-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sex Before Marriage
- Thread starter Mister_T
- Start date
No it doesn't. The 14th amendment of the Constitution tells the States that they may not "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Pah said:
The Supreme Court decided pre-marital sex was a natural right under the guidance of the principles in the Constitution. All the Constitution does is tell the States how to make laws.
Did you notice it says "citizens" and then "person"? Did you know that your rights are different if you're a "citizen" than if you're one of the "people" of the United States? A "citizen," for example, does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Pah
Uber all member
Ah, :bonk: those are nonsensical ideas.dan said:
You failed to read the case to determine context and you failed to understand that holdings of cases become Constitutional law.
"We, the people" are not citizens? That's a rhetorical question! Dan. Of course the people are citizens. I guess it's only a foriegner with a visa or green card that can bear arms. Psst! don't tell that to the NRA.
I know plenty abou tthe constitution, and I read the case. They decided that to deny contraceptives to unmarried people is to violate the fourteenth amendment. They then made that interpretation law. The holdings become constitutional law, but they are not the Constitution. They are the laws of the country established in protection of the rights of the people. The Constitution tells them how to establish the laws.Pah said:Ah, :bonk: those are nonsensical ideas.
You failed to read the case to determine context and you failed to understand that holdings of cases become Constitutional law.
"We, the people" are not citizens? That's a rhetorical question! Dan. Of course the people are citizens. I guess it's only a foriegner with a visa or green card that can bear arms. Psst! don't tell that to the NRA.
Citizens are not necessarily "We, the People", according to the U.S. Senate, but you'll probably whine about their ignorance as well. Give this a look-see:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/pvcright.htm
Then check out this one:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/pvc.htm
"The People" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government. The People created the government, and the People can change or destroy it. From the latter site:
The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].
"One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].
"[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
--Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"
And some more:"One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].
"[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
--Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"
ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?
The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, or there as one of the people.
If you claim you are a citizen of the United States, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the United States, and subject only to the common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.
PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS
As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. The is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you.
As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).
Psst! You don't know as much as you think you do!
So the fact that every point is accompanied by a Supreme Court ruling on the subject doesn't sway you, but the name of a University overrides all doubt. I see that title and position mean more to you than truth. The aristocrats would be proud. This is a 100% accurate interpretation of the Constitution, and the everything in that site has been said by the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress. I'll listen to them over a University any day. (I told you you'd would whine about the Senate not knowing enough about the law)
Pah
Uber all member
The problem is, Dan, sex before marriage is approved by the highest court in the land and there is no ambiguity, at that level, about citizen or people. I'd be happy though to see your quotes from the listed cases that support your notion that Eisenstadt v Baird is not applicable in unmarried sexual activity. It essentially said that because married couples were permitted contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut, unmarried couples were denied due process and were to be included in the holding of Griswold.dan said:
Sex any time and under any marital status is permitted. That is the constitutional law which governs society.
I'm not arguing against the ruling. It's the only way they could have ruled, and it's perfectly ok, but my statement had nothing to do with that. My statement was that the Constitution has nothing to do with morality or pre-marital sex. It only tells states what laws it can and cannot make, based on the natural rights of the people. The only laws in the Constitution are about taxes and who can hold office.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello dan,
[Apoloigies for delay in reply - I was making rather merry whilst on vacation - some hot monkey love with the missus in the midst of it all. ;-)]
When I said,
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.
You offered:
Your personal opinion is noted. You may note that I am pleased that you are neither elected lawmaker, nor enforcer of personal opinion upon others as a matter of pluralistic, secular law.
How convenient. Then quote directly from another standard that commensurately qualifies as [Biblical] scripture. LDS rites and practices may be secretive, but LDS biblical "addendum scripture" is well within the public domain. I'm guilty only of an assumptive premise that all Christians regard the Bible AS Scripture. It was your referenced source that provided Psalms as (lone!) righteous rationale. I did not exclude any additional "LDS scripture" (of which, again to note, none was cited or provided) from inclusion in defense/support of your statement.
