[Atheist]

Wow... This thread is on page three and it hasn't turned into a Flame-Fest™

Kudos to all!

[Kevin]

I just read through it. Typical, those that usually complain about the religious not shutting up about religion are usually the ones that bring it up, usually in a condescending hateful way.

Reminds me of teenage girls that can't stand "the other girl" and think she is trash, but for some reason, can't stop talking about her anyhow.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I grew up in a pretty religious house and so did most of my friends... none of my close friends had sex before marriage. If you only knew one in twenty that didn't have sex before marriage it just meas that you grew up in an environment where it was accepted and that sex wasn't valued as highly to you and your friends.

Valuing sex doesn't mean dismissing the notion of it before marriage.

In a related story, I'm having trouble thinking of more than 1 close friend of mine that's married. No virgins in my circle of friends, either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I grew up in a pretty religious house and so did most of my friends... none of my close friends had sex before marriage. If you only knew one in twenty that didn't have sex before marriage it just meas that you grew up in an environment where it was accepted and that sex wasn't valued as highly to you and your friends.

That's an erroneous conclusion, not waiting until marriage doesn't mean sex isn't something very special. Also, I find it very hard to believe that none of your friends have had sex. I believe that they all claim to have had none, though

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

You are also introducing cultural taint on what the bible says. I am not trying to argue what the bible means with this, but any person that wasn't there at the time it was written is going to have a hard time knowing what was meant. A lot of the words they used most likely had totally different meaning to them than they do to us. Reading the bible today is great (any version), but I don't think you should claim no cultural taint when you are actually reading it with a 100% taint on it.

So do you if you claim that no sex before marriage is rooted in you religious beliefs.
You will not be able to argue either or based on the bible alone.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I think it made sense... he was saying that he believes when a lot of people start doing something that used to be considered immoral/wrong doesn't mean that it should all of the suddent become okay. I think that's all he was getting at.

No, you think it was considered immoral and wrong. Big difference.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's an erroneous conclusion, not waiting until marriage doesn't mean sex isn't something very special. Also, I find it very hard to believe that none of your friends have had sex. I believe that they all claim to have had none, though

I certainly know my friends quite a bit better than you do, but that doesn't mean that your friends aren't liars I suppose.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So do you if you claim that no sex before marriage is rooted in you religious beliefs.
You will not be able to argue either or based on the bible alone.

Agreed. That's why I said "I am not trying to argue what the bible means with this"; I was just saying that even though he said he has "no cultural taint" on his interpretation, he is most likely wrong about that.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, you think it was considered immoral and wrong. Big difference.

No, I just see the logic of his argument. Big difference. But I think I must have hit a nerve of yours... feeling guilty or something?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I certainly know my friends quite a bit better than you do, but that doesn't mean that your friends aren't liars I suppose.

My friends don't claim to abstain from sex until marriage, I was talking about your friends. Teen pregnancy rates are higher in the Bible Belt for instance, so are divorce rates. Given the statistics the OP was referring to in particular, it's just (mathematically speaking) very unlikely all of your friends tell the truth.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Agreed. That's why I said "I am not trying to argue what the bible means with this"; I was just saying that even though he said he has "no cultural taint" on his interpretation, he is most likely wrong about that.

No, that's not what he said. He claimed that the translator has a rather large influence on the interpretation, since their choice of words determines either or. And the translators in turn have to be put into the socio-cultural context of that time.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

No, I just see the logic of his argument. Big difference. But I think I must have hit a nerve of yours... feeling guilty or something?

You're joking, right?

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by torsoboy

I was just saying that even though he said he has "no cultural taint" on his interpretation, he is most likely wrong about that.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's not what he said. He claimed that the translator has a rather large influence on the interpretation, since their choice of words determines either or. And the translators in turn have to be put into the socio-cultural context of that time.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I adhere to the original meaning and disregard all cultural taint.

Someone needs some reading lessons perhaps?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Someone needs some reading lessons perhaps?

Yes, someone does.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, now run those passages through Young's Literal. You'll find small but important changes: "Promiscuity" becomes "whoring", for example. These changes alter the whole meaning of the text.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

(BTW, even taking the tainted passage as is, assuming that the marriage bed is made impure by what's happened before the marriage existed is a huge leap in logic... ...using an imposition of cultural values rather than the actual pure message.)

