own set of beliefs.


Believe what you wish.

But, if you let a racial prejudice affect your judgement, you are a racist, whether you like that term or not.


Somebody recently posted something that proves I was right about that.


Actually - no. The link didn't prove your point at all, as has been discussed since.


I want to preserve my idea of Americanism, who cares if a culture is pure or not. I don't mind a culture that is a blend of all the wonderful white nations of the world. What I do mind is a racially bastardized culture which has no roots and is just a messed up melting pot ready to explode. I don't have a problem with ethnic diversity, I like it, I think America was founded on it (English, Irish, Italian, German, French, Spanish, etc). What I HATE is racial diversity (White, black, mexican, etc). All groups are inherently better off sticking with their own kind, mostly for the reason that stability is greater and there is no racial strife and animosity.


"Americanism" isn't a culture - it is a collection of cultures, of a variety of different skin tones. Ranging from the Natives, which now permeate almost every family tree, to the plantation slaves who are similarly intermixed, and who provided the lions share of what might be called 'american culture'... influencing everything from the way religion evolved in the USA, to the music of the nation.

And let us not forget, if it wasn't for the Mexicans, there is a good chance that the USA would still be a colony. Not to mention the 'cultural impact', that Salsa outsells ketchup in the US...


I've seen documentaries on the Church of Satan, their women lay out on their altars while men take turns on them, the whole male body of the congregation will get into orgies with the women...

Then you have either seen phony documentaries, or have seen non-representative documentaries, or YOU are mistaken.

I have met Satanists... none of whom practised 'orgies' or any other organised 'perversion' at their place of worship.

I HAVE, however, met a large number of 'baptists' that had had adulterous affairs... so, perhaps the Satanists are LESS PRONE to sexual 'perversion' than the Anti-Satanists. (Or 'christians', as I hear they like to be called).

"buzzwords"? honey, you discriminate based on race: you are racist. you discriminate by sexual orientation: you are a homophobe. you discriminate based on religion: you are whatever the word for a religious "racist" would be. that's not using buzzwords, that's using the dictionary.

I think the word for someone who discriminates on the basis of religion is 'monotheist'. Oh, and reading this amuses me;

I've seen documentaries on the Church of Satan, their women lay out on their altars while men take turns on them, the whole male body of the congregation will get into orgies with the women...

VoteEarly, don't you think you should find out more about the Church of Satan before assuming what you see on documentaries is correct? Talk to a Satanist. I know a few, and most of them have stricter moral codes than I do . I am an atheist, if you wonder.

Oh yeah? You know where I can find any tall guys, who write poetry, and speak with an English accent? They dont just grow on trees you know ;)

I know where I might be able to find one...

I'd be willing to trade it for any gorgeous blonde Georgians you might happen to have just laying around... ;)

Sex before marriage? There is nothing inherently wrong with it. There can be plenty wrong with it, depending upon the situation (i.e. did you pick a partner with an STD, did you bother to use protection, are you going to end up with an unwanted pregnancy, etc.), however there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage in and of itself.

Plenty of things can go wrong with marriages, and do all the time. If they didn't, the divorce rate wouldn't be as high as they are now. How is making the first night in your marriage bed the first time going to make things any better?

...sex outside of marriage have sex with half the town...
If i could..I would have sex with half the town..even a quarter would be good :D

Sex outside of marriage is not sinful, nor is it the same thing as being promiscuous.

What I HATE is racial diversity (White, black, mexican, etc). All groups are inherently better off sticking with their own kind, mostly for the reason that stability is greater and there is no racial strife and animosity.

And you have absolutely no qualm with the fact that it is people like you that cause said strife and animosity?


Ask yourself this, what is the purpose of marriage? Why was it instituted?

I would think that it is mainly because men have none of the same assurances as women that the child they are expending time and resources to raise actually furthers the propogation of their genetic material. A contractually monogamous relationship is the only way to garauntee this.

What I HATE is racial diversity (White, black, mexican, etc). All groups are inherently better off sticking with their own kind, mostly for the reason that stability is greater and there is no racial strife and animosity.

This is why San Quentin is such a hotbed of stability, right? Cause all the black guys stick together in one club and all the aryans stick together in another and all the hispanics stick together in another. Is that the general idea?

I want to preserve my idea of Americanism, who cares if a culture is pure or not. I don't mind a culture that is a blend of all the wonderful white nations of the world. What I do mind is a racially bastardized culture which has no roots and is just a messed up melting pot ready to explode. I don't have a problem with ethnic diversity, I like it, I think America was founded on it (English, Irish, Italian, German, French, Spanish, etc). What I HATE is racial diversity (White, black, mexican, etc). All groups are inherently better off sticking with their own kind, mostly for the reason that stability is greater and there is no racial strife and animosity.

