Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. It isn't like we are suppose to kill or beat people who have premarital sex. The Bible simply teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree. Sure, not every case of premarital sex hurts people, but there are tons of negative effects that have already been listed. Am I saying premarital sex should be outlawed, and those who practice it be thrown in jail? No. Not at all. I'm simply saying that it would be better for everyone if there was less premarital sex in the world, and I don't think I am hurting ANYONE by saying "you shouldn't have premarital sex".
"The Bible teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree."
Then you are complicit in the societal denigration of those who advocate more liberal sexual views. To say that you wouldn't want to do it or advocate it is different than calling it wrong, because then it becomes a judgement.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Again, I disagree with the notion that premarital sex harms no one. As I said before.
And I disagree with the notion that monogamy harms no one. So why not call neither right/wrong and just let people choose without labeling one a sin?
Originally posted by TacDavey
No one is saying people who have premarital sex should be looked down upon.
Oh, plenty are. How can you separate "What you do is wrong, a sin, etc." and not imply "You are wrong, sinful, etc." The answer is, you can't.
What do you think the reaction would be if I told my largely-Catholic family that I've engaged in one night stands and not regretted it? Do you think I'd be looked down upon? Even if I told you that my family is, by Christian standards, quite liberal? The answer should be staggeringly obvious.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I'm unwilling to deal with negative aspects of religion. I have admitted time and time again on this forum that there have been evils that have come about in the name of religion. As I said before, it's not the religions fault. If someone throws their kid out of the house, or ostracize someone who doesn't share their religion, it is the INDIVIDUAL who is causing the harm, not the religion. It is a common trend to blame the religion for the wrongs of the individual.
Fair point, and I partially agree. It's a slippery slope sometimes, and it is also hard to differentiate the two because many peoples' beliefs are so much a part of them that they can't be faithfully separated.
However, take religion away from those same people...how much of the same behavior do you think would be present? I don't know and you don't know exactly, but we can be damn sure some of the discrimination would disappear.
I'm trying hard not to lead this to gay marriage either, but many of the same arguments could be made about it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Using a term like "sexual freedom" sends the wrong message as to my stance. If someone goes around sleeping with anything that moves would you not say that's the wrong decision? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if everyone started doing that? Wouldn't you say it would be a good idea to teach our kids that's wrong? And wouldn't you say the world would be better off if people didn't behave in that manner?
Straw man. What you're talking about here isn't sexual freedom, it's being destructively slutty. Obviously the world wouldn't be better if we were all masochistic sexual sociopaths, but this is NOT what would happen if we lowered the cross-ward from our breasts on the issue of sex.
The average age of lost virginity in the US is around 17. We're already in a world that, in practice, places very little importance on monogamy. And while it's not perfect in many ways, we have progressed socially in terms of acceptance of races, philosophies, and creeds as well as overall crime rates (despite what media coverage might have us believe). And the world isn't burning down around us. Not all of that can be attributed to the sexual revolution of the last 50 years or so, but we also must concede that increasing sexual freedoms hasn't made us go into some sort of bohemian nosedive.
Originally posted by Digi
"The Bible teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree."Then you are complicit in the societal denigration of those who advocate more liberal sexual views. To say that you wouldn't want to do it or advocate it is different than calling it wrong, because then it becomes a judgement.
This sounds like semantics. I believe it is a harmful practice and that people would benefit if there was less of it.
Originally posted by Digi
And I disagree with the notion that monogamy harms no one. So why not call neither right/wrong and just let people choose without labeling one a sin?
Because if monogamy harms someone, it's a very rare or very specific circumstance which I still argue can be solved without doing away with monogamy. The problems posed by premarital sex are much more prevalent and much more common.
Originally posted by Digi
Oh, plenty are. How can you separate "What you do is wrong, a sin, etc." and not imply "You are wrong, sinful, etc." The answer is, you can't.
I'm sure there are people out there who are. What I was saying is that no one HERE is saying that.
And it's actually pretty easy to separate people from actions. I love my little brother. If he were to steal something, I would disapprove of that action. I would think it's wrong, but I would not look down on my little brother or feel he should be treated any differently than I have always treated him.
