SEX: Are you FOR it, or against it?

There is a prude lurking!

Hmm???????

Come on, that was the FUNNIEST one... and not a SINGLE comment?

Geez.

it's very offensive and we shouldn't discuss such things lest we get thread removed. (sarcasm off)

...Has someone had a thread yanked...?
...Issued a proclamation of a prudish/prurient nature...?

...then a thread questioning the mod was yanked.

they don't belong in the lounge anyway.

.

Check your inbox.

Skinner
DU Admin

Ha.....ha

(I says in me best Nelson voice)


:)

are supposed to be directed to the Admins in the "Ask the Admins" forum.

But that is surprising. Since some 'notsomild' stuff gets flung around in here quite regularly.

..that said that the original thread could be used as a model for going over the line. That, too, was pulled.

Could someone PM me and tell me what was considered "over the line?"

I mean...if we know...

"for it as long as photos are attached? if you are not attractive enough to photograph in such a position, please arrange for someone who is."

thank you.

:puke:

Forget the image qualifications!


I'm for doing and leaving discussion off DU.

but I say, bring it on!

Hey, I didn't call him that he did...

Do you appose sex-threads or simply pass over them?
DO you feel they should be yanked?
Is sexual freedom something that should be stopped in this country?

That should get us started.

I ask because I'm curious.

I like reading the sex threads. I just call myself a prude because I'm a married man who believes in monagamy.

I'm in favor of the government not being involved in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms (or living rooms, kitchens, etc.)

I'm in favor of the DU lounge being lighthearted, fun, and interesting. If someone is offended by the sex threads, they shouldn't read them. We should probably make an effort not to put anything too filthy in the thread titles, though, since people can't avoid them without avoiding the lounge altogether.

What got banned? Someone PM me if they know. I wouldn't want to inadvertently step over any lines and offend anyone.

and take your chances ;-)

I think the people shouldn't get into this kind of thread if they don't like what is about. I also like to talk and experiment sex, but that's doesn't mean that i want to offend to someone, we are adult i hope and this kind of things should not be bad things. We all need it.

Knock it on!

play out that puppy til it runs outta gas...

If you aren't......keep it zipped. Lots of problems in this society would be avoided if people followed rule.

something we can all learn from republicans.

Would you legislate this?

Would you support laws banning sex acts?

This is the true heart of democracy, you are welcome to belive and act as you see best for yourself. THe question here is wether you would create laws to restrict me in my sexual behavior?

for producing the best outcome for society. You can choose to follow it, or you can choose not to and bear the consequences. I never said it should be a matter of legislation, though, because it would be impossible to legislate. But if you want the reason so many lives are screwed up....you need not look too far.

A friend whose mother stayed with an abusive father who beat the crap out of both the mother and the kids.

It is a "rule"? I don't think there is any federal legislation against sex, as long as it is between consenting adults. For consenting juveniles, the Mann Act still applies.

Jessamon, you may find DU a bit rough for you. Perhaps you should avoid the Lounge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The bylaws here say you must be politically progressive, as I am. Why on earth would you say someone who defends a time-honored truth wouldn't be allowed on here? That is an insult to a whole bunch of Democrats who are trying to live righteous lives.

According to your dogma, all single people having sex are without virtue and not living a righteous life.

Do not pretend to be put off by the flames.

in this case, human nature. You have to expect to pay the consequences. Never said 'single people having sex are without virtue'...just saying in all probability, their lives and society are not as happy and fulfilled as they would otherwise be.

For one, I don't register an account on a political chat board and choose as my first set of posts a finger-wagging indictment from the standpoint of a sexually-repressed Lieberman supporter. Oh, sorry, that is redundant.

I think your next screen name should be BillBennett.

But I'm not so sure Jess is here to cause trouble. Her beliefs don't sound that out of line with mine. And although I try not to worry about anyone else's sex life but my own ... we don't know Jess's story. She could be real young, waiting for Mr. Right. Or she could be someone who has been deeply wounded by an unfaithful partner. Or someone who was devastated by a parent's infidelity.

People have strong feelings about sex, and while I don't believe in judging anyone - I think we should extend that courtesy to abstinence believing Lieberman supporters as well. At least until they prove disruptive in other areas.

you are happy. One has to wonder how you formed your basis for comparison with me, though. As for your disparaging comment about my posts, I feel it is my duty as a citizen to speak out for what is right and works well in our society.

"for what is right and works well in our society"? What works for you may not work for other people. To each his/her own. My life has been a result of conscious choices I have made. And I have had plenty of sex outside of marriage. But, it is MY life, MY choices.

I am just wondering how things have turned out for them?
Are kids involved? I have to wonder how many were damaged because of a feeling of betrayal or insecurity. These are things worth pondering, perhaps.

And I will answer your question. No, I have never had children. That was one of the conscious choices I made.

Now, you answer my question. Thank you.

All these people you've had sex with.....I am just wondering how things have turned out for them?

Jessemon, you've used this "argument" several times on this thread. The implication seems to be that, even if you are capable of many sexual relationships, it is still wrong, because you no doubt have caused mental suffering to one or more of your ex-partners by not staying with them.

The fallacy here is in assuming that only breakups of sexually-active relationships can cause this pain.

Heartbreaks are an unavoidable, if regrettable, part of getting to know possible partners, and entering into romantic (not necessarily sexual) relationships. It hurts when a relationship with someone you care about ends, particularly if you're the one who got "dumped." And it doesn't matter if you slept with them or not.

I've had a number of breakups that hurt a lot. Out of the three worst ones, two of them involved the two (note, I did not say "two," but "the two") girls I didn't have sex with. As a matter of fact, the one that haunted me the longest was the end of a relationship where the furthest we ever went was kissing. It still hurt when they ended -- and it wouldn't have been any worse if I had slept with either of the two girls.

It seems to me that, if you want to avoid people suffering the pain of breakups, you're going to have to go to a system of arranged marriages where the couple doesn't even meet until their wedding day.

I see no way that can be true. Sexuality is a normal thing. And there has never been a time when people have ever not been extremely sexual. It is just now that women are alowed to show their sexuality also.

???

One has to wonder how you formed your basis for comparison with me, though.

Probably the same way you, who have never had sex outside of marriage, can make a blanket statement of those who have that "their lives...are not as happy and fullfilled as they otherwise would be."

:crazy:

when i was MARRIED, my life wasn't as happy and fulfilled as it could have been. :shrug:

Humans are sexual creatures!!!!!

Sorry, but the general law of nature is that sexual beings will generally mate as often as they can once they reach sexual maturity. Monogamy, let alone maintained celibacy before choosing one's single sexual partner, may be a law of civil societies (although I would note that said civil societies were organized quite differently from ours), but it certainly isn't in accord with "human nature," let alone any sort of "natural law" determined through empirical examination (instead of projecting one's own wishes and calling them "nature").

Of course it isn't. The issue is whether or not you should have sex outside of marriage.

fulfilling...if she expected people to avoid it without benefit of a wedding ring -- and whether they are married to each other or not?