Moot point. You may not accept atheism as a valid perspective, but your perspective does not inhibit my capacity to proffer my rationale just the same; nor do I assume that your religious views render you either incapable or ill-equipped to cogitate upon my foundational concepts, reasons, and support for my own stated position. I offer you no special pleading of; "Since you can't/won't accept (or ever understand) my supportive rationale, I won't bother to try".
What is? You have lent NO direct reference to scripture of ANY kind (as support), be it Biblical or some LDS variant/addendum. NONE.
When I quoted from the reference source you linked:
"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."
You said:
"Not to worry, Mrs. Jones...rest assured that whenever you have sex - no matter that your reproductive organs are no longer functional - that you still (somehow) retain the "powers of procreation. You know...just like homosexuals."
My "assumptions" were predicated upon your blatant and repeated comments of obvious disdain for practitioners of such thusly indulged "acts of love". Need I quote them back to you as counter to your inferably erroneous imputation? Within this forum, we can only be "known" as to what we earnestly present ourselves to be. You have presented yourself as insightful and illuminated possessor of superior knowledge as to "the sanctity and importance of the act of love". I perceive only sanctimony and irrelevance in your position as stated thus far.
When I said:
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.
You offered:
Bully for you, yet such commentary remains as...
Evasion. Deflection. Utterly irrelevant.
Just what IS - specifically - the foundation upon which you base your premised argument (which is the thrust of my inquiry itself)? I alleged that, at it's core, it is (and remains) faith-based - despite your admirable (albeit ineffective) gymnastic efforts to insinuate a more pluralistic, logical, and secular rationale. I have also illustrated that my allegation has greater merit and validity in fact than unfounded pretense of logical support that you may claim for yourself.
I said:
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.
You replied:
Please help me understand then. Is it your position that "declarations of faith" are tantamount to Biblical scripture? I confess that I am accustomed to addressing/reflecting upon especially referenced "Chapter and Verse" quotes from dogmatic textual works (regardless of creedal affiliation) as faith-based justification(s) of moral/ethical perspectives. Last time I looked, creedal doctrine is not necessarily deemed as "Scripture" (even to Catholics). Is it your assertion that LDS declarations/testaments of faith are to be deemed as equivalent to Biblical Scripture? If so, does the Bible suggest that such external testaments of faith are valid; or predictable claims of a foretold anti-Christ?
[Apoloigies for delay in reply - I was making rather merry whilst on vacation - some hot monkey love with the missus in the midst of it all. ;-)]
When I said,
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.
You offered:
Any source you'd care to quote that mirrors that "understanding"? Any repository of wisdom of ultimate "truth" that we could draw upon, readily reference, and decide for ourselves as to whether your vision of a "better place" would be so?
Your personal opinion is noted. You may note that I am pleased that you are neither elected lawmaker, nor enforcer of personal opinion upon others as a matter of pluralistic, secular law.
OK. Either you referenced none (I have my LDS reference works readily available too), or you consider the proclamations of faith that you provided as somehow derived from as yet unspecified/unnamed "modern day prophets".
How convenient. Then quote directly from another standard that commensurately qualifies as [Biblical] scripture. LDS rites and practices may be secretive, but LDS biblical "addendum scripture" is well within the public domain. I'm guilty only of an assumptive premise that all Christians regard the Bible AS Scripture. It was your referenced source that provided Psalms as (lone!) righteous rationale. I did not exclude any additional "LDS scripture" (of which, again to note, none was cited or provided) from inclusion in defense/support of your statement.
Moot point. You may not accept atheism as a valid perspective, but your perspective does not inhibit my capacity to proffer my rationale just the same; nor do I assume that your religious views render you either incapable or ill-equipped to cogitate upon my foundational concepts, reasons, and support for my own stated position. I offer you no special pleading of; "Since you can't/won't accept (or ever understand) my supportive rationale, I won't bother to try".
What is? You have lent NO direct reference to scripture of ANY kind (as support), be it Biblical or some LDS variant/addendum. NONE.
When I quoted from the reference source you linked:
"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."
