No, because the social ills (for which no evidence has yet been cited) caused by people fucking out of wedlock is fair game. But you can’t dare question such a sacred and holy mandated by my small god marriage despite what social ills it might cause, even if they’re exactly the same as the ones caused by those out of marriage.
Duh.
Boy, Kanicbird, you’re so far out you’ve come back around. 
Either that or you’re rationalizing your own sexual behavior, which puts you in good company.
Actually no, having monogamous sex reduces the chances of spreading diseases significantly. There is no valid counter-argument to this, and it need not be cited as it should be obvious. Also, when a child enters the picture and the responsibility is taken by both parents to raise that child, there is a difference.
This is a pretty common liberal fallacy, trying to draw false equivalencies everywhere. I notice that some people have trouble addressing what I actually say without commenting on religious dogma which I have yet to say a word about. I have not said that people shouldn’t have sex with whomever they want as long as it’s consentual, I only spoke out against the ludicrous nonsense that it’s costless to society, which it isn’t. It leads to illegitimate children who live in poverty, it leads to the spread of venereal disease. That it is not costless is blindingly fucking obvious. Arguments to the contrary are simply not valid. They teach my point of view in every health class in this nation.
A) you don’t need to be married to have monogamous sex.
B) being married doesn’t mean one only has monogamous sex.
Marriage is just an agreement people make, it isn’t gilded by Odin or anything.
Schools around the country teach that children born out of wedlock are poor?
There is little difference between a committed monogamous relationship and a marriage, the distinction is so fine as to be irrelevant, which is why we have such a thing as common-law marriages.
However it doesn’t explain why we’re having this debate. Marriage isn’t some panacea that cures all of society’s ills.
Yeah, no one is arguing that position, so I am equally baffled as to why you’re pushing this debate.
I’m still stuck on Mswas’s statement that children who don’t have two parents are not only poor, but that we routinely teach in schools that they are poor.
I’m not pushing … I’m replying. My point all along is that it isn’t whether or not someone is married when they fuck someone, it’s the fucking that’s the issue. Marriage has pretty much nothing to do with it.
That is to say, pre-marital sex isn’t harmful to society. Unsafe sex is harmful to society.
You’re stuck on something I didn’t say then.
I disagree that marriage has nothing to do with it. You are oversimplifying things and I don’t really see the point.
The idea that the two can be disconnected is the problem that I have. Yes, some people get away with it and emerge unscathed, others don’t. Sometimes condoms break and someone gets pregnant or contracts HIV. pre-marital sex is not cost neutral.
Mswas’s Point of View:
“[1.]It leads to illegitimate children who live in poverty, it leads to the spread of venereal disease.That it is not costless is blindingly fucking obvious. [2.]Arguments to the contrary are simply not valid. They teach my point of view in every health class in this nation.”(emphasis added)
Yeah, I’m making it up out of the blue.
And how, exactly, does marriage cure all that? I could be wrong, but didn’t you agree that marriage itself is not cost-neutral?
And by they way, what is there to “get away with”? If I meet a comely (or homely, for that matter) young lady and she wishes to have my penis inserted in her vagina and I comply … what have we “gotten away with.” Were we in danger of having the Fun Police bust us or something?
You think I’m over-simplifying; I think you’re over-complicating.
Your reading comprehension is so poor that at this point there is no reason to even try to have a conversation with you.
I don’t understand what you are getting at. No marriage is not cost-neutral. Marriage for one thing keeps kids from being illegitimate.
:rolleyes: you are reading too much into my choice of verbiage. I just meant that often one can have casual sex and it remain casual, but occasionally casual sex results in a permanent consequences. I would even argue that statistically the consequences are anomalous, but as we probably have millions of cases of casual sex every day, even if only 1 in a million results in unintended consequences that means that though statistically low, it still results in a discernible impact on society.
I’m certainly not over-complicating.
I’d like to remind you what the OP was about, it was about settling controversy regarding casual sex. I am simply pointing out why that controversy has not been settled. The OP implied that the counter-argument to his claims were invalid. They aren’t.
Yes, my reading comprehension is poor by linking together things which are put into the same paragraph. Let’s review, shall we:
A paragraph is a group of closely related sentences put together which to deal with a very particular, narrow subject. When the subject has different area which are in the same topic, several paragraphs are used.
They are parsed up such that the topic is closely related enough to be in the same rank, but different enough in minutia to warrant some separation. see, this is a new paragraph here because, while still on the same topic of paragraphs, sentences and ideas, it’s different enough that it can be a separate, yet closely related, discussion. This is because the first paragraph deals with what a paragraph is, while this one deals with how to differentiate what is described above. See? Wow.
This, I think, is the heart of the issue: that it can occasionally have permanent consequences. From that subset of times that it can happen is a smaller pool of incidents which can impact society-at-large. The problem is how do we decide when the occasional bit happens so often that it’s worth legislating against? What proportion of times would it require that a.) people shag casually, b.) something permanent comes from it and c.) now it’s in society’s lap and is now worth regulating because the problem is a burden for society?
I never said that every act of premarital sex results in breeding into poverty, and that is what you seem to expect me to defend. Some acts do result in breeding into poverty, which is what I actually said and is 100% true.
So really you are just extrapolating some pretty wild stuff from a fairly innocuous statement.
As it needs to be parsed incredibly fine with you, I’ll ask this:
Do you think that premarital sex NEVER leads to children being bred into poverty?
If the answer is:
Yes: You’re a fucking nutcase.
No: We are in agreement and this line of discussion is concluded.
Well my point is that as a proportion of the set (people having casual sex) it happens rarely that one meets with permanent consequences. But that the set is so fucking large, millions of cases of casual sex per day, that permanent results occur every day. People are infected with nasty diseases, herpes, hepatitis, HIV (just to stay in the H’s) or people have children out of wedlock with people they don’t want to establish a family with multiple times daily and this DOES affect you and I. I had lots of promiscuous sex before I met my current wife, and I actually caught some diseases, luckily for me they were easily treatable at the free clinic. If you live in the state of New York your tax dollars paid to clear up my rash sometime around 1999. It’s also a rash that wouldn’t have been solved by a condom. So it wasn’t costless. The cost might have been negligible, a miniscule fraction of a cent distributed across the 8 million people that live in this city, but not costless. Lucky for me and the taxpayers of New York it wasn’t HIV or Hep C no?