Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Out of curiosity, OP, is seeking validation for your lifestyle choices the whole point of this thread? It seems like it, given that you seem to derive comfort from people who share your disdain for those who don't choose to lead sexually dysfunctional lives.
    And you say i'm judging, at least i'm not spreading sexual diseases and increasing potential for overpopulation
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Its just a nice idea isn't it? Its... nice to have your first time with the person you're gonna spend the rest of your life with. Also, the first time can be scary for people, and therefore doing it with someone they trust and love will make it less scary.

    Thats all.....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    1. I'm a Christian (least important reason tbh)

    2. I want to wait for someone special

    3. I don't want to become clingy to a person after sex and if I did, I'd rather it be my husband
    • #6
    #6

    (Original post by kumon)
    And you say i'm judging, at least i'm not spreading sexual diseases and increasing potential for overpopulation
    I didn't say you were judging; don't conflate what I say with what somebody else on my side of the house said. The religious can hardly acquit themselves of the charge of contributing to overpopulation given the strong emphasis on procreation as being the primary objective of sex. Some very large religions, including Roman Catholicism and Islam, are opposed to any use of contraceptives or family planning and consider those who choose not to have children to be selfish and greedy (http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ren-is-selfish).

    I don't understand how you're linking premarital sex with overpopulation. Are you suggesting that marriage decreases a couple's chance of conceiving when they have sex? I'm totally in the dark here; educate me, please.

    As for "sexual diseases", what makes you think only marriage can guarantee the containment of STDs? You seem to be insinuating that one can't be responsible with sex unless they're married. What would you make of a couple who had each other screened for STDs prior to consummating their relationship? I don't see how you can legitimately accuse someone who believes in safe sex of contributing to overpopulation or the spread of STDs. Marriage is no guarantee that those events will not occur.

    Lastly, you're being rather childish in your arguments. "At least I'm not doing *undesirable thing*!" That's called a tu quoque fallacy - trying to deflect criticism by trying to make the point that your own faults are justified because your critic has perceived flaws. So there you have it - why the reasoning for your argument is false and why your argument would be fallacious even if your reasoning was valid.
    Offline

    18
    Damn. I don't know why it switched me over to anonymous. :/ For anyone wondering who Anonymous #6 is, it's me. Could a mod please undo the anonymous feature on that post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I didn't say you were judging; don't conflate what I say with what somebody else on my side of the house said. The religious can hardly acquit themselves of the charge of contributing to overpopulation given the strong emphasis on procreation as being the primary objective of sex. Some very large religions, including Roman Catholicism and Islam, are opposed to any use of contraceptives or family planning and consider those who choose not to have children to be selfish and greedy (http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ren-is-selfish).


    I don't understand how you're linking premarital sex with overpopulation. Are you suggesting that marriage decreases a couple's chance of conceiving when they have sex? I'm totally in the dark here; educate me, please.

    As for "sexual diseases", what makes you think only marriage can guarantee the containment of STDs? You seem to be insinuating that one can't be responsible with sex unless they're married. What would you make of a couple who had each other screened for STDs prior to consummating their relationship? I don't see how you can legitimately accuse someone who believes in safe sex of contributing to overpopulation or the spread of STDs. Marriage is no guarantee that those events will not occur.

    Lastly, you're being rather childish in your arguments. "At least I'm not doing *undesirable thing*!" That's called a tu quoque fallacy - trying to deflect criticism by trying to make the point that your own faults are justified because your critic has perceived flaws. So there you have it - why the reasoning for your argument is false and why your argument would be fallacious even if your reasoning was valid.
    I believe your mistaken. The church does not believe that is sex's primary objective is not only to procreate, it is definitely meant for enjoyment as well as a sign of love and shared intimacy. They do however disapprove of contraceptives because it gives sex the potential a meaningless physical activity that people do just for enjoyment without the considerations of the repercussions of sex. We both agree that sex shouldn't be something that should be done without serious consideration. However, the Roman Catholic church as well as other branches of Christians DO believe in family planning (NFP).

    He is suggesting that there are many children born because of pre-marital sex that wouldn't have been conceived otherwise. This is irrelevant unless those children wouldn't have been conceived even if the couple got married.