Another question: What do you think of civil marriages? Do you consider sex without benefit of some religious mumbo jumbo legitimate?

'Cause then I'm a bastard, since my parents were married by a judge.

I think there has to be a recognition of God in a marriage ceremony, but lacking that, a civil ceremony is better than nothing because it does signify something of a formal commitment, which, again, is better than a no-strings relationship.

SO you support Civil Gay MArriege!

Look, you've stated you don't support legislation prhibiting sex. You have stated that for YOU sex outside of marriege is wrong.

I have no beef with you. So long as you keep your views concerning this strictly to your behavior. So long as you don't deny a persons right to marry, to screw or be kinky then I have no problem with you.

I may not chose to hang out with you and will maybe avoid you in sex threads but no real beef.

support civil gay 'marriages' because I don't believe they are really marriages. Furthermore, I don't believe what gays do is really sex, if you use the definition of sex that most progressives use. I think the physical activities that gays do, which you call 'sex' is less than the optimal thing to do.
I do not support legislation prohibiting sex outside of marriage primarily because it is unenforceable. But in my view, it is every bit as damaging as many crimes, both in terms of damage to the individual, and to society.

I guess you don't want to hear about what goes on in BDSM clubs then do you?

BDSM?

Bondage
Domination and or Dominance
Sadism or submission
Masochism

BDSM clubs are were grown-ups can go and play all sorts of fun games with each others bodies, their own or if they're like me (lucky man that I am) with their wifes body.

I would suggest www.NCSFreedom.org if you want to get a better understanding of the issues surounding this.

Thanks anyway.

Perhaps this is the problem that gays face. When presented with a form of sexual expression that is unappealing or foriegn one assumes they are being recruited, this could not be further from the case.

You asked me a question, I answered it. The point in all of this is that as adults we have choices to make about our own sexuality and it would seem that you propose that that expresion shoud be (aside from it's total impracticality) legislated out of existance.

You had been asked elsewhere in this thread if you would, if you could outlaw forms of sexual expression that you deem unholy and you evaded the question saying something along the lines of 'IF I could I would" which seems totaly foriegn to the ethos of the Democratic Party.

The problems with sexual freedom are not in and of themselves due to the acts but more to the sociatel taboos and a lack of education. If young people were taught about sexual pleasures and the corisponding responsabilities many if not all of your proposed consequences would be nullified. The problem here is that you promote the idea of closeting everything that doesn't fall into your definition of allowable sexual expression. The death and harm brought to gays and in some sense the kinky community is due in part to the fact that people like you who espouse these sorts of ideas scare their children into hiding, force friends and neighbors to lie to each other and force people to live a life that is counter to their true selves because of percieved or real threats to their livelyhoods or person.

Noone is trying to recruit anyone else into their prefered forms of sexual expression however the insistance that people be treated as equals is a demand that will be met. Noone is asking you to join them or even to approve for your own life however it is a demand that we (in the royal sense) be allowed to live our lives free from the fear of social reprisals from small minded repressed individuals.

The problems of young people having sex is not in the act, but teh consequences. Remove some of those consequences through education and acceptance of the miriad ways that humans express thier sexuality and the world would be better off. If teens could feel free to experiment sexualy with less fear of unwanted pregnancies or disease the world would be a better place.

sanctimonious view on SEX matches with mine? I know I live a good life, and have never been married and OHMYGAWD I HAD SEX.

A FEW TIMES.

NOW what's gonna happen to me????????

The consequences of activities against human nature exist for everyone regardless of their belief. Just like gravity. It just so happens that 'Christian rules' generally work well in human nature.

"activities against human nature" <-- that's your opinion, not objective fact. At least be honest about that. "activities against human nature" - how arrogant to say such a thing.

But here's the true arrogance: 'Christian rules' generally work well in human nature

Unbelievable.

I think if you were to do an actual historical analyis of, oh let's say, HISTORY, you'd discover that much of the morality and ethics and Christianity is not endemic to Christianity, but tends to be quite generalized and in existence in the vast cornucopia of human traditions.

I think you need to realize that what you consider Christian morality is not, for the most part, unique to Christianity, and get off your exclusivist and triumphalist high horse.

"Being nice to people" is not specifically Christian. "being nice to people because Jesus asks it of us" IS specifically Christian.

The ONLY claim that Christianity has over any other ereligion or non-religion is the claim of a unique creator God who came to earth in the form of a human, was crucified, died, and was raised from the dead, and will return. That's it. Yes, Jesus also commanded that we love one another, offered the good samaritan parable; and Christianity, when done properly, should lead the Christian to a life of compassion and empathy toward others and a connection and sense of oneness with the Holy Other bringing untold joy to one's life.

But that doesn't mean that only Christians are decent, community-loving people.

Take the non-God segments of the ten commandments: same stuff in just about every culture that's ever existed in human history: don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, don't covet, don't murder, don't disrespect people.

Sheesh. I'm tired of Christian arrogance. Convince people they should be Christian NOT because it's some kind of automatic panacea into perfect loving life that "Gosh, society would be perfect if we all followed Christian traditions", but bring them to Christianity so they can know and experience God's infinite love, to know they are redeemed and saved. Then out of that, people will WANT to love others as God loves them; not out of fear of some God-Judge who will smite them if the don't, but because they will know they have permission to fail in trying to bring compassion and love to the world.

to slam Christianity. Let's take a look at some of your comments, shall we?

"But here's the true arrogance: 'Christian rules' generally work well in human nature

Unbelievable."

I am afraid I have yet to see your explanation of why this claim is 'unbelievable'

"much of the morality and ethics and Christianity is not endemic to Christianity, but tends to be quite generalized and in existence in the vast cornucopia of human traditions"

I certainly have never claimed otherwise. Many religions share worthwhile precepts. I celebrate that fact.

"I think you need to realize that what you consider Christian morality is not, for the most part, unique to Christianity, and get off your exclusivist and triumphalist high horse."

I never claimed worthwhile values were exclusively Christian.

"Then out of that, people will WANT to love others as God loves them; not out of fear of some God-Judge who will smite them if the don't, but because they will know they have permission to fail in trying to bring compassion and love to the world."

You have finally posted an accuracy about Christianity. The Old Testament God was one of retribution. Jesus came and emphasized the more loving quality of God than the 'eye for an eye' philosophy.
It is sort of odd that a number of posters are misquoting me or putting words into my mouth that I never said nor implied. Please read what I said before you respond. Thanks.

and meditating on it for a few hours, i was looking for an opening to slam your opinions.

I never slam Christianity. I'm quite open about my Christianity here, and my life is in the church. I WILL, however, slam the church when it needs slamming, and I will slam Christians when they need slamming.

re: my use of "unbelievable" was the arrogance of you saying "it matter not whether you are Christian" and then following it with "Christian rules generally work well".

Reminds me of that judge down south, "I'm not imposing religion, I'm not saying you have to be any religion, but I am saying that Christianity is right."

