Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why do you wait till after marriage? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Religion is a big one for me.
    Next biggest thing is not getting too emotionally caught up in a guy that hasn't committed to me. Anyone can walk away, at any point, and I'd rather know that he'd have to divorce me to walk away, then just get up and leave. I am waiting till I am married. I think it will be a hard challenge, but I don't want to get that physical with someone and then lose them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Do you know what? I'm a guy and I'm a virgin and I'm proud to say it. I'm happy with myself for not succumbing to peer pressure or how society thinks that men need to sleep around in order to look cool and tough. I think it's sad how men compete with each other in these worthless things. I have friends who tell me I'm 'missing out' but I don't care. I don't need to sleep around to have fun and never will. I expect my wife to be virgin too and so I'll also keep my side of the bargain. IMO guys who remain virgins till after marriage are the stronger ones as living in a society where there is constant temptation everywhere is extremely difficult, and I praise those who do not give in to those temptations. It takes a LOT of courage to do that. Especially when society is judging you 24/7. Well done for standing up for yourselves
    If you are so proud of your virginity, then why are you under anonymity?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom78)
    You're not better than anyone else, it's not cool to be a virgin, loser.
    I wouldn't say that it is necessarily uncool either. However, that 'holier than thou' attitude without any reasonable reasons is annoying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Even as a conservative Christian, I will never tell my daughter or son to save her/himself, just because the Bible says to. Then, if they don't wait until they're married, they could feel really guilty like God doesn't love them just because they didn't wait. I want them to have other reasons for waiting, so that they are more likely to wait, and won't think that they're going to Hell or something if they don't. The closest I have been to a guy is laying my head on his chest, and then I found out yesterday that he didn't even like me. Now, I feel stupid and hurt, and I know that if I were to take it farther than that, and the same thing happen, I would be an emotional wreck.
    My husband doesn't have to be a virgin, because I will love him no matter what, because that to me is how love works. However, it would be really special if he does save himself for me.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ZaneHC)
    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.
    You seem to be unaware that you're addressing two separate posts. If you hadn't mentioned the STDs, I wouldn't have known it was a reference to my post.

    "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." - What gives you a monopoly on correct interpretation? I clearly referenced where I got my information from and argued each point logically and in detail. Simply stating you believe I'm wrong doesn't make that the case. I'm not just going to take your word on what the teaching meant. My command of the English language is just as good as yours. Mere assertion will not do. Provide an argument or don't bother engaging with me. I'm not going to write another essay on it but, briefly: You've contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You say that isolating sex from the possibility of procreation is a sin and then you've said that it isn't a sin to have sex that doesn't serve the purpose of procreation. Can you really not see why that statement contradicts itself?

    "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?" - Why indeed? That's not for me to answer. I am an atheist; it is not for me to explain the flaws in your god's work.

    "Moreover, He clearly made the woman's fertility cyclical (fairly predictable). That seems to imply He'd like us to know about it" - It implies no such thing. Again, please stop insinuating that you know the intentions of beings other than yourself. There could be any number of reasons why a supernatural creator would create a pattern.

    "Likewise, you are correct in saying that to say that the primary purpose is procreation does not in any way disqualify any other purposes." - Two problems here. First, I did not say that it didn't disqualify other purposes; quite the opposite, I argued that procreation is the all-important purpose and if pleasure is derived as a happy side-effect of that, god doesn't seem to mind. I pointed out that other forms of sex are prohibited even if they are pleasurable. To be clear: it disqualifies every purpose that is not procreative. Secondly, you've contradicted yourself again. Here's an excerpt from your first post:

    (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.
    And now you say that it is the primary purpose. You're patently unable to form a coherent view on this as you're moving the goalposts to avoid losing the argument. I don't know what to argue here since you don't seem to be able to make your mind up.