Hi VoteEarly - you say you're a Calvinist which means you must believe in the Bible. Don't you know the passage where Paul says he wants to break down the boundaries between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, Greek and non-Greek and make all one in Christ. If there is racial diversity in the Church why should there not be in society as a whole.

Also, both mexicans and Spanish people are of Hispanic origin so how can one be acceptable and the other not. Society cannot be divided by generalisations of race.

Originally Posted by VoteEarly
What I HATE is racial diversity (White, black, mexican, etc). All groups are inherently better off sticking with their own kind, mostly for the reason that stability is greater and there is no racial strife and animosity.

Oh boy...
See, I was going to respond properly and in a well thought out manner, then I read this. Is it even worth it?

And VoteEarly, you said that you'd BAN "fornication," as you so colourfully call it, if you were made um... leader. Tyrannical any?
What else? A new apartheid?

Edit: I'm an interracial fornicator, better get the gallows ready...

I picked other... I have, and might again. Depends if I ever get a boyfriend :(

Damn my warped attractions, which cause me to be single for annoyingly long periods of time.
Where do you live? Are you sexually repressed? Are you bisexual? If you answer these questions satisfactorily, I'll consider giving you a go and end your cellibacy plight. :cool:

I see nothing special about marriage which I only believe exists to oppress women and therefore I think there is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage. I do however believe that sex should only take place between two people who love each other and are both happy to consent to it.
Why does there have to be love involved?

You want a car that's been test-driven by 1/2 the town?
Slippery slope. Test driven does not mean that EVERYONE has test driven her/him.

I'm a Calvinist, and any sexual contact with anybody other than your spouse is grounds for being kicked out of the church. Sex is only allowed inside marriage, and marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime, and divorces are not allowed.
Sucks to be you. I'd prefer to enjoy my life without all the unnecessary hang ups, thank you very much.

It was an extreme example. But anyway, do you want a car that say 20-30 other guys have test-driven?

It's really for the best for everybody to wait till marriage.
Who cares? Apparently that's something that YOU are hung up on. I can get passed that, because the number of sexual partners is irrelevant, unless we're talking about hundreds, then we most likely have an unstable individual on our hands.

There is nothing about this thread that I don't like. It's got everything! Action, romance, intrigue, and that sparkling drop of retsin.

Ideally though, everybody, male or female, wants a virgin partner, who wouldn't?
Me. I was with a virgin once, and I'll do my best to avoid virgins in the future. She was WAY too tight. Anytime we had sex, I penis always hurt afterwards for a couple of days. We got back together a couple of years later, after she had a couple more guys, and she was MUCH more comfortable.

You want a car that's been test-driven by 1/2 the town?


Somehow ... and correct me if I am wrong here ... I think it might not be a good idea to go around comparing women to cars if you're looking for a wife.

Women tend to not like being treated as inanimate objects.

I chose other. I haven't had sex, but not because i am saving myself for marriage, or because i don't like sex, or because i'm shy, i just haven't had many opportunities. Or, at least none i want. I could technically find some drunk guy in a bar missing half his teeth and bring him home with me, but i'm really not into that. I have no problem with pre-marital sex, or any sexual activity between consenting adults, as long as people protect themselves and eachother.

I think VoteEarly is miserable and would like everyone to share in that.
Pre-marital sex is fine between responsible, mature consenting adults.
I've had pre-marital sex and thoroughly enjoyed it . I've had post-marital sex and thoroughly enjoyed it.
BTW, since I'm divorced, does it count as pre- or post- marital sex?

As a Calvinist, (in my opinion the only true form of Christianity), I believe that God only forgives the Elect, Jesus Christ only died for His Elect. Anyway, if you know what you're doing is wrong, and do it anyway, how can you expect God to forgive you? But anyway, remember, God is the source of all sin, so if you sin, it's because He meant you to.
I want to get biblical quotes and explainations on why you believe that. Not that I want to argue with you, but because your brand of belief goes directly against most other brands and I'd like to find out why.

so YOU say. I hear GOD disagrees.
Now the christians are arguing amongst themselves. This is why the bible cannot be the word of god, it's too confusing and leads to conflict. Enjoy your strife. :D

You cannot blame God for anything, He owes mankind nothing, and it is with His generosity that His Elect are saved.
I can't blame god? Didn't you post on the earlier page in HUGE font that we have no free will and that god has predestined everything? That makes god DIRECTLY responsible for EVERYTHING.