And by the way, let us all please end the myth of the Old Testament God was one of retribution, and the New testament God is one of love. Sheesh. Read your Bibles, people - yes, there's smitingin the Old Testament, but always within the smiting and afterward is God's constant call to the people, constant forgiveness, constant taking them back as the claimed people. As a nation, as a group of people, and as individuals. The New Testament, God in the form of Jesus of the Christ, is the culmination of the God of the Old Testament. It's not a new God, it's not a God taht changed his/her mind suddenly.

If a number of posters are misquoting you, perhaps you are just not being truly clear what you mean. Obviously, a lot of people in this thread are finding your posts exclusionary, triumphalist, and condescending. If you don't mean to be, then perhaps you need to write more clearly, because that's surely the intent that comes across from your posts.

And by the way, let us all please end the myth of the Old Testament God was one of retribution, and the New testament God is one of love. Sheesh. Read your Bibles, people - yes, there's smitingin the Old Testament, but always within the smiting and afterward is God's constant call to the people, constant forgiveness, constant taking them back as the claimed people. As a nation, as a group of people, and as individuals.

While you're correct in your denial that there are, in essence, two different Gods in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (a heresy now know as Marcionism, BTW), I would point out that the "call," "forgiveness," and "taking back" you mention are all directed, as you put it, to "a nation, as a group of people, and as individuals" (emphasis mine). It really didn't apply to any individuals or groups who weren't part of "the claimed people" (i.e. the Jews of that time). In fact, the Hebrew scriptures cover in great detail the principle of cherem, which called for the extermination of all non-Jewish people living in the land supposdely meant for "the claimed people." (The story of Jericho is an especially notable example.) While the Book of Joshua is likely not the first example of genocidal "ethnic cleansing" in a holy war, it is the first example recorded in the scriptures of not one but two current religions, and held up in that scripture as being ordered by God.

The Exodus peolpe were led to slaughter the Caananites, which they (the Exodus people) didn't always fulfill, and for which God often punished them for insufficient slaughter. Also rules against relationships with someone of another faith so as not to be led into worship of the wrong god/s/ess/esses.

And as you note, and even as I said and didn't elaborate enough on, the first inklings of God's action in the world starting with Abraham is that of choosing specific individuals as the chosen people; then it was for his offspring.

But throughout the OT is a growing awareness of that God that first Abraham, then the people, then the nation, and then God as sovereign over the entire world, even Sheol, and as the ONLY God. Not one god among many.

Sadly, though, in the between times - between Abrham's specificity and then laster generality - was that terrible period of total selfishness. So we have Caananite slaughter in Exodus and growing emphasis on racial and religious purity and the supremacy of YHWH over all gods during the kingdom times, and until the fall of Jerusalem and the uh, can' think of the word, but forcing the Jews to go elsewhere. Damn, I know that word. Anyway, But then in Jonah, the Ninevites are shown favor because they listened to Jonah. In Ruth, we learn that David's lineage is not purely of the line of Abraham, and a non-Hebrew person is held up as righteous and important. In the prophets is the growing sense of God as the One as there are calls for justice, there is no more cherem or holy war, etc. But yes, it was still rather Jewish-specific in nature - a sense of "God chose us to show YOU the way". And then in midrash times, we get that beautiful story of God not celebrating when the Red Sea closed up and the Hebrews escaped becuase "How can I celebrate when so many of my children have died?"

So, I'm not saying you're wrong - you are right, and I was much too general in my original post, but even though there was original specificity, I submit that by the end of the Old Testament, that sense had changed drastically, at least within certain segments of the Hebrew people (prophets, especially).

It's a very fascinating growth of idea about who and what YHWH is.

And then, of course, we can run the liberal Biblical critique mode and do our social and cultural exegesis and ask the question, "Did God ever actually change and evolve? Or was it just the people's perceptions and interpretations of God that changed? Or did God and the people slowly modify each other?" (we can see God change after the flood, and God and people modifying each otehr with Abraham's plea of "Would you destory if there was ten righteous people?" and God's and Moses' dialogue "No, don't kill them all" and "I can't speak, help me out here".

And my favorite line from Jeremiah: "And he shall remember their iniquities no more."

Although you may have a hard time believing it, I'm a Christian cleric.

:wow:

And you know what else? In some informal "counseling," with a friend of mine, I strongly recommended that, if she ever were to consider marriage, she shouldn't enter into it unless she first lived with the guy for a year.

:wow:

And I think my advice was the Christian thing to do.

:wow:

Why? Because I know this friend very well. Although she has been in a number of long-term relationships, never once did it progress to the living-together stage. And she's a wonderful person, but definitely independent and self-directed. She has not yet learned that sharing a life with a partner, day in and day out, requires a lot of compromise, even (especially!) over minor matters. She has yet to do that -- and I think it might be a big struggle for her to have to adjust. Better find out whether or not you're suited to fully sharing your life with a partner before you've made a lifetime committment to them, rather than afterward, when the only "cure" is divorce.

And, yes, my advice might be a bit different if she were in her late teens or early twenties, and was still a virgin (because I think there is an additional bonding that can occur when each person in a couple is the only one the other has ever "known"). But that time is well in her past. Anyway, I tend to doubt that your "rules" distinguish between one law for virgins and another for those who are sexually active (even though I might).

I see no problems in it!

There are many gay couples that would love to be wed in the eyes of their god/godess/gods, ect, and the law. Yet they are denied by the law to do so. So should they also be denied the fruit of passion as well?

My Mom wasn't so keen on people living together without benefit of marriage, but after Dad died and Mom started dating again (and by this time I was living with my soul mate w/o benefit of marriage), Mome changed her mind - she realized that, unless she married someone quite wealthy, to legally get married would be damaging to her: both in terms of making sure that her and dad's money to went to my sister and i if she died, and also becuase she would have lost Dad's pension and Dad's health insurance. Since she had canncer, losing the healthcare was a SERIOUS issue.

it was nice to see Mom come to seeing that, hey, who the hell cares if you're married, if you love someone.

Yay Mom!!

You took the words right out of my fingertips.
I've been married twice. BOTH disasters.
I've been with the same partner (without "benefit of clergy") for over 5 years now and it's still pretty good. Hell of a lot better than either marriage at the 5 year...Oh, wait, the first one only lasted 4 years...Well, you get the idea....

I think Jessamon is talking about "god's rules", and I don't follow those anyway.

"The RULES" pre-date god. C'mon, Jessamon, wanna try to tell me that I'm immoral because I'm an Atheist? I dare ya!

I didn't like anybody preaching morality to me when I was attending Catholic high school, LOL. Years later and as a recovering Catholic, I sure as hell like it even less.

marriages didn't work out has zero to do with the subject at hand, which is the contention that sex outside of marriage is wrong. It only means the marriages were mistakes. Are you saying the marriages didn't work out because you abstained from sex before hand and THAT caused them to fail? As for you current live-in relationship. I am wondering if there are any kids involved. Do they see you both as their parents? Do they feel as secure as they might?
Not at all saying you are a bad person...just wondering if things have turned out as well as you think they could have in your life? And if they haven't have you examined the reasons why not?

