|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Nov 1, 2004 16:07:37 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.  Actually, I don't think marriage is 'pointless', but I do think it's only benifits are theological. However if a couple wants to get married it's their businees. My general point is not that marriage is useless, but that marriage or pre-marital sex is a personal desicion to be left up the the people invovled. The same way I feel about Homosexual marriage. Even if I did think it was pointless, I still think anyone who wants to should be able to take part in this 'pointless' act, if they feel it is right for them. I am not contradicting myself, the same feeling form both opinions; that what you do in relation to how you live your life and love your lover should be up to you, and not anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 1, 2004 16:57:46 GMT -5
Oh, TEoW, I know that it's the same opinion. What it boils down to in both cases here is the argument of free love vs. morality according to the Bible.
The two can never meet, really.
Anyway, I was just pointing out the very interesting quirk that results from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Nov 1, 2004 16:57:52 GMT -5
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. *ahem* IF YOU HAVE SEX - PERIOD - TOO YOUNG ITS NOT GOOD XD There. Got it out correctly... - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen Lastly: -Children's Defense Fund So - what your chart says is teen pregnancy is on the downfall, at least until 1997. My data says intercourse is down and pregnancy is up, and so is pressure to have sex. So, I conclude - -Less sex, but startling less responsibility -Pressure to have sex is on the rise, if not sex itself *winks* Knife exchanged for 12 gauge shotgun  |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 1, 2004 17:01:04 GMT -5
*ahem* IF YOU HAVE SEX - PERIOD - TOO YOUNG ITS NOT GOOD XD There. Got it out correctly... - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen Lastly: -Children's Defense Fund So - what your chart says is teen pregnancy is on the downfall, at least until 1997. My data says intercourse is down and pregnancy is up, and so is pressure to have sex. So, I conclude - -Less sex, but startling less responsibility -Pressure to have sex is on the rise, if not sex itself *winks* Knife exchanged for 12 gauge shotgun IDL, bit of advice, find some other sources, especially the last two. You have to keep in mind how likely sources are to be biased and they're not always reliable. Otherwise...continue on. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Nov 1, 2004 17:06:37 GMT -5
IDL, bit of advice, find some other sources, especially the last two. You have to keep in mind how likely sources are to be biased and they're not always reliable. Otherwise...continue on. Mmm. I know I need more sources, because that did seem odd ( the last one - the second-to-last-one seemed credible enough )... but I wouldn't immediately discredit them just yet. hello Google! |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 1, 2004 17:08:41 GMT -5
Mmm. I know I need more sources, because that did seem odd ( the last one - the second-to-last-one seemed credible enough )... but I wouldn't immediately discredit them just yet. hello Google! I'm just saying grab some more. otherwise there's no telling how biased those could be. n.n College has taught me this. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Nov 1, 2004 17:09:24 GMT -5
|
|
Fire Pixie the logged out Mod
Guest
|
Post by Fire Pixie the logged out Mod on Nov 1, 2004 17:14:58 GMT -5
IDL, bit of advice, find some other sources, especially the last two. You have to keep in mind how likely sources are to be biased and they're not always reliable. Otherwise...continue on. I agree with Stal on this one. "Of every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year someone takes a breath of air." While this statement is true, no one would consider its creditability for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Nov 1, 2004 17:45:13 GMT -5
I agree with Stal on this one. "Of every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year someone takes a breath of air." While this statement is true, no one would consider its creditability for obvious reasons. ? Wait... you said the statement is true (I think), but not credible... am I right on that or not?  |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Nov 1, 2004 18:04:46 GMT -5
IDL... First off...http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/teen_stats.html This shows that TEOW was, in fact, correct. And the statistics have continued passed 1997. Now, I must say - your statistics aren't that startling. Two in five? That's less than half. I can't help but find that good! From taking a walk down my school's hallways (or flipping through some MTV), I'd have thought the number would've been higher. And your first statistic doesn't really help you... Students have been having less intercourse? What does that show? No one ever said that the number was rising. As far as pressure of sex... Wake up! This has always been! I may not have lived in the 1800's, but I'm sure not everyone waited until they were married until they had sex then, too. In fact, twon records show that, in 1680, in a town in Massachuset, 25% percent of the babies born that year were to unwed mothers. The pressure for young people to have sex is nothing new. It's always been there. It's not some new thing - we just hear about it more, due to culture the way it is. Oh and Stal... forget it. TeoW covered my thoughts - and far more eloquently than I ever could've. *shrugs* I don't know how I got into this - all I said was that, as long as they knew the risks, people could do what they wanted... I was never really "for" or "against" it - I don't really know how anyone can be "for" sex, anyways! |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Nov 1, 2004 18:16:39 GMT -5