    Marriage definitely puts huge limits on STDs. You don't generally have sex with someone else if you're married. If people didn't have multiple partners than the likelihood of people passing around STDs would be demolished. Marriage is not a guarantee that people won't get STDs ever but it prevents people from passing it on from person to person.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    We always here why horny chavs and other people like AlphaLADs don't wait to have sex and I don't judge them either way as that's how they were brought up or view their morals...

    but what what are your personal reasons for waiting to have sex until after marriage?

    People who wait until after marriage simply don't respect the institution of marriage. No wonder we have such high divorce rates, arrogant people simply do not do due diligence.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZaneHC)
    Yes I saw the slut shaming but that is not representative of any Christian belief. No need to talk about my sex life. All relationships are different and people need different things to feel loved, but no one NEEDS sex. All of my long term relationships including my current one is without sex and my partner is completely understanding and I make her feel more than loved in many different ways. If you find it hard to show someone how much you care about them without intercourse than thats pretty sad.

    Its good to hear your generally experiences with Christians aren't negative. But I believe your scientific views and scientific rationalism and studies into history and politics are biased. Sure there have been plenty of blunders in history in the name of Christianity, but Christianity and organized religion are the most positive forces in the world, promoting love, and the unity of mankind. As for the science, the first universities were started by the Church, and it is ridiculous to believe that all of the universe and all of its complexities and mysteries are the results of randomness. The basic living conditions on this planet are so fragile and finely tuned, and people are supposed to believe that no one designed or planned it.

    I understand not wanting to date someone of your own beliefs but if you truly loved the girl and she wanted to have sex with you but only after marriage you wouldn't be willing to put your needs on hold for her and needs. You don't have to want to have sex with someone to show them you're sexually attracted to them.

    What is wrong with the idea of exercising self control, patience and sacrifice for those you love?
    Tell me of ANY negative repercussions to trying this?
    It is though, this is a clear trend in Christianity. You're showing another trend- refusing to accept any negative behaviours common in your religion. Your sex life is kind of relevant, if you haven't had sex you can't comment on how enjoyable it is.

    Well I went to Christian schools and had a Christian upbringing, so if anything they were biased towards Christianity. If you really think Christianity has promoted unity of mankind, I don't think you really know anything about its' history at all. Even within Christianity, a few hundred years ago we were burning each other alive in the name of a slightly different interpretation of Christian faith. Do you know about the Spanish Inquisition? Surely you can think of forces in history that never did anything so evil? Even in the past few decades, we've had the Troubles in Ireland, peadophillia cover ups, the Serbian genocide...

    The living conditions answer is easily answered- we adapted to our environment, not the other way around, the earth was around a long time before humans. When you consider how many planets exist, it's pretty much inevitable some have conditions that can support human life. So many geniuses have done so much work on this, proven how so many "mysteries" take place, it's kind of frustrating when people just dismiss them outright.

    No, if her attitude is that she won't compromise on the matter, why should I do all the compromising? Love isn't about just doing whatever you're told. The whole sex before marriage thing was in societies where people got married very young, and quickly too. I don't want to get married for a good few years. I also don't think marriage is really that important, so there's a pretty important difference in belief there. I think I'd be much more stressed if I never had sex, so this is something that's really going to affect my quality of life.

    Well obviously sex is pleasurable and it makes people happy. Isn't happiness one of the most important things in life- both being happy yourself and making your partner happy? It's a sacrifice that doesn't gain you anything. If me and my girlfriend break up tomorrow I won't think I've wasted my time and that we've sullied ourselves, I'll be ****ing gutted, but I'll have had over three years of great times with a wonderful person, including some incredible sex. All happy memories, life lived well.

    And what if you never marry? You could miss out on one of life's great experiences. I agree that there are loads of other things in life that are great as well as sex, but there's no either/or here, having sex doesn't stop you enjoying other parts of life. In fact, a healthy sex life is proven to be good for both mind and body, so it will help you achieve other goals in life.

    Edit- I'm the one you replied to before by the way, I was automatically on anonymous for some reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mankytoes)
    It is though, this is a clear trend in Christianity. You're showing another trend- refusing to accept any negative behaviours common in your religion. Your sex life is kind of relevant, if you haven't had sex you can't comment on how enjoyable it is.