    "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." - I did not suggest that it is in the scriptures of the Church to populate the world. kumon accused me of spreading STDs and causing overpopulation. I argued that the Church's teachings on family planning and contraception are more likely to cause overpopulation. Not so, you said, we have NFP. I then went through NFP with you and explained why it doesn't deserve the title and that all the NFP methods involve having sex when the woman is naturally infertile (menopause, pregnancy etc.). Therefore, it is not family planning at all because it is impossible to conceive in those circumstances. Family planning entails consciously regulating the size of your family by actively avoiding conception. It doesn't count if conception is impossible in the first place. You don't get first prize for family planning if you're infertile.

    "No one is accusing you of to the spread of STDs my friend. No need to feel insulted." - Is that so?

    (Original post by kumon)
    And you say i'm judging, at least i'm not spreading sexual diseases and increasing potential for overpopulation
    This is what comes of defending what somebody else said: Your statement is incontrovertibly false. I have every right to be insulted when somebody makes an accusation like that. It wasn't you, but the accusation was made, despite your claim to the contrary. Please read the thread properly before spouting falsehoods of this kind.

    "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." - Better than, say, getting tested for an STD prior to having sex? That's comparable to saying that, because the majority of motoring accidents are caused by humans driving cars, one should never drive for fear of causing an accident. One shouldn't even make an attempt to learn to reduce the likelihood. No thanks. You can keep that advice.

    "'Safe' sex doesn't imply safe from STDs, it means safe from pregnancy as if it were a disease." - False. One hundred percent false. The Wikipedia definition is this: Safe sex is sexual activity engaged in by people who have taken precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV/AIDS. Engaging in safe sex may prevent pregnancy because it is designed to prevent exchange of bodily fluids between genitalia. Both pregnancy and STD transmission rely on this exchange. Just because pregnancy is prevented by it does not make it the purpose of safe sex; nor has anyone called pregnancy a "disease." I should point out that safe sex is had by homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples and only one of those demographics is able to conceive without external intervention.

    "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." - Do you hear yourself? How would preventing the exchange of fluids during sex not protect one from contracting an STD? The success rate is less than one hundred percent but it's pretty damn close. If the main form of transmission is sex, surely it makes sense to focus on preventing transmission during, I don't know, sex?

    The second part of your post seems to be in response to someone else but I should make one quick point:

    "Again, there is no benefit from sexual behavior that cannot be achieved through another means." - You cannot possibly believe this... Please enlighten me as to how one achieves an orgasm without resorting to sexual behaviour? Not to mention the benefits for immunity and decreased risk of prostate cancer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by futuremedic19)
    I want to do the same. But as you know it's a trillion times harder for a guy to wait.
    Hope you found that special person
    I would like to know how you know its "a trillion times harder" for a guy
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You seem to be unaware that you're addressing two separate posts. If you hadn't mentioned the STDs, I wouldn't have known it was a reference to my post.

    "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." - What gives you a monopoly on correct interpretation? I clearly referenced where I got my information from and argued each point logically and in detail. Simply stating you believe I'm wrong doesn't make that the case. I'm not just going to take your word on what the teaching meant. My command of the English language is just as good as yours. Mere assertion will not do. Provide an argument or don't bother engaging with me. I'm not going to write another essay on it but, briefly: You've contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You say that isolating sex from the possibility of procreation is a sin and then you've said that it isn't a sin to have sex that doesn't serve the purpose of procreation. Can you really not see the why that statement contradicts itself?

    "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?" - Why indeed? That's not for me to answer. I am an atheist; it is not for me to explain the flaws in your god's work.

    "Moreover, He clearly made the woman's fertility cyclical (fairly predictable). That seems to imply He'd like us to know about it" - It implies no such thing. Again, please stop insinuating that you know the intentions of beings other than yourself. There could be any number of reasons why a supernatural creator would create a pattern.

    "Likewise, you are correct in saying that to say that the primary purpose is procreation does not in any way disqualify any other purposes." - Two problems here. First, I did not say that it didn't disqualify other purposes; quite the opposite, I argued that procreation is the all-important purpose and if pleasure is derived as a happy side-effect of that, god doesn't seem to mind. I pointed out that other forms of sex are prohibited even if they are pleasurable. To be clear: it disqualifies every purpose that is not procreative. Secondly, you've contradicted yourself again. Here's an excerpt from your first post:



    And now you say that it is the primary purpose. You're patently unable to form a coherent view on this as you're moving the goalposts to avoid losing the argument. I don't know what to argue here since you don't seem to be able to make your mind up.

