Sex Before Marriage

[Pah]

Well, you can look at it biblically or biologically, but my whole argument has been a sociological one. The few arguments raised supporting pre-marital sex have been sociological in nature. I would prefer to addres that aspect.

Then, you would also be immune to the presentation of Constitutional rulings that permit unmarried sex. So what would you do if, and I say IF, sociological arguments carry the day. How would that translate into law, constitutional law?

 

[Darkdale]

My first posts in this thread pointed out why and how pre-marital sex can harm a relationship. I spoke of fragmentation and our sexual identities. My stats also point out what harm is done when sex is pre-marital, including (but not at all limited to) a more lax view of the act of sex and how that often leads to infidelity. Every stat is accompanied by an explanation of how pre-marital sex leads to that failure. Read through everything again and you'll find that proof.

I'm sorry, but you (or your sources) never establish a causal relationship; not to worry, that is a hard thing to do. I think you have taken a reasonable position; but it is not for everyone and you should make that clear. Not everyone is looking for the same things in life, you know?

 

[dan]

Then, you would also be immune to the presentation of Constitutional rulings that permit unmarried sex. So what would you do if, and I say IF, sociological arguments carry the day. How would that translate into law, constitutional law?

I'm not saying social implications are the most important, I'm only making that argument because it's the best way to show members of different faiths and ethical structures that it would be better to wait. It is a universal principle, so it can ring true to Muslim, Christian, Atheist and Buddhist alike. I don't have to lean on scripture or regional laws. Everyone can agree that the social aspect affects everyone.

 

[dan]

I'm sorry, but you (or your sources) never establish a causal relationship; not to worry, that is a hard thing to do. I think you have taken a reasonable position; but it is not for everyone and you should make that clear. Not everyone is looking for the same things in life, you know?

I am aware that people want different things, and the morality of the different priorities could be a whole different thread if we were so inclined. I jsut think the world would be a better place if more people practiced abstinence.

 

[Darkdale]

I'm not saying social implications are the most important, I'm only making that argument because it's the best way to show members of different faiths and ethical structures that it would be better to wait. It is a universal principle, so it can ring true to Muslim, Christian, Atheist and Buddhist alike. I don't have to lean on scripture or regional laws. Everyone can agree that the social aspect affects everyone.

It is the points in bold that are lacking in evidence. For example, what establishes marriage as being more desirable than being single? How can you demonstrate that everyone has the same sexual needs and desires?

I jsut think the world would be a better place if more people practiced abstinence.

I agree.

 

[dan]

Society is the universal principle. Everyone may not relate to religion or law, but everyone relates to society.

 

[s2a]

Hello dan,

You said (waaay back in post #413):

I really do want to hear what people have to say about my last post, but at the same time I am wondering where the amoral people with all the rock hard convictions about monkey loving have wandered off to. Only one person had the juevos to say they respected my argument. Everyone else participates only until they see no way to win and then they just go away. It's an easy way to avoid looking foolish but without really conceding anything).

Well gee whiz dan, ain't we just full of ourselves? I'm right here, ripe and ready for you to expose me for what I really am (btw, we wanderlusting, amoral, self-assured, monkey-loving fools prefer to be addressed directly - not in some vague unnamed reference of ambiguity. It must be in our "eggs").

Perhaps it may occur to you that not every member of REF hovers over their keyboard anxiously anticipating a personalized reply to their post. Some of us have interests and commitments that extend well beyond REF.

You are welcome to verify the fact that my last previous post to REF (02/12/2006, 11:25 AM) was in reply to one of your posts, here.

If it pleases you to magnanimously appoint yourself as lone possessor of integrity and personal courage in valid debate, then enjoy the heightened elevation of the pedestal you perilously place for yourself to stand upon - for any fall may thusly find you resting upon the veritable petard of your own meretricious crafting.

Initially, let's address your response (post #336) to my last post to you, as referenced/linked above:

When I said:
"I provided you a definition of what it means to "sanctify" something. This meaning has nothing but (adherent) religious significance attached. As you are a self-professed LDS, it only follows that your special "understanding" (which you infer that others may lack to their disadvantage) has a specified and readily referenced authoritative source of origin than can be cited in support of your implication of superior understanding of "the act of love" as it may apply to it's "sanctity" and "importance"."