As I consider the possibility of anyone finding me in anyway attractive roughly at the same level as me being the long lost son of the Emperor of the Galaxy, I think I come under 'other'. If it ain't gonna happen, you quickly get bitter if you keep on wanting it. Like unaided flight.

Does anyone else get depressive in the small hours or is it just me?

As I consider the possibility of anyone finding me in anyway attractive roughly at the same level as me being the long lost son of the Emperor of the Galaxy, I think I come under 'other'. If it ain't gonna happen, you quickly get bitter if you keep on wanting it. Like unaided flight.

Does anyone else get depressive in the small hours or is it just me?
That attitude, far more then your appearance is why you don't get laid. Ugly guys score with women, even uber-hot women all the time. Women don't put nearly the weight on appearance that men do. An ugly guy with a great personality will get laid before a good looking guy with no personality EVERY TIME.

I want to get biblical quotes and explainations on why you believe that. Not that I want to argue with you, but because your brand of belief goes directly against most other brands and I'd like to find out why.


Romans 11:7

Malachi 1:2-3

Matthew 24:21-24

Romans 8:28-33

Acts 28:25-27

Mark 13:20

Romans 9:11

Romans 11:28

Romans 11:7

Malachi 1:2-3

Matthew 24:21-24

Romans 8:28-33

Acts 28:25-27

Mark 13:20

Romans 9:11

Romans 11:28

Aside from a couple of vague mentions of "the elect", I don't see where your position is coming from.

That attitude, far more then your appearance is why you don't get laid. Ugly guys score with women, even uber-hot women all the time. Women don't put nearly the weight on appearance that men do. An ugly guy with a great personality will get laid before a good looking guy with no personality EVERY TIME.
That's the same nonsense as saying that appearance is the only thing which counts.
There is no universal formula of women, it depends on each woman individually if she prefers character or appearance. Same thing counts for men.

so YOU say. I hear GOD disagrees.

Now the christians are arguing amongst themselves. This is why the bible cannot be the word of god, it's too confusing and leads to conflict. Enjoy your strife. :D

who says I'm a christian?

I think VoteEarly is miserable and would like everyone to share in that.
Pre-marital sex is fine between responsible, mature consenting adults.
I've had pre-marital sex and thoroughly enjoyed it . I've had post-marital sex and thoroughly enjoyed it.
BTW, since I'm divorced, does it count as pre- or post- marital sex?
Does not matter you are a sinner either way :p J/k

Why would you let a religion supress your natural urges.... dumbasses.

What's wrong with sex before marriage? Nothing.


Christians/anyone don't half piss me off with their stupif beliefs that sex before marriage is wrong for no apparent reason.

Why would you let a religion supress your natural urges.... dumbasses.

Well, because your natural urges might be immoral. And I know that morality varies from person to person, but I thinkwe all can agree that if someone accidentally trips and spills, say, a drink on you, you shouldn't kill him. Your first instinct might be anger and violence, but in this case you should suppress your natural urges.

Why would you let a religion supress your natural urges.... dumbasses.



Killing is a natural urge.

There are animals which kill, rape, steal, etc. Shall we start carrying out these natural urges?

Natural DOES NOT automatically make it good.

Killing is a natural urge.

There are animals which kill, rape, steal, etc. Shall we start carrying out these natural urges?

Natural DOES NOT automatically make it good.
By that logic, we should have sex at all, marital or pre-marital.

Furthermore, killing - other than within strictly defined legal remits - is against the law, and almost universally perceived to be wrong. Views on pre-marital sex differ from culture to culture, as well as person to person.

By that logic, we should have sex at all, marital or pre-marital.


You are twisting what I said, I said natural doesn't automatically equal good.

That doesn't mean it has to automatically be bad.

There is a medium, sex can be good or bad. If it used properly (within marriage) it is good, it brings the husband and wife closer together and will ideally produce children. Sex can also be bad (Hedonism and such).

Killing is a natural urge? I'd rather say that surviving is a natural urge. If the choice stands between killing or getting killed, I reckon that most would choose to kill if they were under enough pressure. I would kill if I had to do so in order to survive, and I would kill to protect my family, if necessary.

Marriage is a human invention. Why should we not be allowed to feel intense pleasure without having a piece of paper that says you are 'married' to someone first? It's quite silly, really. Deny yourself all the pleasure you want - if you get off on discomfort, be my guest. Let me ask, for I am curious; do you also starve yourself? Do you force yourself to stay awake for as long as possible, since sleeping is a natural need? Or at least, do you only eat gross food and sleep minimally? Basking in satisfaction is apparantly a sin, and if you enjoy life you will go to hell, where you will burn... Now that's some philosofy.