You said:
Um...I quoted directly - from the source you provided. No "interpretation" needed or unfairly lent. I'm "right" because the provided "document" (presumably "Non-Scripture" then?) does not qualify any distinction between "the act of love" and purposed procreation. It just doesn't. Only an extremely diffuse "interpretation" would read something into something that just isn't there.
Post-menopausal women will no doubt be gratified and encouraged to assimilate that bunk.
"Not to worry, Mrs. Jones...rest assured that whenever you have sex - no matter that your reproductive organs are no longer functional - that you still (somehow) retain the "powers of procreation. You know...just like homosexuals."
My "assumptions" were predicated upon your blatant and repeated comments of obvious disdain for practitioners of such thusly indulged "acts of love". Need I quote them back to you as counter to your inferably erroneous imputation? Within this forum, we can only be "known" as to what we earnestly present ourselves to be. You have presented yourself as insightful and illuminated possessor of superior knowledge as to "the sanctity and importance of the act of love". I perceive only sanctimony and irrelevance in your position as stated thus far.
When I said:
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.
You offered:
Yawn.
Bully for you, yet such commentary remains as...
Evasion. Deflection. Utterly irrelevant.
Small wonder...since you have yet to actually provide any foundation for your argument that is germane to your inferred/implied superiority of knowledge, authority, insight, wisdom - or even substantiated faith-based rationale - regarding an assigned; "sanctity and importance of the act of love".
Just what IS - specifically - the foundation upon which you base your premised argument (which is the thrust of my inquiry itself)? I alleged that, at it's core, it is (and remains) faith-based - despite your admirable (albeit ineffective) gymnastic efforts to insinuate a more pluralistic, logical, and secular rationale. I have also illustrated that my allegation has greater merit and validity in fact than unfounded pretense of logical support that you may claim for yourself.
I said:
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.
You replied:
Please help me understand then. Is it your position that "declarations of faith" are tantamount to Biblical scripture? I confess that I am accustomed to addressing/reflecting upon especially referenced "Chapter and Verse" quotes from dogmatic textual works (regardless of creedal affiliation) as faith-based justification(s) of moral/ethical perspectives. Last time I looked, creedal doctrine is not necessarily deemed as "Scripture" (even to Catholics). Is it your assertion that LDS declarations/testaments of faith are to be deemed as equivalent to Biblical Scripture? If so, does the Bible suggest that such external testaments of faith are valid; or predictable claims of a foretold anti-Christ?
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
More for dan...
Moot point, as presented previously, and once more above. What I "believe (or accept)" has NO bearing whatsoever upon your incapacity/inability/unwillingness to substantiate (you know - point to directly) "the why, of what you believe" to be "true (or truth)". If you believe Scripture (or dogmatic/creedal/faith declarations) to be true (or illustrative of some "ultimate truth"), then presentation of such as validation of your beliefs is therefore applicable (as support) - regardless of my personal beliefs. What I "believe" has NO bearing on your provision of support of what you believe to be true (or truth). NONE.
Assuming that I'm utterly ignorant of LDS beliefs (which I'm not, but let's assume so anyway); would you care to name/list the modern and/or contemporary prophets whose words you deem as commensurate/tantamount with/to good 'ole those accounted within Biblical Scripture? Perhaps some other non-LDS Christians would like to know what they're missing, and subsequently imbibe such revelations of God's Truth for themselves?
I guess it's official then. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials were sinful transgressions against God's stated will and purpose for man, even amongst and amidst His most pious and ardent adherents (as self-assertively claimed as such). They all seemed so sincere, so pious, so subservient to God's plan, purpose, and will...and were all wrong (doctrinally). Kinda makes it difficult to accept the "understandings" of HIs self-proclaimed pious adherents today...
I said:
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".
You replied:
I said:
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.
You replied:
When I said:
[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.
You said:
"Your disdain for "monkey lovers" is noted. With duly earned commensurate mockery."
False imputation. I have only addressed (and rebutted) your stated assertion of (implied) superior insight/knowledge/wisdom regarding the "sanctity and importance of the act of love". What I don't "accept" is your proffered rationale (or lack thereof) in such an ill-defended and asinine self-assignation.
I'm funny that way. Deflection, misdirection, mischaracterization, and moot points are poor deterrents in debate with a determined foil. You have yet to offer concession, contrition, error, or effective rebuttal in support of your lofty position of superior insights into the "act of love". Until you can successfully manage production of one of the prospective results described, I shall continue to hold you accountable for such a regrettable (and easily remedied on your part) commentary. Yours was arrogant, presumptuous, haughty, and most (worst) of all...utterly unsubstantiated. I have repeatedly illustrated the meretricious and specious aspects of your self-serving bombast in this regard, and your lone tactic is to lend bromidic vagaries as defense.
You lose.
Moot point, as presented previously, and once more above. What I "believe (or accept)" has NO bearing whatsoever upon your incapacity/inability/unwillingness to substantiate (you know - point to directly) "the why, of what you believe" to be "true (or truth)". If you believe Scripture (or dogmatic/creedal/faith declarations) to be true (or illustrative of some "ultimate truth"), then presentation of such as validation of your beliefs is therefore applicable (as support) - regardless of my personal beliefs. What I "believe" has NO bearing on your provision of support of what you believe to be true (or truth). NONE.
I see you trying to muddy the waters by insinuating a lack of objectivity on my part. The only "restriction" I have placed (on your part) to satisfy is a provision of dogmatic/creedal "justification" for your presumptive (and as yet, unestablished) superiority (over those of lessened capacity) of knowledge/insight as to your claim regarding "the sanctity and importance of the act of love".
If my proffered rationale were as insubstantial, vapid, and vacuous as your own to this point...I would too.
OK. Then I'll just count you as another religious adherent that lays claim to a "unique" and strictly "personalized" religious revelation of "truth", that begs off any strict doctrinal/dogmatic teachings in preference to their own, singular "perspective" (small wonder that so many people consider themselves "spiritual", but "non-religious" - no inconvenient or rigid dogma to interfere with their own capacities of discernment/rationalization of/within a obviously natural cosmos. How...atheistic of them. Yet, no one could fairly accuse you of "cherry-picking" what fits your personalized "understanding"...within such a light, how could they?).
Assuming that I'm utterly ignorant of LDS beliefs (which I'm not, but let's assume so anyway); would you care to name/list the modern and/or contemporary prophets whose words you deem as commensurate/tantamount with/to good 'ole those accounted within Biblical Scripture? Perhaps some other non-LDS Christians would like to know what they're missing, and subsequently imbibe such revelations of God's Truth for themselves?
I'll consider your complete inconsideration of the previously quoted scripture I provided to the contrary, as self-serving evasion on your part.
I guess it's official then. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials were sinful transgressions against God's stated will and purpose for man, even amongst and amidst His most pious and ardent adherents (as self-assertively claimed as such). They all seemed so sincere, so pious, so subservient to God's plan, purpose, and will...and were all wrong (doctrinally). Kinda makes it difficult to accept the "understandings" of HIs self-proclaimed pious adherents today...
Ineffectually ridicule it to your heart's content. Again...what I believe is moot to any support of your perspective. If you can't establish (or suitably reference with) any substantiative merit supportive of your statement of current contention (even if only upon faith-based rationale), then yours is nothing more than one individual's opinion, predicated upon your singular and lone "understanding" of truth. Not only does such qualify as poorly presented logic; it's not even compelling creedal/religious evangelism.
I said:
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".
You replied:
I don't recall that specific inquiry, yet there rests my answer. What say you now?
I said:
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.
You replied:
Your ongoing evasion is conspicuous, and you remain exposed as intellectually disingenuous in your proffered "logical" rationale. Your opinion is ultimately faith-based, whether you'll own up to such or not.
When I said:
[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.
You said:
Misapplied as being prospectively substantiative, of which I readily illustrated, are not.
"Your disdain for "monkey lovers" is noted. With duly earned commensurate mockery."
False imputation. I have only addressed (and rebutted) your stated assertion of (implied) superior insight/knowledge/wisdom regarding the "sanctity and importance of the act of love". What I don't "accept" is your proffered rationale (or lack thereof) in such an ill-defended and asinine self-assignation.
I'm funny that way. Deflection, misdirection, mischaracterization, and moot points are poor deterrents in debate with a determined foil. You have yet to offer concession, contrition, error, or effective rebuttal in support of your lofty position of superior insights into the "act of love". Until you can successfully manage production of one of the prospective results described, I shall continue to hold you accountable for such a regrettable (and easily remedied on your part) commentary. Yours was arrogant, presumptuous, haughty, and most (worst) of all...utterly unsubstantiated. I have repeatedly illustrated the meretricious and specious aspects of your self-serving bombast in this regard, and your lone tactic is to lend bromidic vagaries as defense.
You lose.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Poor riposte of assumptive noble character to equate a diacritical/editorial notation with the arrogance of assumption that one's foil's are unpassioned or obtuse cowards that run scared in the face of your supposedly unimpeacable/impenetrable arguments. In such pompous and pretentious blandishments, you have yet to even offer self-correction, addendum, or apology in the face of blatant exposure. Not very "Christian". But who am I to judge...
How perspicacious of you. As Bart Simpson might say; "Well...duh". "Everyone lives in a society". Let's chisel that into stone, so that the painfully obvious will forever be etched upon our dullard minds.
False choice/argument.
Sex is a natural and innate survival urge inherent to our species (amongst most other animals and primates too). So is hunger. I have no "duty" to eat, but I retain the "right" to consume food to preserve my existence, and consequently sate my "urge". People have sex for the same reasons.
What I consume as sustenance...or whom, where, when, or under whatever circumstance I - as a consensual adult with another of same - choose to sate my urge for sexual gratification and release, should be of or under/neither another's: interest; influence; nor serve to placate someone else's wishfully imposed morality/ethics (you know...someone's "opinion") upon such behavior.
Duty is either freely accepted or rejected - not imposed - within a self-governed society of personal liberty and protected free choice of will. Society can rightfully choose to hold individuals accountable for their actions, but not impositionally responsible for insuring "good" (moral/ethical) choices.
To date, individual stupidity is neither criminal, nor (unfortunately) painful. Sex (or, "the act of love") is an amoral act, in deference to primal urge (whether to procreate, or simply attempt endorphin release). Sex, in and of itself, is neither "good" nor "bad". It's simply a physical manifestation of both primal urge and rational choice in the free exercise of consentual personal liberty. The consequences of any "act of love" can (ultimately) be either untoward, or beneficent; and it's never a "free society's" role to restrict personal choices in such persuits, in either behavior or deeds. Pre-marital sex is not immoral, nor are those that choose to engage such. But pre-marital sex has it's own accompanying aspects of personal accountability and responsibility, of which each individual has the incumbent "duty" (and personal consequence) to accept for themselves (and bear accordingly).
Ding! By George...I think you've got it!
It's not government's responsibility (nor prerogative) to assign, impose, or enforce (faith-based) moralistic opinions as a matter of law upon a pluralistically secular society.
[Thomas Jefferson had sexual relations with one (or more?) of his slaves. Do you suppose he wished to allow governmental oversight of (or impositional "duty" - "for" or "against") "the act of love" (either "pre" or "post" marital)? Perhaps that is why neither pre-marital sex nor adultery is illegal. Personal morality remains the sole standard in these behavioral choices.]
It's like the bumper sticker says..."Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one."
Axiomatically, I would extract a similar sentiment.
"Opposed to pre-marital sex? Then don't indulge it."
You're free to express your rationale/opinions as to why you believe that free-thinking people shouldn't indulge their most primal urges, but you'll excuse me and others like myself if we elect to question/challenge/reject those prospectively proffered ethical/moral/religious/consequential reasons/rationales, and perhaps choose to ignore them at our own constitutionally protected leisure, pleasure, or personal detriment.
And...most pointedly of all...you have yet to lend any credence whatsoever to your presuppositional claim of wisdom, insight, and understanding regarding the "sanctity and importance of the act of love". A teenager could fairly scold you for lending such a vague and vainglorious declaration; which may explain why "Just say no ("Because...well...you'll regret it...maybe, or statistically")" is an empty and unpersuasive argument to any critical mind, of any age...unless your ingrained religious beliefs tell you otherwise...
I'm done saying what I had to say. This thread was done two weeks ago. Suddenly someone found it necessary to whine about me. I can be self-righteous and give everyone a hard time about being mean too, and I can do it just as piously as you, but I prefer to speak my mind. I do still have that right, don't I?
And I'm not complaining about that. I would correct you in that we are harrassed at almost every turn more than any other religion in this forum. People post some of the most foul and offensive lies in an effort to tear down our faith, so I believe I wouldn't necessarily be wrong all the time, but it just doesn't bother me enough to make a big deal about it.
Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
Whenever I hear "Sex before marriage" I'm aching to let out a sarcastic *gasp*. Its become such an issue, when it really shouldn't be.
The key thing is, do what you want to. If you don't want to have sex before marriage, go for it. If your partner doesn't feel the same way, they this is a matter between the two of you. If you want to have sex before marriage (which is assuming that you are going to get married sooner or later), then go for it as well. Honestly, I don't see how this affects anyone.
Promiscuity on the other hand is the other extreme... which can lead to more spreading of stds and such.
The key thing is, do what you want to. If you don't want to have sex before marriage, go for it. If your partner doesn't feel the same way, they this is a matter between the two of you. If you want to have sex before marriage (which is assuming that you are going to get married sooner or later), then go for it as well. Honestly, I don't see how this affects anyone.
Promiscuity on the other hand is the other extreme... which can lead to more spreading of stds and such.
guysmy
New Member
CaptainXeroid said:
Married couples seem to go through a transition when middle age sets in. They either find a way to keep the sex new and interesting, deal with (passionate) sex having a smaller role in the relationship, cheat or spit up.
If you can't form a bond that transcends the animal nature things will never pan out.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Gee whiz dan,
You said (to moi):
You protest of attacks upon your specified faith. In my particular case, NONE were present. NONE.
I discredited your proffered "logical" rationales. Save your "LDS persecution" arguments for the appropriate times and applicable instances.
I say again...."Impotent".
Look it up.
Abject dismissal, deflection, innuendo, mischaracterization. None of these tactics serve you in defense of your (thusly) deconstructed arguments.
"Sanctimonious prose"?
Well...perhaps it doesn't get any more so when someone says (like you, in post #226):
"It's too bad you don't understand the sanctity or the importance of the act of love."
If I am sanctimonious in my commentary, then you are invited to directly illustrate evidences of "feigned piety or righteousness" within my own previous posts.
Mocking exposition that effectively deconstructs your arguments is no valid or merited defense - even if they are proffered as "logical" righteous understanding and justification.
You can't even effectively justify the premise of such an arrogant supposition, much less provide substantiative or relevant evidence in support of same.
Impotent.
Again.
Performance anxiety? Try Viagra...
...but don't blame the beautiful woman for your inability to get it up.
;-)
You said (to moi):
Odd ain't it, that facing instances of disputatious impotency and ineffectual rebuttal lead one to unfulfilled (yet) hopeful expectations in assignations of vapidly obtuse sardonics?
You protest of attacks upon your specified faith. In my particular case, NONE were present. NONE.
I discredited your proffered "logical" rationales. Save your "LDS persecution" arguments for the appropriate times and applicable instances.
I say again...."Impotent".
Look it up.
Abject dismissal, deflection, innuendo, mischaracterization. None of these tactics serve you in defense of your (thusly) deconstructed arguments.
"Sanctimonious prose"?
Well...perhaps it doesn't get any more so when someone says (like you, in post #226):
"It's too bad you don't understand the sanctity or the importance of the act of love."
If I am sanctimonious in my commentary, then you are invited to directly illustrate evidences of "feigned piety or righteousness" within my own previous posts.
Mocking exposition that effectively deconstructs your arguments is no valid or merited defense - even if they are proffered as "logical" righteous understanding and justification.
You can't even effectively justify the premise of such an arrogant supposition, much less provide substantiative or relevant evidence in support of same.
Impotent.
Again.
Performance anxiety? Try Viagra...
...but don't blame the beautiful woman for your inability to get it up.
;-)