At least I haven’t taken your words out of context and distorted your meaning. I used your exact words with their meaning 100% intact; you cannot say that your post, to which I responded, did the same. So any negative consequences directed towards it are entirely because of what it actually said, instead of what I decided to make it look like.
That is of absolutely no moment what it could possibly mean. My point was that you intentionally took out context something he said to the extent that it conveyed the exact opposite of what he said. That’s not a good way to argue.
I can’t decipher that. What the hell does “it is your invhis words” mean?
Oh, well that makes more sense than what you earlier said.
Yet deception is part and parcel of the religious right. This is quite frequently and shamelessly their standard method of argumentation, consider thisso-called “quote mining”, in precisely the way you did it earlier: take words completely out of their context so as to wholly invert the position of the speaker. It’s chicanery plain and simple.
Catholic or Jew, Atheist or Pagan, it matters not. You don’t get to change the definition of words, particularly definitions which haven’t held in any of our lifetimes. If you’d like a cite, here’s one: pick any dictionary in the world and look it up.
Your word would carry more weight if you had shown you were the least bit interested in arguing without being deceptive via quote mining. Unfortunately, it still wouldn’t carry enough weight to change anyone’s mind because you have thrust to your argument. It’s utterly void of any reasoning; it’s only conclusion after conclusion after conclusion with absolutely no reasoning behind it.
When you want to take away from someone something which is rightfully there, you need to show a good reason to do so. Merely asserting or concluding it should be that way doesn’t do it.
Yes, so you’ve said. What you’ve failed to do, however, is provide any reasoning or evidence which makes your outrageous claim supportable. Merely asserting it over and again doesn’t somehow magically imbue it with truth.
I’d be more than happy to check out the ones you’ve looked through; please provide a cite so that we may do so. It’s rude to invite us to look at your statistics without giving them to us.
What people do in their bedroom doesn’t necessarily affect society. It might, but then again it might not. Then, in the cases where there is some societal effect, you’ll have to show that it is both extant and harmful. You don’t seem too keen on backing up your assertions with such a petty concern as data or reasoning instead preferring the repetition makes true method.
Not all pre-marital sex is “casual.” Much of it occurrs in monogomous, long-term relationships. I lived with my wife for 8 years before we got married. Was that society’s business?
How does even casual sex affect society?
People who think they need to be chaste until marriage are also religiously opposed to divorce, so that stat doesn’t really mean much. It doesn’t mean their marriages work any better than the average, it just means they stay in bad marriages.
Nonsense. That’s cause by unsafe sex, not a lack of commitment. It’s also pointless, because societies without uncommitted sex do not exist. There are simply ones that are honest, tolerant, and reasonable about it, and those that aren’t.
A higher one, as I recall. I’m not surprised; prudes, woman haters and control freaks aren’t likely to be able to live together very well. Especially in a society that doesn’t allow the man to beat his wife into submission; another traditional value we are getting away from.
(numbers mine)
Thanks again for the stabs and attacks to my intelligence and integrity. I hope that by doing it your arguments are clearer and that you also get a better night’s sleep after slaying the dragon of superstitious ignorance.
I apologise if I misrepresented any arguments. Can you now stop repeating that I did? I take back any and all words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs I may have misquoted or shown in a different light than they were supposed to.
Again I apologise. Was the second time I tried better? I used “may” and “possibly” trying to better present what the guy had tried to say and which I had failed present correctly earlier.
“In his words”, sorry for the horrible typo.
A billion (long count) thanks.
OK. But since you’re arguing against me let’s stay with my decpetion, fallacies and mistakes. We can deal with what other people do in another thread.
You said (I’m quoting a whole paragraph) “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.” Since you said "no longer" I gathered you meant that at some point in the past it had meant “hookers and archways” and I was surprised because to my -limited- knowledge, it has always had the meaning “consensual sex between people who aren’t married to one another”, always, since about 5000 years ago.
Also, I have NEVER used fornication in the exclusive context “hookers and archways” because I have never heard a definition of fornication that is only that. sorry if I ever gave you that impression.
Are you denying that a word can have a different meaning (or at least a different connotations) to different people depending on their backgounds?
I’ll re-rephrase. I think fornication is a sin. Other people may have a different opinion. I’m simply presenting my opinion and not saying you must believe it.
Do I get to express my (maybe wrong) opinion? Simply an opinion, like saying “Megan Fox is hot”. You may disagree with it, but it’s my opinion. And THAT is a fact.
