It isn't fair to try and shut down a general discussion by taking it all personally and then appealing to someone's politeness.
In other words, some general discussions will strike closer to home than others, but that doesn't mean those topics should be off limits or that it should be impossible to discuss them generally.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
In regards to Stephan's lack of imagination:
You could've not had sex. That's more responsible.
quote:when you make blanket statements that sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, you are always going to be talking about someone's personal life.
...or abortion, or homosexuality, or pornography. We're always talking about "someone's" personal life, without talking about any one person specifically.
Most people don't take it personally. If you insist on doing so, maybe this isn't the right time for you to be in this conversation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
You could've not had sex. That's more responsible.
Depends on your definition of responsibility.
Two people, committed and in love. Why does a county document saying we are married make us more responsible? Sure didn't have anything to do with God, my Rabbi said since she wasn't Jewish it wasn't religiously legal.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does a county document saying we are married make us more responsible?
This is a backwards way of thinking-- you (again-- NOT YOU SPECIFICALLY) are responsible, THEN or SO you get married, THEN the sex you have is responsible.
The county document doesn't make you responsible. Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does a county document saying we are married make us more responsible?
This is a backwards way of thinking-- you (again-- NOT YOU SPECIFICALLY) are responsible, THEN or SO you get married, THEN the sex you have is responsible.
The county document doesn't make you responsible. Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
Maybe I'll surprise you. I agree that responsible people get married. But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible. But I think this is where faith and religion comes in to play as part of the reason you have your opinion, and I have mine.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
If you are getting married as a way to have sex and insure yourself against single parenthood, it may be responsible, but it seems to me that that's a degraded sense of marriage. Admittedly, I'm a fan of sex before marriage, and marriage for love and not as a way to have sex.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
If you are getting married as a way to have sex and insure yourself against single parenthood, it may be responsible, but it seems to me that that's a degraded sense of marriage. Admittedly, I'm a fan of sex before marriage, and marriage for love and not as a way to have sex.
I'm 99% sure I could respond for Scott R, and that is not saying anything bad about him.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so you know, I am not "taking this personally" in a way that means my feelings are hurt or that I think anyone is being impolite by answering questions that I ask. Saying "Kate is irresponsible" is no more offensive than saying "people who do X are irresponsible" if I am part of that group. My purpose in bringing my own life into the discussion is not to quell anyone's discussion or to hope that they are too polite to say outright what they want to say. My purpose is to offer a concrete example that I believe contradicts their assumption. If they have concrete answers to why I (or people like me) are irresponsible I still haven't heard them. Other than where specific details might impact the privacy of other people, I am happy and comfortable having that conversation.
If it would make you more comfortable, I could make up an example. She would resemble me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, your scenario relies WAAY too much on general, intimate, detailed knowledge of your life. How on earth could anyone make a judgment about your life when the only source of information is you on this message board?
I'm responsible - I can prove it! Just ask me!Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Scott is defining responsibility in such a way that any extramarital sex is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances.
But it doesn't have anything to do with religion.
At this point, I would be thrilled to hear "because God said so". At least that I could understand. I don't really understand any other argument that I have read yet.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should use what merriam-webster.com defines as responsible:
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties 2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So ask. People who have decided that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible have already made that judgement about me. Shouldn't you know what the facts are? As I said, outside of impacting other people's privacy, I am happy to answer relevant questions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Scott is defining responsibility in such a way that any extramarital sex is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances.
But it doesn't have anything to do with religion.
At this point, I would be thrilled to hear "because God said so". At least that I could understand. I don't really understand any other argument that I have read yet.
I can't say all the oppositions arguements have made much sense to me either.
They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
By itself I think premarital sex contributes to a greater increase in abortions. I believe any abortion that can be avoided is a good thing, therefore premarital sex leads to a situation that I find unfavorable.
I fail to see what horrors and terrible events ensue when somebody keeps it in their pants.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, there is no way for you to be the impartial source of information about how responsible you are. It isn't pointless because you don't talk about sex enough - it's pointless because you are not a source of impartial information.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't say all the oppositions arguements have made much sense to me either.
They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place but nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
By itself I think premarital sex contributes to a greater increase in abortions. I believe any abortion that can be avoided is a good thing, therefore premarital sex leads to a situation that I find unfavorable.
I fail to see what horrors and terrible events ensue when somebody keeps it in their pants.
