Sex Before Marriage

[dan]

This is becoming a little too personal, I say we should cool down. Look, I understand your belifs are sacred to you but you must agree that to believe what you do one must blindly trust the Mormon priests.

I don't think I've ever heard a more backhanded comment. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

I joined the church when I was twenty years old after spending years researching many different religions, including yours. After I got baptized I started going to Institute and noticed something interesting. At the front of the classroom there was only one sign. It was a huge blue sign that said FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. I asked several different people what it meant and they all said the same thing: No one expects you to blindly accept everything. You ave to find out for yourself if it's all true. If you don't know for yourself it can never save you.

You know absolutely nothing about the LDS faith if you really think we do anything blindly; and this thread is not about Mormons, divorce rates or Temples. This thread is about sex before marriage. I have shared the stats that show beyond a reasonable doubt that sex before marriage is much more harmful to a relationship than abstinence. I have shown that it doesn't establish the compatibility of CRAP, and I have shown that every single statement I have made about sex before marriage is absolutely, 100%, exactly what the hard research has shown to be FACT. No one has yet to dispute any one of my statistics, you just CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You SUCK at debate. You SUCK at being open minded despite the condemnation you heap upon others for their lack thereof. You SUCK at representing your and my faith. You SUCK at waxing philosophic, and you SUCK at making any sense of the world you claim so vehemently to objectively observe. Now stay on subject or shut your mouths.

 

[dan]

Just by way of clarification, the large type of my last post is not directed at mngmty, but at everyone here who tries to pawn off their own uninformed opinions about sex as fact and then change the subject to LDS divorce rates when they're shown to be completely and totally fallacious.

 

[mingmty]

I don't think I've ever heard a more backhanded comment. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

I joined the church when I was twenty years old after spending years researching many different religions, including yours. After I got baptized I started going to Institute and noticed something interesting. At the front of the classroom there was only one sign. It was a huge blue sign that said FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. I asked several different people what it meant and they all said the same thing: No one expects you to blindly accept everything. You ave to find out for yourself if it's all true. If you don't know for yourself it can never save you.

You know absolutely nothing about the LDS faith if you really think we do anything blindly; and this thread is not about Mormons, divorce rates or Temples. This thread is about sex before marriage. I have shared the stats that show beyond a reasonable doubt that sex before marriage is much more harmful to a relationship than abstinence. I have shown that it doesn't establish the compatibility of CRAP, and I have shown that every single statement I have made about sex before marriage is absolutely, 100%, exactly what the hard research has shown to be FACT. No one has yet to dispute any one of my statistics, you just CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You SUCK at debate. You SUCK at being open minded despite the condemnation you heap upon others for their lack thereof. You SUCK at representing your and my faith. You SUCK at waxing philosophic, and you SUCK at making any sense of the world you claim so vehemently to objectively observe. Now stay on subject or shut your mouths.

Woow, that was aggressive. I already said I got overexcited in the subject but is my personal opinion, nothing more, I'm not trying to be offensive and as already said to beckysoup61(Sorry about calling you a man, it's too late and I'm sleepy ) I highly respect your commitment to your belifs but I can't belive a man flew to the sky even with his physical body after his death. It's just me, you are completly free to belive it happened and I'm ok with it.

About your "research", well, actually is as valid as everybody else. To be completely sure about the accuracy of the statics it would be necessary to met somewhere and personally go and ask hundred of people... Which is impossible.

Now, as for evidence, humans are the only ones who marry and even mankind used not to do it until somebody found it was a good idea to unite tribes and defeat enemies, a son of different tribe members will definitivly join their efforts for survival, so it was forbidden to have sex before marriage, or to be more precise, before the woman was given to a man of a different tribe, all of this so she would give birth to the child of both tribes.

I think there's a lot of evidence that marriage was invented by humans as a social measure, just like money, and the evidence of God telling us to marry is non existent. Now even humans had sex even before they started to get married, just like any other animal does, we are made to have sex and period. Having sex after marriage is learned from society. And shouldn't we relate the creator to it's creation and not with our our creations, in this case society?

anthropology can clearly enlighten us more about the subject. I recommend you to search in the web for the ancient origin of society.

 

[retrorich]

I have experienced sex before marriage and sex during marriage. Sex before marriage is definitely better.