To adults that wish to have sex should do so. As long as procations are taken. Please giving freely is also a gift that should be enjoyed and welcomed, married or not!

I am wondering if there are any kids involved. Do they see you both as their parents? Do they feel as secure as they might?

Let it be said that I'm a strong proponent of being married before bringing children into the world, simply because raising a kid is such hard work that it's almost impossible for one person to pull it off by themselves (while I've known some successful "single by choice" parents, most of them tend to be quite well-off, to the extent that they can afford to drop work for awhile to make time for their kids, or can at least afford the high-quality help needed as a "child-rearing community" -- if they were not well-off, they've had to sacrifice mightily for their children, and I'm not sure that many people could pull that off). And I also think it's a good thing for children to have two parents active in their lives, so that they don't perceive all their love as coming from a single source.

However, I would also have to note that, with the divorce rate over the past few decades, one wouldn't blame children for not being "as secure as they might" no matter what the parental legal status is. If they themselves aren't living in a "breaking home," they almost certainly have friends who do, so they know the possibility, and how it can happen with practically no warning. (Even if you yourself are committed to staying married for life, it takes two willing people to make a marriage, and you would be surprised at how often one spouse surprises the other -- who thought everything was fine -- with a sudden declaration that they had "fallen out of love with you" -- which generally means simultaneously "falling in love with someone else" -- and that there's nothing you can do to remedy the situation except to grant them their freedom.)

that sounds like an argument FOR gay marriege I have as of yet not encountered.

50% divorce rate - that means 100% of married sex leads to breakups half the time.

But hey! Everybody must get stoned......... tombstoned, that is.

wonder how many of them were caused by people abstaining from sex beforehand, as seems to be your contention. And that old saw about 50% of marriages failing, do you have a link for that? Coz among the folks I have known, that figure is wildly overblown.
As for the tombstoning, I haven't been impolite or non-progressive. Can you think of any reason I should be tombstoned?

And repressed.

If you are against premarital sex, fine, don't have it. That alone doesn't make you anti-progressive.

But when you JUDGE hundreds of the thousands of people YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW by saying that they "lack control" and that by abstaining from premarital sex you are more virtuous than those who do not, and then you LAY SOCIETAL ILLS at our feet, you should expect a torrent of abuse.

The 50% stat is so well-known, even your fellow right-wingers love to cite it.

But speaking of unsubstantiated allegations, just how are people like me, unmarried and in a committed relationship, the cause of life's ills?

Hm?

No. Have I suggested some people's actions lead to less desirable personal and societal outcomes? Yes. See, what you are missing here is that regardless of your beliefs or mine, the results of unmarried sex have proven detrimental to individuals, families, or societies. This really isn't a matter of opinion. It is fact, and as far as I know, progressives have always embraced facts.

As for your relationship, perhaps you have to ask yourself how committed you and your partner really are. Are there children involved? Do they see you both as parents? Do they feel as secure as they might otherwise?

In the future, if you are going to quote me, might I suggest your quotes be accurate? I don't like to be misrepresented or falsely labeled as you tried to do. Thanks.

Not proven. You are just using emotion to back up unprovable assertions, a hallmark of the right wing.

Your Joe Lieberman avatar tells us all we need to know. He is a republican moralistic turdfucker as far as 99% of DU is concerned.

I think people are suspicious of a new poster who comes in and rocks the boat. And you might very well be a disruptor, for all I know. But people need to realize that there are all types of people in the world, including political lefties who believe in abstinence.

It's the how he is channeling the judgmental dogmatism of Bill Bennett that pisses us off. Throwing around your alleged moral superiority just because you choose not to fuck before marriage makes you prime suspect meat on a liberal board.

being new and all. But then again, a younger version of me might have been the same exact way. And I KNOW I'm not a closet conservative.

the "Natural Law" is tombstoned in my eyes already.

Anyone that quotes that sort of Riech Wing crap no longer gets the benifit of the doubt.

When someone says this is how I live my life and it's OK with me I'm happy for them. When someone says This is how I live my life and you should too is when my hackles go up.

I admit that I too have been feeding this particular troll.

of society? We have a long history of illuminating the wrongs in our existence; slave labor, poor working conditions, racism, discrimination against women, and the poor, misuse of the environment. I feel it my obligation to continue that progressive tradition.

You have equated premarital sex, whether casual or committed, with racism, environmental degradation, and a host of other ills.

Total bullshit. Sometimes there are consequences, sometimes there aren't. Marital sex, or non-marital sex, each comes with potential risks AND rewards. How an individual chooses to sort their options, and assess the risk/reward dynamic of whatever realm their sexual relations falls into, is their choice, and their choice alone. God or no god, gay or straight. Their. Choice. Not. Yours.

Life is tough. Pain, risk, suffering, and loss are inevitable. Humans have the CHOICE of sorting out the options that work best for them when navigating the rough waters of day-to-day life and our relations with one another sexual or social. And yes, I mean consenting adults in this statement.

My humble curse:

May Joe Lieberman's shit come to life, and kiss you.

I am a bit surprised so many Democrats are opposing my views here. I wouldn't have thought it would be much out of line. Most of our friends feel the way we do and many are Democrat Catholics as well.
I saw an interesting thread and responded to it. I am wondering what a 'disruptor' is though. Are you a disruptor when a lot of people disagree with you?

You are a disruptor when you are really a conservative and you post here just to cause trouble. I don't think you are a disruptor.

And we've got all types here. Some threads get really nasty and flirty (which I think is fun, btw), and then the people who started the threads get PM's (private messages) calling them immoral whores, etc. So I know there are other people on this board who are just as uptight sexually as you and me, if not more so.

I hope you will lighten up a little, realize that the lounge is all in fun, and stay with us and add to our diversity. You have made your point, and made it clearly. There is no point in beating this issue any further into the ground. (Unless the issue wants to be beaten, in which case KinkyDem will be happy to oblige.):evilgrin:

,

world you live in now -- you live on a planet where people schtup their brains out all over the place -- and no society has gone down the tubes because they fuck alot -- because they all fuck alot. married, unmarried, gay straight whatever.
you are spreading untruths.

and the state won't "allow" me to marry. Damn, I'm gonna have a hard time explaining to my partner of 15 years that we can't do it anymore cause it could screw up our lives...

Sex should only be for married people?

Dang. Harsh judgement. Doncha think SOME folks are able to be responsible for their lives without being impuned by ancient and archaic marriage traditions steeped in christian rhetoric?

Question. Why do you think a rule that has been around for thousands of years still exists today? Answer: Because a core truth that was based on human nature thousands of years ago is still applicable today. Don't you see? This has nothing to do with what is in fashion today. This is a question of produces good results in practice, and what produces bad results in practice. A society that allows unmarried love is a society that experiences a whole host of problems.
Why would we think we will be the first exception to this rule in history??

There is no rule!

sex outside of marriage is wrong. Please follow the threads.

The rule that says sex outside of marriage is wrong.

