-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Sex
- Thread starter SkullCandy
- Start date
- Status
Maybe because people addicted to sex have it promiscuously. I think you have gotten your cause and effect mixed up.
Here's the flow of the argument before you start telling me what i'm arguing about:
J-man: Married Couples raise children best
FS: Marriage is just a status
J-man: You get it but you don't
FS: No one takes marriage seriously, therefore it isn't serious
J-man: Am i wrong to believe the above statement is an appeal to common practice? If true, then your statement is null.
Also, someone put up a 50% divorce rate, so there is no "prevalence" since the same amount who divorce are the same who stay together.
I believe i said that ,
I'm fine that you see no reason. I sharply disagree with this line of thinking, but i can't change your beliefs. To me, if you aren't gonna use sex for all of its functions and distort its use, then don't bother having sex.
I believe that God commanded married couples to be fruitful and multiply while enjoying sex (though the enjoying sex part isn't in the Bible to my knowledge, but since i believe God created sex, who am i to say you can't have pleasure in procreation in a commited monogamous relationship?)
Again, i am leaning to believe that this is an appeal to common practice. Just because 50% (and this is not my statistic) get divorced doesn't automatically make the vows just a show, more or less it says that the ones who are making the vows sadly don't understand what they are saying.
Before you say that i don't know my own beliefs, why not read this and see how well i've done sticking to defending it.
Exactly why i never said raising a child was cheap. Just saying i don't know, i've seen some families without a big income raise a huge family... But i don't know, you have the statistics of the costs of childbearing in a monogamous relationship?
50% non divorce rate, hey i can look at the glass half full can i?
On whose basis is it impossible to define love? I find this incredibly silly to say such a thing.
Where did i say this? I think you are strying to straw man it here.
Parroting here aren't we? I don't think he's got cause and effect mixed up, i think you've got your points mixed up.
I'll continue this later, but i don't wanna lose what i've already written
Unfortunately J-man, your assertions are primarily based on pathos. You continually bring up premises that you cannot back up with hard evidence.
1. If you believe that sex should be only for a life term relationship, good for you. I have no problems with that statement. However, the method by which you defend this statement is what is of doubt here.
2. Firstly, safe sex (assuming we're defining safe sex as having intercourse with condoms), I believe has a 95-99% success rate, depending on the condom used and also if the persons are using it correct. So, using probability, safe sex is pretty safe, and along with other precautions, such as day after pills, and more, it's easy to prevent pregnancies in this era.
However, I don't understand how safe sex pertains to marriage. Are you trying to imply that only married couples can have kids, and that common law couples, or couples in long term relationships cannot have kids, or properly raise them?
In another point further down, you mentioned that married couples are far more capable in raising kids than any other groups. Where's your evidence of this? This isn't logically sound; you need to back it up with something more than "what you feel or believe" and post some statistics or peer reviews that defend your position. Otherwise, this point is null.
3. You believe that sex other than procreation and intimacy is wrong? Good for you. But the problem is again, you base this statement on pathos. Logically speaking, why shouldn't sex be used for enjoyment? It makes us feel good, so why shouldn't we use it for enjoyment. You give no defense as to why this statement is valid; I'm not sure if you're speaking from the point of view as a Christian, or a practitioner of any other religion. Speaking as a whole however, you can't say "if sex isn't for intimacy or procreation, it's wrong," without at least elaborating the point.
If you don't want to debate your points, then don't post. Posts in any threads should be up for scrutiny, and yours is no exception. How would any discussion go anywhere if everyone just posted what they believed without any debate as to the validity of each persons' opinion? You can have an opinion; however, you need to be prepared to defend your argument. If you can't take the heat, get out.
Except FS didn't say that. You said marriage wasn't just a status. That is was a serious lifelong commitment made between two people. FS simply pointed out that wasn't always true, and in fact, commonly is not true. To back up his assertion he posted divorce statistics. Marriage is just a status. You have people that get married and then divorce shortly after. You also have loving couples that choose not to get married.
