Sex before marriage

I've had sex with two guys, both of which I knew for years beforehand.

I think sex before marriage is better than sex after because you learn about the person and, if the marriage doesn't work out, you are far less devastated. Imagine waiting until marriage and having your partner fess up on your wedding night that they'd already had sex with someone else in the past. Then you saved it all for nothing. It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen. I've seen it happen to people who said it didn't matter what their fiance had done in the past be devastated.

I think the main reason people consider sex before marriage to be immoral is because you can get pregnant, and it's hard to have kids when you're not married (hell, it's hard to have kids when you are married). If you start sleeping around, having sex for pleasure and you get pregnant or get someone else pregnant, you have to deal with it. It's a huge decision and no matter which choice you pick it will affect you for the rest of your life.

To sum it all up... I think you should only have sex before marriage if you are 100% ready to take responsibility. If you're a guy, you better be prepared to pay child support. If you're a girl, you better be prepared to get pregnant. Of course abortion is always optional, but you can never be sure what the other person will want to decide. If you're not ready to have a baby, then for the love of God, put your pants back on.

my point: animals use sex for reproduction. Humans evolved enough to use sex for pleasure.
marriage should exist to serve a person's interest, not enslave said person.

I don't think there's anything wrong with sex before marriage. Like others have said, a relationship probably won't end well if the people involved have no sexual chemistry with each other. Sex may not be the most important thing in a relationship, but it does matter. Sex is the base reason animals and people partner off, and without a physical relationship, there isn't much to separate a romance from a deep friendship.

I also don't think you necessarily need to be in love with the person. In my opinion, as long as it's someone you trust and have an emotional attachment to, having sex is fine. So I support friends with benefits as long as they truly like and are comfortable with each other.

I don't, however, support one-night-stands. The thought of sleeping with some stranger once or twice and then never hearing from them again just sounds so cold and meaningless.

To sum it all up... I think you should only have sex before marriage if you are 100% ready to take responsibility. If you're a guy, you better be prepared to pay child support. If you're a girl, you better be prepared to get pregnant. Of course abortion is always optional, but you can never be sure what the other person will want to decide. If you're not ready to have a baby, then for the love of God, put your pants back on.

That's a benefit of homosexual relationships; you can have as much sex with your partner as you want without having to worry about someone getting knocked up. =P

I'm basically of the same opinion as Oni.

I think that you should only have sex if you are either married or you know that you will be married to your partner.

What if you and your partner are legally unable to get married, like in a homosexual relationship (in some places, at least)? Should they abstain? And if not, why should a gay couple get to have unmarried sex, but a straight couple shouldn't?

Originally Posted by AXavierB

I don't think there's anything wrong with sex before marriage. Like others have said, a relationship probably won't end well if the people involved have no sexual chemistry with each other. Sex may not be the most important thing in a relationship, but it does matter. Sex is the base reason animals and people partner off, and without a physical relationship, there isn't much to separate a romance from a deep friendship.

I also don't think you necessarily need to be in love with the person. In my opinion, as long as it's someone you trust and have an emotional attachment to, having sex is fine. So I support friends with benefits as long as they truly like and are comfortable with each other.

I don't, however, support one-night-stands. The thought of sleeping with some stranger once or twice and then never hearing from them again just sounds so cold and meaningless.



That's a benefit of homosexual relationships; you can have as much sex with your partner as you want without having to worry about someone getting knocked up. =P

I agree with pretty much everything you've stated here. But you could maybe infer that from my previous post in this thread. Anyway, very well said, sir, especially this:

Originally Posted by AXavierB

Sex may not be the most important thing in a relationship, but it does matter.

Originally Posted by AXavierB

What if you and your partner are legally unable to get married, like in a homosexual relationship (in some places, at least)? Should they abstain? And if not, why should a gay couple get to have unmarried sex, but a straight couple shouldn't?

I did say that they should also be able to have sex if they know they'll get married, but I guess that could be the same as wanting to be married when you can't.

Basically, if they are committed to their partners, it's okay.

I actually find it sad how some countries ban homosexuality. It's just a different way of living, sort of like how some people like to live in a house rather than an apartment.

I guess a lot of this has to do with what one feel about sex. I myself am a virgin and rather sex-shy, but I still believe that the avoidance towards sex is a hangover from European abstinence in the last few centuries. From a logical point of view, sex is a very natural part of all organisms (not only is it responsible for cultivating the next generation, but it also feels good), and should be regarded in the same way as breathing or eating; from a personal point of view, I still blush whenever the topic is brought up. ^_^;

A great deal of our modern take on how serious sex is can be found from aforementioned hangover, yes, but also the increasing number of pre-martial and underage pregnancies. This, of course, depends on your definition of underage; understand that the legal age has been rising over the generations due to a rise in social welfare. Back in medieval times, there was no real legal age, and girls were often made pregnant as soon as possible due to the fact that constant strife, poor hygiene, and lack of medical care made it difficult for a child to survive the first few years of his or her childhood (fevers killed so many in the past, while we casually take a few pills when we have one today), so more children were preferable. On the same note, it also has to do with maturity; a child in those times became much more mature than children are today due to the unstable sociopolitical climate. We expect thirteen-year-olds today to play on their PS3s, get good grades for high school, and just generally try not to get in the way of the adults; centuries ago, thirteen-year-olds were expected to travel to other cities to look for jobs, help put bread on the table, and go to war if need be.