Life had too much to offer. Good food, pilsner, women; the list is long. Why throw it away because of some fairytales written by a bunch of bozos a long time ago?

Killing is a natural urge.

There are animals which kill, rape, steal, etc. Shall we start carrying out these natural urges?

Natural DOES NOT automatically make it good.

if killing is a natural urge for you, seek help. or go read your bible.
wait since when do animals rape? dont personify animals actions you idiot.

if killing is a natural urge for you, seek help. or go read your bible.

1. I didn't say killing is a natural urge for me - I said that if I had to kill in order to continue existing, I would.
2. Don't own one.

Killing is a natural urge? I'd rather say that surviving is a natural urge. If the choice stands between killing or getting killed, I reckon that most would choose to kill if they were under enough pressure. I would kill if I had to do so in order to survive, and I would kill to protect my family, if necessary.

Marriage is a human invention. Why should we not be allowed to feel intense pleasure without having a piece of paper that says you are 'married' to someone first? It's quite silly, really. Deny yourself all the pleasure you want - if you get off on discomfort, be my guest. Let me ask, for I am curious; do you also starve yourself? Do you force yourself to stay awake for as long as possible, since sleeping is a natural need? Or at least, do you only eat gross food and sleep minimally? Basking in satisfaction is apparantly a sin, and if you enjoy life you will go to hell, where you will burn... Now that's some philosofy.

Life had too much to offer. Good food, pilsner, women; the list is long. Why throw it away because of some fairytales written by a bunch of bozos a long time ago?

on the money... and btw my comment wasnt directed at you japfetish. it was to whoever said killing is a natural urge.

Heh, alright.

if killing is a natural urge for you, seek help. or go read your bible.
wait since when do animals rape? dont personify animals actions you idiot.

Actually rape isn't that uncommon in the animal kingdom. There's a kind of fish that has two seperate males, one courts, the other dashes in, squirts, and leaves. Rape.

There's also a recorded mention of a baboon, after being tossed from Alpha male status, grabbing a female in frustration and raping her -- this was noted by a guy who's been studying them for most of his life.

Killing is a natural urge.

There are animals which kill, rape, steal, etc. Shall we start carrying out these natural urges?

Natural DOES NOT automatically make it good.

I don't believe that there is anything *intrinsically* wrong with murder, rape or theft. I agree that rape and murder are wrong as far as our society says that they are tabu, and I subscribe to that belief. I wouldn't want to be raped or murdered.

However, as Proudhon says "Property is theft." and I subscribe to that - the notion that anything can be owned exclusively is more damaging than people ignoring such a notion.

@Free Realms: Killing is a natural action; I don't think any of us actively desires that other beings should die by our actions, yet the act is natural. Humans, after all, are no more than animals. Perhaps you believe otherwise. One of the benefits of consciousness, in my opinion, is that it allows us to subjectively judge our own actions in order to preserve our own wellbeing. So we don't kill because we know that other members of our social group will not approve, not because it isn't built-in.

as Proudhon says "Property is theft." and I subscribe to that - the notion that anything can be owned exclusively is more damaging than people ignoring such a notion.

Eh? So you either don't own anything in the world (which I highly doubt) or you see yourself as a thief? Strange. I love to own.

Ownership as a concept is what allows the weaker individuals in a society to survive during scarcity.

As much as I'd love having Bluto come and take my food because he can't find any.

VoteEarly has no problem with ethnic diversity ... <remainder of quasi-threatening flamebaiting material removed>
Independent Homesteads, Official Warning for flamebait, and post removed.

Eh? So you either don't own anything in the world (which I highly doubt) or you see yourself as a thief? Strange. I love to own.

I see myself as a thief. I live in a country (the UK) whose economic growth in the last 250 years can be attributed to the oppression by violence of other societies.

Proudhon asserts the difference between personal posessions and private property. Private property is something posessed, which allows the posesser to generate capital from the fact of its posession. This would apply to rented land, the means of production, and the apparatus of government or business.

I do not disagree with posession. I may posess the tools of my trade, since by their existence alone they do not create profit. I may posess a place to live, but I may not charge rent.

I hope that answers your question, but it's a bit of a side-issue to the thread.

I used to be an atheist, but god spoke to me. He said VoteEarly is a troll. Oh, he also gave me a new holy book. http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/

interestingly enough, from what i kno, islam doesn't really address pre-marital sex. In the Qur'aan, it says something to the effect of protect your "peices" for your wife only, anybody looking for pleasure outside this will be punished.

so, the only time you can't really have sex with other women is when your married to your wife. now, wutta about sex before this marriage that wasn't forced or anything? And also, the exact translation says "protect" right? Whatabout condems and stuff like that?

