|
|
Post by Linnen Malfoy on Oct 31, 2004 12:33:40 GMT -5
And yes, the divorce rate is high. That is due in part to imbecilic celebrities being... celebrities... and people thinking what you're saying: marriage is pointless or that they needn't have married, etc. etc. How do celebrerties add to the divorce rate? Is it because people think that if celebrerties do it, then all can. I doubt that logic, I really do. People don't divorce because it's fashionable. Is it because the celebrity divorces help to constitue a higher number? They may add some numbers, but not enough to have a huge influx. Divorce, sometimes, is a good thing. I'm lucky that my parents are still together, however if a mother and a father cannot be happy together, then why would they want to be together? The point of a marriage is to be happy together, and if things arise that you cannot be happy then perhaps it is the best to divorce. I know children who are happier when they parents divorce because then they do not have them at each other's throats. Is divorce bad? Yes, and no. When you abuse it, then yes. But if you really are not happy, then perhaps divorce isn't a 'bad' thing. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 31, 2004 12:55:10 GMT -5
Is it because the celebrity divorces help to constitue a higher number? They may add some numbers, but not enough to have a huge influx. Point taken. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Oct 31, 2004 14:07:16 GMT -5
My biggest point is most people either don't think through to whole premarital sex thing or just assume they're ready and they aren't. Basically, there are just too many cases. Most people? How do you know that is the case? I agree, sex too young is emotionally damaging. But not every pre-marital sex is necessarily young - you could be an unmarried thirty year old, perfectly responsible. I wouldn't say most people at all. Not even the people who have sex young are scarred for life, or damaged, necessarily. But the point is that, even being sober, you could go and get married without any thought. Marriage in that sense is just a piece of paper, and means nothing. So two 16 year olds married tomorrow could have sex within marriage and be right, but a long term couple who never marry, are totally committed and faithful to each other, shouldn't because it's pre-marital? Too lazy to read all posts, my head hurts. I for one don't intend to get married. I don't believe in god, actually very little young people I know really, actually belive in god. In Britain, just over 50% of children identify as atheist or agnostic  I wouldn’t have a church wedding, but I would marry. A ridiculously tiny proportion of people in Britain are still virgins on their marriage night. If my virginity was the only special thing I could offer to my husband, I wouldn’t marry. I don’t think sex outside marriage is any different from that in it, but I’d want to marry just to have the occasion  *sighs* Ok. I like all the whole points about how people should be allowed to decide, and people can be responsible, but point in fact is... people are morons. I know a kid who is 14 and desperately wants sex. There's a girl in my friend's class who HAS had sex and still does. FOURTEEN. In one of the public schools, for kids 12-17, sex is what they do a lot. A lot. Twelve year olds having sex. 14 year olds and 16 year olds and 19 year olds. All of them. Now, point in fact is, I'm not God. I don't know how He will decide on TEoW's grandfather, because, said grandfather is not the norm. That is not most cases. That is a rare anomaly. Now, as for being allowed to decide - is it really worth it? Are there enough responsilbe people to constitute that it should be ok? Are there few enough teenage pregnancies to say people should have a choice (and let me tell you they don't give a crap if you say they need to be 18 - they'll say it's their 'choice')? Well, firstly, I'm against the point that everyone should suffer because some teenagers get pregnant. It's like saying some teenagers shoplift, so all should be banned from shops. Some teenagers actually want to get pregnant young, to have something of their own. I can't say I agree, but it's their choices. All we can do is hope they are somehow responsible. The thing is pre marital sex does not = teen pregnancy. The tiny chance of getting pregnant using proper protection is so small. Some people are in relationships and are uncertain of whether they should marry yet. Why shouldn't they have sex? With protection, pregnancy is barely a consideration. Marriage changes nothing between a couple. The thing is, you can prove loyalty without marriage. It's important to have a good relationship before marriage, preferably a long one so to ascertain you're right for each other. Surely, you'd be loyal before that. You could never marry someone and be loyal. Surely the most trusting relationships are not ones where people feel they must marry simply to prove that trust. Firstly, celebrities? *quirks eyebrow* 50%. 1 in 2 marriages will end in divorce. That's not celebrities. That's 50% of ALL marriages. There's no test on marriage. It doesn't mean you're financially or emotionally ready to bear a child and raise it. After all, in some countries, they marry people off at 12 or 13. Marriage confers nothing on a person. I think the thing to distinguish between here is normal unmarried people, having sex outside marriage and irresponsible teenagers, having pre-marital sex. Even if you enforced marriage, I think a good majority of those teenagers would marry, have sex and then divorce when they discover they are unsuited. So pre-marital or in marriage, sex really depends on the person. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadyy on Oct 31, 2004 14:08:49 GMT -5
