posted
And I still think you're using anecdotal evidence to insinuate that this happens often/frequently/commonly.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I couldn't interpret your words properly, perhaps it's because I read it how it seemed to read:
quote:Oh, and perhaps the reason that there is a 50% divorce rate is BECAUSE of all the premarital sex--it is at LEAST a contributing factor.
So you say: Premarital sex is a contributing factor of divorce, possibly the reason we have 50% divorce rate.
And I say: I don't think that premarital sex can be said to be a cause (factor) of divorce in most cases, because it's impossible to prove such causation. It seems that your argument is that because A happened before B, A is a contributing factor to B. And I disagree.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
An anecdote involves telling a story or recounting an event or an incident.
I never used any anecdotal evidence.
It is my opinion. I never insinuated anything. I think you are misrepresenting my words in your rewrite of what I said.
Do I think premarital sex is the sole contributor to the high divorce rate? No. I don't even think it's on the top of the list as a direct cause.
I DO, however, believe that the "modern" attitudes about sex and marriage are the cause of the high divorce rate. And in a way, premarital sex could be said to be a part of that.
There's no way to PROVE this. There's no way to PROVE what you believe either. However, if someone were to do a study--NOT ME--I'd bet money that a correllation between divorce, STDs, ETC. and the sexual "revolution" could be found.
I'd be more likely to say that since A (Premarital sex) happened before B (Marriage), C (Complications) were caused that affected B, leading to D (Divorce). But it's not a MATH problem and it's not ALWAYS true.
posted
Most definitely. Did you expect me to use the GOOD pie on him? No, the pecan pie is for OSC, if ever he'd pop his head out long enough for me to catch him.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, you irk me too. I think you presented your initial point with the semblance that it was a strong cause. Now that I question that, you clarify that it's not the top cause or even perhaps in most cases. That's good enough for me and I thank you for that.
Sorry to have irked you.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll always get people riled up if you say something that can be interpreted as "X is a sin" because invariably someone on the list has X as a part of their way of life.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'll always get people riled up if you say something that can be interpreted as "X is a sin" because invariably someone on the list has X as a part of their way of life
That's because of the very real concern that X will become illegal.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW Katarain, because I was thinking that it's possible to imagine me saying the Sorry line in a snide way, I in no way mean it in a snide way. I'm sorry that my text voice is harsh in a way that I don't intend, and I'm sorry that I misunderstand the meaning behind certain people's posts (I tend to misread certain people more than others, due to various differences). I do hope I try my best to clarify and understand the real meaning, as I tried to do earlier with MPH.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, kat, you are definitely Mormon. I cannot critisize, or otherwise malign a fellow Mo. It says so in the Book of Mormon, somewhere.
But if you rile TomD enough, he'll pie you. Maybe. He'll probably get all rational and serious though. He hasn't been doing many pie-ings lately. Pity.
I don't debate the fact that you could probably use a good pie to the face. Everyone could. Except me. I'm on a diet.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I think that it is an completely unfair to respond to "X is wrong" as though they had said "X should be illegal". Many people have said that they feel premarital sex is wrong, but nobody has even hinted that it should be made illegal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not responding as though you specifically want it to be illegal. But the reason people argue this point is many-fold. In the public, a concern that people have is that the fundamentalist viewpoint will become law. I believe TD agreed on this point in his thread.
You stated a generality, I answered with a generality. Was that excessive of me?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I cannot critisize, or otherwise malign a fellow Mo.
I once had a roommate named Mo. Well, her name was Maureen, but she went by Mo.
She was a tiny little thing with a Ralphiesque rack, so I'm pretty sure she triggered some inappropriate thoughts amongst unmarried persons.
I don't know what they did about that, though.
(Does this count as maligning Mo? or her admirers? I'm so confused! But since I am not a fellow Mo -- alas -- I shall not be troubled too much. And I can wear linen/wool mixed fabric, although I won't.)
[ September 08, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously different people have different points-of-view on sex. It has different meanings for different people. I think that everyone should just find people who have similar attitudes on sex, and date those people. Why concern yourself with other people’s sex lives?
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe people get riled up not because they are afraid of legislation, or because they think stupid = sinful, but because they simply don't like being called stupid.
quote: I care because I have personally taken care of two children whose mothers did not understand that sex before marriage is stupid.
Hey. I had sex before marriage. I was aware of the ramifications and prepared to deal with the consequences. I also used protection. And the sex came about as a result of our deeper communication, not as an impediment to it. Oh, and I personally take care of two children whose birth-mother and -father were married, so I'm not sure what this anecdotal evidence proves.
posted
Scott, going back to your post on page three, I think most of your points, even if completely accurate, suggest not that conceiving out of wedlock is stupid but that delivering out of wedlock is stupid (or at least, somewhat disadvantaged over conceiving in wedlock).
As the topic under discussion is sex, which does not necessarily lead to conception, much less delivery, this is somewhat of an unwarranted step. It assumes the two people having sex, ready to have a child, would not if having a child go through the process of getting married. I know it would be a step I'd almost certainly undertake, were someone I was having sex with conceive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:*thinks marrying someone just because they're the father/mother of your baby is stupid*
Yes. But if you were in a situation like Russell is talking about, there would be ample reasons to get married apart from the appearance of a baby. Otherwise the couple in question wouldn't be having sex in the first place.
However, this is clearly not an ideal way of becoming engaged.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