 

[linwood]

If that's the exmormon's experience that's unfortunate. I've never seen this situation personally in the temple and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a total fabrication. Oh, and it wouldn't be the only fabrication at exmormon.com.

Then tell me what is inaccurate about it.
Tell me.

Give me a break, linwood. You easily dismiss the information we provide with information you find from people who hate our guts? That's credible. I thought you were a better debator than that. Oh, wait...no I didn't. You've proven time and again you only seek to bring others down. I wonder why that is.

Odd y`all jump on the Ad Hominum bandwagon when someone posts something you don`t like.
Lies about me never upset me, it`s when someone has a point I have problems.

Linwood, I am absolutley appalled at you behavior.

Get over it.

Wanna hear another fact that your selective prejudice failed to pick up? Most teen marriages begin with pregnancy. 80% of children born to teen mothers were pregnancies that ocurred before marriage.

Maybe your understanding of how the world works needs a little tweaking.

It`s unlikely you could teach me anything on the subject Dan.

Just by way of clarification, the large type of my last post is not directed at mngmty, but at everyone here who tries to pawn off their own uninformed opinions about sex as fact and then change the subject to LDS divorce rates when they're shown to be completely and totally fallacious.

You are the one the kept holding the Mormon 6% up as an icon of wonder.
Now that I know how that 6% exists it isn`t much of a wonder.
You guys always do this, you love to promote what yiou see as the good in your faith and sooner or later someone always comes along to point out why they don`t think it`s so good then y`all cry like a bunch of babies.

The LDS church doesn`t recognise a civil divorce after a couple have been sealed.
So technically a temple marriage could have had a civil divorce and it wouldn`t affect the LDS numbers for how many couples have been "Insealed".

The LDS doesn`t usually allow a couple to become "Unsealed" but for rare occasions.

You wonder why I don`t trust LDS sources, because the more I learn about them them more they seem to be twisted just like this.

 

[dan]

It`s unlikely you could teach me anything on the subject Dan.

Well, that's true when you refuse to learn anything.

The LDS church doesn`t recognise a civil divorce after a couple have been sealed.
So technically a temple marriage could have had a civil divorce and it wouldn`t affect the LDS numbers for how many couples have been "Insealed".

Civil divorce is recognized, it just doesn't always effect the sealing, but that doesn't influence the numbers the way you're insinuating.

The LDS doesn`t usually allow a couple to become "Unsealed" but for rare occasions.

You wonder why I don`t trust LDS sources, because the more I learn about them them more they seem to be twisted just like this.

Then you're not learning anything, and once again, this thread is not about LDS divorce rates, it's about sex before marriage. If you can't hold up an argument and stay on topic then keep your bigoted mouth shut. Address the statistics I posted or don't talk to me. I'm perfectly aware of how much you hate my church and how little you understand of it, so you don't have to keep regurgitating the same crap.

 

[Ðanisty]

I don't believe it is living together that is the problem. I believe the problem is the way they think the people q=that live together. One who decides to live together before he is married decides that marriage is something to do if if are completely the same. He tests the marriage before he is married. One who does not live with his woman before he is married thinks differently. He believes that marriage is something more than living with someone you are exactly like. This shows that he is willing to change because he did not test it first. He is not so lazy that he must make sure everything is the same.

Well, if that is the way he feels about marriage, then I suppose it's good that he doesn't get married.

That's great that it worked out for you, but these statistics show that the vast majority of people who do this experience failure in their marriage, so maybe you better not start teaching a clinic on how to have a happy marriage.

I am the anti-statistic...lol. I got married at 20 to an 18-year old whom I'd been living with for a year and having sex with for 2 years. We've been together or 7 years and have a great relationship.

Becky and Dan, the reason that people don't trust the LDS church's statistics does not necessarily have anything to do with how they feel about your religion. The truth is, most organizations (churches included) report statistics in such a way that puts them in a good light. Naturally the LDS church is going to report statistics that are positive to the church image...otherwise, why report them? It's more objective if those statistics are confirmed by a source that has no bias.

 

[dan]

The funny thing is that there it's really hard to find someone who has no bias towards my church. People either love it or hate it. The stats I pulled up on the divorce rate are by anti-Mormons, but that still doesn't work for y'all apparently. I don't know how more unbiased you want me to get.