*sighs* Ok. I like all the whole points about how people should be allowed to decide, and people can be responsible, but point in fact is... people are morons. I know a kid who is 14 and desperately wants sex. There's a girl in my friend's class who HAS had sex and still does. FOURTEEN. I totally agree with that. People are morons, but defend them to do something and they'll want to do it even more. Thing is it's actually pointless to discuss this all, what's it going to change And if you are married, than you should have the means and support of raising a child. Having sex at 18 nullifies that - you don't have that support. At least the married couples are able to care for the kid. Don't mean to sound harsh, but that's bull! You think because people are married that they have the (mental) capacity of raising children? Or that they have the money and such to care for it.? Or that they wil look after it and will know how to? That is so unbelievably untrue. Maybe in perfect little families, but these don't really exist.... |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 31, 2004 16:12:39 GMT -5
Don't mean to sound harsh, but that's bull! You think because people are married that they have the (mental) capacity of raising children? Or that they have the money and such to care for it.? Or that they wil look after it and will know how to? That is so unbelievably untrue. Maybe in perfect little families, but these don't really exist.... Sorry for typing that wrong. I meant to point out that peopel who have premarital sex too young won't have the finances. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 31, 2004 16:19:13 GMT -5
Most people? How do you know that is the case? I agree, sex too young is emotionally damaging. But not every pre-marital sex is necessarily young - you could be an unmarried thirty year old, perfectly responsible. I wouldn't say most people at all. Not even the people who have sex young are scarred for life, or damaged, necessarily. Good point. But the fact of the matter is - you're pulling rare cases out of the air. Just how often does that happen, really? Are most cases of premarital sex in 30 year olds? And I know that it is most people by simply opening my eyes - abortion is a big factor, meaning there's obviously not just a couple pregnant women out there. And considering what the media does to sex, it's IMPOSSIBLE there aren't more cases of sex. Heck, look at all the bloody commercials about pregnant teenagers! Is that because of a few cases? Don't think so. First, you need - in the US - parental consent to marry under 18. Second, I did say that I'm talking about the more emotional point of marriage - the part about simply vowing. Showing responsibility Is what I'm getting at. Did I say ban people from shops because people are stealing? That analogy doesn't work; it's moreover the reverse, because shoplifting isn't what most people do, and premarital sex is on the rise. Also, suffer? Where's the suffering? And again - too many people are irresponsible. If everyone used their heads it would be a different matter, but they dont. Why shouldn't they have sex? Because a) they dont even know if they love each other and b) that oh-so-miniscule pregnancy. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 31, 2004 16:21:49 GMT -5
The thing is, you can prove loyalty without marriage. It's important to have a good relationship before marriage, preferably a long one so to ascertain you're right for each other. Surely, you'd be loyal before that. You could never marry someone and be loyal. Surely the most trusting relationships are not ones where people feel they must marry simply to prove that trust. Again - too few people do. And what would you say is a better way of proving yourself? Already commented, and - just how many countries still marry of at 12 or 13? Not many. Case in point - most people screw it up, and you can't say that some people will be responsible. It doesn't break even, and most cases of premarital sex are between said teenagers. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Oct 31, 2004 16:42:44 GMT -5
I believe sex before marriage is something that should not be done. I have been told time and time again that I am so lucky to still have my virginity and to cherish it.
All the pregnacy issues aside, it really boils down to how much you love your future husband. I don't know who he is but I love him and that love is so strong that I am going to wait for him until we are married. It is an outward sign of love I can give to him - that I am willing to wait until we both pledge to be with each other forever. This is something I can only give away once and I would never be able to give it to anyone but my future husband. I love him too much.
Besides, why would you want to base a relationship on sex? I've seen girls that start having sex with their boyfriend and then -bam- that's all that holds them together. One of the reasons I think my parents are still together (90% of cases as severe as my dad wind up in divorce, if the affected individual doesn't commit suicide, that is) is because they based their relationship on things other than the physical.
Besides, if less people were having pre-marital sex then I wouldn't have to HEAR IT at night and hear them talking in the hallway about how their boyfriend was over and GYAH MY POOR INNOCENT EARS!