Originally posted by Digi
What do you think the reaction would be if I told my largely-Catholic family that I've engaged in one night stands and not regretted it? Do you think I'd be looked down upon? Even if I told you that my family is, by Christian standards, quite liberal? The answer should be staggeringly obvious.
If your family were to disown you or look down on you for that then, no offense, but they are in the wrong. Their religion, however, is not in the wrong because of what THEY do.
Originally posted by Digi
Fair point, and I partially agree. It's a slippery slope sometimes, and it is also hard to differentiate the two because many peoples' beliefs are so much a part of them that they can't be faithfully separated.However, take religion away from those same people...how much of the same behavior do you think would be present? I don't know and you don't know exactly, but we can be damn sure some of the discrimination would disappear.
I'm trying hard not to lead this to gay marriage either, but many of the same arguments could be made about it.
Maybe, but as I said in another thread before, if you took an example of a rape, and removed the rape victim, you can be pretty sure the rape would not happen. So, in that sense, isn't the rape victim partially to blame for the whole thing?
Obviously not. In the same way, while some of the discrimination may not be there without the religion, it is still not the religions fault for the discrimination because the religion does not tell that individual to discriminate. That is a choice they make on their own.
Originally posted by Digi
Straw man. What you're talking about here isn't sexual freedom, it's being destructively slutty. Obviously the world wouldn't be better if we were all masochistic sexual sociopaths, but this is NOT what would happen if we lowered the cross-ward from our breasts on the issue of sex.
That's not what I was saying.
My point was that teaching people that sex within marriage is the better way to do things is not "sexually repressing" people any more than teaching them not to have sex with everything that moves is "sexually repressing" people.
Originally posted by Digi
The average age of lost virginity in the US is around 17. We're already in a world that, in practice, places very little importance on monogamy. And while it's not perfect in many ways, we have progressed socially in terms of acceptance of races, philosophies, and creeds as well as overall crime rates (despite what media coverage might have us believe). And the world isn't burning down around us. Not all of that can be attributed to the sexual revolution of the last 50 years or so, but we also must concede that increasing sexual freedoms hasn't made us go into some sort of bohemian nosedive.
I don't believe I ever said that allowing premarital sex to continue will cause the world to burn down around us. And the fact that we, as a society, don't value monogamy is completely irrelevant to whether or not we SHOULD value monogamy.
Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was that teaching people that sex within marriage is the better way to do things is not "sexually repressing" people any more than teaching them not to have sex with everything that moves is "sexually repressing" people.
Telling them it is the only appropriate way and that they'll be tortured in hell for doing otherwise is.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously not. In the same way, while some of the discrimination may not be there without the religion, it is still not the religions fault for the discrimination because the religion does not tell that individual to discriminate. That is a choice they make on their own.
...because their religions tells them that those people are bad.
If you really want to use rape as a metaphor here religious people are rapists and religion is a deeply vile person who is telling people to become rapists. But we shouldn't use anything as emotionally charged as rape anyway.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...If you really want to use rape as a metaphor here religious people are rapists and religion is a deeply vile person who is telling people to become rapists. But we shouldn't use anything as emotionally charged as rape anyway.
In trying to stress your point, you only left yourself sounding stupid. Saying all religions are the same is like saying all people are the same. The reason general advice on this topic doesn't work is because people are different. Some people should wait, while others should not.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In trying to stress your point, you only left yourself sounding stupid.
My point that rape metaphors are a bad way to think about religion is stupid? Okay.
I'll also note that nowhere was it said that "all religions are the same". The two things I said are contiguous.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Telling them it is the only appropriate way and that they'll be tortured in hell for doing otherwise is.
No it isn't. If people were forced into not having premarital sex you might have something. The religion merely teaches that it's wrong. A lot of things, not just religion, do this. It isn't repressing someone to teach them what you believe to be right. Otherwise, parents are some of the most repressive people around.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...because their religions tells them that those people are bad.
