Sex before marriage - Let's Debate

[KhanPaulsen]

why the cockiness geeze, not getting any?

The cockiness comes from having to educate people that think they have a clue on something they're absolutely ignorant about. You, like JAGERBOY, are clueless on the issue. You tried to start off by sounding like you could advocate some great things that sex accomplishes, until anyone with the slightest clue in biology goes, "Hey, wait! Those benefits already occur with almost any amount of physical activity."

Next time you're going to argue for something make sure you're making an informed decision. At least your points were better than JAGERBOY's, but that's not saying much.

[theredshirt]

i googled, because i always here about health benefits from sex, but just throw them in the same jar as sex is good for me. here is a good read http://www.gethealthtips.com/articles.php?id=237

with no religious dogma attached, having sex is much more logical in my opinion

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

If sex before marriage didn't exist you, I, and the homo sapiens species wouldn't exist. Human marriage represents less than 1% of human history.

[theredshirt]

If sex before marriage didn't exist you, I, and the homo sapiens species wouldn't exist. Human marriage represents less than 1% of human history.

im embarrassed. I have never thought of that.

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

Something even the bible boys got to concede.

[AceVentura]

I don't deny other positions exist...there are thousands of different "positions" people can hold about God, life, and the Hereafter. That doesn't mean they are all given equal weights.



Well I haven't even quoted the Qur'an yet



Well here is what it comes down to:

Whether or not you do something CAN have social, financial, and physiological pros and cons.

More importantly, they can have repurcussions after you die. So instead of telling you "don't do this because it will cost you xxxx dollars in this life", I'm telling you "don't do it because it will cost you after you die, on a day when money isn't going to be accepted from you".

So what it comes down to is, why should you believe that fornication is bad for you on the Day of Judgment, as opposed to "irrelevent" because you don't even think the Day of Judgment will come?

Well, the answer to that is the evidence for why Islam is the revealed religion of God, while opinions to the contrary are...opinions. I mean you can keep those opinions, but they don't change the reality of what happens after death.

So there's only one question you should be asking me at this point.

The only Judgement Day I can ever fathom is the one that we saw in Terminator if technology takes a horrible turn.

I guess it all comes down to subjectivity.

As far as I'm concerned, the reality you're convinced of is nothing more than fantasy. And contrastingly, it's vice versa from your position.

The only question I think I should be asking you right now is why must you always force me to argue with a brick wall lol.

Your conviction is I guess in a sense impressive, but given my own set of beliefs I find it appalling simply because it seeks to suppress any positions to the contrary. It's the reason I have a distaste for religion.

If the question I should be asking you is "how do I sign up for Islam" I'm sorry to let you down but it's not on my agenda anytime soon.

[KhanPaulsen]

i googled, because i always here about health benefits from sex, but just throw them in the same jar as sex is good for me. here is a good read http://www.gethealthtips.com/articles.php?id=237

with no religious dogma attached, having sex is much more logical in my opinion

I haven't been arguing from a religious POV, I've been keeping it strictly secular. Thanks for trying to throw in that bone, but you're just being fallacious now.

By the way, still not one benefit that isn't included from exercise (and the 7,500 calorie number is way overblown, and in fact, not factual. They aren't burning 2,500 calories per session).

Oxytocin (female hormone usually associated with pregnancy) doesn't even have health benefits, and it is primary during either pregnancy, menstruation, or sex. It is there to serve a purpose (gee, I wonder what purpose it serves), and no its purpose don't effect their health.

[vincenthk]

Yeah, we've all seen how people `always` take precaution.

All the protection in the world isn't going to save you from an STD anyway. How do you think STDs proliferated to begin with? The only thing protection will save you from is perhaps the children, but the effects on divorces and monogamy can already be visibly seen.

I know people don't but what's your point then? If you're going to play the "oh well no matter how many precautions you take there is always a risk" argument, then we're going nowhere. I might get hit by a car walking to work tommorow, should we make a thread saying "walking vs. never leaving the house - Let's Debate"? If you want to lead a risk free existance then you've picked the wrong universe to be alive in.

In the end, all that marriage really is is some sort of governmental institution which entitles you to slightly different tax rules, it isn't anything tangible whatsoever.