    Well I went to Christian schools and had a Christian upbringing, so if anything they were biased towards Christianity. If you really think Christianity has promoted unity of mankind, I don't think you really know anything about its' history at all. Even within Christianity, a few hundred years ago we were burning each other alive in the name of a slightly different interpretation of Christian faith. Do you know about the Spanish Inquisition? Surely you can think of forces in history that never did anything so evil? Even in the past few decades, we've had the Troubles in Ireland, peadophillia cover ups, the Serbian genocide...

    The living conditions answer is easily answered- we adapted to our environment, not the other way around, the earth was around a long time before humans. When you consider how many planets exist, it's pretty much inevitable some have conditions that can support human life. So many geniuses have done so much work on this, proven how so many "mysteries" take place, it's kind of frustrating when people just dismiss them outright.

    No, if her attitude is that she won't compromise on the matter, why should I do all the compromising? Love isn't about just doing whatever you're told. The whole sex before marriage thing was in societies where people got married very young, and quickly too. I don't want to get married for a good few years. I also don't think marriage is really that important, so there's a pretty important difference in belief there. I think I'd be much more stressed if I never had sex, so this is something that's really going to affect my quality of life.

    Well obviously sex is pleasurable and it makes people happy. Isn't happiness one of the most important things in life- both being happy yourself and making your partner happy? It's a sacrifice that doesn't gain you anything. If me and my girlfriend break up tomorrow I won't think I've wasted my time and that we've sullied ourselves, I'll be ****ing gutted, but I'll have had over three years of great times with a wonderful person, including some incredible sex. All happy memories, life lived well.

    And what if you never marry? You could miss out on one of life's great experiences. I agree that there are loads of other things in life that are great as well as sex, but there's no either/or here, having sex doesn't stop you enjoying other parts of life. In fact, a healthy sex life is proven to be good for both mind and body, so it will help you achieve other goals in life.

    Edit- I'm the one you replied to before by the way, I was automatically on anonymous for some reason.
    I also went to Christian school and most of the time it sounded like they were clearing up the misconceptions that seem to have bought into. I know my Christian history pretty well, and I would like to point out that Christians are humans not gods. Sometimes we are selfish and we can do the most terrible things, I do not deny that and I do not deny any horrors committed by Christians. But I tell you, what they did or do is wrong. That does not mean the faith and everything the Christians believe in promote or support their actions. You think the church supports pedophelia? Behind these horrors isn't Christian teaching, it is the selfishness of people, you should very well know that since you went to Christian school.

    This is true, we adapted to the environment, but the complexity of even the most basic building block of life cannot be thought of as random, the simple atom is so complex entire sciences are focussed around it. This was planned or created, or else tell me how it came to be?

    The point is why don't you be selfless and compromise for her, if she believes it important. If she wants to have sex with you but would rather wait till marriage, it doesn't mean she doesn't love you. If you tell her she has to have sex with you to date you is that not love either? The whole "sex before marriage thing" is still an ongoing trend, it didn't just stop. People want those waiting for marriage to believe no one else is waiting to encourage them to have sex. If you don't want to get married thats you, and your girlfriend's choice. You would be more stressed if you didn't have sex? you could just as easily go beat it off, and it would be cheaper to because you don't need a contraceptive for that.
    My girlfriend wants to have sex, she hasn't been waiting for marriage. It's something that didn't occur to her. But when I explained to her what it meant to me, and why I want to wait, she is completely understanding that me waiting to have sex after marriage is a sign of love for her, and her waiting for me is a sign that she loves me as well. This does not mean that we don't enjoy everything else(which I agree is kind of hypocritical, but I'm human and I'm working on it). We are doing just great without sex.

    Sex is supposed to make people happy, and I hope it never makes anyone feel any other way. But I disagree, happiness is not the most important thing in life. Loving others is. Who cares if you're not happy? Happiness is a state of mind. You can make yourself happy. You shouldn't be dependent on things to make you happy. You are NOT entitled to be happy.
    Waiting for marriage is a sacrifice that helps me learn to be patient, control myself, decreases my chances of divorce, protects me from STDs, show my partner/future wife that I'm thinking of her and committed to her, so yes there are a lot of benefits to waiting for marriage.

