Sex before marriage - Let's Debate

[getting2big]

I dont agree with sex before marriage.

There are certian acts that diffrentiate man from animlas. In recent years man has been breaking all these acts, he is degrading himself to animals level. Think about it, if you continue down this road then the reason for sex would just be to put out your urge. Thus you have taken the animals solution which is to live by your urges, while a human would realize that he should control his urges and not the opposite.

Also look at all these STDs. How were they transmitted? By uncontroled sexual activities. Look at what goes on in a teenagers mind "SEX" he lost all concepts of life. He only thinks about one thing and that is "I want to get in bed with that women". Women are being seen as sex objects as they were in dark ages. Women are using their bodies as a form of business. All of this is due to people believeing that sex is a game. Thats how sex lost its true meaning. It turned from being a sacred act into a game. This slowly destroys the morality of the community as it has.

Control your urges = Human

Urges control you = Animal

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

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.

Homo Sapiens sapiens emerged about 40,000 years ago. Our earliest ancestors emerged about 7 million years ago. 40,000/7 million = 0.0057

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

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.

Breakdown of the family unit had nothing to do with the decline of the Romans and Greeks. Breeding may have been somewhat regulated but that is not the point at hand. I pointed out that many societies had sex before, during, and after marriage with multiple people. As for pre-history it's impossible to say what the sexual habits of such people were. You can argue all you want from your Christian ethnocentrism that sex before marriage is immoral. But at the base facts it still remains that sex is an integral social behaviour of humans much like it is in our close relative the bonobo. Check and mate.

[KennyK]

You see, marriage is very easy, so there is no excuse for choosing fornication over marriage.

I still think I'll go with fornication.

[JAGERBOY]

I actually voiced my case using a secular argument and you got slapped and ended your argument with, "I DO IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT!" Wow, so convincing.

Whatever you do, never try to debate with a person ever again.

I dont need to convince you of anything, Im not religous, and I do it because I want to. I dont see anything wrong with it, there are certain consequences, but you know that going into it. YOu have no reason other than your religion as to why its "bad". I already asked you what was wrong with it other than the possibilty of STD's and unwanted pregnancy and you never answered.

[JAGERBOY]

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.

What is your argument here? The question isnt "what are the risks of sex", the question is "whats wrong with premarital sex". What the fucc does the risk of STD's have to do with THAT question? You are throwing in way too many 'what ifs and, not all people do that'. Obviously that can have effects on others, but again, there are precautions you take and alot more things than just sex has a negative externalities associated with it. How bout we all just sit in a padded room and not socialize with anyone else, that way, no one will ever get hurt. Your debating skills are pretty bad and you have completly gone off topic.

Again, what is "morally" wrong with premarital sex when you throw religion out of the equation?

Heres an example of how you are arguing:

Q: Do you feel driving is wrong?

Khan: Yes, you may end up getting in an accident and dying and possibly killing someone else.

Q: Ok...ya, but what is acutally 'wrong' with the ACT of driving? Not everyone will crash.

Khan: ....Uh, uh, like, dude you can die....

[bassing68]

i think parents should teach sex before marriage because way to many kids are having sex at an early age and i dont think there ready for it

but i havnt waited to marriage but i wish parents taught to not have till marriage

They should also give pointers. I learned to eat by trial and error. I fully intend on teaching my boys.

[theredshirt]

What is your argument here? The question isnt "what are the risks of sex", the question is "whats wrong with premarital sex". What the fucc does the risk of STD's have to do with THAT question? You are throwing in way too many 'what ifs and, not all people do that'. Obviously that can have effects on others, but again, there are precautions you take and alot more things than just sex has a negative externalities associated with it. How bout we all just sit in a padded room and not socialize with anyone else, that way, no one will ever get hurt. Your debating skills are pretty bad and you have completly gone off topic.

Again, what is "morally" wrong with premarital sex when you throw religion out of the equation?

Heres an example of how you are arguing:

Q: Do you feel driving is wrong?

Khan: Yes, you may end up getting in an accident and dying and possibly killing someone else.

