pre-marital sex [Archive] - LiveDaily Community

BrokenHalo

Jun 29th, 2004, 03:39 PM

LOL. okay, I was kidding about the murder thing, but it doesn't really surprise me that much that someone has honestly made that connection. *shakes head*. Of course I've been deemed the equivelent of a murderer by more than one person (because I am *gasp* bisexual...and have been in a committed relationship to someone of the same gender. Oh my!) Ah well.

Good luck with your website! It should be an interesting discussion a lot of the time (though you'll have to patrol your mesasge boards some of these discussions get NASTY! lol)

bekahbeans

Jun 29th, 2004, 10:36 PM

A whole message board about pre-marital sex?

Sounds like it would be...short lived.

katiejane

Jul 1st, 2004, 01:33 PM

WOW
how do you know i'm going to burn in hell for eternity? are you god?

bekahbeans

Jul 1st, 2004, 01:55 PM

He's oxymoron. Don't you get that!? :eek:

smackers

Jul 1st, 2004, 02:26 PM

^ Your avatar scares me.

aguilera_lover

Jul 1st, 2004, 07:20 PM

Pre-marital sex is not murder. But you will burn in hell for eternity. The choice is yours.

Dude, you're awesome.

:D

bekahbeans

Jul 2nd, 2004, 09:56 AM

^ Your avatar scares me.

aww, it's just a bunny! He's smiling at you! :D

tiger_rascal

Jul 2nd, 2004, 01:36 PM

I had a pet bunny.
Her name was Honey.
I loved her.

tiger_rascal

Jul 2nd, 2004, 05:18 PM

Can you prove with scripture oxymoron that if you have pre-marital sex you will burn for eternity in hell?

BrianWilly

Jul 2nd, 2004, 06:07 PM

Corinthians 6:9-11, "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God"

for·ni·ca·tion http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dforni cation) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (fôrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n.
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.There may be more passages, I'm not sure. I just did a quick web search. It's definitely possible that I'm interpreting it wrong, of course, but I'm under the impression that not inheriting the kingdom of God is pretty much the same as saying you're going to hell and not heaven.

tiger_rascal

Jul 2nd, 2004, 07:24 PM

Can that be forgiven?

BrianWilly

Jul 2nd, 2004, 08:04 PM

pinky

Jul 2nd, 2004, 09:33 PM

I thought that the only unforgiveable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Who is, of course, God. But I thought that blasphemy against the Father and Jesus are forgiveable.

MerrySunshine

Jul 3rd, 2004, 08:46 PM

Of course the point is well taken that sexual sin, any sin (apart from the blasphemy mentioned above), can be forgiven by God, but does that mean that because the sin will be forgiven that we are free to do as we please and then give a rather insincere, "Oops, Sorry, God," after the fact? No. "Everything is permissible for me"–but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"–but I will not be mastered by anything. I Cor. 6:12 "Everything is permissible"–but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"–but not everything is constructive. I Cor. 10:23. In other words, Paul is saying to the Corinthians, "Hey, you are free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that everything you do is good or right or worthy." We have to face facts that some of the things that we, humans here on earth, think are "OK" are not OK according to the terms of God's Word, the Bible. Believe how you want, but don't try to shoehorn the Bible into your personal belief system. If Biblical teachings don't fit your personal ethic, basically, you have two choices: you change your personal ethic or you skip Christianity and move on to a thought system more in keeping with your own relativism.

Once you become a Christian -- once you commit to the teachings and the lifestyle described in the Bible -- you have additional responsibilities, which include making every effort not to sin. And make no mistake, premarital sex is a sin -- it is as Brian correctly cited above, fornication. Here too, it's described as a sin against yourself: All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. I. Cor. 6:18 You certainly, as a Christian, wouldn't actively pursue a sinful course of action like premarital sex. If you do, you're breaking your commitment to God, basically, and as a Christian, you are responsible for making every effort to keep that commitment. So, sure, you can think premarital sex is OK, but that doesn't change what the Bible says about it. If you are a Christian then, presumably, you believe the Bible is true . . . and the Bible says don't screw around before you're married. You can't have it both ways.

tiger_rascal

Jul 3rd, 2004, 08:54 PM

Hi Merry! :biggrin:

I was not clear in my posts. I was speaking for those who are not Christian. Some make it seem that once the sin is committed by a non-Christian, you are still going to hell no matter what, because the Bible says so, and the Bible does not say so.