I guess that goes back to are views on the human race. I think 75% are either incapable of keeping it in their pants or are responsible (the vast MINORITY of the 75%) enough to not need to, otherwise everyone would wait for marriage, there would be no need for abortion, and there would be no STDs. Which is why I think it is a waste of time to worry about preaching abstinence ALL the time, but teaching responsibility in using birth control.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[pop psychology mode] If Scott admits that it is possible to have responsible sex outside marriage, then he's going to have to admit that all those chances he turned down in his teens and early twenties were missed opportunities, not virtuous responsibility. Obviously he can't do that. [/pop psychology mode]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [pop psychology mode] If Scott admits that it is possible to have responsible sex outside marriage, then he's going to have to admit that all those chances he turned down in his teens and early twenties were missed opportunities, not virtuous responsibility. Obviously he can't do that. [/pop psychology mode]
Sarcasm aside, I still consider him virtuous if he managed to avoid giving in to temptation. Not necessarily more responsible though.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I am using myself as an example. It is the one with which I am most familiar. It is an example that, I believe proves the statement, "all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible" wrong.
I could give other examples:
A man and a woman have lived together for 10 years. She has a son by a previous marriage; they have one son together. How are they being irresponsible. Their son is happy and healthy and loved. How is having sex with her partner irresponsible?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Stephan: There is a disconnect somewhere in your post, I do not follow your conclusion based on your statements. What is wrong with eliminating the need for abortions or STDs?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: OK that was moderately funny.
Stephan: There is a disconnect somewhere in your post, I do not follow your conclusion based on your statements. What is wrong with eliminating the need for abortions or STDs?
Nothing wrong at all. What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
Well, no. I don't think anyone is saying that premarital sex as a general rule is fine. Rather, I think people are saying that not all premarital sex is necessarily bad.
quote:By itself I think premarital sex contributes to a greater increase in abortions. I believe any abortion that can be avoided is a good thing, therefore premarital sex leads to a situation that I find unfavorable.
What if there is no possible way for the couple to conceive a child? What if both people are ready and willing to have a baby, therefore removing the possibility of an abortion? Would premarital sex then be sometimes acceptable?
Incidentally, there are many activities that involve a certain degree of risk that are not considered irresponsible.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sarcasm aside, I still consider him virtuous if he managed to avoid giving in to temptation. Not necessarily more responsible though. [/QB]
That makes no sense; it's not virtuous to resist a temptation if you are tempted to do something that does no harm! Consider the temptation to have a cold drink of milk on a hot day; is it virtuous to resist it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, you set up a scenario that basically says "Two people engage in this activity and there are no negative results. What is the negative result?"
Can you see how that's not a good argument?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sarcasm aside, I still consider him virtuous if he managed to avoid giving in to temptation. Not necessarily more responsible though.
That makes no sense; it's not virtuous to resist a temptation if you are tempted to do something that does no harm! Consider the temptation to have a cold drink of milk on a hot day; is it virtuous to resist it? [/QB]
I find it virtuous because to HIM it would do harm. Whether physically or spiritually it doesn't matter.
And cold milk on a hot day would do some harm to me. I'm lactose intolerant.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't say all the oppositions arguements have made much sense to me either.
They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
That's funny, the argument I'm mostly seeing is that there are instances in which premarital sex isn't irresponsible. Which is nothing like the argument you paraphrased.
[ June 07, 2007, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually wish Scott would have said, "Because God says so," instead, I'd rather him look at it like in a pious light rather than like an actuary.
quote:So could I, mostly that Irami has completely skipped this sentence:
quote:(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
I didn't skip the sentence, I just don't think it's ever acceptable. I'll put my thinking plainly: "Getting married in order to have sex always degrades marriage."
_____
I believe in romantic love. I don't think the phrase is a punch-line to some joke, and I think marriage is only for people in committed, romantic love.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Kate, you set up a scenario that basically says "Two people engage in this activity and there are no negative results. What is the negative result?"
Can you see how that's not a good argument?
I am responding to a statement that says, "Sex outside of marriage is always irresponsible" by giving examples of sex outside of marriage that I don't think are irresponsible. I am asking to be shown how they are irresponsible or for a retraction of the "always".
Cats are always black. Here are two cats that are orange. Stop making it about those cats.
posted
I think that the idea that romantic love should be the foundation of marriage to be an idea that weakens marriage both for individuals and as an institution.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if there is no possible way for the couple to conceive a child? What if both people are ready and willing to have a baby, therefore removing the possibility of an abortion? Would premarital sex then be sometimes acceptable?
Incidentally, there are many activities that involve a certain degree of risk that are not considered irresponsible.
Abortion was not the sole concern, I know its the only one I listed in that particular post, but I posited it as a non religious reason to discourage premarital sex.
quote:Well, no. I don't think anyone is saying that premarital sex as a general rule is fine. Rather, I think people are saying that not all premarital sex is necessarily bad.
See I am getting the vibe that people are saying, "Its going to happen, in fact most people probably will do it, so instead of trying to stop it, lets try to minimize damage if not outright accommodate it."
quote: Nothing wrong at all. What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage.