Q: Ok...ya, but what is acutally 'wrong' with the ACT of driving? Not everyone will crash.

Khan: ....Uh, uh, like, dude you can die....

your example is exactly how he is arguing. There are risks in all things. benifits of driving include getting their faster and more effieciently. you can take other methods to get their faster and recieve the same benifits, but it is simply easier to drive yourself. however you risk injury by driving. more so then on a subway station, or a bus. car deaths are amoung the biggest killers in america.
using khans logic, we should not drive because we can get the same benifits elsewhere which will save us the danger. Apparently that is his secular reasoning.
however the real reason goes something like this,
Khan=you should not drive to work or anywhere because of the risk
Red- well there are a lot of good things about driving
Khan - you can get those benifits elsewhere
Red- yes but driving can be fun and more effiecient
Khan-you f-king idiot, i like how you try to bring biology in this and i am 20 and know all about health you idiot...nice try go back and drink kool aid
red-chill out i just like to drive and it has great benifits
Khan-GOd forbids driving unless your married
red- oh so this isnt secular..gotcha

[KhanPaulsen]

Breakdown of the family unit had nothing to do with the decline of the Romans and Greeks. Breeding may have been somewhat regulated but that is not the point at hand. I pointed out that many societies had sex before, during, and after marriage with multiple people. As for pre-history it's impossible to say what the sexual habits of such people were. You can argue all you want from your Christian ethnocentrism that sex before marriage is immoral. But at the base facts it still remains that sex is an integral social behaviour of humans much like it is in our close relative the bonobo. Check and mate.

If breakdowns had nothing to do with the decline of Roman and Greeks you need to recheck your history.

Breeding was not regulated in pre-history, but it WAS structured. When man became sentient it became regulated. Marriage is as old as sentient intelligence. People have sex with way more partners now than even our closest genetic relatives do, and even then the animal kingdom is structured.

You're still yet to point out anything advantageous about pre-marital sex, either.

I'm not Xian, but keep trying to bring up and knock down that straw man. Kd2, your rook is hanging and you're in check. 1-0 black resigns, play again? I'll let you have white this time.

[KhanPaulsen]

I dont need to convince you of anything, Im not religous, and I do it because I want to. I dont see anything wrong with it, there are certain consequences, but you know that going into it. YOu have no reason other than your religion as to why its "bad". I already asked you what was wrong with it other than the possibilty of STD's and unwanted pregnancy and you never answered.

My argument wasn't religious, and for the last time using that fallacious means of arguing is going to once again prompt me to tell you, "Never again debate with anyone."

Let me copy and paste for your "I can't read" self, since reading comprehension is low with you:

"STDs, unwanted children, inability to care for said children, dysfunction in the marriage due to lack of appreciation for monogamy and your partner (hey, with all this sex going around look at how many divorces we have nowadays!), and finally unfaithful spouses because they don't feel they `have` to have sex with you since they can get it elsewhere, people don't have to take responsibility for their role in the relationship, etc."

[KhanPaulsen]

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).

Many people have STDs and don't even know it, and THAT is the truth. Of course many more people have sex than have STDs, however that rate is rising. Why do you think it has been declared an epidemic?

Oh, it can't be that serious a concern, it isn't like it is widespread enough for professionals to declare it an epidemic...oh wait. All the protection in the world isn't going to prevent you from catching one once you happen to get a partner that has it. A lot of people with STDs have no visible symptoms for a long time. A lot of people with HIV are unaware they have it until something happens to make them realize something is wrong. So even if you aren't itching now, doesn't mean you won't be later. Oh, and every girl that slept with a guy before you, you got whatever he had if he had anything. THAT is how it spreads, but geniuses tend to forget the simple things.

You haven't brought up one benefit of sex that doesn't come from exercise period. I've already taken you back to Bio class, you have nothing to offer on that aspect. Weasel in your "may or may nots" once you have even one iota of knowledge about the human body, sound fair?

[KhanPaulsen]

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.

It's called a power rack, and you say I'm reaching. I'm a personal trainer, and by no means a small BBer either. You don't want to venture down this road, use another example.

And still, you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't alter what is an unnecessary risk and what is a necessary risk.

Name one. Just one risk that fits your hypothetical "statistics".

[KhanPaulsen]

What is your argument here? The question isnt "what are the risks of sex", the question is "whats wrong with premarital sex". What the fucc does the risk of STD's have to do with THAT question? You are throwing in way too many 'what ifs and, not all people do that'. Obviously that can have effects on others, but again, there are precautions you take and alot more things than just sex has a negative externalities associated with it. How bout we all just sit in a padded room and not socialize with anyone else, that way, no one will ever get hurt. Your debating skills are pretty bad and you have completly gone off topic.

Again, what is "morally" wrong with premarital sex when you throw religion out of the equation?

I'm not arguing for the morality of marriage here, and religion hasn't been in the equation. Apparently you can't read, because I've stated multiple times I'm addressing the secular aspect.

Pre-marital sex proliferates STDs by having multiple partners. Diseases only take one person to spread to 10, to spread to 100, etc. Look at Michael Vick, he's getting sued for having herpes. Nobody talks about STDs unless someone gets them, and a lot of people have them without realizing it.

For the biologically ignorant (which you are): NO AMOUNT OF SAFETY IN THE WORLD WILL PREVENT AN STD. The only guaranteed way? Abstinence. Don't make me take you back to Anatomy & Physiology class also. All the people arguing for "pro-sex" don't have a damn clue about the human body, and it is sad.

The proliferation of sex has also led to more unwanted children (people try to protect, but don't necessary suceed), increase in divorces, and cheating.

Heres an example of how you are arguing:

Q: Do you feel driving is wrong?

Khan: Yes, you may end up getting in an accident and dying and possibly killing someone else.

Q: Ok...ya, but what is acutally 'wrong' with the ACT of driving? Not everyone will crash.

Khan: ....Uh, uh, like, dude you can die....

You must of missed the difference between necessary and unnecessary risks. I know 17 year olds have a problem using their brains, but c'mon. Like I said, "Never debate with anyone again."

[theredshirt]

Many people have STDs and don't even know it, and THAT is the truth. Of course many more people have sex than have STDs, however that rate is rising. Why do you think it has been declared an epidemic?

Oh, it can't be that serious a concern, it isn't like it is widespread enough for professionals to declare it an epidemic...oh wait. All the protection in the world isn't going to prevent you from catching one once you happen to get a partner that has it. A lot of people with STDs have no visible symptoms for a long time. A lot of people with HIV are unaware they have it until something happens to make them realize something is wrong. So even if you aren't itching now, doesn't mean you won't be later. Oh, and every girl that slept with a guy before you, you got whatever he had if he had anything. THAT is how it spreads, but geniuses tend to forget the simple things.

You haven't brought up one benefit of sex that doesn't come from exercise period. I've already taken you back to Bio class, you have nothing to offer on that aspect. Weasel in your "may or may nots" once you have even one iota of knowledge about the human body, sound fair?

how does at all differ once you become married? Your arguments are valid for a person never to ever have sex in ones life. Are you just anti sex, or anti premarital sex. what in your response above happens only in premarital sex and then will not happen in post marital sex.

[Dennis_TheMenace_Bonvie]

If breakdowns had nothing to do with the decline of Roman and Greeks you need to recheck your history.

Breeding was not regulated in pre-history, but it WAS structured. When man became sentient it became regulated. Marriage is as old as sentient intelligence. People have sex with way more partners now than even our closest genetic relatives do, and even then the animal kingdom is structured.

You're still yet to point out anything advantageous about pre-marital sex, either.

I'm not Xian, but keep trying to bring up and knock down that straw man. Kd2, your rook is hanging and you're in check. 1-0 black resigns, play again? I'll let you have white this time.

It's pretty simple sex is a social tool. This social tool developed long before humans discovered language, reading, or marriage. I can't put it any more basic than this: sex developed as necessary means to establish bonds, show affection, show power, etc. Much like the Bonobos and Chimpanzees humans use sex in a wide range of behaviours. You lose.