    If you miss out on sex (God forbid), than you'll never know what your missing and I'm sure you'll find something else to enjoy.
    All the healthy benefits from sex can be obtained from going to the gym, having a balanced diet, and if need be jerking it off. No one ever died from not having sex.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ZaneHC)
    I believe your mistaken. The church does not believe that is sex's primary objective is not only to procreate, it is definitely meant for enjoyment as well as a sign of love and shared intimacy. They do however disapprove of contraceptives because it gives sex the potential a meaningless physical activity that people do just for enjoyment without the considerations of the repercussions of sex. We both agree that sex shouldn't be something that should be done without serious consideration. However, the Roman Catholic church as well as other branches of Christians DO believe in family planning (NFP).

    He is suggesting that there are many children born because of pre-marital sex that wouldn't have been conceived otherwise. This is irrelevant unless those children wouldn't have been conceived even if the couple got married.

    Marriage definitely puts huge limits on STDs. You don't generally have sex with someone else if you're married. If people didn't have multiple partners than the likelihood of people passing around STDs would be demolished. Marriage is not a guarantee that people won't get STDs ever but it prevents people from passing it on from person to person.
    You seem to have a perennially romantic interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Here's paragraph 2351 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church under 'Offences against chastity':

    "2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."

    [Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs.../p3s2c2a6.htm]

    If my memory serves me well, I claimed that the Church (and Islam) places a strong emphasis on procreation as the primary objective of sex. This quote clearly states that sexual pleasure is immoral if there is no prospect for procreation or marital union associated with it. Notice that procreation is stated as a primary objective. Was I wrong to state that? I think not.

    I should clarify, however, because I think this will come up later if I don't: procreation and union are clearly described in the same vein here. They are not separate pursuits in the view of the Church. So one cannot simply have sex for enjoyment or intimacy with one's spouse. Rather, the Church simply regards it as a harmless consequence of the only recognised aim of having sex - procreation. At the risk of deriving more meaning from the quote than is possible, I'd like to point out that the Church's proscription of any sexual acts that do not lead to procreation is further evidence of this. The Church disallows all other forms of sex between a married couple, pleasurable or not. What other conclusion can be drawn from this, other than that procreation is clearly the most important if not the all-important goal of sex? I have no idea why they've included marital union in the catechism. Perhaps to make it more romantic for a modern audience? You'd have to ask the people who write these things.

    As for 'natural family planning', for the vast majority of the Church's existence, it has opposed all forms of contraception and family planning, natural or otherwise. For the benefit of those readers who don't know what it is, natural family planning methods comprise the following:

    1. Sexual intercourse undertaken after the wife has reached menopause, in which instance procreation within the marriage is impossible anyway.

    2. Sexual intercourse undertaken during pregnancy. Procreation already in progress.

    3. Sexual intercourse undertaken during parts of a woman's menstrual cycle when she is naturally infertile. Again, this is not so much family 'planning' as it is opportunism. You're having sex at a time when it is physically impossible for the act to cause pregnancy. The mentality seems to be that you have an exception to the usual rule because this is nature's mistake in not keeping a woman fertile twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year from puberty to death. It's almost like god saying 'this one's on me, kids.'

    4. The last one, and the most respectable of the four, is that you're allowed to abstain from sex if you feel that having more children will affect the welfare of the prospective child due to financial hardship or other circumstances in which an addition to the family would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. Most of the details of this are largely irrelevant. My main point: You're still not allowed to have sex unless you intend to procreate. Is the point now comprehensively clear?

    No? Alright, then. I carried out some research and discovered that the NFP provisos did not emerge until the 1930s. Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical on New Year's Eve 1930 (see http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Libra...Casti_connubii). An excerpt from that:

    "Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in the married state, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."

    This statement has been interpreted ever since to justify both NFP and to assign to sex the secondary, unitive purpose, both of which were absent from Catholic teaching before that point in time. I do hope the point is made that procreation is the primary object of sex in Catholic teaching. I really could not be less concise. :/ From this, it can at least be said that the disapproval of contraceptives has little to do with preventing the relegation of sex to a 'meaningless physical activity.'