Wrong. The religion (Christianity in this case) makes it very clear that you should always separate the person from the action. It also stresses that you should love your enemies, you should not look down on people, and that you are not to harm others. So if anyone does this, even if they do it in the name of religion, it is not the religion doing it, it is them. In fact, they are doing exactly what the religion tells them not to.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really want to use rape as a metaphor here religious people are rapists and religion is a deeply vile person who is telling people to become rapists. But we shouldn't use anything as emotionally charged as rape anyway.
What? That isn't even remotely accurate. You basically said that religion commands it's followers to do those evils which is blatantly false.
I wasn't comparing religion to rape, by the way. I was using the rape example as a way to show how the blame was being misplaced.
Well, we're not making any progress. Couple parting shots:
- By trying to say "it's the person, not the religion" you deny religion's massive influence on individuals. We could take that to its logical extreme and say that nothing that is done is due to a particular societal influence....it's just the person. Which removes all outside influence ever, which is naturally absurd. If you want to absolve religion of all the evil perpetrated in the name of monogamous values, go for it. I think you're deluding yourself and glossing over inherent problems in the religious dogma surrounding monogamy.
- I hope I live to see the Christian mentality on sex toppled in my lifetime - given our progress in the last few decades, I think it's a legit possibility.
- I honestly don't think your view of premarital sex matches reality. I look around at, largely, people having premarital sex and I'm like "where's the problem?" Even statistics on divorce rates don't really represent a "decline" but simply a shifting view of marriage. Maybe you don't think a sexually free society would be a bunch of slutty sociopaths, but clearly you have a somewhat dystopic view of the results of such a mentality. And I'm telling you, straight up, it's not true in most cases.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Wrong. The religion (Christianity in this case) makes it very clear that you should always separate the person from the action. It also stresses that you should love your enemies, you should not look down on people, and that you are not to harm others. So if anyone does this, even if they do it in the name of religion, it is not the religion doing it, it is them. In fact, they are doing exactly what the religion tells them not to.
In other words: "I don't hate you, I hate who you are."
Yeah, that sounds like progress.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The religion (Christianity in this case) makes it very clear that you should always separate the person from the action.
WRONG!
You don't get to tell them what their religion belives, they get to define that. There are many kind of Christianity.
Originally posted by Digi
- By trying to say "it's the person, not the religion" you deny religion's massive influence on individuals. We could take that to its logical extreme and say that nothing that is done is due to a particular societal influence....it's just the person. Which removes all outside influence ever, which is naturally absurd. If you want to absolve religion of all the evil perpetrated in the name of monogamous values, go for it. I think you're deluding yourself and glossing over inherent problems in the religious dogma surrounding monogamy.
If a societal influence tells someone to do something and they do it then it is partially their fault. Religion doesn't do that, however, as I have already explained. You didn't respond to my reasoning behind separating religion from these actions, you basically just responded with "I know you don't think religion is to blame, but actually it is." Which is far from a valid response.
Originally posted by Digi
- I hope I live to see the Christian mentality on sex toppled in my lifetime - given our progress in the last few decades, I think it's a legit possibility.
And I will wish for the opposite, for reasons mentioned before.
Originally posted by Digi
- I honestly don't think your view of premarital sex matches reality. I look around at, largely, people having premarital sex and I'm like "where's the problem?" Even statistics on divorce rates don't really represent a "decline" but simply a shifting view of marriage. Maybe you don't think a sexually free society would be a bunch of slutty sociopaths, but clearly you have a somewhat dystopic view of the results of such a mentality. And I'm telling you, straight up, it's not true in most cases.
It's hard to believe that you see the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies diseases and divorce rates as a positive shift in our societal views. Both myself and dadudemon have provided reasons behind why premarital sex is problematic. You have responded with "I don't see it" and "I'm telling you your wrong."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In other words: "I don't hate you, I hate who you are."Yeah, that sounds like progress.
No, I can bring up the example of my little brother again. If my little brother stole something, I would consider the action wrong. I don't like stealing. I love my little brother, however. I would prefer that my little brother stop stealing things, but that doesn't change the fact that I love the kid.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WRONG!You don't get to tell them what their religion belives, they get to define that. There are many kind of Christianity.