Doofy said that KJV differs from Young's Literal, because of the `imposition of cultural values rather than [a translation of] the actual pure message'.
In his opinion the translator(s) of the King James Version have tried to include their own moral values in order to promote them. (This is particularly important when you keep in mind that the protestants of that time wanted to base everything on the Bible alone, sola scriptura.) The idea behind Young's Literal Translation on the other hand was to stay as literal as possible -- hence the name -- and not include any ideas the translator(s) might have had. To me, the difference is the intention of the two: during preparation of the KJV, people tried to include their own cultural values and sell it as `supported by the Bible' whereas the translators of YLV tried hard not to include any ideas of their own.
That's why he said, he disregards all taint (introduced into the KJV) and adheres to the `original' meaning (because YLV hasn't been tainted, and with taint he means bias that has been introduced on purpose) -- and arguments based on a `tainted' translation alone (in the sense above) are null and void.

Combine this with my argument that all translations include bits and pieces of the translators mind-set and you'll see that my argument is consistent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Premarital sex? I'm having a difficult enough time getting marital sex.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I just read through it. Typical, those that usually complain about the religious not shutting up about religion are usually the ones that bring it up, usually in a condescending hateful way.

Reminds me of teenage girls that can't stand "the other girl" and think she is trash, but for some reason, can't stop talking about her anyhow.

How does it feel to always be the victim Kev?

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Originally Posted by bojangles

To use a similar issue, if the number of rapes in America is increasing, which makes more sense:
• teach people that rape is wrong
• assume that people are going to get raped anyway, so let’s teach everyone to use a condom when they do it?

What about murder? Do we:
• teach people that murder is wrong
• assume that people are going to get murdered anyway, so teach everyone how to do it humanely?

Similar? Your argument is as stupid as it is tasteless.

I’m just curious…. How is it tasteless to compare one self-destructive, sexual behavior to another? I personally think it’s a lot more tasteless to indicate that extramarital sex is acceptable, much less (as the cited article claims) expected.

Like torsoboy, I and the great majority of my friends were virgins right up until our respective wedding nights, and we’ve all reaped immeasurable benefits from that decision. The whole point of law is to protect a society’s citizens from bad decisions, be it their own or someone else’s.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Neither of those make sense. What makes sense is what we do, put people in jail for rape. Do you think we should start jailing people for premarital sex?

I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but sure, why not? In many cultures, fornication is punishable by death; I think mere imprisonment—especially for repeat offenders—would equate to a slap on the wrist, by comparison. More importantly, it would stem the tide of said behavior in much the same way that rape, murder, and a host of other inappropriate behaviors are hampered by the affixation of a punishment to said crime.

The bottom line is that law doesn’t take away an individual’s right to choose; it simply helps people make correct decisions by affixing a known consequence to incorrect decisions.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Originally Posted by bojangles

If you’ve got a large percentage of the population committing an aberrant, self-destructive behavior, is the best response really to encourage it?

(And if so, why the heck are you using a Mac?)

I don't follow this at all. Not only do I disagree that premarital sex is aberrant or self-destructive, I don't see what is encouraged or discouraged by using a Mac.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. The “…using a Mac” comment was an (apparently misunderstood) attempt at humor, the implication being that using anything but a Mac could also be considered an “aberrant behavior.”

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

I’m just curious…. How is it tasteless to compare one self-destructive, sexual behavior to another? I personally think it’s a lot more tasteless to indicate that extramarital sex is acceptable, much less (as the cited article claims) expected.

Contrary to rape and murder, in the case of premarital sex, both parties consent. When somebody is raped or murdered, one citizen infringes on the rights of another. In the case of premarital sex, both people are cool with it, and no one is at an immediate disadvantage because of what happened. You could argue that there are emotional connections tied to sex and that people underestimate its effects on relationships and emotional stability, but it's easy to bring up the millions of people who have done it and are fine.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but sure, why not? In many cultures, fornication is punishable by death; I think mere imprisonment—especially for repeat offenders—would equate to a slap on the wrist, by comparison. More importantly, it would stem the tide of said behavior in much the same way that rape, murder, and a host of other inappropriate behaviors are hampered by the affixation of a punishment to said crime.