I wish to take nothing which is rightfully there [sic] from anyone. Of course we could debate whether one thing or the other is rightfully there [sic] to see the applicability of my unwillingness to take it away.
Well, but THAT would be going from the OP proposal to give up on the old social censure against premarital sex, to a scenario of establishing social censure against abstinence. It may fill a need for payback satisfaction for some of us but really I’ll settle for live-and-let-live.
(“There must be something wrong with someone who’s not sexually active” is something of a recurring SDMB thread meme…)
I actually sleep better knowing that there are fewer people in the world who maintain the same degree of ignorance from one to the next, not more. Or the same number. While you might not agree with me here, but it’s hard to give credit to a person’s views when said person can’t even get the basic terminology and larger concepts of one’s on position down. In short, I take issue because you’re credulous. Show a good deal of independent thought, or in the alternative at least a good understanding of your religion’s basic principles, and you’ll find that my responses have a lot less bite.
I’ll take this at face value, but I’m very keen on such conduct; I almost never miss it. So long as you don’t do it again, I’ll consider it forgotten.
Ok.
As is the case with a great majority of bible-thumpers, there’s no great understanding of the bible and what the words in it mean. They attempt to read today’s definitions into words written many hundreds of years ago. The bible hasn’t had any recent, major revisions. So the fornication type concept can’t be taken in today’s terms because it meant something very different several hundred years ago; to wit, prostitution. It wasn’t meant to refer to two consenting adults having sex out of wedlock; it was meant to refer to two consenting adults who aren’t married to each other having sex for a fee. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you’re going to form an opinion, wouldn’t it make sense to have an informed opinion instead of just parroting back what you’ve been taught to say?
No, it’s not akin to that at all. One is an issue of morality and ethics whereas the other is an issue of aesthetics. These are separate fields of philosophy for a reason: they only have anything to do with one another by fluke. Moreover, there’s no way to qualify an aesthetic decision as “she’s hot”. It requires no support. It requires no evidence. It requires no debate. It requires only that you think said person is actually hot. As it’s a personal taste issue, your opinion on that matter is superior to everyone else’s in the world (but only to yourself). Moreover, you can’t convince anyone to suddenly find attractive a person they find unattractive.
With an opinion on morality, it’s possible to alter someone’s views through cogent discussion and debate. This is even more the case when one’s “opinion” is based on faulty information. For instance, it’s entirely possible you could convince me, and some others on here, that your morally superior position is either moral, or superior. But you’d have to make a good showing that having consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their homes actually is objectively harmful to society.
I appreciate the attempt at proper editing notes to indicate that my text was left unmolested in its incorrect form. However, there is no malapropism to be had. I didn’t use a possessive pronoun; I used there as in extant. In other words to take from someone something which is rightfully extant, though not necessarily possessed by the person in question.
Shouldn’t censure be encouraged against people who choose to foist upon the masses a particularly narrow view of morality specifically because they view their opinions of what someone may do with his/her own body over the person who actually owns that body?
Well, it’s not as though being abstinent is normal. When people work outside of biological norms, it’s at least fair game to be curious about why. They may have an excellent reason for it, which is their business. But if they’re going to make it known they don’t shag, then it’s fair game for people to mull over.
I don’t have any yet (my wife is pregnant with our first; see threads in MPS in which I talk about that), but I must say your approach is pretty much the one I expect to follow.
I’m not against premaritial sex at all. Heaven knows I participated in it. I just don’t think they should go into it with the attitude of “do whatever you like, without thinking of the consequences”, which is what I thought Der Trihs was advocating.
So, the risk to society is basically the minimal risk of getting an STD (if you play your cards right it is very minimal)? By that rationale, we should outlaw cars because of all the accidents ruining society.
Even accepting that rationale, how does a canker soar on my johnson “ruin society?” Is society that dependent on whether or not I wear a rubber?
Sure thing. I’ll hurl scorn upon “Dr. Laura” any day of the week. But that’s not establishing social censure against abstinence, it’s establishing social censure against** those who seek to impose it **upon us. But just any common person who just says, when asked, “no, thank you, I’d rather wait” should NOT be made uncomfortable for it.
If we’re going to reach the happy consensus that sex is a positive part of everyday life and there is no opprobium to go with it, it would be sad to then proceed to creating a mirror-image setup wherein conscupicence is a virtue and chastity is a shameful vice. That would not be progress. I thought what we were looking for was to remove the claim of inherent moral superiority of abstinence per se so responsible, mature sexuality may flourish; not to wipe out the sincerely chaste.