IDL... First off...http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/teen_stats.html This shows that TEOW was, in fact, correct. And the statistics have continued passed 1997. Now, I must say - your statistics aren't that startling. Two in five? That's less than half. I can't help but find that good! From taking a walk down my school's hallways (or flipping through some MTV), I'd have thought the number would've been higher. And your first statistic doesn't really help you... Students have been having less intercourse? What does that show? No one ever said that the number was rising. As far as pressure of sex... Wake up! This has always been! I may not have lived in the 1800's, but I'm sure not everyone waited until they were married until they had sex then, too. In fact, twon records show that, in 1680, in a town in Massachuset, 25% percent of the babies born that year were to unwed mothers. The pressure for young people to have sex is nothing new. It's always been there. It's not some new thing - we just hear about it more, due to culture the way it is. Oh and Stal... forget it. TeoW covered my thoughts - and far more eloquently than I ever could've. *shrugs* I don't know how I got into this - all I said was that, as long as they knew the risks, people could do what they wanted... I was never really "for" or "against" it - I don't really know how anyone can be "for" sex, anyways! The first quote was just me saying that my sources said that I messed up. And thank you for that source as well, Buddy. Fact remains, however, that that one town doesn't count for all, and how can you be sure in the 1800's they didn't wait? And even if they did - does that make it right? And the pressure of sex HAS risen. Hit the keyboard a few times and you can see porn, watch TV for an hour and you can see teen dramas about it - yes, the pressure is rising. And it said 2 out of 5 teens -admit- it, and yes, the number is good, but I don't know how long it will last. |
|
Fire Pixie the logged out Mod
Guest
|
Post by Fire Pixie the logged out Mod on Nov 1, 2004 18:18:15 GMT -5
? Wait... you said the statement is true (I think), but not credible... am I right on that or not? Basically what I'm trying to say is that the "creditable fact" you provided is vague. Allow me to use another example: Every second of every day a dog is put to sleep; we all know this and yet it is not creditable do to the VAST NUMBER of dogs that get put to sleep. It doesn't bring into account the temperament of the dog, just how the dog is put down or the reasons behind its death. The statement you provided lumps all teenagers into the same category, regardless of the category being good or bad, and subjugates them to that standard. Therefore it is not creditable. I hope that helped some. |
|
Fire Pixie the logged out Mod
Guest
|
Post by Fire Pixie the logged out Mod on Nov 1, 2004 18:36:45 GMT -5
And the pressure of sex HAS risen. Hit the keyboard a few times and you can see porn, watch TV for an hour and you can see teen dramas about it - yes, the pressure is rising. I'd also like to add that it is not the pressure of sex, but rather society’s tolerance for it that has risen. No one is forcing anyone into having sex through internet, T.V, music, or any other kind of legitimate media, merely providing it to those who wish to see it much like televangelists or shopping networks. At any point you can simply filter out the porn online or use V-chips to block T.V. shows that don't meet to your standards. When a teenager decides to have sex because s/he saw their favorite actor do it, it is their responsibility to accept the consequence of their action, not the actor who was in the movie, the theater that showed the movie, nor the parents of the teenager. |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Nov 1, 2004 19:02:11 GMT -5
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. That's also like saying that, oh, I don't know, that the U.S. should lower the voting age to eight years old or so. There are mature people my age - heck, probably children eight years old mature enough - who wish they could vote and have the awareness and intelligence to do so. Yet we still can't vote. Why? The majority of people my age aren't informed enough - probably don't even care. Heck, that's true of a lot of voting age people. But the majority of sexually active teenagers are probably not taking full responsibility either - even if they're using protection. There's a lot of emotional weight involved, even if you're "ready." High school relationships just don't last in most cases. A lot of bad stuff could be going on as a result of sex. Like several others on this thread, I'm waiting until marriage. I want to be sure that I'm committed and that he's committed. Sure, you could be committed and unmarried, but marriage just seals the committment. I don't want to throw sex around casually just so I can "have fun." I think it's a special gift, not provided for mere recreation but for procreation - and as a display of love and commitment between two people. The biological purpose of sex is to have children. I want to be mature enough to raise children of my own with my husband before taking any sort of risks. Even with protection, there's still a risk. Yes, there are urges, but urges can be repressed. Too much chocolate will kill you, but sex can as well. There are risks of all sorts of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, which progresses into AIDS, which is definitely a killer. There's always a risk, even with condoms. And most forms of birth control will not protect against STIs. The "free love" movement came along in the sixties - and came with it a rapid growth in STDs and STIs. Especially if it's casual sex that's being had because your chance of becoming infected grows higher and higher each partner you have intercourse with. If everybody waited until marriage, this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem, would it? I think premarital sex is a bad idea personally. Would I stop others from having it? I'd discourage them, but unfortunately it will never stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Nov 1, 2004 19:06:04 GMT -5
My roomie made an excellent arguement against premarital sex today. I just have to share it with you all.
"Ew, that's just icky."
Sheer genuis.
|
|
