Most Americans have had premarital sex, study finds

[KCFlyer]

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.

Then why is there such reluctance on the part of right wing Christians to allow a gay couple to make that commitment? There are a lot of gay couples who would like to make as deep...or even deeper...commitment than some hetero couples. When one goes to the state to obtain a marriage license, nowhere on that license does it stipulate that the marriage must be performed in a religious ceremony...the license only says that once the marriage is performed...it's binding. It doesn't say it has to be a priest, rabbi, imam, minister, justice of the peace, or Elvis impersonator.

 

[diogenes]

Leto2,

I have absolutely no problem with any citizen, public or private, professing their faith, in public or in private. We are commended to do so.

Where I draw the line is when someone wants me to profess their version of God.

I've been around some very narrow minded religious types and let me assure you - they would not hesitate to create a theocracy (with themselves as high priests) and pass sharia to enforce it.

Look at the kerfluffle congressman Goode has stirred regarding the first Muslim congressman. Goode makes it patently obvious he believes Muslim Americans do not have the same rights under the constitution as Christian Americans.

Which is the kind of narrow, 'my-way-or-the-highway' orthodoxy we are fighting in the ME.

Tolerance has served America well. We have a higher church attendance and and higher number those who believe in God than any other modern society.

The only societies with higher rates are ones like Iran, where the state imposes religious activities.

I'll take and fight for the American way any time.

 

[Leto2]

Then why is there such reluctance on the part of right wing Christians to allow a gay couple to make that commitment? There are a lot of gay couples who would like to make as deep...or even deeper...commitment than some hetero couples. When one goes to the state to obtain a marriage license, nowhere on that license does it stipulate that the marriage must be performed in a religious ceremony...the license only says that once the marriage is performed...it's binding. It doesn't say it has to be a priest, rabbi, imam, minister, justice of the peace, or Elvis impersonator.

1. Because we think that homosexuality is immoral. Honestly, that's the main reason.

2. Because we think that marriage really isn't marriage if it's not between a man and a woman. It goes against nature.


Diogenes,
I agreed with pretty much everything you said. I also think that if someone wants to swear by the Koran, let them.

 

[KCFlyer]

1. Because we think that homosexuality is immoral. Honestly, that's the main reason.

Should our morals be legislated?

 

[Garfield1966]

Wouldn’t the better question be if want to allow the religious radicals to continue to dictate how we conduct our lives?

Look at the "Blue Laws". I have to drive 30 miles out of my way in order to get a bottle of wine or spirits. I do not drink but I use it to cook. I am not allowed to by booze on Sunday because it offends the morals of someone who I don not even know. What a load of crap.

Sodomy laws. What business is it of anyone what to consenting adults do?

Drug laws. I can buy a box of cigarette (know carcinogen) but I can not buy marijuana or other drugs?

What the religious nut cases do not seem to realize is that they should not have the right to dictate what anyone else does with/to their life. If they are offended by it or do not like it or find it morally offensive, fine by me. No one is forcing them to partake. They just need to walk away, STFU and mind their own business.

I take solace in the knowledge that these same people used the same arguments against blacks and against women. We managed to over come their narrow minded bigotry then and the same will happen for their current version of hatred. Now it is the homosexuals. That will be over come, they will be accepted into society and then we will face the next victims of hatred and fear who ever they may be.

 

[Leto2]

Wouldn’t the better question be if want to allow the religious radicals to continue to dictate how we conduct our lives?

"Radicals" huh? Maybe you should move to Iran. Then you would even be more "oppressed". You sound more radical than a lot of the "religious right".

 

[Flying Titan]

Look at the "Blue Laws". I have to drive 30 miles out of my way in order to get a bottle of wine or spirits. I do not drink but I use it to cook. I am not allowed to by booze on Sunday because it offends the morals of someone who I don not even know. What a load of crap.

Gar -
I know this is off topic, but it's funny that you mention "blue laws." I used to be very opposed to them, largely for the reason that you cite, but I'm somewhat torn on them now. The more I consider them, the more I think they're actually more pro-labor and pro-family than most legislation that's come down the pike in recent years. Of course, they were originally in place to "honor the sabbath" - but the more practical effect is to allow workers to slow down a bit and re-charge, spend time with family & friends, etc. In the overall scheme of things, how important is that emergency bottle of cooking wine? Not sure if I feel strongly enough about this to fight for the return of "blue laws" here, but it's something to think about anyway. JMHO.

 

[Garfield1966]

Titian,

I think I understand your point but as KC indicated above, is it the governments job to protect the family in that way. Certain business here in TX chose to be closed on Sunday and that is their choice. I have no issue with that. I do have an issue with the state coming in and telling me, a business owner that I may not sell a certain item on a certain day because it offends someone’s sensibilities. Wine and spirits are legal to sell on all other days but not Sunday?

I do not mean this as a shot at you but I am tired of all these different standards being used to justify laws and beliefs.