This isn't appeal to common practice.
There are many activities that humans do that have multiple possible purposes, I would argue that the majority of activities can be categorized as such, and it is very frequent that a person might only want or need one of the purposes and thus might take steps to prevent other things from happening. For example suppose that I take a run around my neighborhood because I want the exercise benefit of running but I do not want the transportation ability of running so I run in a loop. I do not understand why it is wrong to use one or more but not all of the possible purposes of an activity.
As to the marriage deal, I would agree that the average married couple is more capable of raising a child than the average unmarried couple, but this is a correlation rather than a causation. Being married does not make you more capable of raising a child but being in a stable committed relationship does, this often but does not always correlate with marriage.
I have no interest in expressing my opinion on sex, but I do have to speak up about Divorce and Marriage.
Just because they aren't being taken seriously doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taken seriously-- they should. The high divorce rates happens to be one of the most disfunctional aspects of American society-- not one of the things we should be proud of.
Here in Japan, the divorce rate is around 27% (similar to many European countries apparently), and yet Japanese find this alarmingly high, Embarrassing.
In the US, people are too damn self-centered and obssessed with finding "true love" (whatever the fuck that is). The real role of marriage is to be the center of family, which is really about the children and family, not about the selfish need "for romance". The couple are a team, and have to work together to succeed at the common goal of bringing up the kids. Trivial differences between them are largely irrelevant. It is because more conservative cultures like Japan emphasize the importance of marriage for family as opposed to marriage for love that marriages become more lasting.
I could care less about whether the marriage is pure or idealistic or perfect as portrayed in "vowes". Sure one side might cheat at some point in the history. Sure at some point some shit might come up on the money front. Sure, maybe the couple might even stop "loving" eachother at some point? Who cares?
What matters is whether or not the couple can stick it out and know how to get over their differences for the sake of the kids, and for the sake of the larger community-- so that children can grow up in a society where marriage is something lasting, dependable, and meaningful.
tl;dr In the true concept of marriage, what's really important is not the whims of the individuals, but the family and society at large. Being selfish and living for yourself is perfectly justifiable-- but your own kids should be more important to you.
Also, I would like to point out that the Divorce rate does not indicate quite what you would think. One has to understand that the divorce rate does not directly indicate that 50% of marriages end in divorce-- that is not how it is calculated. It only indicates that the number of divorces in a given year is equal to half the number of marriages. Because there are many more generations of married couples who can potentially divorce compared to the number of people who potentially get married in a given year, the numbers don't match up that way. This is particularly true for Japan, whose aging population and delayed marriages mean that there are far fewer young people getting married in a given year compared to the number of older people who could potentially divorce. This is still largely applicable to the US.
tl;dr the real percent of marriages that end in divorce is most likely significantly less than 27% in Japan's case, and likely less than 50% in the US's.
I don't believe anyone said they shouldn't be taken seriously. I've only seen people point out that they aren't taken seriously by a frighteningly large amount of people.
Yes, that's exactly why I said that. I fully intend to marry a woman that I will spend the rest of my life with; the thought of divorcing someone just sickens me. I But I'm not naive enough to think that circumstances can't change, people can't grow apart. I fully believe the divorce rate is driven so high by couples getting married that are A: rushing into it for the wrong reasons (going into the military, having a baby, etc.) or B: doing it because of societal pressures telling them they should (religion, family, society in general, etc.)
Most modest approximations fall around $10,000. I don't know about you, but I don't have 10 large lying around just to give the baby away.
I wish I weren't such a realist. The world would be so much easier to deal with.
If you stood on a street corner in the closest city and polled every person who walked past you for their definition of "love," you would have a vast array of different answers. This isn't my baseless supposition, this is plain fact based not only on my own 27 years of life experience, but on the ungodly amount of studies that have been done on human emotions and the like.
It's right in the passage I quoted! Here it is again:
Emphasis mine. I AM willing to shell out for protection. By your logic, I can bang away all I want.