    Onto STDs. It may be true that fewer sexual partners reduces the risk of STD transmission (I haven't seen any evidence but let's, for the sake of argument, assume that it is true), but marriage is not the only institution which can ensure fewer sexual partners. That statement could only be true if adultery was illegal or impossible. There are plenty of people in committed relationships outside of marriage who don't have multiple sexual partners. In a minority of cases, people end up clicking with the first person they go out with and don't marry for years, if at all (in countries where equal marriage is not legal, this can be the case for some same-sex couples). So really, that argument is against those who sleep around and does not apply to those unmarried couples who are in committed relationships.

    But the original charge was that I, in my disagreement with the objectification of my virginity, spread STDs as a consequence of this. For that to happen, I would have to contract one in the first place. It's more than casual arrogance to suggest that just because I don't subscribe to your attitude to sex, I must somehow be contributing to the spread of STDs like I'm some sort of moron who doesn't know squat about safe sex. Not to mention that STDs can be spread through other media as well; abstinence closes only one possible door for transmission.

    Lastly, ZaneHC, with all due respect, I would greatly appreciate it if you let kumon defend his own remarks. I doubt the accuracy of what you think he meant because they are his comments, not yours. Only he can know exactly what he meant.

    My sincere apologies for the length of this post.
    • #5
    #5

    (Original post by ZaneHC)
    I also went to Christian school and most of the time it sounded like they were clearing up the misconceptions that seem to have bought into. I know my Christian history pretty well, and I would like to point out that Christians are humans not gods. Sometimes we are selfish and we can do the most terrible things, I do not deny that and I do not deny any horrors committed by Christians. But I tell you, what they did or do is wrong. That does not mean the faith and everything the Christians believe in promote or support their actions. You think the church supports pedophelia? Behind these horrors isn't Christian teaching, it is the selfishness of people, you should very well know that since you went to Christian school.

    This is true, we adapted to the environment, but the complexity of even the most basic building block of life cannot be thought of as random, the simple atom is so complex entire sciences are focussed around it. This was planned or created, or else tell me how it came to be?

    The point is why don't you be selfless and compromise for her, if she believes it important. If she wants to have sex with you but would rather wait till marriage, it doesn't mean she doesn't love you. If you tell her she has to have sex with you to date you is that not love either? The whole "sex before marriage thing" is still an ongoing trend, it didn't just stop. People want those waiting for marriage to believe no one else is waiting to encourage them to have sex. If you don't want to get married thats you, and your girlfriend's choice. You would be more stressed if you didn't have sex? you could just as easily go beat it off, and it would be cheaper to because you don't need a contraceptive for that.

    My girlfriend wants to have sex, she hasn't been waiting for marriage. It's something that didn't occur to her. But when I explained to her what it meant to me, and why I want to wait, she is completely understanding that me waiting to have sex after marriage is a sign of love for her, and her waiting for me is a sign that she loves me as well. This does not mean that we don't enjoy everything else(which I agree is kind of hypocritical, but I'm human and I'm working on it). We are doing just great without sex.

    Sex is supposed to make people happy, and I hope it never makes anyone feel any other way. But I disagree, happiness is not the most important thing in life. Loving others is. Who cares if you're not happy? Happiness is a state of mind. You can make yourself happy. You shouldn't be dependent on things to make you happy. You are NOT entitled to be happy.
    Waiting for marriage is a sacrifice that helps me learn to be patient, control myself, decreases my chances of divorce, protects me from STDs, show my partner/future wife that I'm thinking of her and committed to her, so yes there are a lot of benefits to waiting for marriage.

    If you miss out on sex (God forbid), than you'll never know what your missing and I'm sure you'll find something else to enjoy.
    All the healthy benefits from sex can be obtained from going to the gym, having a balanced diet, and if need be jerking it off. No one ever died from not having sex.
    It's factual that the senior authorities of the Catholic church covered up peadophillia many times. We've seen many scandals from other organisations, but this really is the lowest of the low, and sadly it's no exception in the history of the Catholic Church. What I learnt is that many religious conservative types care more about appearance than truth.