But from a Christian perspective, I understand your post entirely.

MerrySunshine

Jul 4th, 2004, 05:50 AM

That seems overly legalistic to me. Sure, that may be what most Christians believe. But that doesn't mean that a Christian has to believe this. As we have seen, there are many things that the bible says that have been re-interpreted for modern times. It seems to me that it would be possible for a committed Christian to be in a loving, monogamous pre-marital relationship and have sex without having to feel guilty or any less Christian about it.

It seems to you oxymoron, but you're an outside observer looking in. I'm a person who has lived this life for years. I think I can speak with some small amount of expertise on the subject where you cannot. Just as you can speak about German philosophers far above my level of competence. :) A person might not feel guilty about it, but he or she would still be sinning. He or she just wouldn't be bothered with his or her sin against him or herself, his or her partner, and God. But that's that person's deal to address with God. It doesn't change the character of the act as being sinful, it just means that the person doesn't feel any guilt about it.

You, oxymoron and a great many of the postmodernists walking around (not categorizing you, BTW, because you're far to complex to classify so simply), seem to like to see God as changing with people, but it God never changes. People change, but God doesn't. People's attitudes change, but God's don't. You seem to see God as something from within the person; a Christian sees God as an external and independent from him or herself. If you don't see God as external, then you're definitely not a Christian. Being a Christian means you've accepted Jesus, a real individual who walked the earth and who is not me or anyone but himself and who was God made flesh, as your Lord and Savior. That's a separate external God, not "the god within."

The thing is, as Paul said to the Corinthians, you can believe what you want, fine, but in choosing that belief you may just have to accept that it's not in keeping with what the Bible teaches. And if you're OK with that, well, then fine. But trying to wrench something as straight-forward as "do not fornicate" into "premarital sex is OK" is ridiculous. That's hardly overly legalistic. Even under the law, when something is clear on its face we don't fanny about trying to make it mean something it doesn't. It's when there is ambiguity in the law that the legal community, as well as the Christian one, divides. But there's no ambiguity on the premarital sex point. The Bible says quite straightforwardly that it's a sin. People just need to deal with it.

Leezard

Jul 4th, 2004, 10:44 AM

Thanks for that great lesson Merry!

jackiem

Jul 4th, 2004, 11:57 AM

Probably. As far as I know, there is only one unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible, which is blasphemy against God. And even so, it's mentioned that "by Him all that believe are justified from all things." I should mention that to my parole officer.

i was thinking the same. imo it's not right to have pre-marrital on sex, however i don't feel i have the right to damn others to places or judge them really, none of us r perfect

so basically merry ur sayuing if u don't accept every part of christianity u shouldn't be a christian?? :scratch:

tiger_rascal

Jul 4th, 2004, 08:27 PM

:confused:

Jesus never told us we could not eat shellfish. I dont think I would want to anyway.

**Adam**

Jul 4th, 2004, 08:52 PM

:confused:

Jesus never told us we could not eat shellfish. I dont think I would want to anyway.Don't worry Chad.. Your ticket to heaven is still safe

DoubleEdgeSword

Jul 4th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Oh lawd.. don't get him started on slippery slope, oxymoron.

tiger_rascal

Jul 4th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Thanks for clearing that up oxymoron. I now understand where you are coming from. The only conclusion that I can come to is that you have not read the NT. Or perhaps you are picking and choosing and choose to distort drastically the scriptures to fit your argument.

I could post distinct scriptures, but why bother, you would either distort them or tell me its only my interpretation, ignoring the fact it is the most common interpretation because the scriptures are so clear as to what Jesus is saying.

You can read it for yourself, come up with your own interpretation or make up whatever you want and ignore Gods Word.

tiger_rascal

Jul 4th, 2004, 09:51 PM

Yes, dont get me started on slippery slope.

Life is a slippery slope. Some choose to grab hold of a life line known as Jesus while others continue to slip further towards the pits of hell.

That is my fire and brimstone comment for the year.

BrianWilly

Jul 5th, 2004, 12:08 AM

According to the Old Testament, we're also not supposed to eat coneys(rabbits) or hares. Also, snails are unclean. What, no escargot? I knew that there was something blasphemous about those French!!

Leviticus sure is fun, isn't it?