Most modest approximations fall around $10,000. I don't know about you, but I don't have 10 large lying around just to give the baby away.
I wish I weren't such a realist. The world would be so much easier to deal with.
If you stood on a street corner in the closest city and polled every person who walked past you for their definition of "love," you would have a vast array of different answers. This isn't my baseless supposition, this is plain fact based not only on my own 27 years of life experience, but on the ungodly amount of studies that have been done on human emotions and the like.
It's right in the passage I quoted! Here it is again:
Emphasis mine. I AM willing to shell out for protection. By your logic, I can bang away all I want.
such as?
how is this even a point when you aren't even arguing?
Proof? Statistics? You know, not everyone uses/ wants to use condoms. Why don't you back up your own premises before attacking mine.
I said i believe married couples are the best at raising kids, and that includes those just under law. Cohabiting couples aren't fit for raising children because they haven't realized what responsibility in a marriage really is.http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyl...ppier__but_not_unwed_couples_study_finds.html
after digging through the internet, i found a quote in this article (note that the article topic is completely irrelevant, and i'm not going to get dragged into the nonsense of that topic becoming a debate point for my opponents)
http://www.disinfo.com/2010/06/are-lesbians-better-than-straights-at-raising-children/
In the comments section, a commentor named cerebralcaustic listed a slew of studies showing that single parents weren't nearly as successful at raising children than an intact family unit.
You are twisting my words. Sex is enjoyable, that's part of sex. i'm not saying it's wrong to enjoy sex. I just don't think it's ethical to have sex solely for enjoyment since sex is also the act of human procreation, and as said before, in a monogamous life term relationship one does not have to hit the panic button when there's a pregnancy. You even get closer to your spouse in sex and enjoy it with him/her considering humans are sexual animals (animal being used as an adjective)
As you can see, i've spent alot of time into defending my beliefs. I'm not interested in debating, but as i've said before I'm not gonna take it if you're going to attack my beliefs.
Yet, when you are running, naturally and without the aid of artificial technology you can control what you are doing (whether you are exercising or traveling) yet in sex, you can't naturally and (and being used to connect naturally to voluntarily, since saying naturally voluntarily doesn't sound right to me) voluntarily control how you have sex (whether you want just pleasure or just procreate, or both). Sex naturally comes with all of this...
I have nothing to argue against that. There is a strong correlation there. It's not a cause, since obviously some married couples don't raise their children well.
he never posted a statistic. DM posted that. It isn't prevalence if only 50% (which isn't a majority) get divorced. Now, i want to know if this 50% includes the secular non-ceremony unions (forget their names) or not, and if so how much compared to couples who have the ceremony.
Becoming tan is a natural consequence of exposure to the summer sun. Suppose that someone likes their pale complexion but still wants to enjoy the sun, so the use an "artificial technology" called sun block and then they go out in the sun, assume that the time they spend in the sun would be enough to get them tan but not enough to cause burns or damage. Is this wrong? It is using an artificial technology to prevent some of the outcomes of an activity.
You say that you find it unethical to have sex only for enjoyment because sex is for procreation, but why is this the case. Why do you feel that because sex can do one thing it should only be used if that thing is desired, especially when that effect is preventable? Sex for procreation may be the most "natural" way, but there is nothing inherently wrong with un-natural things, unnatural medicines save lives every day.
I don't mean to threadjack but how come you say that the main purpose of marriage is to raise kids? What about gay couples or infertile people, can they never get married? How about people who don't want to have kids for personal reasons, i.e. they don't think they would be good parents or don't have the assests to raise a child? Are you saying they should never get married? I mean I guess it could be considered "selfish" to want to spend your entire life with someone you really love but not want to have kids with them, but I like to think that people can get married for reasons other than procreation.
e/
Also I just wanted to point out that you might not want to use a comment off a random article as your source, unless they cite thier sources there. Even then you would be better off just going straight to the source they posted.
