Most Americans have had premarital sex, study finds

[700IAM]

You can read the definition of [depraved] in the dictionary or look at the post above.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I had sex at puberty but I was alone and did not use a condom. Am I going to Hell?

UT

 

[700IAM]

I had sex at puberty but I was alone and did not use a condom. Am I going to Hell?

UT

Probably, but I am not your keeper and don‘t know that answer. I do know that the majority of souls are indeed heading for hell fire, as it is written......seems funny now so laugh it up if that's all you have to hang on to, as sad as that is.

 

[Leto2]

Prostitution in and of its self is a vocation like any other. Making it legal just makes it safer. Making it illegal does not reduce it, just makes it go under ground and be more dangerous for all involved. Homosexuality has more than likely not increased but has just come out in the open. Drugs like alcohol and tobacco that have been accepted since the dawn of time or other drugs that society has deemed "wrong" and cannot profit off of? I’ll give you the sex and media. Porn, not so sure. Much of that is technology related. If you peruse the internet, there is tones of stuff from the 20’s and later that can be found. Prior to that, photography was a bit expensive and not as available.

Thank you for validating my point. If the morals that you based your above opinions on are not degraded from morals prevalent 100 years ago, then I must not understand what "degraded" means.

God has no business in the public forum.

Fortunately our founding fathers didn't agree with you. Otherwise who would have endowed us with our unalienable Rights? Perhaps we should edit the Declaration of Independence...

I do not believe in god and I have no moral degradation. Just because the morals I live by are similar to those of a believer does not prove that my beliefs are based on yours. It only means they are similar. The ‘morals’ could very well have originated separately.

So what, exactly, are your morals based on? If everyone determines what's right for themselves, then how can anyone ever be wrong?

I did not think I said sex brought happiness.

You said:

As far as I am concerned, if more people got laid more often, the world would be a much happier place than it is right now.

 

[KCFlyer]

God is the basis for morality and has been in Western society for quite some time (other societies either use God as a basis for morality or some other diety or substitute). I believe that the basis for morality has been established for so long that people who don't believe in God still recognize most morals.

Oddly enough, a lot of folks who call themselves good Christians might recgonize most morals, but they don't abide by them. Personally, screwing a married woman who isn't your wife is morally wrong, might even be worse than premarital sex, but I know a good Christian fellow (a leader in his church) who makes it a habit to make sexy time with 3 or 4 different married women. Of course - he's "counselling" them thru some rough times in their lives, so it's all okay I guess. Bottom line, I know some heathens who have superior morals than many good Christians.

 

[Leto2]

Oddly enough, a lot of folks who call themselves good Christians might recgonize most morals, but they don't abide by them. Personally, screwing a married woman who isn't your wife is morally wrong, might even be worse than premarital sex, but I know a good Christian fellow (a leader in his church) who makes it a habit to make sexy time with 3 or 4 different married women. Of course - he's "counselling" them thru some rough times in their lives, so it's all okay I guess. Bottom line, I know some heathens who have superior morals than many good Christians.

Of course not all Christians abide by their own morals--and there are many non-Christians who also don't abide by their own morals. That's why in the Old Testament Israelites are destroyed by God and also destroy other people (e.g. Jerico) in God's name. I don't understand what this has to do with anything. My quote that you referenced has to do with where morals came from. Do you agree they come from God or some other supreme force or being? Or is it like Garfield says, we just make them up and what's right for me may not be right for you--everything's relative?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

God is the basis for morality and has been in Western society for quite some time (other societies either use God as a basis for morality or some other diety or substitute). I believe that the basis for morality has been established for so long that people who don't believe in God still recognize most morals.
For supporting evidence to this, look at the last 100 years of Western society history. People have been rejecting God more and more--and morals have degraded. For example, in many places in Europe, prostitution is now legal. Homosexuality is much more common now than in the past. Some drugs have been illegalized because of the harm they do and are now becoming more accepted and in some places legal. Sex and violence has become much more rampant and accepted on TV and other media. Pornography is more common and accepted than ever before.

Leto2,

Your argument has been a resounding gong since the Declaration of Independence... and I believe that it will continue to be a relevant debate until, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "Government becomes destructive of these ends... [and] the People alter ... or abolish it."

In 1945, the noted constitutional historian Charles Warren wrote: "It is a singular fact that the greatest event in American history - the Declaration of Independence - has been the subject of more incorrect popular belief, more bad memory on the part of participants, and more false history than any other occurrence in our national life."

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, relied heavily upon Isaac Newton, John Locke, and St. Thomas Aquinas in his first draft. That is why you see many references to "Natural Law."

That begs the question: What is the source of natural law?

Many people on your side of the argument have argued as Dr. King has: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." In other words, the law of nature was seen by the Congressionalists to be a part of the law of God. And that the law of God could be discovered in two ways: first, as revealed in the Bible, and second, through the moral sense implanted in men by God.