I've been told before, here in this forum, that Jesus came to add upon the old prophets' words, not contradict them. Therefore, if a matter from the Old Testament is not touched upon in the New Testament, then we're to assume that the Old Testament is the authority.

Now, I've read some of the New Testament but admittedly not nearly enough to know if it says anything about shellfish, or rabbits, or snails...or on that note, ravens or swans or turtles or chameleons or bats, all of which are unclean. My basest instincts are to assume that it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

bekahbeans

Jul 5th, 2004, 12:24 PM

Why don't you capitalize the word, Bible? I'm just curious as to whether there is a reason to that since the rest of your posts tend to follow capitalization 'rules.' Do you not capitalize the Qur'an, Vedas etc. as well or do you reserve that just for the Bible?

bekahbeans

Jul 5th, 2004, 12:56 PM

I see your point. But I find it to be rather disrespectful of others. I wouldn't purposly not capitalize another religion's holy book. Of course I respect your right not to capitalize it, I just think it's rather rude.

bekahbeans

Jul 5th, 2004, 07:37 PM

I'll give it a read...

DoubleEdgeSword

Jul 7th, 2004, 05:59 PM

I'm more partial to blowjobs.

DoubleEdgeSword

Jul 7th, 2004, 06:21 PM

Pre-marital or only after marriage?

Which raises another question, what if you were married to someone but are now divorced. That could not properly be considered pre-marital. So for those who are against pre-marital sexual relations, is it ok to have sex with somone from who you are divorced?

Oh jeez.. I don't know. Marriage is a social construct, and one that is de-constructing more each day. I don't think people were designed to be monogamous. So, I would have to say blowjobs and handjobs are okay before, during and after marriage.

Stuff_Like_That

Jul 7th, 2004, 06:58 PM

Pre-marital or only after marriage?

Which raises another question, what if you were married to someone but are now divorced. That could not properly be considered pre-marital. So for those who are against pre-marital sexual relations, is it ok to have sex with somone from who you are divorced?
or if your spouse dies...

hmm...Ned Flanders slept with another woman after Maude died. And I do remember Homer mentioning that Flanders is even more holy than Jesus.

bekahbeans

Jul 7th, 2004, 08:43 PM

lmao

"these delights"

*trots off*

~HoneyRain~

Jul 24th, 2004, 10:56 AM

I am a Christian, and no I do not think sex before marriage is okay. It is a sin, that I, myself have committed and I pray for forgiveness. I don't think I or anyone who does have premarital sex is a bad person....pre-marital sex (in my opinion) is a sin just as lying, cheating, coveting, stealing, etc. is.

MerrySunshine

Jul 28th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Merry,

I suggest that you are defining Christianity for a great many Christians. Who are you to say that they can not lovingly and guilt-free practice their Christianity without having to subscribe to your definition of their relationship to their faith?

It's the historic Christian faith, oxymoron, not my interpretation, the historic Christian faith. The one that's been around for 2000 years. But, whatever, believe what you will. Your argument is exactly the sort of postmodernist thinking I was talking about . . . . People want to shape Christianity to themselves, not the other way around. The tenets of the Christian faith have remained largely unchanged for, lo, these many years. That people want to change it to fit their personal tastes is their deal. See, its' not my personal interpretation; it's not unique to me. It's the historic Christian faith that I have chosen for myself. I didn't make it up; it didn't come from me; I chose to bow to its authority. It's not coming from inside me; I chose this external. And I clearly said that if people didn't want to believe that way then that's their deal. I don't know what the big deal is about accepting that one's self-defined "Christianity" does not comport with the historic Christian faith. "OK, I'm not behaving or believing in keeping with the historic Christian faith. Bully. I'm going to believe that way anyway and in doing so, I know that folks like Merry, won't agree that I'm a Christian. Oh well." What's so hard about that? Why must I accept that someone who does not follow the teaching of the historic Christian faith as a fellow Christian? That seems quite authoritarian to me. That seems like someone trying to force their personal ideals and ideas onto me. That seems like someone trying to shape my mind to their will. That seems like someone trying to force their views onto me. Isn't that what you complain of? Forcing ideas onto other people? Isn't that wrong? Or is it only wrong with Christians do it?

MerrySunshine

Jul 28th, 2004, 09:37 AM

On the shellfish point, Christians are under the new law. We're not bound by the old laws concerning what's kosher, parve, etc. New Testament scripture makes clear that we're not to get all bunged up over the food issues, so Christians don't.