Lol. Alright. I suppose I was talking about my Christianity, which is the most common form of Christianity. I would think that if someone held different views from Christianity it would technically not still be Christianity but a different religion that is similar.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Lol. Alright. I suppose I was talking about my Christianity, which is the most common form of Christianity. I would think that if someone held different views from Christianity it would technically not still be Christianity but a different religion that is similar.
You are a Catholic? Hmm, wouldn't have thought so.
Originally posted by TacDavey
If a societal influence tells someone to do something and they do it then it is partially their fault. Religion doesn't do that, however, as I have already explained. You didn't respond to my reasoning behind separating religion from these actions, you basically just responded with "I know you don't think religion is to blame, but actually it is." Which is far from a valid response.
Do you not see the picket signs in the news? Religion can and does create hate.
Originally posted by TacDavey
It's hard to believe that you see the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies diseases and divorce rates as a positive shift in our societal views. Both myself and dadudemon have provided reasons behind why premarital sex is problematic. You have responded with "I don't see it" and "I'm telling you your wrong."
Again, you're reverting to a strawman. "So unwanted pregnancies are good?!" Of course not. Don't insult my intelligence.
All this shows is that we need to do a better job preparing people for sex. It does not justify the idea that premarital sex is bad.
I don't see divorce as a bad thing, btw. It's unfortunate, but often the best course of action for couples who made honest mistakes or who have changed too much to reconcile a marriage. I think the stigma that used to exist surrounding divorce was harmful, especially to women, who did not have the financial options they do today. It's a form of freedom, of liberation.
Also, dudemon's stats had nothing to do with pregnancies, only divorce. Take a look at some national statistics. If memory serves, teen pregnancy rates have declined steadily since about 1990. So unless I'm mistaken, you're actually dead wrong about that claim.
But we're getting to the heart of my argument. I see personal freedom as progress. And yes, that includes the personal freedom to make bad decisions. Not sinful decisions, mind you...the concept of "sin" is ridiculously dogmatic, and leaves no room for shades of grey and "sinful" acts that can and do end with increased happiness for all. But as long as their choice isn't harming another willfully, and it's not when someone decides to have sex, there's no inherent wrong.
Betty really likes Steve. They have sex. Both enjoy it. No STD's, no babies, no lost innocence, etc. They break up, mutually or otherwise. They both get over it, and go on to have loving lives with other partners. Where's the sin?
That's is not an exception, btw. It's modern society in the last 20 years. There's no STD epidemic or outbreak of unwanted pregnancies (no more so than any other time, that is). And divorce rates are only a harbinger of doom to those who think it signals the collapse of society or something. All it does is collapse your idea of what we should live like. We'll be just fine.
It's a bad decision for some. It's not for many. The fact that you continue to try to use the broadest brush possible to label it "bad" wholistically is mind-numbing.
Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I can bring up the example of my little brother again. If my little brother stole something, I would consider the action wrong. I don't like stealing. I love my little brother, however. I would prefer that my little brother stop stealing things, but that doesn't change the fact that I love the kid.
Hate the sin, love the sinner, right? I was fed that line too growing up.
Problem is, in practice, this doesn't happen. Too often it's "hate the sin AND the sinner." Or the "sinner" feels shunned. Go ahead and blame the person, not the religion. I won't even disagree with that this time. But my point is, the only thing a religion is good or bad for is the affects it has on people. So it could be morally perfect in theory, but if it's not in practice, it needs to change its method of teaching
Originally posted by TacDavey
Lol. Alright. I suppose I was talking about my Christianity, which is the most common form of Christianity. I would think that if someone held different views from Christianity it would technically not still be Christianity but a different religion that is similar.
Do you really think yours is the only Christianity?
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a Catholic? Hmm, wouldn't have thought so.
Ah, no. I suppose Catholicism is the more common "Christian" religious view if memory serves. So I suppose I'm not the MOST common form.
Originally posted by Digi
Do you not see the picket signs in the news? Religion can and does create hate.
