Not for the payer, they aren’t. And if you are going to make a speech about how men can run from the law and leave the woman in the lurch; men could ALWAYS do that. Could, and did.
Women are frankly better off with casual sex being more accepted.
I think mswas tried illustrating the idea that even ordinary private sex can have social consequences, by bringing up the scenario where if Party A bails after procreating then the state has to expend resources on catching his deadbeat arse and meanwhile supporting the kids. Weak illustration, though. Deadbeats ALWAYS existed and if we develop a sociocultural attitude in which being prepared to have safe sex is the norm rather than the exception, you may actually have fewer such scenarios.
As to “what do we tell the children if we don’t tell them to wait for marriage” question, well, there is the thing that we do not advocate *absolutely “casual” sex, since we do want everyone to play it safe. I suppose it’s more “informal” than “casual”, really. I guess In my case I’d refer/expand upon my prior parallel example as to what to tell them about alcohol or gambling (or packing a firearm()!). “This is not something intrisecally evil; it is a part of life that can be enjoyed if doen properly. But if someone’s not careful one can get hurt badly [list potential harms here]. It’s not for kids, it should really be done by people who know what they’re doing. Not everyone has to do it as much or the same as anyone else and SOME people should not do it 'cause they can’t handle it. It should be done in private, in a responsible manner, cautionary measures MUST be taken or else it DOES NOT HAPPEN – and if something goes badly you WILL ask me for help before things go out of control, if there are consequences, they WILL be faced. NOBODY must be allowed to make, dare or fool you into it and YOU definitely are NOT to do that to anyone. Know when to say when, if in any sort of doubt, back off. Oh, and – you’re my dependent in my house, you follow my rules.”
(* OK, lemme get this straight: if we teach the kids responsible firearms safety measures, they’ll grow up to be law-abiding citizens who will not misuse the firearm, but we can’t do the same thing re: their sexuality? Help me here)
We at least need to discard the idea that there is anything morally superior about “saving yourself.” The “promise ring” types need to be marginalized and mocked. I don’t get why those people expect cookies for depriving themselves. The whole idea that virginity equals “purity” goes back literally to stone age practices where women were chattel property and men wanted to be assured that they were the only possible fathers of the children.
Similar ideas that men should be abstinent are relatively recent and excruciatingly lame to witness. The Bible does not forbid all pre-marital or extramarital sex for men, it only forbids them from fucking other men’s property.
I think that males virgins by choice can be broken into two categories – those who don’t really have a choice, and closet cases.
Nah, they don’t even need to run, just not pay. Plenty of guys do it. Sure if you have a lot of money it makes more sense to pay, but if you don’t it’s pretty easy to avoid child support.
Or to rephrase this as succinctly as possible: Christians suck.
It’s always funny whenever someone uses the term, _______ age to denigrate something they don’t like. Something tells me that those practices don’t go back as far as the stone age, but you as the SDMBs foremost religious expert probably knows that already right? :rolleyes:
(my numbers)
-
Even if I don’t agree were you want to take you chain of ideas, it is now perfectly clear to me, thanks.
-
Agreed that it can go both ways.
-
Agreed on that it is different if it regular or just a lapse. Disagree on the idea that virginity at any age is dysfunctional *per se *(it may be in some people).
-
I don’t quite like your (qualified) phrase “I’ll go along with the consensus”, I’m sure it’s not your case but it can sound a tad sheepy.
-
Fornication is a sin by definition. If you think that non-marital sex is OK fornication doesn’t apply because you do not recognise the category “fornication” as valid or real.
I know it is not only about me. -
Religious leaders should say and teach (and practice) what they believe in. If they believe that sex is only for married people they have the freedom to do so and to preach otherwise. Freedom goes both ways.
I’m glad to see your morals shine through.
Of course, you miss the point that most people aren’t as such. Moreover, a pattern of willful avoidance of paying child support is unwise; in my state, we jail people for it. You see, having sex isn’t immoral all alone. Failing to deal with your obligations as a parent, however, is. That you’re incapable of making such a distinction really speaks much.
:rolleyes:
I raise my own children with my wife.
Assuming that to be true, so what ? That’s different from the past how ? Would you prefer to go back to the “good old days”, where women were ostracized, abused or killed for having a sex drive ? Or just for being raped ? There wasn’t EVER a period where men were held to greater responsibility.
Like it or not, Christianity is a backwards and destructive belief system; a barbarous ideology created by barbarians. A system based on ignorance, delusion and hate. Much of human progress has consisted of deciding to ignore or marginalize it’s nonsense, and that of other religions.
Reading comprehension is our friend. But this is a prime example of the Christian mindset: it’s okay to intentionally misrepresent someone’s view, even though it’s dishonest to do, so long as you can make your point. To wit, he said: “virgin at age 30, it begins to **raise ****questions **that **may ****be **something dysfuntional.” (bolding is mine) Given your ability to analyze what is actually written and then completely ignore it in favor of making it say what you want, it’s no wonder that the majority of the world disagrees with your position.
He didn’t say that it was per se what is. He said there may be something, and that people might start to question what it, if anything, it is.
I’d like to iterate that reading comprehension is our friend. Do look into it. He said, again, something different than what you’re saying he said: “It’s not up to me to “think” something is wrong. There have to be good reasons. If there are, **chances **are I’ll go along with the consensus.” He didn’t give a qualified phrase of “I’ll go along with it”; he laid down a conditional statement that IF there exist some good reasoning to support a particular stance, he’ll accept that good reasoning, and as a consequence of himself being rational, will yield to said good reasoning. Of course, your quote takes that out of context and distorts his meaning.