[KhanPaulsen]

If sex before marriage didn't exist you, I, and the homo sapiens species wouldn't exist. Human marriage represents less than 1% of human history.

Please, by all means remind me:

Prior to marriage, exactly how many men would impregnate the same woman in her lifetime?

One. The alpha male. When civilization began to develop it was still just one.

The problems prevalent nowadays are much, much worse.

[KhanPaulsen]

I know people don't but what's your point then? If you're going to play the "oh well no matter how many precautions you take there is always a risk" argument, then we're going nowhere. I might get hit by a car walking to work tommorow, should we make a thread saying "walking vs. never leaving the house - Let's Debate"? If you want to lead a risk free existance then you've picked the wrong universe to be alive in.

In the end, all that marriage really is is some sort of governmental institution which entitles you to slightly different tax rules, it isn't anything tangible whatsoever.

Before governments began to dabble in it, it was always more of a contract. In fact, it still is a contract.

A risk may not effect one person, personally. However, that risk does get around, and it does get the, "You sunk my battleship". When the risk spreads, it proliferates, and becomes more likely. All people do is contribute to making the risk greater nowadays.

[The Experiment]

Its a lifestyle choice.

Christianity loves to drill in the "sex is evil" game and it works...on suckers who choose not to read to find out the reasons why. The whole thing started up because of the ignorance that societies 2000 years ago had. Nobody knew how or why the world works. People believed in taking two rocks and turning it to gold. People used to believe that witches were the demise of society. People used to believe the universe rotated around Earth. Catholics strongly believed that women could have babies without sex.

So you'll have to understand why the whole "sex before marriage is the devil" thing doesn't mean **** to me.

I don't think less of someone for deciding to wait but I don't think more of them either. Its like deciding to stay cut or deciding to go on a bulk cycle. Its a decision that should be totally up to you. Not the church, not your parents, not the mores of society, not anyone except for yourself.

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

Please, by all means remind me:

Prior to marriage, exactly how many men would impregnate the same woman in her lifetime?

One. The alpha male. When civilization began to develop it was still just one.

The problems prevalent nowadays are much, much worse.

Of course it's impossible to say that a woman was impregnated by more than one man. However, it's equally impossible to say that a woman was not having sex with more than one man. If we look closely at our relatives the bonobos, the chimpanzees, the gorillas sex with multiple partners is common. The idea of monogamy is a modern west one. Societies such as Greeks, Romans, Spartans etc did not follow this concept at all. In the Spartans case it was encouraged to take a male as a lover and have sex with females soley for reproduction.

[ElMariachi]

Other than STD'S, and having a kid when you arent ready, whats bad about it?

P.S. Yes, both of those would REALLY suck, but there are steps you can take to avoid them, and you take the risk going into it.

Just playing devil's advocates, but unlike any of the benefits of sex, the negatives are kind of permanent. Say you get a chick pregnant, guess what, you're paying child support for the next 18 years, or you pull a Michael Vick and catch something like herpes, thats a lifelong error. There's benefits and negatives, I think the negatives really outweigh the positives by far though, thats why our society has such an issue with "food stamp babies" being born to 16, 17 year olds who haven't even gotten out of high school yet.

It all depends on your level of maturity and responsibility, like anything else in life and I just don't think there's a lot of younger people who can handle that responsibility, witness the growing epidemic of STD's among those under 18.


My thoughts on marriage is that it is far easier to be responsible when both people are on the same page, have the same goals and such, even in today's era of rapid-fire divorces, there's still semblance of structure to marriage that you don't have otherwise.



I don't think its reasonable in this era to expect everyone to wait until marriage to have sex, I mean, back in the old days, people were getting married at 15, 16, 17............now the age of marriage is around 27, 28, 29..............so of course people will end up having sex, I just think its a bad idea at really young ages. It still startles me to hear about 12, 13, 14 year olds having sex, and then ending up pregnant, thats not exactly a good way to get ahead in life.

[KhanPaulsen]

Of course it's impossible to say that a woman was impregnated by more than one man. However, it's equally impossible to say that a woman was not having sex with more than one man. If we look closely at our relatives the bonobos, the chimpanzees, the gorillas sex with multiple partners is common.