    Well obviously I don't know all the details on how atoms are formed, the greatest minds don't, but that doesn't mean we should just accept superstition, we've answered many great questions and we will answer more. But note I don't have a problem with belief, deism and the like, just organised religion. No matter how it's portrayed, atheism does not mean being 100% certain there's no God or any force of any kind (even Richard Dawkins said he can't be 100% certain), it just means you don't believe in God.

    It's not just about love, it's about compatability. Sometimes you just have to accept that there are important differences between you, that love alone can't reconcile. These people would also probably want to raise children Christian. For me, if I have children, a secular upbringing is completely non-negotiable. ******* is not the same as sex, that's like saying why do you feel the need to travel, you can just watch travel shows on tv? Contraception is also free.

    How is it a sign of love for her, when it's something you wanted before you met her? Putting your wishes over hers is an odd way to define love. It sounds like she's making the sacrifice, not you. And going part of the way... that's what other Christians I've known have done. It just sounds like you're tormenting yourselves to be honest. I'm not going to have a go at you for doing that- I don't think you can honestly expect people to go this long without sexual contact. I knew a Christian girl at uni, she was such a nice girl, and she waited for so long, and then just ended up doing it. I know she felt so **** about it, and it just pisses me off. We're human beings, we like ****ing each other. It's nature. She was more honest than most people, yet she gets all that crap because she followed a religion.

    I didn't say happiness is the most important thing in life, I said it's one of the most important. Again, it's worrying you don't see human happiness as important. That's another problem I have with religion. I think it's more important we are happy than we follow some ancient rules. As you say, happiness isn't an entitlement, you earn it. I found rejecting the Church really helpful for that. No Gods, no masters, just humanity.

    You should be able to learn how to control yourself without abstaining from sex. Divorce chances reflect finding the right partner more than sexual choice. But I know a lot of religious people stay in unhappy marriages because their God forbids it, or their community will ostracise them. I don't think low divorce figures are necessarily a good thing. Saudi Arabia's are presumably very low. It's a bit odd you say you're thinking of your partner, when they've explicitely told you they want to have sex.

    Of course it isn't essential to be healthy, I never claimed that. I'm just saying, we shouldn't ignore the fact that regular, safe sex is good for you.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wait, what?)
    Point 4)- you know girls enjoy and want sex too right? Saying that having premarital sex is seeing women as sex objects is sexist view, ONLY wanting sex; then yeah that would be using them and treating them as an object, unless that's only what they want (I know of successful friends with benefits etc) but if you're in a long term relationship and refuse sex because you aren't married, that's an immature and relationship damaging factor. A good giver? Hows about give an orgasm bro.
    Point 5) more sexism! Worse for the girl? Stop stereotyping.
    You know that break ups are emotional no matter what? (And not having sex before marriage is a reason relationships can break down, js) and you're acting like marriages can't be broken, well they can.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Listen, I am not trying to ram my views down your (or anybody else's) throat, mate but how is my view about premarital sex turning women into sex objects sexist?

    1. Yes, girls want sex too but the place to do it is in a committed relationship such as marriage. If a girl wants to have sex before marriage, chances are that she is not mature enough to understand that sex is not only a physical act but also an establisher of a strong bond between her and the guy (see point 3 and guess what happens when a break-up occurs). In fact, the view of premarital sex being OK is more sexist and more immature than its opposite. Premarital sex is much more of a damaging factor to a relationship than waiting till marriage can ever be. If I am in a relationship with the wrong person and we both know it, then, no matter how painful this can be, we'd break up and not marry to avoid potential marriage breakdown. There is a chance that we end up realising that we are made for each other and then get back together and eventually marry. If this doesn't happen, then simply, we are not made for each other.

    2. And yes, marriages break down for many reasons outside the issue of sex. I have never said they don't. If a marriage breaks down for another reason, chances are that the guy has married the wrong girl or vice versa. Back to the danger of premarital sex, this might sound like I am a complete nutcase to you, but premarital sex is one of the reasons why marriages can be at greater risk of ending in divorce. If a divorce doesn't happen, well Hallelujah, well done. However, more often, sex before marriage is a divorce risk factor, that's a fact.

    3. As I said, sex is much more than simply a physical act. It creates strong emotional bondages between the two people involved. If a break-up of the relationship occurs, the emotional pain that both partners experience is much bigger.