Not so much. Fornication no longer deals exclusively with prostitutes or sex being done “in the archway”. The term applies to consensual sex between people who aren’t married to one another. All you’ve done is recite some dimwitted shit you’ve been indoctrinated with. Just saying “it’s by definition a sin” isn’t borne out by, well, you know, the definition of the word. Sex between or among consenting parties isn’t a sin only because some christians want to proclaim it as so. What you lack is any reasoning to support your claim.
Are you saying freedom is bisexual? It goes both ways? Ok, I jest. So, your argument, from what I gather and correct me if I misunderstand, is that religious leaders (those who preach morality and shit) should a.) preach what they want to preach, and b.) act inconsistent with that? Well, they already do that, which is why their an increasingly small group of people, but an exception punchline. You see, they’re morally questionable; if they’re so convinced that x is immoral, why then do they continue to do x and then lie about it? Or is lying somehow the panacea which eradicates the immorality of fucking outside the Covenant of Marriage? Of course, one need to take up issue with lying, but that’s a different thread.
This is another case where your ignorance of history makes these discussions very tedious. Atomized modern society is different from past society in that it allows a person to run away to another area and start a whole new life in a way that never would have worked in a traditional society. I’ll explain why to you but this is really basic stuff that you should already understand before you comment on history at all. I mean middle-school level stuff. Suffice it to say that it was INCREDIBLY hard to travel outside of one’s social sphere prior to the modern era. That is still true in much of the world outside of the affluent West.
Like it or not this is a meaningless slogan meant to tittilate bigots and not part of a rational debate. Your opinion =/= fact.
More meaningless hyperbole. Come back when you’ve actually given even the slightest modicum of thought before you post.
I know that you simply stop thinking when the topic strays toward Christian values, but please, please, please try just this once.
Also, I’ll point out as you love to that Christianity did not invent these values, so your discussion of Christianity is a non sequitur and is not relevant to the topic.
And yet your first course was to say that having sex outside of wedlock = refusing to care for your own children.
One wonders why you’re not capable of drawing the distinction, particularly given that the overwhelming majority of children haven’t been abandoned by their parents. Yes, many children have been, but most have not. It seems most of the fucking (literally) world can draw the distinction between sex not implying any obligation and having children requiring some obligation.
Of course, the latter doesn’t support your narrow view of God’s Plan For Fornicators, so it must be the case that those who go around having capricious sex would intentionally choose not to take care of any child which might result. It doesn’t add up considering that if your claim is true, we should have many, many, many more children who’ve been abandoned by deadbeat parents. We don’t see this in reality. Of course, reality hasn’t yet stopped the church from distorting anything.
I hear low-flying jets, did they knock you over?
Having children is a common side-effect of sex.
Can you please show me the post where I said something about God’s Plan? I don’t recall it.
Translation: I’ll explain to this to you right now*
*please, don’t point out that I didn’t explain it.
I think you’ve confused your bible with his sentence.
Well, it seems only fair that if christians aren’t going to think about their religion and what it says, that we shouldn’t have to either.
So, your point is that because he asserts christianity didn’t invent the values, but still espouses them for its members, it’s free to disregard them? Like, ya know, a trademark cease and desist letter? Copyrighted or something? Please. These are your moral arguments; you are constrained by them. Those who dismiss them as claptrap aren’t constrained to do so. You show the wonderful strategy of the christian church quite well: if my opponents don’t accept my morals, then I’m free to abandon them so that I can fight back in a manner inconsistent with the church, then convert them and make them accept my morals. How wonderful.
It’s almost hard to imagine that the vast majority of the world rejects christianity beliefs.
No the point for the hard of thinking is that your views on Christianity are utterly irrelevant to the thread. That’s really all there is to it. This thread isn’t about Christianity or how much you hate it.
Childrearing should be treated as a career equal to any of the ones men have done and paid accordingly. It should not be treated as a ‘problem’ because it does not make money for some exploitative employer. It is a woman’s right to bear children and society should be organised to pay her and to allow men equal participation in family life. Feminism has been used to glorify all things traditionally masculine (and suited to what conservative Big Business wants) at the expense of values women preserved when men had lost them; to destroy equality of value in what were specialisations of the sexes, and to prevent men liberating themselves to meet women in the middle with both doing some traditionally ‘masculine’ and some ‘feminine’ things equally.
I wasn’t bashing Christianity, I was bashing sanctimonious, ostentatious abstinence, and I wasn’t bashing it because it’s Christian (purity codes for women far predate Christianity), but because it’s stupid.
This also is not actually an argument. Why is having a social code that favors abstinence any stupider than a social code that favors promiscuity?
I mean seriously, do you have an argument as to why it’s stupid other than your disfavor for the subculture that does it?
People form communities and have shared ideals based around everything from Magic the Gathering, to religious observance, to sexual orientation, to sports, to photography, to being from the same state.
Why is forming a social clique based on abstinence stupider than say collecting stamps or going to a Star Trek convention?
I agree with you on your analysis but not your prescription. How does the state allocate money to pay Mothers for having children? (A friend of mine who works for the government agrees with you BTW.)
But for the purposes of this discussion, rather easier than now, when the law can track you across continents if you don’t know what you are doing
Calling someone who dares to disrespect Christianity a bigot doesn’t make them one. Despising Christianity isn’t bigotry any more than despising Republicanism or Communism is.
Don’t be ridiculous. My opinion of Christianity has years of thought behind it. Christianity IS based on ignorance, it IS bigoted, regardless of your attempts to pretend otherwise. Bigotry is part of it’s essence; it is right, and everyone who disagrees is less than human. That’s the worldview it built its spread upon, the view that it has sacrificed millions to.
YOU were the one who brought up Christianity.