Yes, but, work with me here – starting from an assumption that I do NOT want to establish a “don’t ask, don’t tell” regime upon the celibate, then it’s one thing to find it curious or silly that Ned, over here, announced he is celibate, and wonder what could make him make that choice, in the same general vein as we may find it curious/silly for Nancy, over there, to announce she is a Vegan and wonder what led her to that choice.
If Ned starts preaching about the evils of the flesh and Nancy starts berating me for wearing leather, then I’ll give it to them. But as long as Ned doesn’t try to interfere with my dating life and Nancy is not firebombing the BBQ joint, all I need to do is to remember to not bring Ned as a wingman and not invite Nancy over for ribs.
But it won’t make me think there’s something “wrong” with them. Part of the perks of the species is that we CAN decide to buck the biological norm, heck, part of sexual freedom is reproductive choice, which IS based upon bucking a part of the biological norm. NOT in THIS thread, but in others in the past, there have been times I got the impression that celibacy should cause a person to spontaneously combust or something.
No, sociopolitical issues are not objective in the way the sky being blue is. I am sorry that your mental insufficiencies make it too difficult for you to adhere to the most basic standards of GD. Come back when have argument.
In what post did I defend Christianity? I don’t recall doing such. I asked for you to back up your argument at least as well as a 14 year old High School Lincoln Douglas debater might. I’m still waiting.
Uh huh. Riiight. So you don’t know the basic form of an argument and this has to do with physics.
I know what you’re talking about, but you’re making an assertion that even you cannot support. So your inability to come up with any backup for what you say shows the depth of your thought process. Come back when have argument. Traditional values only in Muslim countries hold a woman responsible for being raped. Come up with a cite for other examples if you wish me to entertain your unsupported ramblings further.
Seconded. It certainly does. It spreads disease, it results in dysfunctional relationships that affect families, groups of friends and often results in dramatic scenes in public, often including assault and murder. It results in unwanted pregnancy.
Saying that people having sex in private doesn’t affect society at large is simply false. It’s not a valid argument because it’s incorrect on an objective/empirical level.
Just because you and a handful of people that you know on the internet hold a certain position doesn’t make it a majority position. As for people having a “powerful emotional need for sexual fulfillment”, that’s flatly untrue. as testified by the large numbers of people today and in past times who abstained from sex for all or part of their adult lives and suffered no ill effects. I would know, since I’m one of them. (Also note that no one has raised questions about me being dysfunctional, thus refuting that particular claim. Also also note that I have abstained from sex by choice and am not a closet homosexual, thus also refuting what Diogenes claims about male virgins.)
Perhaps your understanding of this and other issues would advance a great deal if you understood that most people don’t care whether they have your approval or not. Nor do they care whether they’re “with the program” or “behind the times”. In fact, one reason why the people you despise remain so popular is precisely because they’re willing to stand up for morality even when faced with that sort of attack from the less-holy-than-thou crowd. That is precisely what attracts many people to them and their positions.
As for why many people oppose premarital sex, the answer is that many countries including America have been doing experiments on the topic in the last couple generations. We have places in America that have experiment with virtually eliminating marriage and in-wedlock childbirth. They are called inner-city ghettos. Within these places, rates of marriage among adults and legitimacy in birth are low, well below half and below a third in some states. And what’s the result of this experiment? The social and economic conditions of the ghettos speak for themselves. They speak particularly loudly when compared with the wealthiest and healthiest parts of the country, which not coincidentally have high marriage rates and low out-of-wedlock birth rates.
As this thread shows, there are plenty of people willing to bleat about how monogamous marriage is an archaic institution that people should stop participating in. These people always ignore the fact that tens of millions of people have actually put this theory into practice and the result has been an enormous disaster. Traditional morality caused imaginary suffering as described by Der Trihs and his friends. The collapse of traditional morality and the introduction of a new morality has caused real suffering, which is plainly visible in parts of every American city.
Despite this, I wish to add my voice to those pointing out the irrationality of assuming that abstinence, or virginity after some arbitrarily determined age, in any way suggests some kind of dysfunction. Also, if a woman wants to “save herself” for her future mate, I entirely respect her choice. (or, for that matter, a man who similarly chooses to save himself) No it doesn’t make them better people, but neither does it make them dysfunctional, or a perpetrator of some ancient religious evil.
I never thump my Bible.
How do you know I’m simply parroting back? Have you asked me?
What it so wrong about expressing an opinion even if it is wrong? I still don’t get it. Can’t you realise I don’t want anyone to change their minds about it in this thread? Can you?
Are there *wrongfully *extant things?