The bottom line is that law doesn’t take away an individual’s right to choose; it simply helps people make correct decisions by affixing a known consequence to incorrect decisions.

You are imposing your views on all the others (in this case 90-95 % of the population!) -- this is taking away their freedom to choose. We're talking about something consensual (see the difference to rape and murder, those are rarely consensual ).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

The whole point of law is to protect a society’s citizens from bad decisions, be it their own or someone else’s.

Dead wrong. The whole point of law is to protect a citizen's rights. (That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...)

Originally Posted by bojangles 

The bottom line is that law doesn’t take away an individual’s right to choose; it simply helps people make correct decisions by affixing a known consequence to incorrect decisions.

John Locke is rolling in his grave.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Contrary to rape and murder, in the case of premarital sex, both parties consent. When somebody is raped or murdered, one citizen infringes on the rights of another. In the case of premarital sex, both people are cool with it, and no one is at an immediate disadvantage because of what happened. You could argue that there are emotional connections tied to sex and that people underestimate its effects on relationships and emotional stability, but it's easy to bring up the millions of people who have done it and are fine.

Gossamer, you neglect to consider whether “the millions of people who have done it” are really fine. You openly admit that people “underestimate its effects,” but then you cavalierly dismiss your own statement by doing just that. I’m sure you’d agree that most criminals attempt to justify their crime, but it doesn’t change the consequence,

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You are imposing your views on all the others (in this case 90-95 % of the population!) -- this is taking away their freedom to choose. We're talking about something consensual (see the difference to rape and murder, those are rarely consensual ).

Actually, there are plenty of crimes in which the victim consents, but criminal charges are brought against the offender because the victim was misled and/or making a decision in bad faith. Statutory rape would be an example of this, and Stockholm syndrome would be an even more extreme one; but in more general terms, we’re talking about fraud, and it’s pretty easy to argue that the very people that claim extramarital sex to be a “victimless crime” are defrauding society as a whole.

With respect to “tak[ing] away someone freedom to choose,” laws do not take away a person’s ability to choose; they do just the opposite. Just because the law says not to speed doesn’t mean I can’t choose whether or not to speed, and laws against rape and murder don’t take away my ability to choose to rape or murder someone.

In nature, there’s a little thing called a “consequence.” If I decide to shoot a gun, the consequence will probably involve a bullet flying somewhere or other. If I decide to shoot that gun at another person, the consequence will probably involve the injury or death of that other person. The point is that I can choose to shoot the gun or not shoot the gun, and I can even choose the general direction in which the bullet will fly; what I can’t choose is what the bullet will do, once it leaves the gun. That’s a consequence.

Let’s now look at this from a legal standpoint. If I own a perfectly legal, properly registered gun, and I fire that gun (with no intent to hurt anyone), there are three possible scenarios:
1) Nobody gets hurt. In this case, it’s highly unlikely that I’d be prosecuted for anything.
2) Somebody is wounded by the flying bullet. Although I didn’t intend to hurt somebody, I did, and there will likely be some kind of trial—even if it’s only a civil suit, in which I’d probably be found liable.
3) Somebody is killed by the flying bullet. I still didn’t intend to hurt somebody, but there will definitely be an investigation, probably leading to a trial, and it wouldn’t be that surprising if I wind up having a new address, for the next few years (if you catch my drift).

The point is that in all three of these scenarios resulted from the exact same choice. Virtually all of us are capable of choosing our actions; what we can’t choose is the consequence of said actions. The legality of discharging a firearm is conditioned almost entirely on where the bullet goes, after it leaves the barrel.

Let’s now take something a little more benign: traffic lights. If I decide to run a red light, there are four possible scenarios that could result:
1) I breeze on through and nobody gets hurt.
2) I breeze on through and get hurt or killed by someone coming in the other direction.
3) I breeze on through and hurt or kill someone coming in the other direction. (A semi driver did this to a friend of mine, a few years back. If he hadn’t run the red light, her children would still have their Mommy around.)
4) A combination of 2) and 3).