You offered:

"You provided half of the definition of sanctity. Here's the rest:
3 a : to impart or impute sacredness, inviolability, or respect to
b : to give moral or social sanction to
"The etymology of the word sacrifice is the same, but I bet you have used that word in a non-religious way before. Now, I do often use the word in a religious sense, but for you to demand scriptural references implies that you'll respect them, which you will not. My understanding does have an authoritative source of origin, and it's called revelation, but since you will refuse to accept that I will provide a text:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway....f=templates$3.0

Let's recall your contentious (contextual) statement once more, with feeling:

"It's too bad you don't understand the sanctity or the importance of the act of love."

"The act of love". Sexual relations. Sex.
NOT marriage vows. SEX (pre-marital or not).

My marriage vows are "sacred" to me (in that I hold them inviolable), but SEX (even with my wife) is most certainly NOT (as previously outlined). I lend neither moral attributes, nor depend upon "social sanctions" to have or enjoy SEX. I neither impart nor impute any sanctity or higher plane of importance to pure SEX. SEX (or, "the act of love") does not define either my marriage or my continued commitment to my wife. My wedding vows were a personal pledge of sexual fidelity...by choice - not by dogma, dictate, social expectations, or moral consequence. I made a promise, and my word is my bond. A man that makes false promises, or is false to himself, is no man in my estimation.

Your provided link is nice, but you have to admit that it is nothing more than creedal doctrine, a proclamation of faith. It's lone quoted scriptural reference is from Psalms 127:3, for Pete's sake - which lends no support whatsoever - even to the declaration that:
"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."

Well there's the "sanctity and importance" assertion, but that refers to life, not the "act of love". Oddly, there is NO reference whatsoever within the proclamation that even speaks to the "act of love", beyond:

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Ahem. Sex ain't always about "procreation" (in my and my spouse's particular case, being medically impossible) even as "husband and wife". There are available "options" in "the act of love" that don't necessarily include vaginal penetration or male ejaculation into a vagina (though we certainly go "there" too) - or haven't you heard (perhaps that's too primal a concept)?

Interestingly, I note no prohibition against "hot monkey love" with one's spouse anywhere within your provided declaration. Maybe...you just don't have the cojones to go there yourself. ;-)

You're welcome to suggest that your views are (or should be) universally applicable as a matter of reason and logic removed from religious implications, but in the end, it's clear that yours (and your argument) are founded upon creedal doctrine (or your extrapolation thereof), and thusly present no compelling argument of any relevance to either unbelievers or religious adherents outside of your personal faith and beliefs. (Yes, I'm aware of the other data you provided - I'll get to that).

I can respect your piety, without buying into any provided faith-based rationale (or inferences of moral authority/superiority/understanding as they may apply to "the act of love").

And, in the end, you provided no Scriptural support for your implied superiority. Whether I "believe" in the Bible or not is utterly moot to your inability (or unwillingness) to provide scriptural authentication as foundation for your assertion of moral/ethical superiority regarding the "act of love". It's not "what" you believe that's germane - it's the "why (or how)" of "what you believe" that matters, and ultimately supports any faith-based claim. What I believe (or don't believe/accept on faith) has NO bearing on your prospective establishment/defense of your own stated position.

I said:
I may not practice religious sanctification rituals, but I can identify sanctimonious proclamations of moral superiority in a heartbeat.

You offered:

So can I, but at least what I argue can be called morality and not just justification.

One man's "justification" is another man's morality. I arrived at my "justifications' of my own volition, without relying on someone/something else's imposed/indoctrinated/accepted version of "morality". The very fact that virtually each and every sect of each and every religion lays claim to their own distinct knowledge/insight of some "ultimate morality" strikes me as...illogical, self-serving, narrow-minded, righteously judgmental, and ultimately...dangerous.

I said:
"The stats you provided certainly suggest that cohabitation prior to marriage is prospectively more deleterious to long-term marriage prospects, but these stats do not directly speak to the simpler aspects (or consequences) of just having good ole' sex before marriage."

"My apologies. I guess splitting hairs is ok for atheists. That means people who just have casual pre-marital monkey love are more commited to a marriage than those who move in together before they get married. Here's more info..."

[Of] which (as provided) was still couched with the context (ultimately) of pre-marital cohabitation (go re-read it for yourself), not pre-marital sex alone. Context, nuance, and discernment matter. May I instead suggest a good conditioner for those "split hairs" you perceive?

 

[s2a]

"That is what I called fragmentation."