As a general rule, in animal societies, the alpha male will be the one to mate with the females. Is it possible other males succeeded? Yes, however you were making it sound like everyone was randomly cross breeding without any structure. That's actually more structure then what is developing nowadays.

[SYRIANKID]

If the question I should be asking you is "how do I sign up for Islam" I'm sorry to let you down but it's not on my agenda anytime soon.

Actually it was "what makes Islam true?"

[vincenthk]

Before governments began to dabble in it, it was always more of a contract. In fact, it still is a contract.

A risk may not effect one person, personally. However, that risk does get around, and it does get the, "You sunk my battleship". When the risk spreads, it proliferates, and becomes more likely. All people do is contribute to making the risk greater nowadays.

So when me and my girlfriend of three years, whom I am not married to have sex we're putting everyone around us at risk are we? Humans or any animals aren't inherently monogamous. And even then. This argument is about having sex before marriage, not "should you have sex with a different person every few weeks?" You're making way too many assumptions and clinging to points that don't make a lot of sense.

If in the end it's because you're a Christian and sex before marriage makes you uncomfortable and goes against your beliefs then say it. But don't go around spouting this nonsense about how anybody who has sex before they get a marriage certificate from the municipal office is putting the world at risk.

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

As a general rule, in animal societies, the alpha male will be the one to mate with the females. Is it possible other males succeeded? Yes, however you were making it sound like everyone was randomly cross breeding without any structure. That's actually more structure then what is developing nowadays.

So what's your point. Are you for selective breeding? A little eugenics perhaps? Monogamy and no sex before marriage is a phenomenon of a few modern societies propagated through religious text. Numerous other societies engaged in premarital sex/sex outside marriage. The Spartans encourage men to take male lovers even though they were wed.

[KhanPaulsen]

So when me and my girlfriend of three years, whom I am not married to have sex we're putting everyone around us at risk are we? Humans or any animals aren't inherently monogamous. And even then. This argument is about having sex before marriage, not "should you have sex with a different person every few weeks?" You're making way too many assumptions and clinging to points that don't make a lot of sense.

Firstly, humans and animals, in current state, are completely opposite. We are sentient, they aren't. The only way you can compare a human to an animal is in pre-historic times, when humans may have not been sentient yet.

If this girlfriend of yours is your first, will be your last, and that's it, you might be okay. If not, then you're just going to fit the bill with "have a sex with a different person every few weeks". The more partners you have the higher the risk.

If in the end it's because you're a Christian and sex before marriage makes you uncomfortable and goes against your beliefs then say it. But don't go around spouting this nonsense about how anybody who has sex before they get a marriage certificate from the municipal office is putting the world at risk.

I don't have to use the fact I am a Noahide. However, the fact the case is easily made without that fact means I don't have to provide a lynchpin for other people to weasel their way out of it.

If you have multiple partners through your life, you've put the world at risk.

[ElMariachi]

So when me and my girlfriend of three years, whom I am not married to have sex we're putting everyone around us at risk are we? Humans or any animals aren't inherently monogamous. And even then. This argument is about having sex before marriage, not "should you have sex with a different person every few weeks?" You're making way too many assumptions and clinging to points that don't make a lot of sense.

If in the end it's because you're a Christian and sex before marriage makes you uncomfortable and goes against your beliefs then say it. But don't go around spouting this nonsense about how anybody who has sex before they get a marriage certificate from the municipal office is putting the world at risk.

He's not a Christian, stop spouting your stupid anti- religious BS. He never mentioned anything about religion, yet you chose to attack him for his honest opinions.

Why is it secular people always blame religion for something or another, get over yourself geez.

[theredshirt]

ok khan if we are strictly secular, what is negative about having sex pre marital if it feels really good has health benifits which may or may not be reached during normal excercise. i mean what if one acts like i do, in a loving monogamous relationship, use protection, shes on the pill, i sometimes accompany that with a condom, what is so wrong with it? it feels good, health benifits, i sware im less cranky when ive been boning. And if i get it a lot that week i dont need it for a few days. it does something to my hormone levels. so strictly secular, what is wrong with that

[AceVentura]

Actually it was "what makes Islam true?"

I dunno, the Qu'ran says so?

It's a question you can't answer without committing the falacy of "petitio principii" (finally got to use my "rules for arguments" book from first year philosophy) or begging the question to us common folk.