    "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." - I did not suggest that it is in the scriptures of the Church to populate the world. kumon accused me of spreading STDs and causing overpopulation. I argued that the Church's teachings on family planning and contraception are more likely to cause overpopulation. Not so, you said, we have NFP. I then went through NFP with you and explained why it doesn't deserve the title and that all the NFP methods involve having sex when the woman is naturally infertile (menopause, pregnancy etc.). Therefore, it is not family planning at all because it is impossible to conceive in those circumstances. Family planning entails consciously regulating the size of your family by actively avoiding conception. It doesn't count if conception is impossible in the first place. You don't get first prize for family planning if you're infertile.

    "No one is accusing you of to the spread of STDs my friend. No need to feel insulted." - Is that so?



    This is what comes of defending what somebody else said: Your statement is incontrovertibly false. I have every right to be insulted when somebody makes an accusation like that. It wasn't you, but the accusation was made, despite your claim to the contrary. Please read the thread properly before spouting falsehoods of this kind.

    "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." - Better than, say, getting tested for an STD prior to having sex? That's comparable to saying that, because the majority of motoring accidents are caused by humans driving cars, one should never drive for fear of causing an accident. One shouldn't even make an attempt to learn to reduce the likelihood. No thanks. You can keep that advice.

    "'Safe' sex doesn't imply safe from STDs, it means safe from pregnancy as if it were a disease." - False. One hundred percent false. The Wikipedia definition is this: Safe sex is sexual activity engaged in by people who have taken precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV/AIDS. Engaging in safe sex may prevent pregnancy because it is designed to prevent exchange of bodily fluids between genitalia. Both pregnancy and STD transmission rely on this exchange. Just because pregnancy is prevented by it does not make it the purpose of safe sex; nor has anyone called pregnancy a "disease." I should point out that safe sex is had by homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples and only one of those demographics is able to conceive without external intervention.

    "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." - Do you hear yourself? How would preventing the exchange of fluids during sex not protect one from contracting an STD? The success rate is less than one hundred percent but it's pretty damn close. If the main form of transmission is sex, surely it makes sense to focus on preventing transmission during, I don't know, sex?

    The second part of your post seems to be in response to someone else but I should make one quick point:

    "Again, there is no benefit from sexual behavior that cannot be achieved through another means." - You cannot possibly believe this... Please enlighten me as to how one achieves an orgasm without resorting to sexual behaviour? Not to mention the benefits for immunity and decreased risk of prostate cancer.
    Yes I believe we shouldn't drive cars. My point is valid as it causes CO2 and will kill people as well.
    We focus on productivity and profit more than human interactions.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by kumon)
    Yes I believe we shouldn't drive cars. My point is valid as it causes CO2 and will kill people as well.
    We focus on productivity and profit more than human interactions.
    I was addressing ZaneHC. Ugh, could everyone please stick to their own statements? :/

    The validity of your point is not determined by your gravely dubious morality. Want to hear a valid counterargument? Almost anything can be used to kill people. Should we ban rocks? Ought we to proscribe fruit knives? Should we, indeed, ban Roman Catholicism because of its role in the deaths of those in Africa who have followed its teachings about how AIDS, being bad, is still not as bad as condoms?

    "Causes CO2." Well done. Here's a present for your pioneering research into the crucial but as yet unpromising field of stating that which is apparent: :present:

    You "cause" CO2 as well each time you exhale. Will you elect to cease respiring to spare the world for the children you don't have yet? I suspect not. The religious can never seem to put their money where their mouths are.

    Also, in case you've missed it, this century's economies would screech to a halt without motorised vehicles. Research is being done to develop more environmentally friendly products. Do you know what that research cannot do without? Funding. Where does that funding come from? Governments and companies. None of which can run without evil CO2-producing, soul-sucking, sinfully conceived cars. You should run a course called Circular Logic 101.