I will assume that you assert some perspicuous conclusion regarding "the disintegration of social norms governing behavior and thought and social relationships". Yours is what I call self-serving validation absent compelling fact. If we could fairly conclude that failed marriages were predicated solely upon instances of pre-marital sex, and NO other mitigating factors (including age, income/finance, familial/religious strife/differences, infidelity, abuse, abandonment, kids, etc.), then your cherry-picking conclusion might provide a semblance of critical integrity and compelling authority - but we can't, because it doesn't.

I said:
"Anyway...I simply asked you to explain how your implied (superior) understanding of the "sanctity or the importance of the act of love" is relevant or of applicable value to an atheist or non-adherent of your particular faith."

You offered:

I think the research points it out well enoguh[sic].

As I pointed out...it doesn't. As yet, I fail to regard your assumptive understanding of the "sanctity" or the "importance" of "the act of love" as superior to my own (either ethically, morally, or logically), or to anyone else. Cherry-picking, special pleading, and creedal doctrine are not especially compelling argument - especially to a heathen such as myself. Hot monkey love still carries the day for me...

"Nothing of what I said is faith based. Sanctity does not have to mean religious. You're just putting words in my mouth."

Now who is engaging in "splitting hairs"? I agree that it doesn't "have to mean (imply/infer) religious", but your own semantical parsimony (as hoisted upon by your own accounting) left you with but one authoritative rationale - which was, most expectedly - faith-based. You merely served to subsequently confirm my initial suspicion of your (ultimately) foundational established position. Quelle surprise!

I said/inquired:
"Wow. Only 6%. That's an interesting and impressive claim of success. Is there any credible source outside of the LDS Church or it's affiliated groups that confirms that claim, or is that just an "in-house" statistic? Is there any data as to how many of those married in such a fashion did/did not have pre-marital sex?"

You offered:

You cannot enter into the Temple if you've had pre-marital sex within a certain amount of time. It's a case by case scenario, so it's different. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and double our divorce rates it's still twice as good as you monkey lovers.

Hmmm. I feel so...sub-human...I'm sure you'll understand when I fling my own feces upon your specious and lacking "evidence"...

"Data from a 1981 Church membership survey in the United States show that 16 percent of members (as compared to 23 percent of U.S. whites, statistically the most comparable group) had been divorced (Goodman and Heaton, p. 93)."

OK. I'll consider that a source within the LDS Church or it's affiliated groups.

In another post (to another poster) you proffered that the LA Times (that liberal rag!) verified/validated the LDS (adherents) claims of an extraordinarily low divorce rate (6%!). Wow! What a compelling source of "facts". And of whom did the author (Mr. William Lobdell) of such insightful journalism quote as source for his favorable commentary? Um...the LDS Church. Now there's some objectivity in research!

Well geez, what other extenuating factors might have been excluded from that article? Let's see...

Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd computed in the year 2000...

Now there's an objective source!

...that only 6% of Mormons who marry in a temple ceremony subsequently go through a temple divorce. This is a small fraction of the rate in the general American population. Unfortunately, the value may lack accuracy.

I'm shocked!:

"Most Mormons who have their marriage sealed in a temple ceremony and who subsequently divorce do so in a civil ceremony. This avoids the rather complex temple "cancellation of sealing" (divorce) procedures. Thus, their divorce is not counted in the above figure."
Source

I wonder why not...

"Some Mormons marry in a temple ceremony, divorce in a civil procedure and subsequently remarry in a second temple ceremony. This would count as two temple marriages and zero temple divorces -- thus reducing the apparent divorce rate."
Source

How convenient. Interestingly, Orthodox Jews employ similar methods (with similar extraordinary claims). It seems that adherents that choose to circumvent creedal doctrine are thusly labeled as "bad", or "unfaithful" adherents of their faith. But hey, if you refuse to count them, they simply cease to exist, right?

"Overall, the Mormon divorce rate is no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. 6 Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have a lower rate."

"This data is supported by an earlier study the National Survey of Families and Households. It found that about 26% of both Mormons and non-Mormons had experienced at least one divorce at some time during their life."

Hey! Wasn't that the very same source you cited beforehand as credible and supportive of the "facts"? Irony, where is thy sting?

Still a lot better than the monkey lovers. Anyway. I'm sure you have a lot of rhetoric to spout, so I'll give you the floor now.

Your disdain for "monkey lovers" is noted. With duly earned commensurate mockery.

I'll just have to sate my primal urges in the satisfaction that you substantiate no greater knowledge or understanding of "the act of love" that surpasses my own in any compelling ethical, moral, or logical fashion. Would you care for a banana?

 

[s2a]

You sought reply (which you deemed as unmet) to your premise:
"Relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are married, and they wait till marriage to have sex."