Why is it illegal to run a red light? Well, it’s not only to protect the innocent from harm, but also to protect the guilty. If it weren’t illegal to run a red light, I could run it with no threat of legal repercussions, but the consequences could still be quite severe.

The bottom line is that virtually every law that has ever been enacted by any government in the entire history of civilization has been designed to protect us from the negative consequences of our own stupid choices, but there isn’t a single one that suppresses our free will.

[Dakar²]

You have a seriously jaded view of sexual intercourse.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You have a seriously jaded view of sexual intercourse.

… and that's putting it mildly.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

The bottom line is that virtually every law that has ever been enacted by any government in the entire history of civilization has been designed to protect us from the negative consequences of our own stupid choices, but there isn’t a single one that suppresses our free will.

Virtually every law? Rubbish. I'm pretty darn sure a great many laws have been passed which were designed only to coddle privileged classes, oppress the innocent, crush democratic movements, and pander to nosy busy-bodies such as yourself.

A former Prime Minister of Canada once said: the State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation.

EDIT: bojangles, you're clearly a sock-puppet. Just shut up. Spanked.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Virtually every law? Rubbish. I'm pretty darn sure a great many laws have been passed which were designed only to coddle privileged classes, oppress the innocent, crush democratic movements, and pander to nosy busy-bodies such as yourself.

Okay. I’m listening. Give me an example of a law that was not designed to improve the public good. I admit that some have been misguided—an 1838 Missouri law legalizing the murder of certain religious groups comes to mind—but I’m having trouble thinking of any that were designed wholly for aggrandizement of the privileged (at least in the USA).

Beyond that, I’d prefer not to allow this to degenerate into name-calling.

[Dakar²]

I was looking over your posts, and I'm not sure I caught your justification for outlawing premarital sex. (i.e., why it's bad)

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Originally Posted by Dakar²

You have a seriously jaded view of sexual intercourse.

… and that's putting it mildly.

I’m not sure where either of you get that idea. I view sexual intercourse as a beautiful thing, the ultimate connection between a man and a woman, an extension of the very glory of God. I just feel that sex without real (and preferably Eternal) commitment is little more than a solemn mockery.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

I just feel that sex without real (and preferably Eternal) commitment is little more than a solemn mockery.

Is a relationship a 'real' commitment?

Since when is solemn mockery justification for outlawing something?

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I was looking over your posts, and I'm not sure I caught your justification for outlawing premarital sex. (i.e., why it's bad)

* * *

Since when is solemn mockery justification for outlawing something?

Hey, Dakar². My initial argument was not for outlawing extramarital sex, but Uncle Skeleton asked me point blank, and I certainly can’t think of a better option. As I mentioned in my last post, I view sex as a beautiful expression of love, the ultimate means of expressing an eternal commitment to one’s partner. As Gossamer eluded, the emotional and psychological ramifications of a sexual relationship are—at least, in any “normal” person—way too deep for an uncommitted relationship, much less a casual encounter.

The biggest problem facing the United States (and indeed, the world) today is the destruction of the family; it’s at the heart of every social problem we’re facing. For that reason, it’s important to remember that the ultimate purpose of marriage (and the sex act that comes with it) is not for the sake of the parents’ own indulgences—of sex for sex’s sake—but for the rearing of strong and responsible children, children that will in turn teach their children the values that society, over thousands of years, has repeatedly shown to be most beneficial to all involved. When widespread egotism and selfishness lead to the disintegration of those values, society disintegrates with it. That’s why every ancient civilization that forsook its social mores—including sexual mores—self-destructed within just a few generations, while those that maintained them entered into a golden age.

Unfortunately, it seems that our modern world is on the fast track to the former fate.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Hey, Dakar². My initial argument was not for outlawing it, but Uncle Skeleton asked me point blank, and I’d have to say I agree.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

As I mentioned in my last post, I view sex as a beautiful expression of love, the ultimate means of expressing an eternal commitment to one’s partner. As Gossamer eluded, the emotional and psychological ramifications of a sexual relationship are—at least, in any “normal” person—way too deep for an uncommitted relationship, much less a casual encounter.