As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. Romans 14:14-21 (emphasis added)

In other words, all food is OK to eat, but if you eating it will cause someone else to sin, then maybe you shouldn't do it. So the question of eating shellfish is one of "will I cause someone else to stumble if I eat it?"

Not to be to punny or anything, but the shellfish prohibition thing is a red herring within Christianity.

bekahbeans

Jul 28th, 2004, 01:49 PM

The OT laws were temporal.

bekahbeans

Jul 28th, 2004, 01:52 PM

Can someone not love and have faith in Jesus Christ, be a good person and still believe in intimacy outside of marriage, which is after all a human convention? Isn't this far more important than dogmatic legalisms?

For my two cents. I think the answer to that question is a definite yes.

However, I don't think that if they follow that path they are having as abundent a life as Jesus would want them to have. But I don't think it negates their Christianity, or salvation or relationship and faith or love or whatever with Jesus Christ in any way.

bekahbeans

Jul 29th, 2004, 01:31 PM

I can't list all the OT laws for you. There are too many of them and they're boring to read about. Read Leviticus if you really want the list. But basically the OT laws were intended to be temporal because they were in place until the Messiah appeared to fulfill them.

My brain hurts. I can't think at the moment. So I'm just quoting someone else. Yay. A few scriptures in there too. Feel free to read them on your own. Romans talks a lot about the law and why and how we are freed from the old.

1 Peter 2:16

LIVE AS FREE MEN = "The believer has been made free from the law, but liberty does not mean license. To offset this danger of antinomianism, the Scriptures teach that we have not only been delivered from the law, but also 'joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God' (Romans 7:4). We are thus not 'without the law of God but under the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21; cf. Galatians 6:2). Freedom from law should not result in license but love (Galatians 5:13; cf. 1 Peter 2:16). The believer is, consequently, to keep his eyes on Christ as his example and teacher, and by the Holy Spirit to fulfill His law (Romans 8:4; Galatians 5:18). This does not mean that the precepts of the Decalogue which are grounded in the character of God have no authority today. As a matter of fact, careful investigation reveals that every commandment of the Decalogue, except the fourth, is reaffirmed in the New Testament. They are repeated for our instruction as to what the will of the Lord is, but not as precepts that we are to endeavor to keep in order to become righteous." -- Lectures in Systematic Theology, by Henry C. Thiessen, p. 170.

DashboardFan

Aug 9th, 2004, 01:55 PM

God wants us to save sex for marriage. Sex is a special act of love that God created for us to take pleasure in. He made it exciting and enjoyable for us...so that we would go out and spread the fruit of life. Sex is more than feelings and hormones...it's about the love, that two people share that are going to spend the rest of their lives together. It is a sin to engage in sex before marriage, because God created sex for a husband and a wife to share. However, you won't burn in hell if you do have sex before marriage...something many people misinterpret about any sin. God will always always ALWAYS forgive you! God is a loving, forgiving God, who wants all of his children to be in heaven, and that is why he forgives you of any sin. No matter how terrible, and guilty you may feel about it, remember that you're forgiven with the power of Jesus. What did he die for if God only forgives some sins? I tell you he forgives all...pre-marital sex being one of them.

daydreamer

Aug 10th, 2004, 12:13 PM

But then who is forgiven? Surely in order for God to forgive you, you have to be SORRY for your sins. And if you don't feel that you are committing a sin, then you are obviously not sorry.

bekahbeans

Aug 10th, 2004, 03:15 PM

Forgiveness is automatic if you're saved.

tiger_rascal

Aug 10th, 2004, 04:17 PM

Really? I must be doing something wrong. Although I believe Im saved, Im still human and can do wrong, if I do, I still ask for forgiveness.

bekahbeans

Aug 10th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Just because your'e already forgiven doesn't mean you shouldn't ask for forgiveness, or that you don't do things wrong.

There is a difference.

tiger_rascal

Aug 10th, 2004, 06:04 PM

I must have misunderstood your post.

bekahbeans

Aug 10th, 2004, 06:17 PM

So it seems.