OK. I'll go there. ;-)

Anecdotally (from a distinctly personalized perspective), I would concede that marriage can (prospectively) promote longer-lasting relationships (in the long run, there's more to lose).

But what defines "more rewarding"? What are the exclusive beneficent/superior rewards of marriage otherwise denied to unmarried couples (beyond legal considerations)?

Happiness? If so, how is this to be measured, and what is the "baseline"? Personalized motivations, goals, and "rewards" differ for each and every individual. Are Catholic priests "happier", or more rewarded within a life of chastity absent marriage? If so, should not everyone seek a priest's penultimate happiness (within a "relationship" with their Maker)?

Financial success is certainly measurable, but does wealth assure marital compatibility or like-minded priorities? Does poverty?

Is bearing children to be the measure of a "strong", or "rewarding relationship"? What of married couples that either choose not to, or are otherwise incapable ("unblessed") of procreating their own distinct progeny? Should they even be permitted to have sex? Does the Bible insist/command that "the act of love" be limited to those interested solely in procreation? Does the Bible speak to the "importance" of sexual relations beyond willful and intended procreation itself?

Longevity of a relationship? Is a marriage of forty years that ends in unhappy divorce any stronger or more rewarding than that of an unmarried relationship of half that span (see: Hepburn and Tracy)?

Finally, what would you present as compelling falsification of your premise? What "evidence" would you accept as disproof of said premise? One anecdotal accounting of "success"? One million?

I recall that you stated (in post #410):

"I've been interested in the moral code that others subscribe to that they believe justifies pre-marital sex, but the only comprehensive code I've gotten is "If it harms someone it's bad." Which is fallacious as well as grossly inadequate. I can understand how moral relativism can justify it, but I feel moral relativism is a joke. I believe in absolute truth, and I believe morality should be universal."

Your "feelings" and "beliefs" are hereby noted (and as I believe, are disingenuously shrouded in some "social mores" cloak of rationalism that you don in order to deflect/obscure any prospective assignations of faith-based "feelings" and "beliefs" that you actually retain as your predominant foundational rationale. If you seek to claim that [your] religious beliefs have no impact upon your opinions - and that's what faith-based morality/ethics is...opinion; not "universal", or "absolute" fact - of predicated morality and ethics, then you might as well adopt an atheistic perspective, and ignore adherence to any dogma, declaration, doctrine, or divine command).

Is your presented premise of : ""Relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are married, and they wait till marriage to have sex." - either an "absolute truth" or to be construed as "universally" applicable? Anecdotally, socially, legally, empirically, and yes, even...logically; the answer is a simple NO. Even one example to the contrary invalidates any concept of absolutism or universal applicability as either fact or "truth".

Relativism (either ethical, moral, legal, or social) is the product of reason and rational/critical thinking itself. Declarations of, and claims to - possession/enlightenment/entitlement/enforcement of - "absolute truths" and "universal morality" seem to suspiciously remain the exclusive domain of piously uncritical religious adherents, dictators, despots, kings, and conquerors.

Tell you what. I'll give you a premise of my own, predicated upon the structure of yours:

"Relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are atheists, and when they abstain from religion before or after marriage."

Demonstrate the error of that statement in terms of universal morality and absolute truth (absent any religious feelings and beliefs).

"Deontological ethics could justify it if you could produce evidence that pre-marital sex is a right or duty. I try to prove myself wrong whenever I reach a conclusion, but that one would take way too long."

Pre-marital sex IS both a human and civil "right" (amongst consenting adults) under our (U.S.) pluralistically secular, constitutional rule of law (and enforceable conduct). In other cultures both past and present, pre-marital sex is/was of no particular concern or interest either ethically, morally, or socially - and may even have been/is expected or mandatory as a part of ritualistic "rites" of passage into adulthood.
[I can readily demonstrate the lacking quality of your presumptive quandary above in no time at all. Odd that.]

Rest assured that your premised opinion (and that's all it is...an opinion predicated on your personalized "feelings" and "beliefs") has little bearing, impact, or any prospective importance or relevance to anyone capable of assuming responsibility and accountability for their own choices and resultant consequences.

Six billion (give or take) of our human peers today are testament enough that our species has managed not only to survive, but thrive in a myriad of divergent cultures, societies, "feelings", and "beliefs"...all (somehow) by our own morally relativistic selves.

Go figure.

 

[dan]

I lend neither moral attributes, nor depend upon "social sanctions" to have or enjoy SEX. I neither impart nor impute any sanctity or higher plane of importance to pure SEX.