Others, like Garfield, seem to suggest that the course of natural law is derived from "reason." You know... from the age of enlightenment. Accordingly, the underlying assumptions regarding the state of nature provided the foundations so that individuals could "reason" as to what was needed to "preserve" their liberty. Others derive the natural law from prudential judgments about what conditions would serve to protect this innate liberty. These people often cite Jefferson's 1st draft: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness." (No mention of God or Creator).

Obviously, you agree with the New England Congressionalist, as you said: "Fortunately our founding fathers didn't agree with you. Otherwise who would have endowed us with our unalienable Rights? Perhaps we should edit the Declaration of Independence..." How do you reconcile the 2 differences in the source of Natural Law and how do you dispose of Jefferson's supposed religious leanings?

 

[Flying Titan]

Bottom line, I know some heathens who have superior morals than many good Christians.

That's very true. There are a lot of hypocrites out there posing as Christians. You can find some of them on this very board. That's not the point. The point is that a standard has been set for people to try to follow. Judeo-Christian values are the basis for the very freedoms that we now enjoy in the west. Democracy and capitalism depend on these types of standards or they become simply tyranny of the majority and greed - sort of an "every man for himself" society.

Included in these standards are accepted boundaries for sex. My wife and I have lots of fantastic sex. As Gar pointed out, sex feels great. The world probably would be a better place if people had more of it...but it should be within the bounds of a loving, committed, long-term relationship - preferably marriage. The reason for this is that sex is more than just the physical act of intercourse. It carries so much emotional power with it. That power can be a positive force in people's lives or it can be very destructive. All of us here can probably think of examples of both.

For our physical and mental health, when it comes to sex, it turns out that these boundaries are a good thing - not a bad thing.

All you have to do is read many of my prior posts on this board to see that I'm not some conservative, right-wing nut. However, perhaps more than many of our right-wing friends (not very humble, I know, and I apologize), I strongly believe in standards, morals, and ethics. Sex without boundaries may sound great at first...but over time it leads to many, many problems on a personal and societal level.

 

[Leto2]

Excellent post Gilding the Lily. Basically you spelled out what we've been arguing about--what is the basis of morals? What makes one thing moral and another immoral?

As you said in your post, I believe that every person is born with a God-given sense of what's right and wrong--it's commonly known as a conscience. However, we all know that if we ignore our conscience enough times, it becomes dull or even disappears altogether; we can become "desensitized".

How do you reconcile the 2 differences in the source of Natural Law and how do you dispose of Jefferson's supposed religious leanings?

The source of Natural Law is something eternal. Even God abides by it and he allows us to abide by it. To say that morality is relative is to say that there is no Natural Law. If we are all just animals living here, then how could there be unalienable rights? If we are just a species that's here by chance and if morals are relative, then who's to say that anything is moral or immoral? Who's to say that anyone should be guaranteed any rights? Not all men are created equal if all men are here by chance. Shouldn the smartest, strongest, and luckiest get to do what they want?

On the other hand, if we are not here by chance, then there is some Natural Law that existed before we did. The Natural Law, not only guarantees our rights, but also would define morals--morals that don't change with time or opinion.

If there is no God, then we are just animals and there is no basis for morals nor for rights.

 

[Garfield1966]

I had no idea this thread would evolve into what it has but what the hell, sounds like fun.

I am not sure I subscribe to the definition of natural law posted above. I look at natural law as what a animal is hard wired to do. From what I recall from my biology classes, animals (of which we are a part) are designed to feed and procreate. That is the goal of all species. Beyond that, as far as I am concerned, we human animals just make it up as we go.

I still maintain that right and wrong is relative. We make it up as we go along. Fortunately, most of us have a similar concept of what right and wrong is. Were this not the case, all the laws of man would be for naught for anarchy would rule the day. For the most part we all agree that taking the life of another is wrong unless there is a greater good (that part is relative). We agree that taking the property of another with out permission is wrong unless there is a greater good (that part is relative).

I am not sure how chance or design has anything to do with man being created equal. When I see the term I interpret it as being equivalent to saying all cars are created equal. They are equal in that any car will get you from point A to point B. Yes there is a difference in quality, speed etc between a Porche and a Yugo but in function, they will both accomplish the same thing (my apologies to any Porche owners). As for survival of the fittest, that is what the law of the land was until recently. The wild west was controlled by the gun and by money. You look around today and who has the power? The poor? No. The rich and powerful control the power. And for the most part, they do get to do what they want.

As for our morals degrading over the past 100 years I am not sure I agree with that either. At the very least we are just more open about things. No one knows if there are more gay people now than there were 100 years ago. What we do know is that as a society we have grown up a bit and a learning to accept people and more people are comfortable with who they are and do not feel the need to hide it from public view. When I was a child I remember touring a castle in England. Not sure if you have ever been there but those were some twisted demented folks. Look Iron Maiden if you don't believe me (the item not the band) or the rack, hell, just look up ancient torture devices and see what you find. The church burned people at the stake. They burned them alive. How sick is that? Are we to believe that incest, battery, rape … are all modern inventions? How do you explain slavery? No, I don't think our morals are worse than they were, just different.