No. People create hate. They just do it in the name of religion some times. If I burned down hospitals and picketed funerals and shouted that I was doing this all in the name of Atheism. Would you say atheism causes hate? Or would you look at atheistic views, see that what I'm doing is completely separate from what it means to be an atheist, and deduce that I'M creating hate?
Originally posted by Digi
Again, you're reverting to a strawman. "So unwanted pregnancies are good?!" Of course not. Don't insult my intelligence.All this shows is that we need to do a better job preparing people for sex. It does not justify the idea that premarital sex is bad.
I don't see divorce as a bad thing, btw. It's unfortunate, but often the best course of action for couples who made honest mistakes or who have changed too much to reconcile a marriage. I think the stigma that used to exist surrounding divorce was harmful, especially to women, who did not have the financial options they do today. It's a form of freedom, of liberation.
Divorce can hurt others, though, especially in cases where a child or children are involved. You almost make it sound like divorce is something we should be proud of. It's something we are suppose to try to avoid.
Originally posted by Digi
Also, dudemon's stats had nothing to do with pregnancies, only divorce. Take a look at some national statistics. If memory serves, teen pregnancy rates have declined steadily since about 1990. So unless I'm mistaken, you're actually dead wrong about that claim.
Teen pregnancies have been going down, but from what I read, that's because in the past teenage girls were actually getting married and having kids. Today, most teenage pregnancies come from unwed teenagers and most are unwanted.
http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-statistics.html
There are other states there that paint more pictures as to why teenage pregnancy is a bad thing.
Originally posted by Digi
But we're getting to the heart of my argument. I see personal freedom as progress. And yes, that includes the personal freedom to make bad decisions. Not sinful decisions, mind you...the concept of "sin" is ridiculously dogmatic, and leaves no room for shades of grey and "sinful" acts that can and do end with increased happiness for all. But as long as their choice isn't harming another willfully, and it's not when someone decides to have sex, there's no inherent wrong.
I don't think I ever said I don't believe people should be free to make mistakes. Nor does Christianity, either. You make it sound like I'm trying to make premarital sex illegal. Which I'm not. And I'm fully aware that some acts don't always lead to negative consequences. That, by itself, isn't justification of the act though. There are plenty of acts that would be considered wrong, but don't ALWAYS hurt those involved.
Originally posted by Digi
Betty really likes Steve. They have sex. Both enjoy it. No STD's, no babies, no lost innocence, etc. They break up, mutually or otherwise. They both get over it, and go on to have loving lives with other partners. Where's the sin?
As I said, if Joe steals an apple from a vender, and the vender doesn't even realize it's gone, sells the apple for twice what it was worth and returns the money to the owner, everyone in this example came out on top. No one was hurt. Does that make stealing okay?
The simple fact that you can provide an example of the action not hurting anyone is not, by itself, valid justification of the action.
Originally posted by Digi
That's is not an exception, btw. It's modern society in the last 20 years. There's no STD epidemic or outbreak of unwanted pregnancies (no more so than any other time, that is). And divorce rates are only a harbinger of doom to those who think it signals the collapse of society or something. All it does is collapse your idea of what we should live like. We'll be just fine.
I don't think so. The vast majority of teenage pregnancies, according to the article, are unintended. Also, according to this page, Chlamydia
has almost doubled since 1997.
http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm
Originally posted by Digi
It's a bad decision for some. It's not for many. The fact that you continue to try to use the broadest brush possible to label it "bad" wholistically is mind-numbing.
Once again, I reject the idea that premarital sex is mostly harmless. From what I've seen, the current state of sexual health, children born into a family that actually wants them, and divorce rates are not the best they have ever been.
Originally posted by Digi
Hate the sin, love the sinner, right? I was fed that line too growing up.Problem is, in practice, this doesn't happen. Too often it's "hate the sin AND the sinner." Or the "sinner" feels shunned. Go ahead and blame the person, not the religion. I won't even disagree with that this time. But my point is, the only thing a religion is good or bad for is the affects it has on people. So it could be morally perfect in theory, but if it's not in practice, it needs to change its method of teaching
You started by saying that you don't disagree with the idea that it's the person and not the religion, then ended by saying the religion is at fault because it's teaching it's messages wrong.