And I have serious doubts that divorce will ever become non existance or that extra marital affairs will cease, but that does not mean we should not strive to obtain that ideal.
quote: That's funny, the argument I'm mostly seeing is that are instances in which premarital sex isn't irresponsible. Which is nothing like the argument you paraphrased.
Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that the idea that romantic love should be the foundation of marriage to be an idea that weakens marriage both for individuals and as an institution.
posted
Kate, I think a better analogy to Scott's statement might be something like this:
Gambling with someone else's money you can't afford to lose is irresponsible. But I had a full house, and I won! I'm not talking about a specific hand.
I believe Scott is using one of those "veils of ignorance" -- before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stray and MPH: I agree, although I would add that it is a sine qua non. Not at full force all the time, but getting or being married and romantic love never being a part of it sounds horrifying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
THere's a difference between being the 'foundation', as mph suggested, and being a necessary condition, which is what Irami was saying.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that using them both together perfectly still does not have a 0% failure rate, then clearly yes. Consider that typical use does not match perfectt use, and the risk is even higher.
MPH: sine qua non = without which, not
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with mph and stray on the marriage thing... Marriage can have many foundations. I know in my parents case the foundation for their marriage is their passion for theatre... It is so overwhelming that only they can stand it... Now granted they was an element of romance, but my mother is quick to point out that romance is dead as far as she's concerned...
And my parents have been happily married for almost 30 years...
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:...before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
A mother drives her car with her child along. There is a slight possibility that they could get into a car accident and the child could die. She could have left the child at home, thus completely eliminating the risk of the child dying in a car accident. If the mother knew about the risk but decided to go ahead with it while taking precautions to make the child as safe as possible in the car, is the mother acting irresponsibly?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think generalizations about anything are dangerous and usually wrong. It's the white crow argument William James made about trance mediums: "To upset the conclusion that all crows are black, there is no need to seek demonstration that no crows are black; it is sufficient to produce one white crow."
The conclusion that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible seems to me first to be culturally bounded, reliant upon a society that (like ours) has increasingly enshrined sex as the sole prerogative of the married couple. This has not always been true, just as the concept that one should marry for love is a fairly recent (and Western) development. Now, we can say that "Within American culture right now, all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible." That's a more defensible claim, I think, but still leaves unclear *why* it is irresponsible, which almost certainly will lead us into larger social analysis and various caveats.
This is particularly touchy for Mormons, I think, because since the end of polygamy the church has worked hard to invest monogamous marriage with divine significance; perhaps intentionally and perhaps unintentionally, this has also resulted in a glorification of a particularly mid-twentieth-century American version of the family, based on sentimental love and a particular understanding of gender relationships. All of this has made sex and marriage central to Mormon culture in ways beyond most other denominations.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Considering that using them both together perfectly still does not have a 0% failure rate, then clearly yes. Consider that typical use does not match perfectt use, and the risk is even higher.
I have heard of one or the other failing. And I know 98% plus 90% effective does not equal 188% effective, but I have never heard of it happening. In a committed relationship of love, that just wants to wait to save up for a nicer marriage, I see no evidence as to how it is irresponsible.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Though extremely rare, I'm sure it happens.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I'm not committed to debating this-- I believe in publicly funded sex ed, *because* parents are not teaching their children, and the topic is important enough to society to deserve talking about.
But SOME people might note the irony inherent in Lyrhawn's position.
No, that was not a call for removing sex ed from schools. If anything I was saying that schools need to have more options available in sex ed. I don't find irony in my position. Schools should provide comprehensive sex education, but the moral foundation, and another layer of defense needs to come from families. Schools can't raise our children for us. Schools only need to have sex ed anyway because families dropped the ball on it, I agree with you there. I don't see why it needs to be an either/or stance. It's not that parents or the schools need to do it, I don't see why both can't. Schools provide unbiased text book information, the science of the matter. Parents need to be the ones who step in and really help their children weigh the consequences, to judge whether or not they are emotionall ready, the stuff you don't get from a text book. Not necessarily that kids are going to have long drawn out conversations with their parents on the pros and cons of a specific sexual act with a specific person, but parents can lay a foundation for good judgement and the like.
I don't see the irony.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
A mother drives her car with her child along. There is a slight possibility that they could get into a car accident and the child could die. She could have left the child at home, thus completely eliminating the risk of the child dying in a car accident. If the mother knew about the risk but decided to go ahead with it while taking precautions to make the child as safe as possible in the car, is the mother acting irresponsibly?
That does not make sense. Is there a Nanny at home who can look after the baby while mommy is away? Is the woman running an errand that required the child's presence? Like a haircut?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