If you examine the Hebrew scriptures, you will find that "sex outside of marriage is wrong" only applied to women. Not only could men be married as many times as they wished, but it was not considered sinful for a man - even a married man - to have sex with other women, as long as they weren't married women. And, of course, man could divorce their wives for virtually any reason (according to Hillel, even if their cooking was poor), meaning that "marriage as a lifetime committment" was pretty illusory back then.

Sex has consequences, both physical and emotional, and I think it should mean more than just a casual tryst. That is definitely true for me, and probably for you also. But there's all kinds of people in the world, and I have given up on the idea of understanding them all. Don't let the horndogs scare you away from the lounge. Welcome to DU - have fun here! There's lots of fun things to post about. Yak's, mullets, movies, music, you name it!O8)

as well as a positive person! I think those two qualities go hand in hand.

"someone of courage" = "positive person" = agreeing with me

:eyes:

Sex is SEX. In and of itself it is not harmful. Only those who are irresponsible, hateful, hurtful, would seek to harm with it, exploit it or benefit from it in evil ways. MOST people just simply enjoy it without any such ramifications in its purest forms and have since the dawn of time.

I know more than a few people who are strippers, exotic dancers, escorts or have kids without being married (male and female) and oddly, after all that, are fine, upstanding citizens. It isn't whether or not you have sex that's good or bad, it's how you live your life. Sex is merely a side note or component.

Placing laws, rules, regulations on sex is just silly.

ancillary activity, then you grossly underestimate the power of sex. See, sex outside of marriage represents the deepest physical union people can have. But as long as their is no commitment, there is a lack of security at best and a betrayal at worst. This is a terrible environment, as a rule, for children to grow up into. Kids need to grow up in a situation where there is comfort and belief that the parents are committed to each other.

In fact, some of the "security" in a committed relationship is false. So, in short, you pays your fees, you takes your chances...

so long removed ancestors had kids, they kicked em out of the cave by age 7 so as not to compete with new offspring, as they moved on to new mates. Humans aren't genetically programmed to be monogamous.

Hence, most marriages end when the youngest child is between the ages of 6 & 8. Our ancestral instincts kick in to this day, and humans move on to different mates to propegate the species.

It's SEX. Sometimes it makes kids, sometimes it doesn't. Whether or not someone is married has no effect on if they're a good parent or capable of raising cool humans from kidlets.

Heck some married people I know DEFINITELY shouldn't have pets, much less kids. The single parents I know are completely devoted to the bringing the best things to their kids at great sacrifice if necessary. Sticking a spouse in the picture for tradition's sake is just silly. These are the silly ideals that have 6 year old girls thinking they have crushes on little boys. Just insane, propegating the whole pairing up myth.

You wanna see the power of sex?

How about the MEN, and I DO LIMIT the field to MEN, that will risk their Lives, Jobs and families to get 10 minutes of pleasure from sex? What is THAT about?

Human beings have the power of reason and do not just give in to their physical desires and instincts. If we did, we'd take whatever we wanted from anyone because we felt like it. See, animals cannot envision two or three steps in advance. They respond to the stimulus in front of them. Man is smart enough not to hop from spouse to spouse every seven years as you say. He knows the effect on the family would be disastrous.

We don't stick to marriage for 'tradition's sake'. We do it because it produces the best outcome, generally speaking, for our families and our society.

As for your last paragraph, I agree. Why on earth would these people, mostly men, abandon all for a 10-minute fling.

rate be producing the best outcome?

If marriage is so hallowed and valued and precious, why isn't divorce outlawed?

Would you hire a lawyer with a 50% success rate of getting you off your indictment?

Would you buy a pound of sugar if you only got half a pound?

Would you eat a blowfish if you had a 50% chance of dying from its toxins?

Pairing up with one partner forever is not natural to humans. Imposing false ideals based on meritless conjecture is even sillier.

That harkens back to the archaic ideals of a virgin bride being more valuable monetarily than a woman NOT a virgin. Why place a monetary value on sex for women, but not for men?

Times are changing.

I think a lifelong exclusive sexual partnership is something to be desired and cherished. Although it may not be for everyone, I do believe it is a dream that comes true for some.

I don't think monagamy is necessarily "unnatural" for humans. Many species form lifelong exclusive pair-bonds.

Just because many marriages fail doesn't mean the institution is worthless.

Marriage is not just some social construct that is beneficial to men only, at the expense of the poor exploited women. If the relationship is a true partnership, as it should be, both partners benefit. And sometimes, women are the abusive partners who benefit disproportionately from the arrangement.

I don't think you necessarily get bored with just one sexual partner, unless, of course, one or both of the two are boring lovers.

I think lots of people get married that shouldn't. It shouldn't just be the "thing to do" once you reach a certain age and once you find somebody you think you are willing to tolerate.

Climb the hell down from that soap box. Times are changing but it's not because of some moronic notion that monogamy is unnatural. It's because society and the people within it are becoming more and more selfish. We want damnit and no one should stand in our way. Promises made mean exactly jack shit because our enjoyment matters more then integrity and honesty.

The divorce rate shows that we as a people care little for eachother, so little in fact that we can't stay faithful or commited to those we love. And then this board of world changers struggles to figure out why the conservatives are taking over. Because their logic is the same, screw the people because I want I want I want I want.

I have never bought that old wives tale.

"Pairing up with one partner forever is not natural to humans"

Returning a lost wallet with $200 to the owner isn't a 'natural' behavior either. But we do it because, as humans, we think of others, we empathize, we reason our decisions, we think three steps ahead. We are not apes.

"Times are changing."

Perhaps, but human nature is not. Nor are the consequences of violating human laws.

There is a 50% failure rate. However that shows more of how our society is becoming more selfish then anything else.

Returning a lost wallet with $200 to the owner isn't a 'natural' behavior either. But we do it because, as humans, we think of others, we empathize, we reason our decisions, we think three steps ahead. We are not apes.

Exactly. But I like apes so leave them out of this.

:)

Pairing up with one partner forever is not natural to humans. Imposing false ideals based on meritless conjecture is even sillier.

Oh, I see. It's not natural, but we've been done it for thousands of years. Right.

That harkens back to the archaic ideals of a virgin bride being more valuable monetarily than a woman NOT a virgin. Why place a monetary value on sex for women, but not for men?

It doesn't harken back to that 'ideal' at all. No one is placeing a monentary value on anything except for you.

....OTHERS DO NOT...guess it all depends on the individual AS WE ARE ALL ANIMALS...regardless of the term of HUMAN...to presume otherwise is assinine....attempting to conform to *rules* that go against our natural instincts and judging eachother accordingly....IS WHAT CAUSES THE MOST PROBLEMS IN OUR SO CALLED *CIVILIZED* SOCIETY! :eyes:

...attempting to conform to *rules* that go against our natural instincts and judging eachother accordingly....IS WHAT CAUSES THE MOST PROBLEMS IN OUR SO CALLED *CIVILIZED* SOCIETY!

You may want to reconsider that postition in light of its rather all encompassing nature.

...didn't mean to attach what I said to YOUR post anyway Ass assin:eyes:

"Pairing up with one partner forever is not natural to humans. Imposing false ideals based on meritless conjecture is even sillier."