[ElMariachi]

ok khan if we are strictly secular, what is negative about having sex pre marital if it feels really good has health benifits which may or may not be reached during normal excercise. i mean what if one acts like i do, in a loving monogamous relationship, use protection, shes on the pill, i sometimes accompany that with a condom, what is so wrong with it? it feels good, health benifits, i sware im less cranky when ive been boning. And if i get it a lot that week i dont need it for a few days. it doesnt something to my levels. so strictly secular, what is wrong with that

Problem is, you are the exception to the rule in that case. We wouldn't have problems if most people WEREN'T irresponsible, there wouldn't be all these STD's going around and young girls with babies they aren't ready to handle if people showed some responsibility for their actions, the problem with this era is everyone dodges responsibility, all the way up to the President of the USA. Everyone is raised to make excuses and then other people have to end up covering for those mistakes.

[KhanPaulsen]

So what's your point. Are you for selective breeding? A little eugenics perhaps? Monogamy and no sex before marriage is a phenomenon of a few modern societies propagated through religious text. Numerous other societies engaged in premarital sex/sex outside marriage. The Spartans encourage men to take male lovers even though they were wed.

The Greeks encouraged homosexuality before marriage also, but that is irrelevant here. That still doesn't help STD problems, but oh well, what's done is done.

Those numerous other societies, care to guess what their downfall was predicated on? Breakdown of the family unit, and I bet you already know where that starts.

My point is that a structure existed even then to insure that breeding was done in a succint, productive fashion. Nowadays a structure is pretty much absent. Marriage is as old as history itself, so it really isn't that new (although in terms of overall age, I agree, not that new).

People weren't just randomly breeding even in pre-history like you seem to be insinuating. With the advent of marriage you could actually say breeding became MORE random, as backward as that almost sounds.

[intelligentvirus]

try before you tie the knot. seems sensible in todays modern society. just watch out for nasty stds and use protection.

[KhanPaulsen]

ok khan if we are strictly secular, what is negative about having sex pre marital if it feels really good has health benifits which may or may not be reached during normal excercise. i mean what if one acts like i do, in a loving monogamous relationship, use protection, shes on the pill, i sometimes accompany that with a condom, what is so wrong with it? it feels good, health benifits, i sware im less cranky when ive been boning. And if i get it a lot that week i dont need it for a few days. it does something to my hormone levels. so strictly secular, what is wrong with that

Doing something because it feels good is not a valid reason. The health benefits COINCIDE ENTIRELY, WITH NO ADDITIONS OR SUBTRACTIONS, don't try to weasel your "may or may not" in there. I don't feel like going back into the physiology issue that you already conceeded.

If you're the only partners you guys have ever had it is great (good for you), if not then you're just an example of another person that part of the problem. Do you plan on staying faithful to her for the rest of your life, period? How about she with you? If you guys think your relationship is temporary, and that you guys will eventually move on to sleep with other people the risk just grows, and grows, and grows ad infintum. This generation, and previous ones are STILL paying for the '60s sexual revolution. I wish you the best of luck on your relationship being permanent, by the way.

What people fail to realize is the actions taken now also effect the people generations from now. The risks only continue to grow until it is out of hand, and then you have an emergency. I believe STDs have already been declared an epidemic due to their spread as it is.

[vincenthk]

Firstly, humans and animals, in current state, are completely opposite. We are sentient, they aren't. The only way you can compare a human to an animal is in pre-historic times, when humans may have not been sentient yet.

If this girlfriend of yours is your first, will be your last, and that's it, you might be okay. If not, then you're just going to fit the bill with "have a sex with a different person every few weeks". The more partners you have the higher the risk.



I don't have to use the fact I am a Noahide. However, the fact the case is easily made without that fact means I don't have to provide a lynchpin for other people to weasel their way out of it.

If you have multiple partners through your life, you've put the world at risk.

Well she isn't my first, might be my last, not sure. If you look at it on a statistical basis then yes maybe I have put the world at risk because obviously the more people that have sex with each other the further STD's can travel. But using that same logic everytime you drive your car somewhere you're putting others at risk because you could make a mistake and crash into a car and kill all the occupants, and you should never invest your money in anything because the company getting your money could be using it to do something evil and unjust... Every single thing every single living human does creates risks. You have to acheive a balance between mitigating risk without reducing life to living in an underground bomb shelter eating food that the guy who got voted to be the "risk taker" brings you when you run out.