The former seems noble, that latter, practical.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

The biggest problem facing the United States (and indeed, the world) today is the destruction of the family. The ultimate purpose of marriage (and the sex act that comes with it) is not for the sake of the parents’ own indulgences—of sex for sex’s sake—but for the rearing of strong and responsible children, children that will in turn teach their children the values that society, over thousands of years, has repeatedly shown to be most beneficial to all involved.

Ultimate, but not only.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

When widespread egotism and selfishness lead to the disintegration of those values, society disintegrates with it. That’s why every ancient civilization that forsook its social mores—especially in the area of sexuality—self-destructed within just a few generations, while those that maintained them entered into a golden age.

So basically it's a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.

Your issue doesn't seem to be rooted with premarital sex so much as casual sex. This is an important distinction to make.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Unfortunately, it seems that our modern world is on the fast track to the former fate.

Originally Posted by Modern World

"Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated"

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

That’s why every ancient civilization that forsook its social mores—including sexual mores—self-destructed within just a few generations, while those that maintained them entered into a golden age.

Got a list of those "self-destructed" civilizations? 'Cause I got an even longer list of civilizations that were wiped out by some self-described "golden age" civilization.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Got a list of those "self-destructed" civilizations? 'Cause I got an even longer list of civilizations that were wiped out by some self-described "golden age" civilization.

I’m guessing our lists are one and the same.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

I’m guessing our lists are one and the same.

If they are, they're probably the only things we'd agree on.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

So basically it's a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.

Your issue doesn't seem to be rooted with premarital sex so much as casual sex. This is an important distinction to make.

The first half of this statement is somewhat true, but I would argue that premarital and casual sex are one and the same: that sex without the commitment of marriage is, by definition, casual.

Originally Posted by Modern World 

"Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated"

I love that quote.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

I would argue that premarital and casual sex are one and the same: that sex without the commitment of marriage is, by definition, casual

By what definition?

Originally Posted by bojangles 

The recent epidemic of divorce is a direct result of that lack of commitment.

Then the 'commitment' of marriage isn't a very good excuse to wait, is it?

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Originally Posted by bojangles

I would argue that premarital and casual sex are one and the same: that sex without the commitment of marriage is, by definition, casual.

By what definition?

Open up Tiger’s Thesaurus widget and search for “casual.” Sense #6.

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Originally Posted by bojangles

The recent epidemic of divorce is a direct result of that lack of commitment.

Then the 'commitment' of marriage isn't a very good excuse to wait, is it?

If that’s the only reason you’re waiting, then no, it’s probably not. But if a couple isn’t committed enough to get married, why the heck would they think they’re committed enough to be having sex?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Open up Tiger’s Thesaurus widget and search for “casual.” Sense #6.

"occurring between people who are not regular or established partners"

Actually, I think that'd support my idea. One can have a regular, established partner without being married.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

If that’s the only reason you’re waiting, then no, it’s probably not. But if a couple isn’t committed enough to get married, why the heck would they think they’re committed enough to be having sex?

A ceremony and a piece of paper do not denote 'commitment'.

Commitment is a state of mind.

[Snow-i]

bojangles, the whole point of freedom is to be able to make our own decisions.

Whether they are for the better or the worse, the point of every American law is to preserve the right to freedom. When you infringe on another's rights is when you break the law....not when you "make a stupid decision" that hurts yourself.

Huuuuuuge difference. The day the government tries to tell me how to live my life (sexually, or otherwise) is the day I take up in arms a revolution against it (see: 2nd amendment).

Who are you (or the government) to tell me what is best for me? I am the only one that can decide what makes me happy. I am the only one who can choose the best life for myself. The founding fathers tried to create a gov't close to this ideal....what you suggest completely destroys it.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Originally Posted by bojangles

Open up Tiger’s Thesaurus widget and search for “casual.” Sense #6.

"occurring between people who are not regular or established partners"

Actually, I think that'd support my idea. One can have a regular, established partner without being married.

You’re in the Dictionary, not the Thesaurus.

Originally Posted by Dakar²

A ceremony and a piece of paper do not denote 'commitment'.

Commitment is a state of mind.