Nobody says you have to, but I understand it a little diferently, and I believe the world would be a much better place if other people understood it the same way.

Your provided link is nice, but you have to admit that it is nothing more than creedal doctrine, a proclamation of faith. It's lone quoted scriptural reference is from Psalms 127:3, for Pete's sake - which lends no support whatsoever - even to the declaration that:
"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."

You asked for scriptural references, and we believe that the words of modern day prohpets are scripture. We believe in more than the Bible, so don't cherry pick what qualifies as scripture, because the Bible isn't the lone standard, and you don't even believe in scripture to begin with. To the LDS this is scripture.

Well there's the "sanctity and importance" assertion, but that refers to life, not the "act of love". Oddly, there is NO reference whatsoever within the proclamation that even speaks to the "act of love", beyond:

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Ahem. Sex ain't always about "procreation" (in my and my spouse's particular case, being medically impossible) even as "husband and wife". There are available "options" in "the act of love" that don't necessarily include vaginal penetration or male ejaculation into a vagina (though we certainly go "there" too) - or haven't you heard (perhaps that's too primal a concept)?

The powers of procreation refer only to sex. You are interpreting this document extremely selectively just so you can make it seem like you're right. Even if they aren't functioning properly, they are the powers of procreation.

Interestingly, I note no prohibition against "hot monkey love" with one's spouse anywhere within your provided declaration. Maybe...you just don't have the cojones to go there yourself. ;-)

If you're married there's nothing wrong with it and I never said there was. Love can be shared in many different ways, and sometimes that's what a couple is in the mood to do. Please don't make assumptions about the nature of my sex life.

You're welcome to suggest that your views are (or should be) universally applicable as a matter of reason and logic removed from religious implications, but in the end, it's clear that yours (and your argument) are founded upon creedal doctrine (or your extrapolation thereof), and thusly present no compelling argument of any relevance to either unbelievers or religious adherents outside of your personal faith and beliefs.

I was agnostic for most of my adult life. I joined the LDS church five years ago, and (guess what?) I felt this way about sex before I ever believed in God. You assume too much, again. You have no idea upon which foundation I base my fundamental argument.

And, in the end, you provided no Scriptural support for your implied superiority. Whether I "believe" in the Bible or not is utterly moot to your inability (or unwillingness) to provide scriptural authentication as foundation for your assertion of moral/ethical superiority regarding the "act of love". It's not "what" you believe that's germane - it's the "why (or how)" of "what you believe" that matters, and ultimately supports any faith-based claim. What I believe (or don't believe/accept on faith) has NO bearing on your prospective establishment/defense of your own stated position.

I did fulfill the requirements you gave me. I provided what I believe to be scripture, but you wanted a Bible verse, when you don't even believe that to be scripture. See the subjective nature of this kind of debate? This is why I stayed away from it. Scripture is not the foundation of my belief. I found it upon many different things, and the words ofthe living prophets mean a lot more to me than some words in a book. Scripture does not establish any ethical or moral superiority of anything, it establishes doctrine. That's a ridiculous argument, especially from one who doesn't believe in it.

One man's "justification" is another man's morality. I arrived at my "justifications' of my own volition, without relying on someone/something else's imposed/indoctrinated/accepted version of "morality".

All I ever asked waas how you arrived at that justification.

The very fact that virtually each and every sect of each and every religion lays claim to their own distinct knowledge/insight of some "ultimate morality" strikes me as...illogical, self-serving, narrow-minded, righteously judgmental, and ultimately...dangerous.

Which is why I avoided a religious argument, but you want to suck people in anyway.

[Of] which (as provided) was still couched with the context (ultimately) of pre-marital cohabitation (go re-read it for yourself), not pre-marital sex alone. Context, nuance, and discernment matter.

The quotes I posted here had only to do with pre-marital sex.

 

[dan]

Your disdain for "monkey lovers" is noted. With duly earned commensurate mockery.

I'll just have to sate my primal urges in the satisfaction that you substantiate no greater knowledge or understanding of "the act of love" that surpasses my own in any compelling ethical, moral, or logical fashion. Would you care for a banana?

You're the one who brought up the monkey loving, just like I said "sanctity" once and you still won't accept that it was in no way offered as an argument for my position. You still won't let it go. The rest of your post here addresses issues not relavent to the debate, so I'll ignore them. Thank you for adding the (sic) to my post. Very noble of you.