You continue to use the words "I believe." You believe that sex is wrong for pleasure, for example but don't give any logical explanation other than "it's for procreation." Also, you "believe" that sex should only be for marriage.
Again, I said that it's FINE you had an opinion that sex is only for life term commitments. However, you have a poor defense of this belief (you only cite that sex should be only used for procreation). Firstly, you're implying that only through marriage can a couple have kids (incorrect) and secondly, that the primary function of sex is for procreation which is debatable.
If you use a condom correctly, most family planning sites give the success rate at 98% (again, correctly; many people don't put it on correctly).
And I don't get the point "if you don't want to use a condom, don't use it." You were saying previously that safe sex isn't completely safe. I said that if properly used, contraception can prevent pregnancies successfully. And now you're replying with "People don't want to have safe sex." How is this relevant in anyway?
This articles says that children determine the happiness of the family, not how effectively parents (or a parent) can raise the kid. Your source is irrelevant to the point.
Furthermore, your generalization that cohabiting couples aren't fit to raise children is fallacious. Firstly, you're assuming and generalizing and secondly, you're not even giving proper sources to back your fact.
Common-law couples =/= Single parents. Again you cite irrelevant sources. I would naturally agree that single parents would probably do a poorer job of raising offspring due to the lack of resources, lack of time and other factors, but common law couples are not single parents.
Wait, you "think" it's ethical to enjoy sex because it's used for procreation? How is it unethical in anyway? I can see the enjoyment of sex and intimacy as a primary product from intercourse and pregnancy as an unwanted by product (especially in the eyes of young adults). Furthermore, with married couples, some choose to not have children. Therefore, by your logic, they should not consummate their marriage, because they don't want to have children (as sex is primarily an act of human procreation).
And then you swing the opposite way, saying that humans should enjoy sex, because they are sexual animals. I don't see how pregnancy is a necessary event that has to come after enjoyment and intimacy.
I'm sorry you see it this way. We're trying to have an intelligent discussion through pointing out flaws in your posts. There is no shame in having fallacies; it's much better to realise these fallacies and improve your posts based on them so that your beliefs that you post are more logically sound, provoking further intellectual discussions in this forum.
Especially since the comment's source is this professional and unbiased looking website. Which is, you know, posted as a comment on an article that directly disagrees with the point being argued.
Kinda impressed, though. Been doing this internet thing for many, many years and I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a comment as a source before.
J-man said:
Firestorm was just stating forum policy. The point of this subforum is to discuss views, not just to post them.
You posted a view. People disagreed with it. You've responded it to disagreement with a pretty significant degree of hostility and defensiveness. You'll find, in general, opinions tend to be more like assholes, in that everyone has one, rather than "everyone has a right to an opinion and you should respect it" in a forum like this. People are going to try to rip apart views they see as irrational, especially ones that aren't well supported.
Agreed.
And I used a comment section for my paper once. I spent 15 minutes in my philosophy teacher's room, with him telling me in every way how fallacious it was, how unacademic, and how big of an idiot I was.
I'd recommend VM'ing me about those subjects in order to avoid a thread hijack, but the long and short would be marriage is not between 2 people-- it's between the couple on one side, and society on the other. That is why it is a legal function.
My guess is that most people that are against premarital sex are also against gay sex.
How about a gay person who's against premarital sex? O___O
This reminds me of the scene in Avenue Q where the closet Gay guy goes and talks to the Japanese Therapist.
Spoiler Tag
Spoiler Tag
G: I have this friend, who thinks he might be gay . . .
J: What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with being gay!
G: Yes, but-- my friend is Republican! And an investment banker!
J: What! Your friend is wack!
J: What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with being gay!
G: Yes, but-- my friend is Republican! And an investment banker!
J: What! Your friend is wack!
I said most people, not all people.
A gay person against premarital sex is probably rare. And if they are against premarital sex they better live in/move to a state that allows for same sex marriage.
What if someone's gay and doesn't have the money to move to another state that allows same-sex marriage and are against premarital sex? O.O
Then they can either be celibate or change there views.
- Status