    4. And yes, a break-up is likely to be a bigger pain for the girl, simply because girls are generally more emotional and more vulnerable than guys are (there are exceptions); there are emotional guys (myself included) and there is nothing wrong with that. And again, how am I sexist by suggesting that a broken relationship where premarital sex was present is likely to be more painful for the girl as the weaker vessel than for the boy? I am not saying that this is 100% the case. I am saying there is such likelihood.
    What I am sure of is that a break-up of a relationship where partners have had sex before marriage is much more hurtful for them than a break-up of a relationship where there has not been premarital sex. Have a nice day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    It's factual that the senior authorities of the Catholic church covered up peadophillia many times. We've seen many scandals from other organisations, but this really is the lowest of the low, and sadly it's no exception in the history of the Catholic Church. What I learnt is that many religious conservative types care more about appearance than truth.

    Well obviously I don't know all the details on how atoms are formed, the greatest minds don't, but that doesn't mean we should just accept superstition, we've answered many great questions and we will answer more. But note I don't have a problem with belief, deism and the like, just organised religion. No matter how it's portrayed, atheism does not mean being 100% certain there's no God or any force of any kind (even Richard Dawkins said he can't be 100% certain), it just means you don't believe in God.

    It's not just about love, it's about compatability. Sometimes you just have to accept that there are important differences between you, that love alone can't reconcile. These people would also probably want to raise children Christian. For me, if I have children, a secular upbringing is completely non-negotiable. ******* is not the same as sex, that's like saying why do you feel the need to travel, you can just watch travel shows on tv? Contraception is also free.

    How is it a sign of love for her, when it's something you wanted before you met her? Putting your wishes over hers is an odd way to define love. It sounds like she's making the sacrifice, not you. And going part of the way... that's what other Christians I've known have done. It just sounds like you're tormenting yourselves to be honest. I'm not going to have a go at you for doing that- I don't think you can honestly expect people to go this long without sexual contact. I knew a Christian girl at uni, she was such a nice girl, and she waited for so long, and then just ended up doing it. I know she felt so **** about it, and it just pisses me off. We're human beings, we like ****ing each other. It's nature. She was more honest than most people, yet she gets all that crap because she followed a religion.

    I didn't say happiness is the most important thing in life, I said it's one of the most important. Again, it's worrying you don't see human happiness as important. That's another problem I have with religion. I think it's more important we are happy than we follow some ancient rules. As you say, happiness isn't an entitlement, you earn it. I found rejecting the Church really helpful for that. No Gods, no masters, just humanity.

    You should be able to learn how to control yourself without abstaining from sex. Divorce chances reflect finding the right partner more than sexual choice. But I know a lot of religious people stay in unhappy marriages because their God forbids it, or their community will ostracise them. I don't think low divorce figures are necessarily a good thing. Saudi Arabia's are presumably very low. It's a bit odd you say you're thinking of your partner, when they've explicitely told you they want to have sex.

    Of course it isn't essential to be healthy, I never claimed that. I'm just saying, we shouldn't ignore the fact that regular, safe sex is good for you.

    I believe you are interpreting the teaching incorrectly. The teaching meant that if you isolate the sex from the possibility of procreation you are committing a sin, not that if the sex doesn't serve the purpose of procreation. if God intended sexual activity to only be for procreation, why didn't He make the female fertile 24/7 as well as the male? That would have settled the issue. Moreover, He clearly made the woman's fertility cyclical (fairly predictable). That seems to imply He'd like us to know about it... Likewise, you are correct in saying that to say that the primary purpose is procreation does not in any way disqualify any other purposes. Even St. Paul says "Do not deprive each other, except for prayer" (1 Cor. 7:5)-- that is directed towards relations between husband and wife, not a directive to populate the world. Moreover, marriage itself as a sacrament and sexual relations as an inherent renewal of those vows is supposed to be an icon of Christ's marriage to His Bride, the Church... Christ's love for us is not limited to procreation (to baptism, creating new Christians). He does not give Himself to us either individually or as a Church because His primary purpose is to create new children for Himself through us. When we look at Church history, tradition, etc.

