[i_rooster]

lol!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I clarified for you so you would understand. That is why I left it out.

It's not dishonest. It was simply difficult for you to understand. Hence the use of small words for your benefit.

I didn't question the value of his "outstanding" education. I was stating that there's more to life than trying to get laid. It's actually honorable to wait until marriage.

malvolio was bragging about his education. I wasn't bragging about my income. I was showing how someone can have a rewarding life by doing what's right. I made the comment about my income to state that just because you have a 4.0 in anything isn't a guarantee of success or a achievement that gives you respect and carte blanche. I worked hard in college. My grades were earned, but I'll admit they were low. Maybe I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I work hard and I show respect to women.

You can defend his behavior all you want. It makes you as shallow as he is.

Of course malvolio was bragging about his education - Mac Guru had insinuated that he was too busy chasing tail to study! He had every right to brag about his education in response. That's why your post was so inane. That's all that really needs to be said about it.

As for your sexual practices, if it works best for you to wait until marriage, I think that's fine. Everyone's different, and it's your choice. I would only say that if you express contempt for other people's choices, you can fully expect it to be reciprocated.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Look, defend premarital sex all you want. You seem to have had a great physical time with it.

But ask you wife this before you go to bed tonight: "Which would you have preferred, us marrying as virgins and experiencing sex together for the first time, or me bringing the experiences of sex with other women to compare you to with me to our marriage bed?"

I think I can be 98% sure of her answer.

ROFLMAO. What a ridiculous notion.

By the way, she wasn't a virgin when we married either and I'm really thankful for that.

You have an extremely limited and narrow idea of what physical intimacy is all about. Sex is much more than mechanics. Its emotional and spiritual as well. I wouldn't have wanted a virgin wife any more than I would have wanted a woman who had never loved before.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
ROFLMAO. What a ridiculous notion.

By the way, she wasn't a virgin when we married either and I'm really thankful for that.

Wow. I am glad my wife and I were able to explore such a spiritual and intimately amazing thing such as sex together. I'm glad I'm not comparing her to other women and she's not comparing me to other men. We are exploring a vital part of our marriage together, something that we will be doing for the rest of our lives. I don't need to practice with anyone else.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You have an extremely limited and narrow idea of what physical intimacy is all about. Sex is much more than mechanics. Its emotional and spiritual as well.

Why do you think I think sex is all about mechanics? I think it is so much more than mechanics. It is spiritual, emotional, and physically all encompassing. You do realize that sex is a form of worship for a Christian don't you? When my wife and I have sex it is an all sensory experience. It is a demonstration of our complete love for one another. When it becomes a "mechanics" action, then I will truly worry about our relationship. If I am simply scratching an itch as the others on here like to do, then I will know that I have a serious problem.

We have been married over 7 years and still feel like newlyweds. We have a 16 month old daughter and though we want only one more child, we know that sex is not simply procreation. It is the a showing of love in the most ultimately intimate way. Anyone who does less cheapens sex. They make it out to simply be a physical function. An itch scratch.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I wouldn't have wanted a virgin wife any more than I would have wanted a woman who had never loved before.

But can't you imagine exploring all of the intricacies of sex with your wife? Now you have someone to compare your wife to. What if your wife paled in comparison to the "other woman"? I'm so glad and thankful we don't have that.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
ROFLMAO. What a ridiculous notion.

By the way, she wasn't a virgin when we married either and I'm really thankful for that.

You have an extremely limited and narrow idea of what physical intimacy is all about. Sex is much more than mechanics. Its emotional and spiritual as well. I wouldn't have wanted a virgin wife any more than I would have wanted a woman who had never loved before.

Quantity doesn't = quality, trust me, I know. Without a doubt I would have been better off if I'd found the woman of my dreams instead of "spreading my seed" far and wide. The ideal is to have one mate for life (ironic that I'm saying that).

It's interesting that you admit that sex is a spiritual thing, yet you don't understand the spiritual connection behind it.

[Moderator]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Wow. I am glad my wife and I were able to explore such a spiritual and intimately amazing thing such as sex together. I'm glad I'm not comparing her to other women and she's not comparing me to other men.

I confess it is a romantic notion...on the other hand I'd prefer a woman who knows what she wants...that way when she wants me I know its for real....and its certainly not a matter of ignorance or inexperience.