I believe the real reason why it was never addressed, if to my knowledge it wasn't, was because women and men at that time would get married quickly before even hitting puberty. so premarital sex wasn't a reality. if you had sex with someone other than your wife, it was during your marriage.
its really hard in this society especially for me as a muslim to go through this. I humbly say this, but having all the decently good looks i have, i had a lot of girls offer me sex and sexual relantionships, but for now, at the age of 16, im still hesitating before i really find out how this goes with my religion, which even that im contemplating.

That's the same nonsense as saying that appearance is the only thing which counts.
There is no universal formula of women, it depends on each woman individually if she prefers character or appearance. Same thing counts for men.
I'm going to guess that you're not a woman, because only a man would say something like that. Most women (because there are a few really shallow individuals out there) would pick an ugly guy with personality over a gorgeous guy without a personality every time. Study relationship dynamics, that point will become very clear very quickly. As a matter of fact, there are a lot more not good looking players then good looking players. Being good looking usually works against a guy more then it works for him.

who says I'm a christian?
Because it's usually christians who try to tell others what god says and means.

Because it's usually christians who try to tell others what god says and means.

so you're assuming i'm a christian based on your own prejudice? way to go.

You are twisting what I said, I said natural doesn't automatically equal good.

That doesn't mean it has to automatically be bad.

There is a medium, sex can be good or bad. If it used properly (within marriage) it is good, it brings the husband and wife closer together and will ideally produce children. Sex can also be bad (Hedonism and such).
i think the issue is that you need to define what you mean by "good," and you need to establish that what you feel is "good" will also be "good" for all other people.

for instance, i personally would find the production of children to be anything but ideal. it would decrease my happiness, the happiness of my lover, would lower my quality of life, and would probably lead to an unhealthy home environment for the children that were produced. i see all of those things as non-good things.

additionally, the "good" outcomes from sexual contact that i experience are in no way connected to whether or not i am married to the party i have sex with. marriage does not increase or decrease the "goodness" of sex, for me, so you will need to establish some objective reason why your personal view of sex can fairly be imposed upon people who do not experience the same "goodness" as you.

so you're assuming i'm a christian based on your own prejudice? way to go.
That was a good burn.

But yeah I think he meant only Evangetal Christians tell others what they think god says and means and believe that are only correct by no method. Even though they don't pray and ask God to confirm said beliefs.

However, every religion beliefs they know what the Supernatural tells them and what it means.

If there was a religion where they thought they were wrong...why would you join it?

i think the issue is that you need to define what you mean by "good," and you need to establish that what you feel is "good" will also be "good" for all other people.

for instance, i personally would find the production of children to be anything but ideal. it would decrease my happiness, the happiness of my lover, would lower my quality of life, and would probably lead to an unhealthy home environment for the children that were produced. i see all of those things as non-good things.

additionally, the "good" outcomes from sexual contact that i experience are in no way connected to whether or not i am married to the party i have sex with. marriage does not increase or decrease the "goodness" of sex, for me, so you will need to establish some objective reason why your personal view of sex can fairly be imposed upon people who do not experience the same "goodness" as you.
I second every word of this.

Addtionally, VoteEarly, I am not having sex with my *gasp* boyfriend because I'm some sort of hedonistic whore - quite the opposite, in fact. I am having sex with him because *I love him*. It *does* bring us closer, and while the physical aspects are nice, certainly, it's the emotional parts of sex that are most valued by *both of us*. Do you now have to be married in order to be in love? Looking at divorce rates, I'd speculate that you don't.

I'm not against marriage per se, but we're both happy and comfortable with the way things are at present; neither of us see any need to get married any time soon. As Bottle says, give us an objective, rational reason why your view of pre-marital is wrong.

Addtionally, VoteEarly, I am not having sex with my *gasp* boyfriend because I'm some sort of hedonistic whore - quite the opposite, in fact. I am having sex with him because *I love him*. It *does* bring us closer, and while the physical aspects are nice, certainly, it's the emotional parts of sex that are most valued by *both of us*. Do you now have to be married in order to be in love? Looking at divorce rates, I'd speculate that you don't.

I'm not against marriage per se, but we're both happy and comfortable with the way things are at present; neither of us see any need to get married any time soon. As Bottle says, give us an objective, rational reason why your view of pre-marital is wrong.

You tell it sister. :)