The other thing is that this thread is getting off topic. We're supposed to be talking about sex before marriage, but I can't get anyone to bring it up anymore.

 

[Ðanisty]

The funny thing is that there it's really hard to find someone who has no bias towards my church. People either love it or hate it. The stats I pulled up on the divorce rate are by anti-Mormons, but that still doesn't work for y'all apparently. I don't know how more unbiased you want me to get.

I understand what you're saying. A lot of people do have a problem with your faith...I'll give you that. I was just trying to make it clear that someone could be completely justified in not believing statistics reported by your church or, as Becky put it, why people don't "trust" her church. Personally, I don't care one way or another who has the lowest divorce rates. It doesn't really say anything about successful marriages anyway. There are plenty of unsuccessful marriages that don't end in divorce.

As far as the topic goes, is there really anything else to say about it?

 

[mingmty]

The funny thing is that there it's really hard to find someone who has no bias towards my church. People either love it or hate it. The stats I pulled up on the divorce rate are by anti-Mormons, but that still doesn't work for y'all apparently. I don't know how more unbiased you want me to get.

The other thing is that this thread is getting off topic. We're supposed to be talking about sex before marriage, but I can't get anyone to bring it up anymore.

I did comment about sex before marriage but you seem to have overlooked it. Also your statics are as valid as the ones I posted earlier and are in no way more reliable only because they reflect your belifs.

I don't like to duplicate my posts but you seem to reply only to the ones you feel are offensive.

 

[dan]

Marriage was the begging of society and there's quite a lot of documentation about it, interesting but I'm not going to behave as an ancient social practice dictate when I can enjoy my short life feeling alive. Not having sex before marriage is a social human conduct, nothing more, outside the human world its meaningless, sometimes it amazes me how easily people put themselves in god's chair.

This is the last thing I find of you actually adressing the topic, and you provide no evidence for your theory. Furthermore, your idea contradicts what science (not religion) understands about human nature. Relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are married and they wait till marriage to have sex. This has been established time and time again, but you run right over it to hurry to divorce rates. If you'd like to keep giving me a hard time then address that statement. If you give me that crap about already having addressed it then you reveal your ignorance and insecurity with the theme. No one has addressed my statement in light of my evidence. If you think someone has then show me that post, cuz I can't find it.

 

[dan]

anthropology can clearly enlighten us more about the subject. I recommend you to search in the web for the ancient origin of society.

I am keenly aware of the anthropological views on the origin of society, and it means nothing in this thread. The question here is the validity of my statement relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are married, and they wait till marriage to have sex. How societies were organized is completely and totally irrelevant. I have said nothing of God, as well. Your statistics, by the way, have nothing to do with my statement. I threw in the divorce rate as a sidebar and since you have no argument to substantiate your claims about sex you just moved into something you felt you could argue. How about staying on point?

 

[linwood]

, this thread is not about LDS divorce rates, it's about sex before marriage.

Again, I`m not the one who brought LDS divorce rates into this thread, you are.
I simply pointed out what the rates actually are.
If you contend they are wrong then evidence your assertion.

If you can't hold up an argument and stay on topic then keep your bigoted mouth shut. Address the statistics I posted or don't talk to me.

I have addressed the stats, they don`t hold up alongside Barnas.
Barna has no bias against theism and nothing to gain by misrepresentation.

I'm perfectly aware of how much you hate my church and how little you understand of it, so you don't have to keep regurgitating the same crap.

Then you are aware of nothing.
I`d like to see you actually address some of the crap i`m regurgitating for a chnage instead of shifting, obfuscating, and wrapping yourself in victimhood.

That would be a nice change.

 

[mingmty]

This is the last thing I find of you actually adressing the topic, and you provide no evidence for your theory. Furthermore, your idea contradicts what science (not religion) understands about human nature. Relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are married and they wait till marriage to have sex. This has been established time and time again, but you run right over it to hurry to divorce rates. If you'd like to keep giving me a hard time then address that statement. If you give me that crap about already having addressed it then you reveal your ignorance and insecurity with the theme. No one has addressed my statement in light of my evidence. If you think someone has then show me that post, cuz I can't find it.