...we could just blindfold and cage women from birth...that way when we marry them they'll have no experiences to compare life with us to.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Moderator:
...we could just blindfold and cage women from birth...that way when we marry them they'll have no experiences to compare life with us to.

IMO, that is the real reason some men want to marry virgins - no "competition".

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
.....

Read my post again. I said sex is much more than mechanics.

Kinda makes your whole post pointless doesn't it?

No relationship is complete without that physical intimacy. Some people end up in a permanent relationship with the first time out, most don't.

Any relationship that is based on love requires physical intimacy. Why would I withhold that portion of myself until I happen to sign some peice of papaer at the court house and paid a tax?

The legal or even religious sanction of a relationship doesn't make it better, purer, more spiritual or more loving. That is an outward gesture stemming from a bond that should already exist. I can't imagine asking people to hold back from each other, remain sexual strangers, and then make some public gesture of their love before they've even consumated it privately.

That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

And all this talk about "comparison" just sounds like total insecurity to me. Were you never in love before? Do you compare your partner now to women you loved before? What's the difference?

Life is exploration. Physical intimacy is an absolutely essential ingredient to loving interpersonal relationships. If you just so happened to find the right partner the very first time, consider yourself outstandingly lucky. Most of us go through a few relationships that don't work out before finding one that does.

By way of anecdote, I spent most of my life in europe among decidedly sexually liberated people. I only knew a couple of kids from divorced families growing up, but overwhelmingly our social circle was stable, happy families. Then we moved to Utah (I was raised Mormon and my family is rabidly devout). Never in my life had I imagined such horrific family disasters. My 3 best friends in high school came from families with sexual and physical abuse and endless tragedy. Their families were so bad they came to live with us. Of the several girlfriends I had living there, almost all had been molested or raped at some time in their lives. One girlfriend in college confessed to me that every single women in her family (mother and 4 sisters) were all rape victims at one time or another. She grew up in a town of 400 people!!!

Abstinence != happiness or success in love
religiousity != happiness or success in marriage

In fact, I believe the overwhelming ignorance about sex in Utah accounts for most of the staggering dysfunction and unhappiness I witnessed.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Read my post again. I said sex is much more than mechanics.

Kinda makes your whole post pointless doesn't it?

You assumed this of me:

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You have an extremely limited and narrow idea of what physical intimacy is all about. Sex is much more than mechanics. Its emotional and spiritual as well.

I simply told you what I believed so your ignorance didn't color the discussion so much. I was educating you.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No relationship is complete without that physical intimacy. Some people end up in a permanent relationship with the first time out, most don't.

Any relationship that is based on love requires physical intimacy. Why would I withhold that portion of myself until I happen to sign some peice of papaer at the court house and paid a tax?

I agree. but, a marriage vow is extremely more than a tax or piece of paper. I guess you just don't get it.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The legal or even religious sanction of a relationship doesn't make it better, purer, more spiritual or more loving. That is an outward gesture stemming from a bond that should already exist. I can't imagine asking people to hold back from each other, remain sexual strangers, and then make some public gesture of their love before they've even consumated it privately.

That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

Yes it does. To a Christian a marriage vow is a permanent joining of two people.

Like I said, you just don't get it.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And all this talk about "comparison" just sounds like total insecurity to me. Were you never in love before? Do you compare your partner now to women you loved before? What's the difference?

Life is exploration. Physical intimacy is an absolutely essential ingredient to loving interpersonal relationships. If you just so happened to find the right partner the very first time, consider yourself outstandingly lucky. Most of us go through a few relationships that don't work out before finding one that does.

I found myself the right person. I feel sad for you if you didn't. To carry that baggage into a relationship would be a dissappointing way to go about life.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
By way of anecdote, I spent most of my life in europe among decidedly sexually liberated people. I only knew a couple of kids from divorced families growing up, but overwhelmingly our social circle was stable, happy families. Then we moved to Utah (I was raised Mormon and my family is rabidly devout). Never in my life had I imagined such horrific family disasters. My 3 best friends in high school came from families with sexual and physical abuse and endless tragedy. Their families were so bad they came to live with us. Of the several girlfriends I had living there, almost all had been molested or raped at some time in their lives. One girlfriend in college confessed to me that every single women in her family (mother and 4 sisters) were all rape victims at one time or another. She grew up in a town of 400 people!!!