Even when you say you aren't blaming the religion, you seem to be blaming the religion. The religion and the person are two different things. The religion cannot be held accountable for something the person does, unless the religion specifically says to do it.
Originally posted by Digi
Do you really think yours is the only Christianity?
I know there are other religions that fall under the title of Christianity, but I don't know if they really should be called Christianity. Especially since there are some of them that hold beliefs that are fundamentally different.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Divorce can hurt others, though, especially in cases where a child or children are involved. You almost make it sound like divorce is something we should be proud of. It's something we are suppose to try to avoid.
It can, sure. But time was, people would stay in marriages because they didn't have other options. The family would be no healthier for it in a loveless relationship.
Smaller brush, dude. Nobody wants divorce. Nobody plans for it to happen. But when it needs to happen in a relationship, it needs to happen. No one's saying kids aren't burned sometimes because of it, but would they be less scarred if that couple stayed together?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Teen pregnancies have been going down, but from what I read, that's because in the past teenage girls were actually getting married and having kids. Today, most teenage pregnancies come from unwed teenagers and most are unwanted.http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-statistics.html
Sobering stuff, no doubt. But you still can't seem to separate "premarital sex" from "being appropriately cautious." The latter is an adult response to the problem. The former is killing an ant with a bazooka.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The simple fact that you can provide an example of the action not hurting anyone is not, by itself, valid justification of the action.
Ah, here is the absolute heart of my argument. The fact that I can provide an example of it being good isn't justification by itself. I agree. But what it means is that there is a scenario where no bad comes of it, and even some good. Therefore, we can't say premarital sex is bad, period. We can only say it's bad when it is irresponsibly executed.
And is it irresponsibly executed? Sure, of course. But not by all. Problem is, there aren't stats to track people who just have sex with no negative consequences. All we do is monitor the teen pregnancies and bad stuff. It's impossible to say in what percentage a good or bad outcome is happening. Because everyone has sex. A lot. If horrible consequences were the norm, those stats you quoted would be absurdly higher. So we're dealing with a lot of bad consequences, but also a ton of good or neutral consequences. Therefore, premarital sex isn't bad, in and of itself.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Once again, I reject the idea that premarital sex is mostly harmless. From what I've seen, the current state of sexual health, children born into a family that actually wants them, and divorce rates are not the best they have ever been.
This sort of thing deals almost exclusively with children (< 21) having sex. I agree that it's kinda sad. But saying "Hey guys, wait until you're 21 and can stand on your own two feet financially and judge character better, or these things happen" achieves the same result as "only have married sex." Of course, both are somewhat impotent to get their point across with youth, who will continue to make bad decisions, but the latter is an unreasonable solution for many, making the former much better.
The key term is "mostly bad." "A lot" still doesn't equal "mostly." And you underestimate the number of people there are, and what your stats tell us. They tell us that there are irresponsible people out there that need help. They don't tell us that the practice of premarital sex is bad.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You started by saying that you don't disagree with the idea that it's the person and not the religion, then ended by saying the religion is at fault because it's teaching it's messages wrong.Even when you say you aren't blaming the religion, you seem to be blaming the religion. The religion and the person are two different things. The religion cannot be held accountable for something the person does, unless the religion specifically says to do it.
Simple misunderstanding. I never agreed with you that the religion is blameless. I only set it aside for a moment, or agreed with you for the sake of the argument, to make a larger point.
So, is it the person, not the religion? Yes. But the person is a complex series of influences, among them religion. And for many, religion is the primary decision-making tool in their intellectual arsenal, especially religions based on faith that teach dogmatic beliefs (i.e. most of them). And that is the blind, faith-based mentality that allows people to set aside their humanity to hate in the name of a God or belief system.
So sure, it's the person in a technical sense. But religion plays a much, much larger role than you're willing to admit.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I know there are other religions that fall under the title of Christianity, but I don't know if they really should be called Christianity. Especially since there are some of them that hold beliefs that are fundamentally different.
That's...well, that's amusing and somewhat naive imo. "I am the only right Christianity" is egotistical, for one, and arbitrary, for another. Appealing to numbers or age of the religion does nothing. It's like saying Chinese is the "correct" language because it's spoken the most and has deeper roots than English.