"Oh, I see. It's not natural, but we've been done it for thousands of years. Right."

One thing that is often overlooked is that, while there has traditionally been a rule requiring monogamy and pre-marital celibacy in many cultures, for the largest part of that time, young people (particularly girls) were married off as soon as they reached puberty. When one's sexual organs started functioning, it was time to marry so that one could start using them. (Might we call that a "law of nature"...? ;-) ) Furthermore, in societies where girls were married off young but boys weren't, there was generally a greater tolerance of premarital sex (with, shall we say, "enterpreneurs," as well as servants and the ever-popular "bad girls") among sexually-mature young men who were still not considered ready for marriage.

Is it one thing when the average age of puberty is 14, and the average age of marriage is 15 (as I read in one historical study many years ago), and quite another when the average age of puberty is dropping to below 12, and "marriagable age" has grown to the early twenties? Is it one thing to expect newly-mature teenagers to abstain from sex for a year or so, and another to demand that they keep themselves "untouched" for a dozen years? I think it makes a huge difference. While I would still agree that there are benefits to be had from making a life-long marriage your only sexual relationship, I don't think that more than a relative handful of young people would be able to wait that long (I certainly wasn't!), and am not surprised when that turns out to be, in fact, the way things seem to work in real life at the turn of the 21st century.

Sex does not and will never equil committment! There is more to commettment in marrage than sex. It is devotion, a bond, a partnership that is alot more that sex. If you don't have that, married or not, then all you have is sex! And how can children feel comfort when the parents show no true love?

oy -- what do think people do?
those rules are ''made up'' for reasons of heridity and controlling women half the time. property -- get it? men who wrote those rules fucked whomever they chose or had serious problems.
and yes -- all kinds of people lie about the extra sex they get. it's all a part of how we operate -- just so we can ''get some''.
join the 21st century already.

They are for men, too. But see, the ill-effects of misused sex exist whether or not you believe no sex outside of marriage is a good rule or not. It's kind of like someone who doesn't believe in gravity. Well, if you slip on a banana peel, you still fall on your butt. Same applies here. Have sex outside of marriage, and chance are, your life will have a degree of misery as a result, and that trickles down (or up) to society.

outside of marriage -- they are neither unhappy nor are they divorced -- you have and are propagandizing a parochial point of view.

and have broken their promise of faithfulness and exclusivity. Yes, some marriages can survive that, but the bond of trust has to have been damaged. My heart goes out to those people.

I have a question. Would you allow gays the right to get married then? If you answer no you are saying that they should never have sex at all.

I understand the value of keeping sexual activity confined to commited relationships. You are correct many of our current social problems would be lessened if people could control themselves.

is a sure way to keep it zipped! CTFU!

...would jessemon inspire such anger if she didn't have Holy Joe staring at us from each post?

I mean, as unfair as it might seem, it's a bit hard for me to accept her claims that she is not being judgemental when she chooses a picture of the most supercillious, judgemental prick in the Demo...I mean the DLC party, and then starts sounding like him.

:grr:

that's exacly what i'm talking about.

Do others, as you would have them do you.

Er... do I have that right???

:evilgrin:

It's more do others the way way they want to be done so they will do you the way you want to be done...

No...that's wrong too.

For me, the giving and the recieving are VASTLY different. I am more than willing to take a whip to someones back but get no real pleasure from having the same done to me. On the other hand, the people I have taken a whip to have asked me to do so and have njoyed it. So "Do unto others..." only goes so far.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I like the way you think, Kinky! Sick, twisted -- MY KINDA PEOPLE! :hi:

I must admit to being very curious what was said above. I didn't get to read it before it was deleted.

...the more I read, the more I wish I had flown to Monte Carlo. ;-)

:hi:

heh heh.

By any chance, ya look anything like antonio banderas?

***sigh***

Eh I actually think sex itself as an activity is a tad overrated, but you mens seem to like it a LOT. Like MORE than a lot. As I say, "Men will fukc mud..." But that's up to y'all, you know?

I just don't see placing false values on something WE ALL DO... man, beast, even flora and fauna in some way have SEX.... and admittedly it sure can be a lotta fun. Just gets messy sometimes. If you're doing it right, of course.

Ah well.

Well, I have olive skin, dark hair, some body hair...uh, that's about where the similarities end. I think I'm cuter, of course. And, I speak MUCH better English than he does. :-)

You know, I'm not one of those guys that just has sex for the sake of having it. I do believe there has to be some level of commitment for the sex to be REALLY good. I just object to having to be married.

Sex? Clean? What's the point?! :D

I actually do oppose sex for sport, as it were. I actually sincerely believe that it's important to have level of commitment before engaging in something so intimate as sexual relations.

HOWEVER, I will not impose MY beliefs or judgements on someone else. I don't believe in marriage either, but I don't think that sex has to be confined to a committed relationship based on MY values.

What other consenting adults do is completely up to them. I don't think morals or right and wrong play a part in any way at all. Just not my business.

Hell, I might have to invest in an Antonio mask or something. ;-)

"fu$&*@#". Coleman Young discussing condom distribution programs with Za'ev Chavets (Devil's Night and Other True Stories of Detroit)

I mean, it's just such a pain in the ass. Or somewhere. It's the sort of thing that drives people to distraction; tricks us into having kids; gives Republicans stupid cultural wedge-issues; tempts us to fuck instead of sublimating that energy into good, useful tasks; it's Nature's ultimate tool in its never ending subversive battle to force us to procreate. Damn that hard-wired impulse! Damn it to hell!

Oh, you meant, like, whether sex should be discussed in the lounge.

Never mind.

"I do not support legislation prohibiting sex outside of marriage primarily because it is unenforceable."

So, if it were enforceable you'd support such legislation?

but not those that have sex outside of marriage.

So there is no point in addressing this question.

...is to see what side you'd come down on if such legislation and enforcement were possible or even if someone were to attempt such legislation and enforcement. Would you be against it simply because it would be impossible to enforce or would you be against it because it is invasive and un-American.

I know the whole concept is farfetched but it is no more farfetched than the idea of most people giving up sex outside of marriage.

if such a procedure were possible

...betch you can't define marriage for everyone in the World. You know, of course, there are old men who arrange to MARRY preteen girls in many places in our World. Perfectly legal. Betcha they have sex.
And Yes....This is relevant here on DU because we have folks from all over the World who read and post here.

Cultural Anthropology 101....if you haven't taken it yet...check out your local Community College.

is a union of a man and woman in which a formal commitment has been made and the blessing has been invoked through a minister of God.

"Never said 'single people having sex are without virtue'...just saying in all probability, their lives and society are not as happy and fulfilled as they would otherwise be."

With the whole of recorded history layed out for all to see, with man's greed, savagery and "inhumanity to man" in evidence I don't understand why sex gets the wrap for botching everything.

but better than a shack-up arrangement, I suppose

Why does the presence of God make a difference? If I commit myself to you, I commit myself to you. God witnesses all, does He not? Then why do I have to have a minister validate my marriage?