Religion or whatever aside, your argument just doesn't make sense. Every single day even you do a thousand different things that aren't necessary for survival but create risks.

In the end I think people like you are creating even more risks because you're the ones that campaign to forbit providing condoms in high schools and stuff like that because you actually think that people are going to buy into your abstinence arguments.

[KhanPaulsen]

Well she isn't my first, might be my last, not sure. If you look at it on a statistical basis then yes maybe I have put the world at risk because obviously the more people that have sex with each other the further STD's can travel. But using that same logic everytime you drive your car somewhere you're putting others at risk because you could make a mistake and crash into a car and kill all the occupants, and you should never invest your money in anything because the company getting your money could be using it to do something evil and unjust... Every single thing every single living human does creates risks. You have to acheive a balance between mitigating risk without reducing life to living in an underground bomb shelter eating food that the guy who got voted to be the "risk taker" brings you when you run out.

Religion or whatever aside, your argument just doesn't make sense. Every single day even you do a thousand different things that aren't necessary for survival but create risks.

Having sex out of marriage is an example of an unnecessary risk. You drive a car to work, go to school, survival things, that is a necessary risk. Big difference. Apples and oranges.

[vincenthk]

Having sex out of marriage is an example of an unnecessary risk. You drive a car to work, go to school, survival things, that is a necessary risk. Big difference. Apples and oranges.

You're reaching man. Do you work out at the gym? What if you lose your grip while spotting a guy on the BB Bench Press and the bar hits him in the neck and kills him? You don't need to lift weights to survive. Every single day of your life you take countless unnecessary risks because that's the nature of life. If you eliminate every single unnecessary risk in life you're left with living out in the country growing vegetables to survive and hiding under the covers the rest of the time.

If you looked at it statistically, though I doubt stats like that exist, There are many activities that everybody takes part in that are arguable "unnecessary for survival" which carry with them much greater risks than having sex with more than one single person during your lifetime.

[Melkor]

If sex before marriage didn't exist you, I, and the homo sapiens species wouldn't exist. Human marriage represents less than 1% of human history.

This is absolutely false. If only it was so easy that we could all just make up statistics to prove a point. Humans have married each other in some form or another throughout history in all cultures, independent of influence from the outside. Even the most remote tribes of Africa have some kind of marriage ceremony. Coincidence? I think not.

[theredshirt]

Doing something because it feels good is not a valid reason. The health benefits COINCIDE ENTIRELY, WITH NO ADDITIONS OR SUBTRACTIONS, don't try to weasel your "may or may not" in there. I don't feel like going back into the physiology issue that you already conceeded.

If you're the only partners you guys have ever had it is great (good for you), if not then you're just an example of another person that part of the problem. Do you plan on staying faithful to her for the rest of your life, period? How about she with you? If you guys think your relationship is temporary, and that you guys will eventually move on to sleep with other people the risk just grows, and grows, and grows ad infintum. This generation, and previous ones are STILL paying for the '60s sexual revolution. I wish you the best of luck on your relationship being permanent, by the way.

What people fail to realize is the actions taken now also effect the people generations from now. The risks only continue to grow until it is out of hand, and then you have an emergency. I believe STDs have already been declared an epidemic due to their spread as it is.

many partners for me, no std's, i am her only partner, dating for 3 years now. seriously sex isnt so doom and gloom like you think. I really think more people have sex then stds eli, that is just the truth

p.s. i have every damn right to wiesel in my "may or may not" because all i did was type "health benifits of sex" in google and science journal after science journel popped up. unless there is one huge conspiracy against the abrahamic religions by the liberals so everyone can have sex, we have no problem here. And alot of what i read speaks of hormones being released that generally dont get released in other situations. and yes doing something because it feels good can be a good reason to do something. im sorry we are going from a secular point of view with no dogma attached. if proper education is attached, people can bone be happy feel happy and having not a care in the world. that is why i am able to sit here today, not itch down there, and be pleased with my over 15 lifetime companions (thankyou UC Santa Barbara).