    Stick to defending your own posts. You've seen how the converse has backfired on your comrade.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When you sleep with someone it's like a new level of connection. Imagine two pieces of paper that get glued together after they have sex. If they stay together the bond is amazing, but when they separate there is very little chance of both sides being torn perfectly. Now imagine that paper being re-glued over and over again, eventually there's just a lot of ripped and torn paper and you don't want to glue it anymore.

    That's why I'm waiting until I'm married, then the paper will be nice and clean. Also religion but that's pretty covered.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Having sex before marriage doesn't equal sleeping around? Just makes you sound like a judgemental idiot. You can have sex with a partner, a friend etc. And only with that same person for a long time...

    Also quit using stds and pregnancy as a reason, there's condoms and other contraception for a reason. Most people do and manage to avoid these.

    It also doesn't mean that you don't find sex emotional. Sleeping with a stranger is not romantic sex however, it's purely physical and people can learn to separate the two. Plus having your heart broken is good practice for yourself I think (just once as it teaches you not to be naive). Plus your husband could still walk away, marriage doesn't mean they're gonna stay around forever.

    I mean I respect your decision as it's a personal choice and I don't think anyone should interfere but it's so rude to go around claiming these things that I've just mentioned. Stop judging people for their choices as they don't judge you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I was addressing ZaneHC. Ugh, could everyone please stick to their own statements? :/

    The validity of your point is not determined by your gravely dubious morality. Want to hear a valid counterargument? Almost anything can be used to kill people. Should we ban rocks? Ought we to proscribe fruit knives? Should we, indeed, ban Roman Catholicism because of its role in the deaths of those in Africa who have followed its teachings about how AIDS, being bad, is still not as bad as condoms?

    "Causes CO2." Well done. Here's a present for your pioneering research into the crucial but as yet unpromising field of stating that which is apparent: :present:

    You "cause" CO2 as well each time you exhale. Will you elect to cease respiring to spare the world for the children you don't have yet? I suspect not. The religious can never seem to put their money where their mouths are.

    Also, in case you've missed it, this century's economies would screech to a halt without motorised vehicles. Research is being done to develop more environmentally friendly products. Do you know what that research cannot do without? Funding. Where does that funding come from? Governments and companies. None of which can run without evil CO2-producing, soul-sucking, sinfully conceived cars. You should run a course called Circular Logic 101.

    Stick to defending your own posts. You've seen how the converse has backfired on your comrade.
    And that would be good, it will save the planet and not flood people to death.
    Also the funding you said is like saying we should sell tobbaco to kids to get money so we can reasearch ways to make them stop, it's stupid hypocrisy.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by kumon)
    And that would be good, it will save the planet and not flood people to death.
    Also the funding you said is like saying we should sell tobbaco to kids to get money so we can reasearch ways to make them stop, it's stupid hypocrisy.
    Economic collapse would save the planet? Only after millions if not billions of lives are destroyed by your facile solutions. Don't you ever wonder why these solutions aren't used, if they are so simple? Because they wouldn't work. Not outside the minds of the economically illiterate. You don't seem to know what hypocrisy even is; if you did, you'd see the non-logic of what you said. You say that we should, as a species, go on a crash diet CO2-wise because it will save the planet, without considering the effect on people and the potential deaths from rioting, mass unemployment and the impossible competition for energy in a world like that. In the same sentence, you imply that doing this will stop floods, which you seem to think we should do to save lives. It will not. Why do you think the lives of people who die due to economic collapse are worth less than of those that die from flooding?

    "Flood people to death." - If we ceased using motorised vehicles, flooding would not stop. Rising sea levels increase the risk of flooding in low-lying countries like the Maldives, yes, but an effort is being made to cut emissions on a global level albeit, I concede, it is not substantial enough.

    "Also the funding you said is like saying we should sell tobbaco to kids to get money so we can reasearch [sic] ways to make them stop, it's stupid hypocrisy." - False comparison. In the case of CO2 emissions, we suffer from the problem of being dependent on something of which the negative effects have only been known to us in the last few decades. Restricting the use of something that the populace does not want to do without has not and will not ever work. Prohibition in the United States is an example of this. Laws are only as good as the authorities' ability to enforce them. You also seem to be oblivious to the fact that the tax paid on tobacco is not spent on trying to find "ways to make them stop." It is taxed because of the extra burden on the health service for treating that individual in the future. As for hypocrisy, you evidently don't know what it means. Hypocrisy is the act of not practicing yourself that which you preach to others. The charge that you tried to levy (I think) is that I'm trying to cure a problem by means which exacerbate it. I've already said it once: Not enough is being done to tackle global warming but your solution, in all honesty, is oversimplified bull****.

    This is the last reply I'm going to make to an irrelevant point. Don't try to veer off the subject because you've unsurprisingly exhausted your (woefully paltry) supply of good arguments.

    Good day, sir.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Do you know what? I'm a guy and I'm a virgin and I'm proud to say it. I'm happy with myself for not succumbing to peer pressure or how society thinks that men need to sleep around in order to look cool and tough. I think it's sad how men compete with each other in these worthless things. I have friends who tell me I'm 'missing out' but I don't care. I don't need to sleep around to have fun and never will. I expect my wife to be virgin too and so I'll also keep my side of the bargain. IMO guys who remain virgins till after marriage are the stronger ones as living in a society where there is constant temptation everywhere is extremely difficult, and I praise those who do not give in to those temptations. It takes a LOT of courage to do that. Especially when society is judging you 24/7. Well done for standing up for yourselves
    Bit late but you deserve a round of applause
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    You don't need to sleep around just because you aren't waiting to get married to have sex...

    You could you know, just have sex with people who you are extremely comfortable with and have been in a relationship for a long time with.

    Given that sex is what it is - one of the most important parts in sexual relationships- it seems downright silly to marry someone before you even do anything sexual with them.

    "Oh I love your personality so much, I don't care about how you perform in bed".

    "Oh, you're a sadist are you? Didn't expect that one, let me just spend tens of thousands getting a divorce :eek:"

    I wonder if someone religious has married a transgender person without realising before lol?
    You marry based on love and trust. There has to be an issue if you can't trust your other half/don't tell them you're trans* before marrying. There must have been a conversation about that sometime before a ring was pulled out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm an ex-Christian, and when I was a Christian I felt obligated to wait until marriage because I was scared of committing such a huge sin.

    Now I'm an atheist I have not waited for marriage, why would I?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by COD_is_a_fish)
    You marry based on love and trust. There has to be an issue if you can't trust your other half/don't tell them you're trans* before marrying. There must have been a conversation about that sometime before a ring was pulled out.
    Yeah, I mean you'de think so wouldn't you? With arranged marriages and stuff though. You can never know.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alsklinq)
    I had that mentality to save my first time for the "love of my life" but then I realised people don't deserve that kind of respect.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    My reason is exactly this^

    Respect! But for myself first.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Yeah, I mean you'de think so wouldn't you? With arranged marriages and stuff though. You can never know.
    Arranged marriages have more to do with culture than religion, to be honest. Anyway, it's more forced marriages that are the problem than arranged ones. At least with arranged ones you can get to know them a bit, or say no.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by COD_is_a_fish)
    Arranged marriages have more to do with culture than religion, to be honest. Anyway, it's more forced marriages that are the problem than arranged ones. At least with arranged ones you can get to know them a bit, or say no.
    Even with arranged marriages though. Some of them are very swift. The getting to them bit isn't always extensive. No doubt a transgender person has slipped through the net in that regard quite a few times. Especially if they didn't tell their family or such that they were transgender, I imagine it happens quite a lot with homosexuals too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Even with arranged marriages though. Some of them are very swift. The getting to them bit isn't always extensive. No doubt a transgender person has slipped through the net in that regard quite a few times. Especially if they didn't tell their family or such that they were transgender, I imagine it happens quite a lot with homosexuals too.
    Still, it's more to do with the culture than the religion. To be honest, if that trans* or homosexual person was the type to want to slip through the net/not share their secret, I doubt they'd be hanging around much with/marrying an ONS or **** buddy.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.