And somebody asked me what marriage means to me. My feeling is that you should have a minister, an earthly vicar of God, perform the ceremony.

I will thank you not to impose your mythical beings on me and the union of my relationship, and I will not impose my atheism on you.

and 4 children are subpar compared to yours, just because a witch doctor didn't go yadda yadda yadda at my wedding?

Perhaps you have identified the cause in your post.

of the name of God is not as good as one that is performed in the name of God. Not as good = subpar.

Go back and read your post 98. There you go.

You said it. Claim it.

the concept of generalities. My belief is that marriages in the name of God are preferable to those which do not recognize God. Does this mean you can compare two individual unions? No. Have any of your ever studied probability in mathematics? Trends? Averages? Permutations?
It's like in blackjack, if the dealer has a 6 and you have two kings, you generally have a better hand than someone who has a 12. Does it mean your hand will win and his won't? Of course not. You people are trying to make this personal. I am making a general statement, which 1) I stand behind and which (2 nobody has even attempted to challenge on either an empirical basis or on a logical basis. All I have gotten is a few stray anecdotal exceptions.

you are speaking in absolutes - read your post 98 again. You did not use the words "in general". Even the first sentence in the post I respond to now, you offer an absolute - you say "marriages in the name of God are preferable to those which do not recognize God."

Whatever else you might say after about "generalities" becomes irrelevant, since you've already decided and proclaimed that, yes indeed you CAN compare two individual unions if one is performed in a Christian ceremony and one isn't. The Christian one trumps the non-Christian one every time.

You have just implied that the Christian marriage is like holding a jack and an ace in blackjack.

While you are NOT implying, at least in this last post, that non-Christian marriages can't work, in other posts you have implied it.

I, and others, have consistently offered challenge on both logical and empirical bases; becuase you keep offering absolutely, all one needs is one exception. Have you studied geometry or mathematics? You can disprove a theorem by finding ONE, count 'em ONE, exception to the theorem.

"Not as good a union performed in the name of God" These are the words YOU said......you posted them right here. There's nothing general about the statement....you believe your marriage is superior to mine....you said it....not me.

believe.

You believe people who have sex out of wedlock suffer and pass their suffering onto society.

Suffer compared to what? Torture? The final stages of cancer? Pouring gas all over one's body and lighting it on fire?

You believe marriage is part of a natural law because people have been doing it for centuries. People have also been murdering for centuries...is that part of a natural law?

YOu believe people should not have sex out of wedlock because you believe marriage is a covenant. THose are your standards and ideals. I hope you live up to them. I don't owe it to you to live up to your standards and ideals Only you owe that to yourself.

to you...it's a union, not a marriage. How narrow minded , How sad .

"Not as good...?" According to you??? Your ethical and moral code applies to ALL OF US? You mean all this time you had the Ultimate Truth locked up and you waited until NOW to come to DU and SHARE it with us lowly sinners. How dare you make us wait for Enlightenment???? :grr:

Answer this:

My girlfriend and I live together unmarried and don't want anything to do with spawning. We also loathe Judeo-christianity-flavored monotheism. Do you think we are:

1. Hopeless sinners who will burn in hell because we reject gawd?

2. Less happy and fulfilled than people married with or without spawn?

3. Lusting after your Jell-o?

:eyes:

can I lust after your jell-o?

That's right, that's me, Rabrrrrrr, with 6 r's, martini in hand too late for coffee sorry, lusting after your jell-o tonight. :hi:

I want it!

Did you see it wiggle? It WANTED IT!

At what age is a male 'a man'....and a female 'a woman'?

of people in this world is that definition valid, true, and real. The vast majority, and I mean vast, view marriage as a social contract that organizes property and maintains lineage. It is not about God for them and if you read the Old Testament you won't find God and marriage connected either.

that a 'vast majority' of the world's married people believe God has no part in it. This is counter to human nature.

are not Christian. And while Islam and Christianity flow out of Judaism, they really do worship different gods, though ostensibly the same one, and we all have much to teach each other.

But even if you want to say that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have the same God, that's still not even 50% of the world's population. And of course, those tradition's ideas of marriage can be quite different, as some uslims and some Jews continue to carry on the arranged marriage tradition.

See, you are making this claim again that human nature is to be Christian, or at least a YHWH worshiper, and that whatever it is you believe in is 100% normalized, because apparently what you follow is simple, pure, unadulterated (no pun intended) human nature.

"I'm just me, I believe in God, so believing in God must be human nature". I just don't buy it.

Be honest, and say that you believe "standard" Christian morality, based on a firm belief in an incarnate and immanent God, is the best path to social harmony. If you would be honest and say that, I'd accept it, but you keep trying to say that believing that is just human nature, so anything is, ipso facto and obviously, contrary to human nature and thus part of what makes society fall apart.

Don't two-fifths of the world's population live in China and India?

isn't really a marriage anyway, so I guess actually it is true - the majority of married people believe in God, since to not believe in God implies that one isn't, perhaps, really married.

Damn me to hell!

AND she was preggers at the time! That baby is now in college.

And her uncle is getting really old...

The Catholic church wanted more money than they had, so they got married by a judge. They were married for 57 years -- until my father died.

Friend of mine is catholic, was confirmed just a few years ago at the age of about 35-40 (but always had been catholic), said it cost her a fair amount of change. She and her husband, ten years ago, wanted to get married in the Catholic church, but they couldn't afford it then. Last year, they redid tehir vows in a Catholic ceremony, and she said it was quite expensive. And not for a party or anything - it was just a lot of money to have the ceremony performed.

So apparently things haven't changed much. I hadn't realized there is a tradition of Catholic marriages being expensive - I always assumed tehy'd be cheaper than protestant ones, due to the differing nature between priest and church in Catholicism, and minister and church in protestantism.

57 years - pretty impressive. But imagine how much better their marriage would have been had it been sanctioned by a minister and done in the name of God. :eyes: /sarcasm off.

...my sister and I are bastards! LOL, my sister is principal of a Catholic grade school.

You mean if their marriage had been sanctioned by a priest, etc., that my father would not have died? Jeez, my mother is alive at nearly 92. What do you suppose that means?????

<sarcasm off>

On edit: I have heard of many Catholic parish pastors who bore the name of William being nicknamed "Dollar Bill".

That was my first sarcastic thought, was to respond with "He wouldn't have died so early had God not decided to judge one of them for their secular marriage..." (of course, I don't mean that at all!)

And I spin it even further - your mother has lived to 92 as punishment, so she has more time to consider her sin.

I'd make a good republicn, since I can think that way. Sort of like "we have to respect the presidency and the president because God chooses them, except Clinton and Carter, because obviuosly God chose them as punishment for our sinful society".

Pfagh.

Never heard "Dollar Bill" before - funny! And I suppose now with the lawsuits costing so much, might have more of that going on...