I think what you’re trying to say is that they do not constitute “commitment”; if so, we agree completely.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

You’re in the Dictionary, not the Thesaurus.

Oops, my mistake. But it serves as a good rebuttal.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

I think what you’re trying to say is that they do not constitute “commitment”; if so, we agree completely.

And as such they serve as an unreliable benchmark for determining when to have sexual relations.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The day the government tries to tell me how to live my life (sexually, or otherwise) is the day I take up in arms a revolution against it (see: 2nd amendment).

Who are you (or the government) to tell me what is best for me? I am the only one that can decide what makes me happy. I am the only one who can choose the best life for myself. The founding fathers tried to create a gov't close to this ideal....what you suggest completely destroys it.

What about tax evasion? Are you infringing on someone else's rights if you fail to pay your taxes on time? Should you go to jail for that?

Here's something that's best for you: Don't develop a severe drug addiction. I KNOW that won't make you happy. I know that's not the best life for you. So the government made a law stopping people from hurting themselves in that way. Are you going to go up in arms about that?

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

bojangles, the whole point of freedom is to be able to make our own decisions.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Whether they are for the better or the worse, the point of every American law is to preserve the right to freedom. When you infringe on another's rights is when you break the law....not when you "make a stupid decision" that hurts yourself.

Then why is suicide illegal? Or if you don’t like that, why is speeding illegal? How about cocaine abuse? Underaged drinking? Prostitution? The list goes on and on.

A government “for the people” and “by the people” has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and our government exercises that responsibility every day. Furthermore, every decision we make—good or bad, right or wrong—affects others around us, even if only by example. If I were to commit suicide, where would that leave my wife and kids? It’s bigger than just you or me, Snow.

Who are you (or the government) to tell me what is best for me? I am the only one that can decide what makes me happy. I am the only one who can choose the best life for myself. The founding fathers tried to create a gov't close to this ideal....what you suggest completely destroys it.

Actually, what the Founding Fathers created was a government based on individual rights and individual accountability: that every one of us has, as you say, “the right to decide what makes [us] happy,” but that consequences—laws—would be in place, to prevent behavior that is at odds with that happiness. To use my earlier example, it’s illegal to snort coke. Why? Well, it can kill you, it can enslave you, and it can make you miserable—the exact antithesis of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Is it possible to snort cocaine without unhappiness? Perhaps, but the government has stepped in, anyway. How do you explain that?

The bottom line is that we’re not going to abolish all law just because somebody thinks s/he’d be happier without it. That’s not the Founding Fathers’ ideal; that’s just anarchy.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Here's something that's best for you: Don't develop an alcohol addiction. I KNOW that won't make you happy. I know that's not the best life for you. But the government hasn't made a law stopping people from hurting themselves in that way. Are you going to go up in arms about that?

Fixed.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Then why is suicide illegal? Or if you don’t like that, why is speeding illegal? How about cocaine abuse? Underaged drinking? Prostitution? The list goes on and on.

Suicide isn't illegal. Speeding is illegal on public highways (but if you own your own highway, feel free to drive as fast as you wish). Minors don't have full rights. Prostitution and cocaine are illegal because of puritanical busybodies.

The bottom line is that we’re not going to abolish all law just because somebody thinks s/he’d be happier without it. That’s not the Founding Fathers’ ideal; that’s just anarchy.

No one here is advocating abolishing "all law." Straw-man.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Oops, my mistake. But it serves as a good rebuttal.

True, but my synonym is specific to marriage; your definition is silent on the issue and is therefore trumped.

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Originally Posted by bojangles

I think what you’re trying to say is that they do not constitute “commitment”; if so, we agree completely.

And as such they serve as an unreliable benchmark for determining when to have sexual relations.

Agreed, but that doesn’t really address my point. I’m not claiming that an uncommitted couple should get married instead of having sex; I’m saying they shouldn’t do either of those things. If you’re not committed, don’t get married, don’t have sex, don’t have (or adopt) a child together; just be friends and don’t screw up both your relationship and your lives.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Fixed.

I have no problem with moderate alcohol use and I more than expect once I turn 21 that I'll drink occasionally, but I wouldn't at all be put out if alcohol wasn't legal. I know that abolition didn't work but I would think that there would be some obvious differences between a regular cocaine user and a normal person, but the differences between a regular drinker and a teetotaler wouldn't be so apparent (if they existed at all).