Everyone else,

Laws should be based on the greater good for society, to protect them. Someone should not be allowed to come into my house and steal my stuff. Rights should not have any overlap. When your rights infringe on my life, that is where the law should draw the line. What two people do together has not direct bearing on my life and as such, I have no right to tell them what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own room. If someone wants to smoke crack, drink to excess, watch porno, and eat a whopper with fries while sitting in a tub with a toaster on the edge that is their option. I think it is stupid as hell but hey, not my problem.

Someone does not like premarital sex, great, one less person I would have had to compete with on the dating scene. More power to you. If getting it on with someone of the same gender is not your cup of tea, great, don’t do it. No one is forcing you to. Just don’t you dare be so arrogant as to believe you can prevent me from doing so. I do not care what your beliefs are. They are your beliefs so keep them to your self.

 

[Leto2]

Titian,
Laws should be based on the greater good for society, to protect them.

What if I think that homosexuality, premarital sex, and prostitution are bad for society? All of those things contribute to the spread STD's which not only harm individuals but also eat up tax dollars for research on how to fix them, programs to make people aware of them, etc., and also raise healthcare costs. So when two people have premarital sex or sodomize and it spreads an STD, it suddenly becomes my problem because I have to pay taxes and healthcare premiums.

When people take addictive drugs (including tobacco), it also raises taxes and healthcare costs for the same reason. Not to mention that some drugs are addictive enough that people will neglect their families--this creates social problems. Also using drugs can affect the brain and make people stupider. When people are stupider they do stupid stuff (like drive under the influence) which makes things more costly for everyone and hurts society as a whole.

The same can be said about pornography to some degree, surely it's as addictive as tobacco or even some illegal drugs and it destroys families, increasing the amount of single mothers on welfare.

So where do we draw the line? Suddenly some of the things that people can do in "the privacy of their own home" become my problem and infringe on my rights to keep my money (and not pay more taxes) and to not have to look at bums and prostitutes on the street.
If you think that only things that affect other people should be illegal, then by your own logic all the things I listed above should be illegal.

 

[delldude]

"Radicals" huh? Maybe you should move to Iran. Then you would even be more "oppressed". You sound more radical than a lot of the "religious right".

Duh...wasn't this discussion one of the reasons our great country was founded?

 

[KCFlyer]

What if I think that homosexuality, premarital sex, and prostitution are bad for society? All of those things contribute to the spread STD's which not only harm individuals but also eat up tax dollars for research on how to fix them, programs to make people aware of them, etc., and also raise healthcare costs. So when two people have premarital sex or sodomize and it spreads an STD, it suddenly becomes my problem because I have to pay taxes and healthcare premiums.

You'd be surprised at the number of married folks who somehow end up with STD's that they got from stepping out of their morally approved marriage. What's the legislated punishment you'd recommend for that?

 

[delldude]

Get down to legislating morals and morality then we've come full circle....so then what we do,take a sailboat back to Europe?

When the thought police coming into vogue?

 

[Garfield1966]

Since we are not going to use common sense let me see if I can explain this a bit more thoroughly. The actions is question must have some sort of direct and or provable impact. Smoking causes cancer in a majority of the case. When someone smokes in my presence, they are jeopardizing my health. There is not way to make smoke safe. STD’s can be limited by the use of prophylactics and testing. It only directly effects the people who contract it. Why the use of tax dollars may be a valid concern, if we use that as a basis, we can all stop driving, shut down all fast food, …etc which is neither in the public benefit or practical.

It is all a balancing act. I can imagine nearly any act, from driving to watching a movie could be diagramed out to show some damage to society. Watching a movie uses power which is generated by burning coal which causes pollution which can cause cancer which will kill people so therefore movies are dangerous and should be banned. Drugs are a issue yes, but how do you differentiate addictive Cocaine and someone who becomes obese from fast food, dies at 40 leaving a spouse and children to survive on their own? People are arguing that eating is an addiction now. You cannot go around banning KFC and McD’s. At what point do people have to be responsible for their own actions. I prefer to allow people the broadest freedoms to do as they wish rather than to limit freedoms to protect them from them selves.

Porn is legal, drugs are legal (why some are and some are not is a mystery too me), sodomy is legal so I am not sure what your last sentence is meant to imply.

 

[diogenes]

Leto2,

The things you mention - homosexuality, premarital sex, smoking, drinking, etc - are exercises of free will. You can disagree with the choices, but that is between each individual and God.

Look at societies who's government dictates such choices - Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. I would not care to live in such a place, even if the ruling dogma were christian. It's far too easy for me to imagine Robertson and Falwell calling the shots. It's far too easy to imagine christianity traded for power. Imagine? It's happening. Delay talks righteously, and acts fraudulently. The knowledge of Foley was known among believers, yet his sin was covered up for temporal gain. Truly, I fail to see how our politics are aiding the cause of Christ.

I am not interesting in creating a government that has such knowledge of private lives. Given the deficit, the falling economic standing of workers, illegal immigration, Iraq, etc., etc., the government has enough legitimate tasks before it without listening to my phone calls and tracking my sex life.

 

[UAL_TECH]

There are a lot of gay couples who would like to make as deep...or even deeper...commitment than some hetero couples.

That thought is just wrong!
Reminds me of my sigmoidoscopy......... 😛