 

[dan]

You sought reply (which you deemed as unmet) to your premise:
"Relationships are stronger and more rewarding when people are married, and they wait till marriage to have sex."

OK. I'll go there. ;-)

Oh, geez. I never said that my argument was universal, I said that the sociological nature of my argument was employed because sociality is universal. Everyone may not share relgion or laws, but everyone lives in a society. Everyone must acknowledge that social impacts are real and valid.

Deontological ethics don't really have anythign to do with the Constitution. Explain how pre-marital sex is a natural duty of yours. The Constitution does not address the natural right of pre-marital sex, it addresses the natural right of freedom from certain things, which thereby allows you to engage in many different activities, whether they be moral or not.

 

[Pah]

...Deontological ethics don't really have anythign to do with the Constitution. Explain how pre-marital sex is a natural duty of yours. The Constitution does not address the natural right of pre-marital sex, it addresses the natural right of freedom from certain things, which thereby allows you to engage in many different activities, whether they be moral or not.

Neither pre, post or intramarital sex is a duty. It is a distortion of patriarchal privilelge to call any sex a duty.

The Constitution DOES address the natural right of unmarried persons to have sex. Eisenstadt v Baird is the case in point. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=405&invol=438

we hold that the statute, viewed as a prohibition on contraception per se, violates the rights of single persons under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Permissible contraception is permissible sex. The precedent for this case, Griswold v. Connecticut, affirmed sex as a natural right.

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626 , 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 ; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 ; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 ; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 ; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 . These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479

 

[Darkdale]

Society is the universal principle. Everyone may not relate to religion or law, but everyone relates to society.

Not in the same way.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

whoa this post's long.

These ideas of sex after marriage was created a long time ago. People back then had a legitamate fear (and probably still do) that men will impregnate girls with promises of marriage, and end up not marrying.

Its sort of related to the Dowry Murders in India which occured in the 1980s. Men would marry women for their dowry and if they didnt pay up, *accidents* would happen. Like the gas stove might explode and she might die while cooking. But it was obvious to everyone that it these were murders. Unfortunatly the government couldnt prove anything.

I suppose that fear still exists with some people. But we have spousal/child support systems here, so I guess thats taken care of.

People have placed so much importance on virginity, its unbelievable. Yes its special and important, but there is more to a person than their hymen. Back then, a woman's importance was based on her chastity and was basic property to a man. without a man, she had nothing.

I think nowadays in the modern age, its neccesary to live with your partner before getting married so you can learn how to compromise before tying the knot. More than 50% of marriages in U.S. end up in divorce. what does that say?

 

[sojourner]

whoa this post's long.

These ideas of sex after marriage was created a long time ago. People back then had a legitamate fear (and probably still do) that men will impregnate girls with promises of marriage, and end up not marrying.

Its sort of related to the Dowry Murders in India which occured in the 1980s. Men would marry women for their dowry and if they didnt pay up, *accidents* would happen. Like the gas stove might explode and she might die while cooking. But it was obvious to everyone that it these were murders. Unfortunatly the government couldnt prove anything.

I suppose that fear still exists with some people. But we have spousal/child support systems here, so I guess thats taken care of.

People have placed so much importance on virginity, its unbelievable. Yes its special and important, but there is more to a person than their hymen. Back then, a woman's importance was based on her chastity and was basic property to a man. without a man, she had nothing.

I think nowadays in the modern age, its neccesary to live with your partner before getting married so you can learn how to compromise before tying the knot. More than 50% of marriages in U.S. end up in divorce. what does that say?

That's a common myth. Facts show that divorce rates are higher among couples who lived together before marriage.

 

[Smoke]

That's a common myth. Facts show that divorce rates are higher among couples who lived together before marriage.

Divorce rates are also higher among conservative Christians than among atheists or any other religious group, and higher in the South than in any other region of the United States. So for best results, don't cohabit before marriage, move to the Northeast, and become an atheist.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

" That's a common myth. Facts show that divorce rates are higher among couples who lived together before marriage."

Really? Im sorry. Can you show me a source which proves its falseness?

Yeah. I guess indians are an exception. My parents never saw each other until the day of their wedding and after 20 years of marriage, they are still goin strong.

 

[Darkdale]

Yeah. I guess indians are an exception. My parents never saw each other until the day of their wedding and after 20 years of marriage, they are still goin strong.

arranged marriage? They seem to work rather well for some reason.

 

[Smoke]

arranged marriage? They seem to work rather well for some reason.

They usually come with a different, and more realistic, set of expectations.