You fail to give any respectful comment in this thread; your offensive remarks are stupid and reveal your insecurity with the theme, even heard of denial?

You talk a lot of **** and don't backup it with anything usefull but your own intolerant point of view, I am an engineer and have studied physics, chemistry and many other scientific related topics with excellence awards. I'm way more qualified to speak about science than you and your stubbornness only shows intolerance and offensive remarks to me and everybody else.

I'm done talking with you, you are a lost case, go and enjoy your life and ***** to whoever doesn't agree with you.

Someone should disable those big sized fonts.

 

[dan]

Obfuscation is the favorite word of close minded people accusing others of being close minded. Anyone care to argue that sex before marriage is healthier for a relationship? I believe that's what this thread is about. If you just want to stick to arguments you feel you have a chance at winning then quit the ad hominem and start another thread. As for sex before marriage, it seem this case is closed.

I'm very impressed with your studies, by the way. I get really intimidated when you talk about how smart you are but then don't back it up.

 

[gnomon]

I love you guys.:bow:

 

[mr.guy]

I love you guys.:bow:

But do try to control yourself, gnomon. It's now been scientificaly proven that pre-marital sex is unhealthy.

 

[linwood]

Dan,

I`m going to be very clear.
Please have another look at this thread.
The ad hominum isn`t coming from me, the post I am replying to is nothing but ad hominum in content entirely.

The post I`m replying to has no content other than an attack on my methods, perceptions, and even mentality.
Niether are the emotional outbursts coming from me.
Sarcasm?
Guilty!



You have not attacked my argument for three pages but you have a lot of posts attacking my person.

Your statements are hypocrisy.



Deal with my argument.

Do something with my argument.

I have argued that premarital sex is healthier than waiting until you are married and have backed it up with the Barna stats.
I can back it up with the implications of the Waxman report, the Columbia/Yale study in teen sexuality and a half dozen other studies released in the past year.
You have not dealt with them (Barna)but to say you don`t like them
You won`t tell me why you don`t like them, why they aren`t to be trusted.
Please point out the flaw in Barnas methods or tell me what Barnas bias is .
You keep accusing me of not dealing with the point of your posts but I have done so..repeatedly.
You are the one that says "I don`t trust them" without giving reason.

The stats that show the younger a couple marry the more likely they are to divorce is more than enough to throw out your argument.

Defend your beliefs or don`t but don`t keep trying to twist what is going on here.

The fact is that atheist divorce rates are lower than theists divorce rates.

Theists advocate waiting until marriage for sex.
I`ve never met an atheist who waited until marriage for sex.
I know a crapload of atheists.

 

[Majikthise]

I remember my wife telling me , 5 years into our current 10 year marriage, that I was too fast when we first met. I told her I didn't hear any complaints at the time.
She makes me laugh, that's why I love her.

 

[Draka]

Dan,

I`m going to be very clear.
Please have another look at this thread.
The ad hominum isn`t coming from me, the post I am replying to is nothing but ad hominum in content entirely.

The post I`m replying to has no content other than an attack on my methods, perceptions, and even mentality.
Niether are the emotional outbursts coming from me.
Sarcasm?
Guilty!



You have not attacked my argument for three pages but you have a lot of posts attacking my person.

Your statements are hypocrisy.



Deal with my argument.

Do something with my argument.

I have argued that premarital sex is healthier than waiting until you are married and have backed it up with the Barna stats.
I can back it up with the implications of the Waxman report, the Columbia/Yale study in teen sexuality and a half dozen other studies released in the past year.
You have not dealt with them (Barna)but to say you don`t like them
You won`t tell me why you don`t like them, why they aren`t to be trusted.
Please point out the flaw in Barnas methods or tell me what Barnas bias is .
You keep accusing me of not dealing with the point of your posts but I have done so..repeatedly.
You are the one that says "I don`t trust them" without giving reason.

The stats that show the younger a couple marry the more likely they are to divorce is more than enough to throw out your argument.

Defend your beliefs or don`t but don`t keep trying to twist what is going on here.

The fact is that atheist divorce rates are lower than theists divorce rates.

Theists advocate waiting until marriage for sex.
I`ve never met an atheist who waited until marriage for sex.
I know a crapload of atheists.

:clap :bow: :knockout2
That was totally awesome Linwood. Frubals to you!