Unfortunately, that's the only perspective I can give - observation and my own. The things I draw the rest of my opinion off of were told in confidentiality and I cannot break that to anyone. All I'm going to say is that there are consequences to pre-marital sex and I have yet to see any good ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 31, 2004 18:49:20 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]This has nothing to do with the topic, but does anyone else find the divorce ads on the top of the page amusing? ;D[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 31, 2004 19:40:51 GMT -5
As for the people you knew - well, are they happy? Do they know if they love each other? Maybe they should have waited. Maybe they shouldn't have. I don't know because in every case something is different. They aren't married, and they are very happy. The 'right' thing for you is to get married and then have sex. The right thing for me might be different. What I mean is, everyone has a different opinion of what is correct. People have different opinions of when they are ready to have sex. You can't dictate under what circumstances someone else gets to have sex if they are legally of age. Some people might be ready sooner than others. You can't use one person or their opinions as a guage for others. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 31, 2004 20:13:03 GMT -5
Sorry for typing that wrong. I meant to point out that peopel who have premarital sex too young won't have the finances. My mistake. People who get married and have sex too young will also not have the finances. So in that respect there is no real differance between the marrried and unmarried. I'll actually go a little further and mention that the average wedding is quite, quite expensive. The average over 20,000 dollars. That's more than I make in a year. Now, you CAN have a cheap wedding, or a small court house wedding, but many people are having big weddings for the same reason they're having one at all- They feel they are supposed to, they have a certain special vision of what that wedding is supposed to be. Let's say we have two couples who love each other and are devoted to each other. They are both 21, lower middle or upper lower class, etc. Let's say one couple marries and the other doesn't. Let's say both couples get pregnant a few months afterwards. It's the unmarried couple that will have a financial upperhand. As far as we know, we are debating pre-marital sex and sex inside marriage, finding if one is better or worse than the other. A married 18 year old and an unmarried 18 year old are both going to probably have it bad finiancially if they have children. A married and an unmarried couple that are using contraceptives both have the same chance of accidently getting pregnant. There's no reason to assume that all children out of wedlock are unwanted and that all children in a marriage are wanted and planned for. I have mentioned this before, but I am living proof of that. I was born in a marriage, seven years after my sister- a nice little surprise. Shortly afterwards my parents divorced. My mother did everything 'right', she waited until marriage for sex and in the end was left with a seven year old daughter and two little bundles of expenses to take care of by herself. Meanwhile... My cousin Becky has a beautiful baby girl out of wedlock, she lives with the father and they have the love and support of the family. Marriage did not save my mother from financial ruin, pre-marital sex did not doom my cousin. Marriage sure as HELL did not make my father responsible, a lack of marriage did not make Becky less responsible. A loved and wanted child and an unexpected child- both can happen inside and outside of marriage. The differance is the mindset of the parents. Marriage does not change that. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 31, 2004 20:31:14 GMT -5
Did I say ban people from shops because people are stealing? That analogy doesn't work; it's moreover the reverse, because shoplifting isn't what most people do, and premarital sex is on the rise. Also, suffer? Where's the suffering? Actually, pre marital sex is on the decline and has been since the mid ninties. Teen pregnancy is also down. Now, the newest numbers I could find on that were from 2000, but the decline has been pretty stark. Moreover the reason for this is the teaching of contraceptive methods in school. (Before you say anything- teaching contraception in school does not lower the age of first sexual contact. It just promotes responsiblity in the teens that are sexually active) The problem isn't stopping people from having sex, it's teaching them to be responsible in sex. It's hard for teens who want to be responsible to get a hold of contraceptives and proper education. If you want to say "Teen pregnancy is up" or "Premarital sex is up" show me some numbers. Don't just guess based on your opinions or what you have seen. I say you are guessing because teen pregnancy is NOT up. In fact, it was higher in the 1950s than it is today. There was a spike around 1990, but it is now trending downwards. Here's a fun chart; parentingteens.about.com/library/sp/nbirthrate1.htmGet your facts straight, or you are bringing a knife to a gunfight. Prove to me what you are saying. When you give me one fact that is wrong, it makes me wonder about the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by issue100 on Oct 31, 2004 21:34:28 GMT -5
I just don't see how people automatically link having sex to having a child. Not everyone has sex to concieve. In fact, most don't. It's not our right to go into other peoples' business anyways. If they want to have sex and take a risk, well, that's their decision.
I think there is such a thing as responsible sex. If you wear protection and trust your judgment and do it knowing you are taking a risk, that's being responsible (my opinion).
|
|
|
|
Post by Linnen Malfoy on Nov 1, 2004 11:14:37 GMT -5
Good point. But the fact of the matter is - you're pulling rare cases out of the air. Just how often does that happen, really? Are most cases of premarital sex in 30 year olds? When you do think about it there is probably more premarital sex in 30 year olds than teenagers. If you define premarital as simply before marriage, then you have ot take into account that most people become divorced at 30 or so, and then they probably do partake in pre-martial sex. Also people these days are marring later so that is, also another factor. As far as young sex is concerned, I personaly find that to be a bit unable to be belived. The numbers which are presented usualy are blurred by rape or molestation. -In the U.S., 7 in 10 women who had sex before age 14, and 6 in 10 of those who had sex before age 15 report having had sex involuntarily. (Facts in Brief: Teen Sex and Pregnancy, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, 1996). |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 1, 2004 11:24:45 GMT -5
You know what I find SO amusing right now? The same people who are advocates of homosexual marriage are the ones saying that premarital sex is okay because marriage, in the end, means nothing and is a "pointless act". *chuckles* Sweet bit of irony, really. Oh, as for the debate *waves indifferently* You all know my opinions. I've given up debating on this forum for awhile. |
|