Friend of mine is catholic, was confirmed just a few years ago at the age of about 35-40 (but always had been catholic), said it cost her a fair amount of change. She and her husband, ten years ago, wanted to get married in the Catholic church, but they couldn't afford it then. Last year, they redid tehir vows in a Catholic ceremony, and she said it was quite expensive. And not for a party or anything - it was just a lot of money to have the ceremony performed.

I went through something similar when I was younger (it didn't help the marriage, though :-( ), and not only was being confirmed and repeating the vows in the RCC not expensive, it literally didn't cost a cent.

I think your friend's experience (if recounted correctly) is an anomaly.

Surprised me, too, since I would think the Catholics would be much more prone to have it be cheap than Protestants. But GreatAunt related similar story.

Maybe it's just here in the NY area - my friend is in Westchester,so they might be a little more prone to ask for bigger bucks there, since there are so many there who HAVE bigger bucks.

But other than her story, I have no info, so I make no conclusions about the Catholic church in toto.

Unless you're willing to say that atheists, muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc., and all those married by judges or other non-clergy in the U.S., or perhaps tribesin Africa and South America, and not to mention the Aboriginees, Native Americans, and Confuscionists... aren't actually married, unless you're willing to make a huge theological leap and say that, "Well, as long as the intent is there, the couple is married in the eyes of God even if they are heathens."

By your definition, just based on population, only about 5% of married people are actually "married".

So, you could be saying that all the problems in India are caused by lack of marriage, which lack of marriage is caused by lack of proper religion.

Woo hoo!!

You go!!

Thank you for the bigotry.

The only thing I've appreciated so far in your writing is that you believe abstinence before marriage is a good thing. I can buy that, totally, and respect you for it. I don't think it's NECESSARY, but I'm with you in thinking it's a good tihing. But what I DO NOT appreciate is your constant "truth from high" pronouncements of "natural law" and "the way it's always been done" and "this is what God wants" etc. etc. etc.

That's what I find most bothersome - truth from on high, and for the most part, a rather poorly developed hermeneutic and understanding of human history of marriage.

There are many that believe in diffrent gods? Do those marrages apply?

...not only post-dates "Old Testament" times, but also most of the "Christian" era. You see, requiring a "blessing...invoked through a minister of God" wasn't even required by Rome until the twelfth century CE!

valid point. One I was going to make which is when was marriage instituted, how is it defined, and what was it like before marriage. If I say three times that I divorce my wife is that okay? If I am married to a non- christian believer can I dissolve the marriage with out doing wrong? Marriage as defined by my religious tradition is leaving one's parents and becoming one with that other person with whom you wish to share life. It is the act of becoming one AKA sex that starts and maintains the agreement so sex predates marriage and generates it. But I have a feeling that I am talking to a wall.

I won't ask the next question. Not sure if you've addressed these questions or not, and I just want to see where you're coming from (no pun intended, really).

:shrug:

and, yes, we abstained before marriage

you lusted then you too are guilty so whoever is innocent can caste the first stone.

Not condemning people.

doesn't really exist IS an indictment of sorts unless you are prepared to say it is what you believe is right for you and should not be hoisted onto others as an expectation.

No pass.

YOU are condemning people based on your interpretation of "proper" and "natural" behavior and action. And sadly, I don't think you even realize it; or else you aren't filled with enough courage to admit it.

We are discussion (sic) behavior and actions here. Not condemning people.

Cut the passive-aggressive act. The entire "discussion" on your part consists of condemning people who are sexually-active outside of a "marriage...with a blessing invoked by a minister of God."

I've been single all of my life. Got close to marrying one of my girlfriends, but she broke it off when it got too serious for her. And yes we had sex. In fact, since becoming 'of age' in the '70s, I've had quite a bit of consensual sex. (No brag, just fact, LOL)

I consider myself to be a pretty nice guy, and I've remained friends with just about any woman I've gone out with, let alone have sex with. I was an 8th Grade school teacher, I've volunteered to work in soup kitchens for the homeless, and helped put together a non-profit organization for a couple of friends dying of cancer who had no health cooverage.

I'm very non-violent, and people seem to like me a lot.

Point is: For you to say that unmarried sex is the cause of many of societies problems, is to state a partial fact, that does not apply to thousands upon thousands of others. There are many single sexually fulfilled people right here on the DU.

Ok, maybe that isn't, and never was your 'cup of tea'. But there are far too many people out there, who because they are happy with their choices\circumstances, that they feel obliged to state that their way is the 'legitimate' way. And I think that's just about as valid as me telling you MY way is the legitimate way.

There are many folks, who think that if you are not in marital bliss like they are (and bless them BTW), that somehow you're some poor unfortunate creature that deserves pity.

And THAT is real self-serving, ya know. You can be happy and fulfilled in your way, and I will root for ya. Hell, I root for people's happiness all the time. We need more of it, ya know.

I'd just suggest that it would be nice to get the same from you!

Peace! :hi:

presumes to speak for humanity -- all of it and it's entire history. it's all bunk.
you can't ''prove'' a word of it -- you say the problem is a 50% divorce rate -- why? why is that a problem? we marry today for ''romantic'' reasons. our parents and relatives stay out of it. and ''romantic'' love is open to very human changes. shall we go back to arranged marriages?
at the turn of the 1800's to the 1900's most girls got married because they had to -- nobody{or many} was keeping their legs closed.
single people are unhappy? -- who the fuck says -- i'm single and like it that way very much thank you.
the poster propagandizes the existing paradigm -- because that's what the poster is invested in -- pre-christian cultures had some other ideas about sex and sexuality and they got along fine. and you can't prove a society or culture went to pieces because of lots of indiscriminate fucking -- all cultures every where and at all times indulge in degree of indiscriminate fucking that always surprizes folks.
the poster does not own the truth -- but simply passes a version of the truth as the poster sees it. and it's warped.

are happy with your life and the choices you have made. Hopefully it is true that your former partners have not been hurt by the demise of your relationship after sex, presuming there was a relationship other than sexual. Thankfully (I assume) there were no children involved, for there is where the tragic effect of broken relationships is most felt.
I, however, will stand by my contention that the general overall effect of sex outside of marriage is a detrimental one. Shattered trust, shattered expectations, and shattered security are more often the case with these experiences. If you and your partners and all involved have escaped unscathed, I am pleased for all of you.

have been with married people and catholic priests.
but these were very adult affairs -- not adolecent fantacies that you seem to think the entire human population indulges in.
not every body suffers from the delusion that a romantic/sexual relationship has to end up looking and feeling like a car wreck.
just those of you who feel compelled to make the rest of us sing your song.
and don't make judgements about what kind of parent i might or might not be -- i assure you that you've not set a ''perfect'' example either.

I have to admire your stick-to-it-iveness on this thread, though. There's lots of shit to be stirred, and you've got a big fucking spoon!!

Did you read about the fundies who murdered their kid to get the devil out?

I cannot believe you're still here.

Cat

edit: clarity

Err, so to speak.

:kick:

my hunny has been out of the country for 5 LONG DAMN months and he's coming back on FRIDAY godwilling! good thing it's a holiday weekend, lololol!

Sex is great! married or not!!!!!

:shrug: