Dear Falkoner:
This is one reason why I'm glad I don't live in a Theocracy, where another person's religious beliefs interfere with the actions of two (or more) consenting adults. It is perfectly fine that you want to practice abstinence, but understand that your views are not relevent or applicable to all no matter how strongly you believe in them. Fact is, there are hundreds of active religions (compounded with numerous differing interpretations), and thousands of defunct religions (Aztecs, Greek myth, etc), but none have any more proof over any other religion that they are the correct choice.


Is this coming from personal experience? Unless you're married, given your beliefs I doubt it. Not to boast, but speaking from experience myself, I can tell you there is quite a bit to learn if you care at all about a mutually beneficial experience.

The point I'm making is that only catholics are against the use of protection (and mormons too if devilesk is right) and no one else. That does not equate to religion fucking up everything. A religion will only seem as bad as the people who practice them, like Scientology.

A marriage isn't all about the sex, I plan on being married to the person for many many years, I think I can learn just fine during that time, I don't need to practice and ruin my experience by doing it with someone I won't be with forever.


This is an opinion related question, so I answered with my opinion.

Dear Falkoner:
No, of course it isn't. But if I may ask, what is the main difference between a best friend you live with and a wife (beyond the contract and any religious ceremony)? Intimacy. Experience does in fact help in a variety of ways and situations, as it does with anything.

Now, I understand your viewpoint, and you're free to decide whatever you'd like. That's not the purpose of my argument, to alter your personal choices. Instead, I am debating against your assertion that everyone else should follow that same choice. Naturally, you aren't in a position to enforce your beliefs on anyone, and I am not assuming that is your intent, but that is what your opinion implies. If you had the authority and power to implement your opinion, would you?


Of course it is, what else would it be? By volunteering your opinion, you open it up for discussion. That is the nature of a forum.

I think I'd feel a lot better knowing my partner was a virgin like myself, rathrr than finding out they had sex with some other guy.


I would certainly would do so, sex before marriage causes more problems than it solves.



Your opinion.

Why are you against it? If it is you that is against protection, then you should follow your beliefs ( as you have stated ). Why does it matter that other people use it for fun? Is it the problem that maybe when you get married and you find out that your wife had sex with another man? If so, your wife should have been honest to you in the first place. Problem solved.

Let's all celebrate the fact that Falkoner will never get the power to force upon the rest of us such a ridiculous belief.

I agree with falk almost completely.

Because we make sex look all glorified in society, it makes it even more appealing to kids when we say "no, you can't until later". Kids always have and always will want something now as opposed to later. In light of this, I am grateful for condoms so I don't have to deal with their screwed up children, but I wish it didn't have to be that way. If everyone only had sex once they were married, the # of people infected with sti's would greatly decrease. Also, there are thousands of statistics out their showing that early marriage(17-20) fail miserably, and some %50 of them end in devorce.(look up your own statistic, but you'll see I'm right). Less sti infected people, less divorce which equals better parenting, what is not to like?? but that's in an ideal world. Until then, use a condom if you are weak and cannot wait.

But the essence of the condom is so you don't have to be responsible.

Add Jello-Jigglers alongside Falkoner.

Thanks

Being responsible is using a condom.

Sigh.. I think this is the biggest failing of sex-crazy America. The idea that sex (or "intimacy", or whatever constructions of the English language you wish to hide behind), is the defining, paramount, and (in many minds) only aspect of a "serious relationship" is, to me, utter bullshit. There isn't a great deal of difference between a "best friend" and a "spouse" - for the male example, "wife"; "girlfriend" - at least there shouldn't be. This is a bit of a ridiculous-sounding concept these days, so let me elaborate, and in a way to stick up for the alienated morals of Falkoner.

Sex should not be the paramount aspect of a lasting relationship; instead intimacy in a different sense is necessary, such as mutual trust, care, and the other more Victorian aspects of love that are now being cast aside as seemingly stupid obstacles in the way of having more sex. It is human nature (excluding homosexuals) to have particularly strong feelings for [usually a single] member of the opposite sex, and it is this psychological basis that allows for the creation of families that will raise productive children. So thus, your girlfriend, wife, or whatnot really should be your best friend, and I think the attempt at disassociating friendship and love is of completely false basis; what should be recognized as different are the caring affections of love and the carnal pleasure of lust.

That being said, there is no reason why the two can't coincide, and the sexual aspect of a relationship is obviously not unimportant. But to say that one who is not experienced in having sex cannot begin a "serious" relationship and needs some experience is, in my opinion, wrong. There is nothing saying a couple virgins at marriage cannot ultimately have a promiscuous sex life, and as years pass, the other side of the relationship will come out as more important in the end. If sex is all that matters to you in a relationship, what is to stop you from dropping your current partner at the drop of a hat to win one who is more sexually appealing? Sadly this happens all the time, and combined with the lack of any friend-like feelings between modern couples helps contribute to our country's fifty-odd percent divorce rate.


Two further points to moderate my views: one, I do not see anything horribly wrong with premarital sex per se, but only its glorification. If two people, not yet married, want to have sex and don't try to misrepresent it as something it isn't, there's nothing lost.

That, and I retain the good old Libertarian view that if people don't give a damn about my morals, they should have the legal right to live their lives that way.

Wooo, celebration from DTBK.

I believe this thread is pretty much solved...

The fact is that religious people shouldn't give a damn about what non-moralistic people think, and non-moralistic people shouldn't give a damn about what moralistic people think.

I mean if your fine with accidentally knocking a girl up and then leaving her the baby, go for it. No one should be able to contradict you unless God burns you to the ground himself. Religious people should be able to respect that in some vague way. Assuming God exists, God gave you the choice: live life the way he wanted you to, or don't at your own risk. So why should a religious person be able to interfere with that choice?

The law becomes involved (and ought to) when your lifestyle invades upon the lifestyle and rights of others.

That's true.
But assuming there was nothing wrong with it.
I.E. Your roommate wants to have some fun. You both agree with what's going to happen, neither of you are drunk or underage, and are well aware of the consequences (if underage really is a problem, I think it is for the record). However, you're unprotected and unmarried. Why does that give someone the right to invade your beliefs? It shouldn't.

Now I can understand if it did hurt someone then that would be a problem, but I don't believe that's what this topic is about.

I took the last third of your first post as sarcasm and satire, perhaps I shouldn't have. All I meant is that if two unmarried people have sex and the woman gets pregnant, I support laws requiring the man to pay child support and help provide for the child.

Dear DT_Battlekruser:
The word I used was intimacy, not sex. Sex is a significant facet of intimacy, but it is not the whole of the concept. I then went on to say that experience helps. Experience in dating helps one relate to the opposite gender. Experience in kissing helps establish a strong physical connection, etc etc. All this builds on your confidence and self-esteem.

Also, my question about the difference between a best friend and a wife has nothing to do with dissociating friendship from love. You can deeply love, care for, and share a mutual trust with a good friend. A relationship is, or should, at its core be a friendship. Ideally, your wife is your best friend. But if you remove the best friend aspect from a wife or girlfriend, what are you left with?


Dear Falkoner:
Not everyone believes in marriage, nor does a marriage concretely protect against any of the potential dangers of premarital sex. You can still get pregnant, get divorced, or contract an STD from an unfaithful or dishonest spouse.

although they somewhat do condoms are not meant to prevent pregnancy, they are made to stop the spreading of STD's and STI's. who could say they WANT one of those?

Condoms have opened the doors for extra-marital affairs. They have enabled those who sleep with their boss to get a promotion, without negative consequences. And (because people don't generally carry their used condoms until they find a trash can) they have added a garbage item that is on the more disgusting end of the garbage spectrum.
I'm for the use of them, but most people don't realize the social implications of their use.