Abstinence != happiness or success in love
religiousity != happiness or success in marriage

In fact, I believe the overwhelming ignorance about sex in Utah accounts for most of the staggering dysfunction and unhappiness I witnessed.

Got any facts to back this belief of yours? I am not going to defend the mormons in anyway. I think they have some very weird non-Christian beliefs. I think they border on cult status. But it sounds like they know how sex works if they are commiting rape. How does ignorance of sex compell someone to commit rape?!?

To put my beliefs in perspective, I believe that sex inside of marraige is a sacred, relationship building, bonding, pleasurable event that should be cherished. People can be emotional destroyed by participating in sex before marriage. It's all about communication.

[thunderous_funker]

Yeah well, I guess I don't get it. I suppose I'll just have to continue to suffer the horror that is my loveless marriage with all the other non-christians out there who just don't get it.

Enjoy your superior realm, my friend. It sounds just so pretty and precious and perfect that I'll have to go get drunk now.

/end thread

[olePigeon]

How the hell do you get 28 children with 9 wives through abstinence and objections to cloning?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
How the hell do you get 28 children with 9 wives through abstinence and objections to cloning?

practice?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[BAnd all this talk about "comparison" just sounds like total insecurity to me. Were you never in love before? Do you compare your partner now to women you loved before? What's the difference?

Life is exploration. Physical intimacy is an absolutely essential ingredient to loving interpersonal relationships. If you just so happened to find the right partner the very first time, consider yourself outstandingly lucky. Most of us go through a few relationships that don't work out before finding one that does.
[/B]

I haven't chimed in yet because this whole thread is pretty comical. But I am glad you raised this point about "comparison". Every single post Kilbey has made in this thread has mentioned "comparison" as one of the reasons NOT to have previous lovers. And that seems to me to smack of major insecurity. I would think that if you are with someone in a relationship, married or otherwise, you are happy with the sum total of that person even IF one facet of their personhood might be less satisfying than that a previous partner had.

I can't seem to make sense of his logic in regards to this point. How can two, mature, consenting adults be in a loving relationship and not acknowledge previous romantic partners (whether or not they were sexual)? If a person's past is not acknowledged, in the context of a relationship, it seems to me there is something wrong with that in and of itself. And if a couple saves themselves sexually until they are married then great; That is what matters to them and they are doing it.

But the idea of "comparison" still doesn't fit in with the logic of this discussion. Not having sex to avoid having to compare previous lovers to your current lover has NOTHING to do with the issue of the what and how of sex education being taught in school.

Kilbey, care to explain how your idea of "comparison" fits with the logic of this debate on sex education because I am stumped.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Kilbey, care to explain how your idea of "comparison" fits with the logic of this debate on sex education because I am stumped.

I am sorry if you feel the comparison aspect of my part of the discussion was weighted too heavily. It should have played an extremely minor part of my argument.

The majority part of my argument is that sex is a coming together of two people in the context is marriage as a permanent joining. But alas, it is a Chrsitian belief. Waiting until marriage is also a valuable display of honor and love for you marriage partner. Sex is also a form of worship in the context of a Christian marriage.

I guess I was trying to use secular arguments for waiting until marriage to have sex. And there is my flaw. The secular have no basis for morals and can justify nearly anything.

BOT: I'll leave the rest of this thread to the non-Christians to bash George W. Bush for promoting an abstinence based sex education program that reduces teen pregnancies and abortions.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The secular have no basis for morals and can justify nearly anything.

People have also used God to justify nearly anything.

. . . an abstinence based sex education program that reduces teen pregnancies and abortions.

Except when it doesn't?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
People have also used God to justify nearly anything.

And they were wrong when doing so. Don't judge a God by His followers. Judge a God on His message.

Originally posted by zigzag:
Except when it doesn't?

But it does.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
And they were wrong when doing so. Don't judge a God by His followers. Judge a God on His message.

I wasn't "judging a God," I was pointing out that "justifying nearly anything" isn't a condition of being secular, since the non-secular also do it.

But it does.

If you say so.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I guess I was trying to use secular arguments for waiting until marriage to have sex. And there is my flaw. The secular have no basis for morals and can justify nearly anything.

Pure self-righteous BS. The basis of my morals is the Golden Rule.

I'll leave the rest of this thread to the non-Christians to bash George W. Bush for promoting an abstinence based sex education program that reduces teen pregnancies and abortions.