As Lilly pointed out, Jefferson's original draft contained no mention of god. Our inalienable rights were given to us by us. It is an ideal that we aspire to and that we thought up on our own. The idea of god is just a convenient form of enforcement.

I want to get back to my favorite topic. SEX. Sex is a good thing. Among humans, it is no longer just for procreation. It is now also a form or recreation. Should their be boundaries? That is for each person to decide. As long as your (the general you) boundaries do not cross mine, do as you choose. If someone chooses to accept cash for sexual favors, that is their choice. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant. Marriage is obviously a farce in this country. With a divorce rate at over 50% is more of a hobby than a career. Very few species remain monogamous through out their life time and I am not sure we were meant to.

I do not feel there is anything wrong with sex. Marriage is a legal contract that has little meaning in the relationship between 2 people. Some people abuse sex but that is their problem. My bed post has very few notches on it and that was my choice.

When I said that if more people got laid more often the world would be a happier place I meant that for that moment they would be happy and perhaps they would realize that sex is not a bad thing and that sex can make one happier and be that much closer to happiness. Being happier and happiness are in my eye different. That is not to say that being happy because of sex and happiness are one and the same. Happiness is more of an over all state of being. Perhaps it was a poor example and or use of words on my part. I do know a few people who are just way to ticked off for their own good. I know that they are alone. I believe that if they got a really good (you know) they would be quite a bit happier. No, that's not the only thing they need but it seems to me like it would sure as heck help.

As from what my morals are based on, I personally use common sense. If would not want it done to me, I do not do it to someone else. I believe people have been using this concept for eons. Long before the concept of god came to be.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Personally, screwing a married woman who isn't your wife is morally wrong, might even be worse than premarital sex, ................

It's also dangerous.......One of the guys in my neighborhood as a kid sported scars on his back from a shotgun blast from a jealous husband. He was headed in the right direction is my guess as to why he was still alive.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Marriage is a legal contract that has little meaning in the relationship between 2 people.

!!!!!!?????

Everyone I know who has been divorced would beg to differ.

 

[Garfield1966]

!!!!!!?????

Everyone I know who has been divorced would beg to differ.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. The legal contract is binding, as your divorced friends will attest to. The 'little meaning' part referred to the idea of the sanctity of marriage and the concept of marriage in general.

When I asked my wife what changed between us from the moment before she said "I do" to the moment after she said it, her reply was she gets half my stuff. Our love did not change, or devotion did not change. Nothing changed in so far as how we felt for each other. Legally a lot changed. I hope that clears up any confusion.

 

[diogenes]

God grants us free will, part of the inalienable rights under discussion.

We are free to make of that gift what we will, for better or worse.

I am not interested in creating a government that enforces religious doctrine - we did that in Europe during the Dark Ages. That disaster (Inquisistion,etc.) led to the founding documents of America, a keystone of which is freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The common sense meaning of that is we can worhip as we please, or not at all.

I'd really hate for someone like Pat Robertson to decide how we worship - he'd burn me at the stake, because I could not help from label him Pharisee.

With regards to deteriorating standards,

"Our youth love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, and disrespect for their people. Children nowadays are tyrants. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble their food and tyrannize their teachers".

Sounds recent, yes? Actually, Socrates, 400 BC.

We old timers always thing the youngsters are going to hell in a handbasket.

And given our treatment of the American Indian and our history of slavery, I'm leery of claiming the mantle of righteousness for the nation.

"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Luke 18:9-14

 

[Leto2]

Sorry, poor wording on my part. The legal contract is binding, as your divorced friends will attest to. The 'little meaning' part referred to the idea of the sanctity of marriage and the concept of marriage in general.

When I asked my wife what changed between us from the moment before she said "I do" to the moment after she said it, her reply was she gets half my stuff. Our love did not change, or devotion did not change. Nothing changed in so far as how we felt for each other. Legally a lot changed. I hope that clears up any confusion.

I disagree (surprise). Marriage takes more commitment than "shacking up" does. For one thing, you mentioned that you now share the assets you have. For another, marriage signals that you don't plan on separating anytime soon. If a couple is together and isn't married, then the commitment isn't quite as deep. That's why many people are reluctant to get married, even when they've lived for someone for a while--they're afraid of the commitment.
Of course this is generalized, maybe this wasn't the case with you, Garfield, but it is the case for most people. I think that things to change with marriage.

Unfortunately many people today aren't fully committed even after they're married.

I am not interested in creating a government that enforces religious doctrine - we did that in Europe during the Dark Ages. That disaster (Inquisistion,etc.) led to the founding documents of America, a keystone of which is freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I agree that the government shouldn't establish a religion. However, remember that God was cited as the source of our rights in the Declaration of Independence (perhaps not in the first draft, but the fact that it was in the final draft carries some meaning). The government doesn't have to totally take God out, if it does than it is taking away the foundation. Mentioning God is NOT establishing a religion.

Also, all laws are essentially based on morals. My property is mine because I payed for it--you taking it from my would be immoral. We don't have to roll back our morals to make sure that religion isn't established.