Keronothnetophobia

Aug 10th, 2004, 07:25 PM

hi-
i started a messageboard about pre-marital sex
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/godmadelove

i seem to get a bunch of heavy-duty fundamentalists joinging tho, and i'd like other people's opinions. can you be christian and think sex before marriage is okay?
Sure you can...! The reason why I don't believe in premarital sex is because of my own choices..it's not a good idea AT ALL. It's too dangerous and it's too emotional if you're not married to that person. But the reason why I'm not promiscuous has nothing to do with my religion....;)

**Adam**

Aug 12th, 2004, 02:20 AM

ya know... Not everyone wants to get married
and not everyone CAN get married

mayuke

Aug 12th, 2004, 03:21 AM

^^
Adamn, I found this clip of Randy Harrison whispering Gale Harold 'I love you' on Larry King Live! Have you had it?

NYCBSBFAN

Aug 12th, 2004, 04:36 PM

I am a Christian and yes I engage in pre-marital sex. Am I proud of that? Not at all. But I'm not strong enough at this point to wait for marriage. I still love God, and I know he loves me.

daydreamer

Aug 14th, 2004, 10:49 PM

But the fact that you're not proud of it shows that you know it's not necessarily the way that God wants you to live. You just recognize that you're not a strong enough person to wait. There are many Christians, Catholics even, who do not recognize it as a sin. I know people who twist the meaning of God's word so that it fits their current circumstance. For example, according to some, instead of waiting for marriage, God just wants us to be in a serious relationship before we have sex. And then, to prevent pregnancy, it's OK to use a condom. Even though then you get into the whole issue of contraceptives, which the Church has a real problem with.

Belisama

Sep 12th, 2004, 02:23 PM

^I know people who wrote words that they claimed were God's to fit their circumstances.

Agree with you...

God has his own words... and so have I...

Pre-marital sex? Well, if you're a responsible adult having sex with another responsible adult... what's wrong with that?

Christians God says that's a sin... so you have four options:

1.- Don't have sex. Be a virgin till getting married.
2.- Have sex. It's a sin but you can confess it and be forgiven.
3.- Have sex, and ignore the sin or think it doesn't matter at all.
4.- Change your religion.

Wanna be accepted by Christians God? Options 1-2.

Wanna be free to have sex? Options 3-4.

Personally I think God has things more importants to do than to write in a note book how, with who and how many times I'm having sex... to set a sins bill. I couldn't believe that.

World on war and God looking at my bed...

Belisama

Sep 12th, 2004, 02:26 PM

World on war and God looking at my bed...

Hehehe, it sounds like a rock song... :biggrin:

daydreamer

Sep 12th, 2004, 10:46 PM

It's all about your own personal choices. I don't agree with pre-marital sex. It's something that was intended for a husband and wife to share, so I have every intention of waiting until I'm married to have sex. That may be sort of naive, but I'm only 18, so I think I'm entitled. And it's generally a lot better if you wait...the repurcussions of sex can be a lot to handle....pregnancy, possible diseases, not to mention the emotional aspect of it all. It just seems like it's too big of a deal to just take lightly.

Belisama

Sep 13th, 2004, 01:35 AM

Daydreamer,

you're right saying pre-marital sex is a choise, that someone can or can not take. It's true that having sex has its own risks, though if you use contraceptives, in a responsible way those risks can come down to nothing.

I respect those who like you want to wait till get married to have sex. It's a decision. Personally I decided to have sex. I decided to have an adult and responsible sex.

I decided it on my own. I didn't think in fashion, in what others want or do or any other thing but what I wanted. I was free to have my own decision, and since then I've never been pregnant, or get any sex transmitted diseases because I'm careful and take precautions.

Anyway you're free to chose whatever you want... Waiting is a right decision as it is not to wait too. :tongue:

misty twilight

Oct 4th, 2004, 10:02 PM

I am not one to judge one way or another, nor to preach on pre-marital sex...however, I am an advocate for abstinence until marriage. I believe as daydreamer said, there are a lot of risks and complications that can come from having pre-marital sex. Disease, pregnancy, emotional risks...especially for women. Men...not as much, men are built differently both physically and emotionally, but women stand to lose a lot by having sex before they are married.

I don't take away anyone's right to choose, not at all. And as I said, I am not one to preach, as I have involved myself in pre-marital sex. I have suffered from some of the ongoing issues that it can cause. Therefore, I am an advocate against it. I have spoken publicly about my story to help deter teenagers from it, and would again if I could.