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No one here is advocating abolishing "all law."

No, just whatever laws lpkmckenna doesn’t like.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

True, but my synonym is specific to marriage; your definition is silent on the issue and is therefore trumped.

Not at all. It just serves to show that casual has a few interpretations. And it took two seconds for us to find the two that are at odds with each other (on this subject).

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Agreed, but that doesn’t really address my point. I’m not claiming that an uncommitted couple should get married instead of having sex; I’m saying they shouldn’t do either of those things. If you’re not committed, don’t get married, don’t have sex, don’t have (or adopt) a child together; just be friends and don’t screw up both your relationship and your lives.

Actually, I was addressing your point. I'm saying you don't have to be married to be committed to a person.

[bojangles]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Not at all. It just serves to show that casual has a few interpretations. And it took two seconds for us to find the two that are at odds with each other (on this subject).

Actually, I was addressing your point. I'm saying you don't have to be married to be committed to a person.

Then I suppose on both points, we must agree to disagree. First, I don’t think the two definitions are at odds with each other at all—just different aspects of the same thing, which when combined, give us an accurate picture.

Second, while it is certainly possible to be committed to a person without marriage, only the additional commitment inherent in marriage can raise one’s level of commitment to the point where sex is an appropriate expression thereof. That’s why, despite my many girlfriends, I’ve only had sex with one woman: my wife.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Open up Tiger’s Thesaurus widget and search for “casual.” Sense #6.

Synonyms are not necessarily definitions. For definitions we look in dictionaries.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Then I suppose on both points, we must agree to disagree. First, I don’t think the two definitions are at odds with each other at all—just different aspects of the same thing, which when combined, give us an accurate picture.

A regular established partner (per the definition) can be someone you're dating. So if you're having sex with someone you're dating, by my definition, it isn't casual, but you're claiming it is.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Second, while it is certainly possible to be committed to a person without marriage, only the additional commitment inherent in marriage can raise one’s level of commitment to the point where sex is an appropriate expression thereof. That’s why, despite my many girlfriends, I’ve only had sex with one woman: my wife.

What additional commitment is inherent in marriage? (A legal one? A ceremonial one? Something else? -- the one doing the raising)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

That’s why, despite my many girlfriends, I’ve only had sex with one woman: my wife.

Ok, 4 things. If you have no experience with premarital sex, on what basis do you blame the breakdown of families on it? I would argue that the breakdown of families contributes to premarital sex, but not vice versa. Secondly, I don't want to overgeneralize here, but government is bad at everything; how do you know my relationship with my girlfriend isn't so important that I don't want the government fcuking it up? Three, your proposal boils down to encouraging people to get married so they can have sex (above board); don't you think that's a bad way to encourage commitment? You'd think this strategy would just have the effect of weakening the connection of marriage with commitment. Finally, this reeks of an unenforceable law. How many Americans are going to allow the hymen police to barge in and rummage through their unmentionables? This idea is about as feasible as the War on Drugs, IOW an utter disaster. Passing laws which obviously can't be enforced only serves to weaken the general rule of law.

Your thoughts?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Oh yeah, if you guys are still talking about definitions, then if 95% of people are having premarital sex, that by definition makes those who wait until marriage the aberrations. Describing premarital sex as "aberrant" is pretty ironic.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Reality check: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex - CNN.com

"It would be more effective," Finer said, "to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will.""

"to provide young people with the skills."

so does this mean sex ed in school will get much better??

To stay on topic, as long as my future kids are safe, and don't do anything dumb, then I wouldn't have a problem with them having pre-marital sex when they hit the right age, 17 maybe 16.. Just as long as I don't get a phone call from a friend saying that my daughter is on a GGW video.




Alex

[Annette310]

MY 2CENTS---My belief on sex is not necessarily waiting til marriage but waiting til the right person comes along. And if you are going to have sex please protect yourself. Have an open relationship with your partner and talk about how you will go about protecting yourselves...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Annette310 

Have an open relationship with your partner

Thanks for the advice