The list of Christian sects that have deliberately antagonistic views toward premarital sex is long.
...
Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it is a force for good.
Originally posted by Digi
It can, sure. But time was, people would stay in marriages because they didn't have other options. The family would be no healthier for it in a loveless relationship.Smaller brush, dude. Nobody wants divorce. Nobody plans for it to happen. But when it needs to happen in a relationship, it needs to happen. No one's saying kids aren't burned sometimes because of it, but would they be less scarred if that couple stayed together?
I agree that if divorce needs to happen, it should happen. But, as you seem to agree, it's something we should try to avoid. And I would say there would be less divorce if there was less premarital sex.
Originally posted by Digi
Sobering stuff, no doubt. But you still can't seem to separate "premarital sex" from "being appropriately cautious." The latter is an adult response to the problem. The former is killing an ant with a bazooka.
That's because premarital sex, just by being what it is, is not a very cautious act. It's possible for two people to be "appropriately cautious" outside of marriage, but that's the vast minority.
Originally posted by Digi
Ah, here is the absolute heart of my argument. The fact that I can provide an example of it being good isn't justification by itself. I agree. But what it means is that there is a scenario where no bad comes of it, and even some good. Therefore, we can't say premarital sex is bad, period. We can only say it's bad when it is irresponsibly executed.
Then we can also say that about stealing, right? I provided an example in which someone stole, no bad came of it, and some good actually did come of it. That fits the same criteria that you just provided. So, since stealing can also fit into the same category, I would say making this distinction doesn't get us anywhere.
Originally posted by Digi
And is it irresponsibly executed? Sure, of course. But not by all. Problem is, there aren't stats to track people who just have sex with no negative consequences. All we do is monitor the teen pregnancies and bad stuff. It's impossible to say in what percentage a good or bad outcome is happening. Because everyone has sex. A lot. If horrible consequences were the norm, those stats you quoted would be absurdly higher. So we're dealing with a lot of bad consequences, but also a ton of good or neutral consequences. Therefore, premarital sex isn't bad, in and of itself.
The stats ARE high, though. And they seem to be going up as time goes on.
Originally posted by Digi
This sort of thing deals almost exclusively with children (< 21) having sex. I agree that it's kinda sad. But saying "Hey guys, wait until you're 21 and can stand on your own two feet financially and judge character better, or these things happen" achieves the same result as "only have married sex." Of course, both are somewhat impotent to get their point across with youth, who will continue to make bad decisions, but the latter is an unreasonable solution for many, making the former much better.
That specific study deals with teens. That doesn't get premarital sex over the age of 21 off the hook. All the stats provided outside that study are not limited to kids. I would say it is unreasonable to make premarital sex illegal. I would not say it is unreasonable to teach premarital sex as a bad decision. I would certainly not claim that teaching something like that is "sexually repressing" people.
Originally posted by Digi
The key term is "mostly bad." "A lot" still doesn't equal "mostly." And you underestimate the number of people there are, and what your stats tell us. They tell us that there are irresponsible people out there that need help. They don't tell us that the practice of premarital sex is bad.
That's because most examples of premarital sex are irresponsible. Which is why it's a problem.
Originally posted by Digi
Simple misunderstanding. I never agreed with you that the religion is blameless. I only set it aside for a moment, or agreed with you for the sake of the argument, to make a larger point.So, is it the person, not the religion? Yes. But the person is a complex series of influences, among them religion. And for many, religion is the primary decision-making tool in their intellectual arsenal, especially religions based on faith that teach dogmatic beliefs (i.e. most of them). And that is the blind, faith-based mentality that allows people to set aside their humanity to hate in the name of a God or belief system.
But don't you see that it is the mentality that is the problem and not the religion? The mentality that see's religion, and decides to do something horrible in it's name. THAT is the problem, and THAT does not come from religion, it comes from individuals.
If you have the group of people who do terrible things in the name of a religion. And then you have the group of people who DON'T do terrible things in the name of the religion. What is the difference between the two groups? What is the reason why some of them do wrong and some of them do not? Do they have different religions? No. So tell me. What is the difference between the two groups, Digi?