Belisama speaks of having responsible adult sex. But what is that? Really? I can tell you at 16 I thought I was pretty darn responsible...and adult. I guess in many ways I was, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to raise my son by myself. But I know I was not responsible enough to have to deal with the results of my decision to have pre-marital sex. I know that the outcome did not only involve my son, but other ongoing emotional problems, and issues that myself and my son have to deal with even today. And for the record, I was on birth control and we were using a condom...nothing is 100%.

I am not of Christian beliefs, therefore I can not preach on whether I believe pre-marital sex is a sin. But I do believe it is not in the best interest of many.

DoubleEdgeSword

Oct 5th, 2004, 06:16 AM

You make some very strong points. Thank you for sharing your story.

Spiderweb

Oct 5th, 2004, 08:51 AM

I think sex before marriage is fine as long as it doesn't hold up the ceremony!

Julie2

Oct 5th, 2004, 10:05 AM

Is your distinction, what Jesus says needs to be followed to the letter and everything else is up for debate? If so, on what do you base that disctinction. Did Jesus say everything I say must be absolutely obeyed, but if Paul or those old Jews in the old testament said something, well then perhaps you can use your discernment.

.

Right back at ya.

Ada

Oct 5th, 2004, 10:18 AM

Belisama speaks of having responsible adult sex. But what is that? Really? I can tell you at 16 I thought I was pretty darn responsible...and adult.

Just to clear up something: It is one thing to defend sex before marriage, and another very different thing to defend sex between kids. I understand you speak from personal experience, and I respect that, but underage sex IS a problem. Sex between non-married consenting adults is not.

The age ratio for marriage nowadays is around 28 years old, and thats a really looong time, around a third of your life, waiting to have sex. Too much, in my opinion, specially in our society.

I have a 14 years old brother who is NOT READY to have sex, and besides being well informed, he is, being a kid, closely watched as a part of his education. And trust me, he has it *very* difficult.

I have a 19 years old brother who's pretty much ready to have sex. If he has or hasn't is not my bussiness, but he is responsible and informed, so I'm not worried about him, at all.

I am 24. I'm not married. And I do not need to tell you that I'm absolutely ready and responsible for it. The comsequences would be the same, being married or not, and I'm mature enough to face anything no matter the nature of my relationship.

Julie2

Oct 5th, 2004, 10:21 AM

It's the historic Christian faith, oxymoron, not my interpretation, the historic Christian faith. The one that's been around for 2000 years. But, whatever, believe what you will. Your argument is exactly the sort of postmodernist thinking I was talking about . . . . People want to shape Christianity to themselves, not the other way around. The tenets of the Christian faith have remained largely unchanged for, lo, these many years. That people want to change it to fit their personal tastes is their deal. See, its' not my personal interpretation; it's not unique to me. It's the historic Christian faith that I have chosen for myself. I didn't make it up; it didn't come from me; I chose to bow to its authority. It's not coming from inside me; I chose this external. And I clearly said that if people didn't want to believe that way then that's their deal. I don't know what the big deal is about accepting that one's self-defined "Christianity" does not comport with the historic Christian faith. "OK, I'm not behaving or believing in keeping with the historic Christian faith. Bully. I'm going to believe that way anyway and in doing so, I know that folks like Merry, won't agree that I'm a Christian. Oh well." What's so hard about that? Why must I accept that someone who does not follow the teaching of the historic Christian faith as a fellow Christian? That seems quite authoritarian to me. That seems like someone trying to force their personal ideals and ideas onto me. That seems like someone trying to shape my mind to their will. That seems like someone trying to force their views onto me. Isn't that what you complain of? Forcing ideas onto other people? Isn't that wrong? Or is it only wrong with Christians do it?

WHY doesn't this person post here anymore????

bekahbeans

Oct 5th, 2004, 10:28 AM

She's busy.

bekahbeans

Oct 5th, 2004, 10:31 AM

The age ratio for marriage nowadays is around 28 years old, and thats a really looong time, around a third of your life, waiting to have sex. Too much, in my opinion, specially in our society.

I am 24. I'm not married. And I do not need to tell you that I'm absolutely ready and responsible for it. The comsequences would be the same, being married or not, and I'm mature enough to face anything no matter the nature of my relationship.

Why?

And how are the consequences the same when you're married? That doesn't make sense to me.