    No one is accusing you of to the spread of STDs my friend. No need to feel insulted. I am merely saying that if someone were to contract an STD from any media, they would spread it to much fewer individuals if they practiced abstinence. Unfortunately, you don't always know when you contract and STD or if you have. So to protect yourself and others, abstinence is the best bet. "Safe" sex doesn't imply safe from STDs, it means safe from pregnancy as if it were a disease. You yourself said you can contract STD's from other media, wearing a condom does not protect you from an STD.
    Its called STD for a reason, if it's main form of transmission wasn't sex, they probably wouldn't call it a sexually transmitted disease.

    "I can believe in God without religion" doesn't give you any more information on knowing, loving or serving God than saying you don't believe God exists at all does. If there is no religion that has it right, it gives us no more useful information than to say He does not exist, in other words. And if He doesn't exist, there isn't much use in saying that sex is good or evil in any form or expression. It's all just matter and energy at that point. You SHOULD be able to control yourself without abstaining from sex, that is true in marriage for sure!!-- but from the Christian perspective, all of the 'rules' come from the view that sex is a unique and powerful expression of oneself. There are more rules for fine china than there is for paper plates in my mom's house, but it's not because the china is bad-- quite the opposite. To say "hey, it's natural, so it's wrong not to do it" reduces it to a biological function. Christians don't feel that it is just a biological function, so we can't treat it as such: it is biological, with much more attached, and the emotional & psychological effects of sexual activity seem to back that up.

    Again, there is no benefit from sexual behavior that cannot be achieved through another means.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    We always here why horny chavs and other people like AlphaLADs don't wait to have sex and I don't judge them either way as that's how they were brought up or view their morals...

    but what what are your personal reasons for waiting to have sex until after marriage?
    No point
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, I love it when people say being a virgin equals respecting yourself, no it doesn't.
    • #7
    #7

    When I was growing up I told myself I'd wait until marriage to have sex. No one put pressure on me to think like this, and no, I don't come from a religious family. It used to be something I firmly believed in and I don't really know why. My parents are very liberal and have always encouraged me to do whatever makes me happy without the fear of judgement... I think that's why (once I turned 12/13) I decided there was no point in me waiting until marriage to have sex. I'm still a virgin by choice (at 18), not because I want to wait for marriage, but because I haven't felt ready for all the emotional stuff that comes with it. A friend of mine recently had sex for the first time after growing up around 'traditional' morals; she got so attached to the boy he ended up breaking things off with her and she had somewhat of a breakdown... I don't want that to be me. Seeing how other people have dealt with the concept of sex growing up has really swayed my opinion on this topic, my teachers for example always joke and laugh about sex as though it's something fun and enjoyable (which I'm sure it is). I have friends which are waiting for marriage, and that's fine, I respect that, as long as they're doing it for themselves and no one else.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BADBOY89)
    My personal reasons:

    1) I am a Christian, that is to say, a follower of Jesus Christ.

    2) I believe God made sex for us to enjoy but he has placed it in the boundaries of a committed relationship such as marriage.

    3) I think it's worth the wait. I have heard so many couples who had sex before marriage say 'I wish we had waited'. Waiting develops qualities like patience and self-control whilst in the 'In a Relationship' and 'Engaged' stages.

    4) If I aim for the bed when I am in a relationship, how does that make me a good giver? I am thinking of what I can give my girlfriend and wife-to-be, not what I can receive from her. Treating women as sex tools to satisfy my sexual lust is a big no no. People say that women should not be treated as sex objects, yet fail to realise that this is precisely what sex before marriage does.

    5) If a relationship does not work out, it is much more difficult for the couple, especially for the girl, to accept the break-up. Emotional pain for broken-up couples who have had premarital sex is much bigger than for those who have not had sex before marriage.

    God bless you, guys. Take care.
    I can totally relate with your reasons and it was like you were speaking my mind. I am a Christian and I know that God is against pre-marital sex. Your points are just spot on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You shouldn't ask religious people the questions just like that.

    Their lives are apparently controlled by the supernatural being that no one even know if it exists.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Religion and Family values


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I was planning to save it for marriage, but then I had an epiphany that I actually do not want to get married.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 6, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.