That's right, continue to be delusional. Nothing you have said in any way refutes the original article:

Some studies have claimed that abstinence-only programs work, but researchers criticize the studies for being riddled with flaws. A National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy task force examined the issue and concluded: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy."

Worse, there's some evidence that abstinence-only programs lead to increases in unprotected sex.

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex - only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

Some fools are dangerous.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Pure self-righteous BS. The basis of my morals is the Golden Rule.

And the golden rule is biblically based.

Originally posted by malvolio:
That's right, continue to be delusional. Nothing you have said in any way refutes the original article:

Some fools are dangerous.

And yet STD rates are down, Teen pregnancies are down, and abortion rates are down. Hmmm. Do you think it was the Hollywood portrayals of right and wrong that caused that?

I like how the author of that article used the words "some" so often in his work. Makes it sound so official.

Some people think the world is flat

Do you see how that can be misused.

[Moderator]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
And the golden rule is biblically based

....because its endorsed by Christianity doesn't mean it originated in the Bible. Religion doesn't own morality jackass.

....to me religion is like Microsoft Word. Everyone uses it to read and format text. But the actual content, the message..can be opened or written with any basic text program... So why do I need some bloated software for? Oh yeah because everyone else is using it.

Who gives a **** about the formatting....its the message. The Golden Rule is broader than Christianity...I'm sorry if that dissappoints you....

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Moderator:
....because its endorsed by Christianity doesn't mean it originated in the Bible. Religion doesn't own morality jackass.

....to me religion is like Microsoft Word. Everyone uses it to read and format text. But the actual content, the message..can be opened or written with any basic text program... So why do I need some bloated software for? Oh yeah because everyone else is using it.

Who gives a **** about the formatting....its the message. The Golden Rule is broader than Christianity...I'm sorry if that dissappoints you....

Hey, moron, he's saying that the Golden Rule came from the Bible. And guess what, he's right.

Matt. 7:12

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

[malvolio]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Hey, moron, he's saying that the Golden Rule came from the Bible. And guess what, he's right.

Matt. 7:12

Just about every religion in the history of Mankind has had their own version of the Golden Rule. The Buddhist version predates the gospels by approximately 500 years.
And it does not rely on any supernatural "authority" to vaildate it as a basis of morality.
A little simple learning would go a long way to making all you Jesus fanboys sound less moronic in public.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Just about every religion in the history of Mankind has had their own version of the Golden Rule. The Buddhist version predates the gospels by approximately 500 years.
And it does not rely on any supernatural "authority" to vaildate it as a basis of morality.
A little simple learning would go a long way to making all you Jesus fanboys sound less moronic in public.

What a boob. Listen, you've already been swatted regarding the Golden Rule and the Bible, don't make it worse. Western culture (and it's moral structure) is based on the Bible, that's where our aspect of the Golden Rule comes from, deal with it.

FWIW, if you don't believe that Buddhism relies on "supernatural authority" then I'd strongly recommend that you actually study the religion. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a Dalai Lama, whose titles include: His Holiness, The Ambassador to the gods, Learned Defender of the Faith, Divine Grace, etc.. That's quite a bit of "supernatural authority".


Edit: Also, I'm not Christian, so you can take that and stuff it.

[malvolio]

More distorted BS from MacNTool.
Typically Christian attitude - take a moral principle that has been around for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, include it in that vast mish-mash of plagiarism known as the Bible, and then say that it only has validity because it's in the Bible.
So you're "not a Christian." Then don't perpetuate their self-righteous twaddle.
The Dalai Lama is the head of one branch of one sect of Buddhism. It happens to be a branch that has incorporated a massive amount of pre-Buddhist thought, iconography, etc. The Dalai Lama himself does not regard his beliefs and teachings is based in some "supernatural" authority.

[Moderator]

yeah..what he said.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by malvolio:
More distorted BS from MacNTool.
Typically Christian attitude - take a moral principle that has been around for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, include it in that vast mish-mash of plagiarism known as the Bible, and then say that it only has validity because it's in the Bible.
So you're "not a Christian." Then don't perpetuate their self-righteous twaddle.
The Dalai Lama is the head of one branch of one sect of Buddhism. It happens to be a branch that has incorporated a massive amount of pre-Buddhist thought, iconography, etc. The Dalai Lama himself does not regard his beliefs and teachings is based in some "supernatural" authority.

More "boobieness".

"then say that it only has validity because it's in the Bible"

I never said that. What I said is,

"Hey, moron, he's saying that the Golden Rule came from the Bible. And guess what, he's right."

and

"Western culture (and it's moral structure) is based on the Bible, that's where our aspect of the Golden Rule comes from, deal with it."

I made no statement of validity one way or the other. Reading comprehension, learn it.

Edit: So, you know the Dalai Lama and know how he feels on the issue?


MacNTool (hey, I like that)

[christ]

Hey moron - the Golden Rule comes from MacNN

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Just because something is quoted somewhere, doesn't mean that is where it came from

QED.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by christ:
Hey moron - the Golden Rule comes from MacNN



Just because something is quoted somewhere, doesn't mean that is where it came from

QED.

Oh brother... another one. Oh well, I should have known, boobs usually come in pairs.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

I never said that. What I said is,

"Hey, moron, he's saying that the Golden Rule came from the Bible. And guess what, he's right."

Edit: So, you know the Dalai Lama and know how he feels on the issue?

Nope, he's wrong about the origin of the Golden Rule, and so are you.


The Dalai Lama has described himself as "just another human being" and "a simple Buddhist monk." I have read a number of works by or about the Dalai Lama, which is clearly more than you have ever done.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Nope, he's wrong about the origin of the Golden Rule, and so are you.


The Dalai Lama has described himself as "just another human being" and "a simple Buddhist monk." I have read a number of works by or about the Dalai Lama, which is clearly more than you have ever done.

No, I'm not wrong, try again.

HELLO, it's called humility (something I admit that I lack). Of course he would say that, but he sure isn't treated that way, his titles are a good indictator.

Edit: You assume wrong, I've read alll of His Holiness' books, he's a brilliant and inspired man.

[christ]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh brother... another one. Oh well, I should have known, boobs usually come in pairs.

sorry - where is the boobiness in what I wrote?

Just because something was written in the Bible does not mean that it was invented by the author.

You were the boob that said "Hey, moron, he's saying that the Golden Rule came from the Bible. And guess what, he's right."

He wasn't, and isn't.

The Golden Rule was in the Bible - Right.
The Golden Rule came from the Bible - Wrong.

I pointed this out with the ridiculous, but exactly analogous, example that just because you wrote it here, it came from MacNN - surely even you can see that fallacy.

Interestingly A lot of religions utilise the Golden Rule, including Judaism, which even you must agree predates Christianity.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by christ:
The Golden Rule was in the Bible - Right.
The Golden Rule came from the Bible - Wrong.

I pointed this out with the ridiculous, but exactly analogous, exqample that just because you wrote it here, it came from MacNN - surely even you can see that fallacy.

Apparently he can't see, or won't admit to, the fallacy.
Logic and critical thinking are sorely lacking among the "defenders of the Faith" here.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by christ:
sorry - where is the boobiness in what I wrote?

Just because something was written in the Bible does not mean that it was invented by the author.

You were the boob that said "Hey, moron, he's saying that the Golden Rule came from the Bible. And guess what, he's right."

He wasn't, and isn't.

The Golden Rule was in the Bible - Right.
The Golden Rule came from the Bible - Wrong.

I pointed this out with the ridiculous, but exactly analogous, example that just because you wrote it here, it came from MacNN - surely even you can see that fallacy.

Interestingly A lot of religions utilise the Golden Rule, including Judaism, which even you must agree predates Christianity.

The oldest Western version of the Golden Rule is from the Bible (and the oral tradition that the Bible is based on), saying anything else is speculation.

You do know that Christianity was simply a sect of Judaism, right?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Apparently he can't see, or won't admit to, the fallacy.
Logic and critical thinking are sorely lacking among the "defenders of the Faith" here.

No, you simply hate christianity (and religion in general) and want to change things to suit you. A little revisionism perhaps?



Edit: Mods, don't lock this thread, I'm not upset (I don't believe they are either), I'm just having fun.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, you simply hate christianity (and religion in general) and want to change things to suit you. A little revisionism perhaps?

Edit: Mods, don't lock this thread, I'm not upset (I don't believe they are either), I'm just having fun.

What revisionism have I committed? You're the one who's revising like a rabbit, IMO.
I don't hate Christianity. I do find much of it rather silly.
I do hate bigots who hide behind their "religion". Please note that I do not include you personally in that category.
I find you annoying, not hateful.

Mods: Do what you will, I'm getting bored.