Ada

Oct 5th, 2004, 11:00 AM

You can get pregnat, thats the more plausible comsequence. Being a college student with aspirations of getting a Fullbright scolarship, that would be a PROBLEM for me, regardless of being married or not. Therefore, I do not protect myself (and my partner) from getting pregnat simply because I'm not married, but because I'm not ready to be a mother, and it is not the right moment in my life for it.

And why what? Why asking people to wait till they're 28 to have sex is a little bit over the top? Mainly because our human nature works against it.

bekahbeans

Oct 5th, 2004, 11:18 AM

I doubt most married couples would consider getting pregnant a consequence as often times they want to get pregnant, and are past the point of college, but I see your point.

No, actually I was more curious as to why you brought society into the mix. What does our society have to do with it, and why would you say especially in ours? Because we're obsessed with sex? Is that a good thing?

And our human nature...hmm...I don't see the significance. Because we naturally can or want to do something doesn't make it the best thing to do, or the wise thing to do.

Ada

Oct 5th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Yes, I see your point about our nature, but we can't deny our identity as mammals as well as as rational human beings. There are impulses and sensations that can, and should be controled often, but I don't think that if you are in a loving, mature relationship you have to impose yourself the need to supress those feelings and act naturally accordingly with your feelings, specially when we have now so many ways of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and other problems associated with sex.

Society is a big part in our developement as people, and our relations and the way we face them is quite affected by what surround us. And you also have to take into account the pendulum effect of history. For centuries humans have been repressed, sex was sinful, dark, dirty... It is natural that now we swing to the opposite, until we reach so far that our own energy pulls us back towards a healthy balance, and then back to the other extreme... Its history, always has been like that, in most aspects, and you have the best example in art.

And yes, there's people obsessed with sex, and I honestly think is not a good thing, but there's a point halfway between obsession and total abstinence that I think is the most mature, logical one. I respect the choice of not having sex because you want to wait for safer circumstances, but those circumstances are always subjetive. Others may feel that "safe" doesn't equal "married", and its just as right.

BTW, thats a really cool avatar...

Leezard

Oct 5th, 2004, 12:04 PM

Ada

Oct 5th, 2004, 12:10 PM

I'm 26, haven't had sex and don't feel like I'm missing anything, natural or otherwise, by not having sex. Just because I can have sex doesn't mean I should. If someone else wants to that's all well and fine but I don't really buy the "it's the natural thing to do" excuse.

Of course, thats a perfectly fine position, and I'm not staying there's anything wrong with not having sex. Its a choice. But you have to admit that when you're in love with someone, it *feels* a natural thing to do.

Leezard

Oct 5th, 2004, 12:27 PM

Yeah, and if someone were to kill my sister then the natural thing for me to "feel" would be the urge to kill that person but if we acted on all of our "natural" urges all the time then we'd all be in a heap of trouble. If you want to have sex then have sex, that's your choice...like I said, I just don't buy the natural urge thing.

Ada

Oct 5th, 2004, 03:28 PM

misty twilight

Oct 5th, 2004, 05:01 PM

I'm not talking about "urges", but about something much simpler and honestly, much more beautiful and meaningful. When you do really love someone, you kiss them hug them, and love them the best you can. And that INCLUDES sex (or making love, which sounds much more poetic, and its the exact same thing). The fact that you choose NOT to doesn't mean that it is not something right, nice and, as I said, beautiful.

And to compare having sex with murdering someone is a little bit too melodramatic, really.
Hmmm...I disagree. I don't believe having sex and making love are the same thing. I could see where in this debate they could be tied together, but I can tell you I have "had sex" and was most definitely NOT "making love." Poetic it may be, but that type of poetry is what makes teenagers today feel the "urge" to have sex.

I also don't believe that this conversation was started concerning only adults. The question was put out there for everyone. I spoke from a personal level concerning my experiences as a teenager, however, now that I'm an adult I am aware of many adults who are not ready for "adult sex." And you say you are engaging in responsible sex and you are an adult, that is your decision. But what if through all of your "protection" you end up pregnant? Would you still consider yourself responsible? Are you "adult" enough to take the full responsibility? If you answer to these questions is "yes" then fantastic. But if they are no, then you are in another ballgame completely. And even if you were to say "yes," the actuality of the situation may change that stance.

These are the reasons I speak against pre-marital sex. Whether you are an adult or a teenager, the complications can be great. Period.