The answer is the people.
Originally posted by Digi
So sure, it's the person in a technical sense. But religion plays a much, much larger role than you're willing to admit.
It plays a role, sure. A rape victim plays a pretty significant role in a rape happening. The point is who is at fault? Who has done something wrong? The rapist or the victim? Both were needed for the terrible thing to happen.
Religion plays a role in people using religion for hate, obviously. But the religion is not at fault. The religion has done nothing wrong.
Originally posted by Digi
That's...well, that's amusing and somewhat naive imo. "I am the only right Christianity" is egotistical, for one, and arbitrary, for another. Appealing to numbers or age of the religion does nothing. It's like saying Chinese is the "correct" language because it's spoken the most and has deeper roots than English.The list of Christian sects that have deliberately antagonistic views toward premarital sex is long.
I never said my Christianity was the correct one. Though, obviously, I do believe my religion to be the correct one, otherwise I wouldn't believe in it.
My point before was simply that if you have a religion that believes in a big blue god with four arms that loves everything, and a religion that believes in a big red god with two arms that wants everything to die, they both probably shouldn't be called the same thing.
Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it is a force for good.
It can be good. I never said otherwise. It can also be very destructive.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I agree that if divorce needs to happen, it should happen. But, as you seem to agree, it's something we should try to avoid. And I would say there would be less divorce if there was less premarital sex.
Perhaps. But there's a lack of a causal connection here where you're making a logical leap. Is there more divorce because there's more premarital sex? Or are we more liberal and accepting as a society (especially with women compared to decades ago), thus leading to more premarital sex, and more divorce? I'd argue that saying that both have increased isn't sufficient to draw a causal link, and it's just as possible that the causal link lies with the increased financial and personal freedom women have.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's because premarital sex, just by being what it is, is not a very cautious act. It's possible for two people to be "appropriately cautious" outside of marriage, but that's the vast minority.
Vast minority?! Do you know how many people there are? How much sex there is? A lot /= majority.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Then we can also say that about stealing, right? I provided an example in which someone stole, no bad came of it, and some good actually did come of it. That fits the same criteria that you just provided. So, since stealing can also fit into the same category, I would say making this distinction doesn't get us anywhere.
Not the same at all. With stealing, there's malicious intent. We can't control outcomes to many things. So the only reasonable judge of morality is intent. If I try to murder someone and accidentally cure cancer, it's wrong. With sex, there's no malicious intent. It's often loving, in fact. A loving or harmless intent that ends badly isn't wrong. It's unfortunate, but it isn't morally wrong, it's not a "sin" as you define it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's because most examples of premarital sex are irresponsible. Which is why it's a problem.
Most examples past 21? I beg to differ. By that time, people are adults.
Because, to be clear, you and I are pretty lock-step about teens and sex. That's the wrong place to take a liberal stance, because the dangers are more obvious.
Originally posted by TacDavey
It plays a role, sure. A rape victim plays a pretty significant role in a rape happening. The point is who is at fault? Who has done something wrong? The rapist or the victim? Both were needed for the terrible thing to happen.Religion plays a role in people using religion for hate, obviously. But the religion is not at fault. The religion has done nothing wrong.
Well, religion isn't a person, so sure, ok, whatever, "religion" has done nothing wrong. That's not the point. The point is, the intensity with which people believe religion allows them to justify hatred. Because show me a faith-based blind adherence that is absolute in its strength and faithfulness, and I'll show you a person capable of any atrocity in the name of a God.
Only a few forces can inspire that kind of reaction, and have that destructive potential. Because take away the hate generated by a religious mentality, and you're only left with a few big world hatreds: race, ethnicity, gender, country.
Again, just look at the news. Take religion away and countless homosexuals wouldn't be shunned, repressed, ostracized, and threatened. Same mentality, same approach, same justification, just not as severe. Take away religion and the problem goes away.
Originally posted by TacDavey
It can be good. I never said otherwise. It can also be very destructive.
Only when you go in the back door.
fdog