Of course, modern times have changed our values; there is no need to have many children (and, considering the overpopulation problem and the failing economy, it would be unwise to), and a legal age is more defined (sixteen in some places, eighteen in others). And there is, of course, also Christianity, which comments that one should not commit adultery (then, again, this depends on what you classify as adultery). So your adherence to the modern set of faith and morals is probably the main driving force behind whether or not you believe in sex before marriage.

My main problem with sex before marriage is not anything related to faith or morals, but, rather, responsibility. Namely, the problem with sex is that there's a good chance that the girl would become pregnant if one is not careful, and when neither side is willing to accept responsibility for the child...well. Therein is my real problem with sex before marriage, the willingness of both sides to accept responsibility for pregnancy.

Outside that, though? I'm not terribly opposed to men and women having sex before they're married. I know I'm too shy and not nearly brave enough to try that (unless I happen to be seduced), but I don't think there's anything extraordinarily wrong with it. I have friends who actually have "sex-buddies", and they are amongst some of the nicest people I've met.

My verdict? Sex is an acceptable and natural practice of life, but be sure you know what you're getting yourself into.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Danger: Well no duh they can marry but why do you have to call them NORMAL STATES and NORMAL COUNTRIES?

Examples of countries where people can marry who they love:
Sweden
Norway
Spain
Canada
Example of countries and states where you can't:
Texas
Utah (hai mormon fest)
Sudan

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

No offense to anyone on this thread but given some of the people and things that go on in california I wouldn't exactly call that a normal state.

I agree with you, which is why homosexuals cannot marry there. Prop 8, remember? Oh, of course, people forget when it doesn't affect them.

Originally Posted by Beemnorv

I actually find it sad how some countries ban homosexuality. It's just a different way of living, sort of like how some people like to live in a house rather than an apartment.

Really? I find no difference in way of living, except for that the list of people I'd have sex with is slightly higher because it includes both sexes. But that's maybe what you meant.

I think you should only have intercourse with the person you spend the rest of your life with.

Prostitutes have sex with no commitment, but at least they get paid for it.

People who just sleep around with no commitment (and don't charge you for it) are cheaper than prostitutes!!

People should have dignity, each and every one of us is worth something. Don't give
yourself away for free. Have some sense of self-worth.

The price of sex:

1 - Commitment (highest)
2 - Money (low)
3 - Free (lowest)

(That's my view, don't take offense.)

Originally Posted by Cukeman

I think you should only have intercourse with the person you spend the rest of your life with.

Prostitutes have sex with no commitment, but at least they get paid for it.

People who just sleep around with no commitment (and don't charge you for it) are cheaper than prostitutes!!

People should have dignity, each and every one of us is worth something. Don't give
yourself away for free. Have some sense of self-worth.

Yeah, because if you don't plan to spend the rest of your life with someone, it automatically jumps to sex without commitment, amirite?

Originally Posted by Dread

...as it's usually meaningless animal pleasure, and we humans should be above that.

Why should we be above that? No offense to you, but I absolutely hate the idea that humans are supposed to be held high up above all other animals in every way. Its ridiculous. we are animals, and I honestly believe the idea that we shouldn't behave like the animals we are is what drives many people mad. It causes self-conflict and confusion on the innermost levels of the human mind. Its not a healthy mentality in my opinion. We all need to realize what we are, stop trying to be "gods" or whatever we are trying to be. What is wrong with "meaningless animal pleasure"? Does anyone here have a problem with roller coasters? What about video games? How about sports and other team-based activities? Why is sex the ONE aspect of pleasure that everyone seems to pinpoint? Are you allowed to get a massage from someone you aren't in a "meaningful" relationship with? Massages are pleasurable to the body. Why does it matter what part of the body receives pleasure?

I think instead of following and imitating society which has been imitating itself with slight variation over the years, we should stop and go back to the basics. What purpose does this or this have in our societal norms? What purpose did it have WAY back when it was created? Is this even relevant to today's world?

eiyuu: Because sex can get someone pregnant which is a very big physical and emotional burden.

dnager: what are you talking about? I was told that homosexuals could marry in California.

In regards to that list you have Texas is probably the most conservative state in the country which explains why they wouldn't allow it.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

dnager: what are you talking about? I was told that homosexuals could marry in California.

nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_8

The new section reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

dnager: what are you talking about? I was told that homosexuals could marry in California.

This is what happens when religious zealots with too much money gets too much power in a state.
52% yes, 100% wrong.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

In regards to that list you have Texas is probably the most conservative state in the country which explains why they wouldn't allow it.

Except for Texas, there's 45 more states that do not allow it.




How come I have to teach people things about their own country... not referring to only you, of course.

My state is one of the most Christian ones, because of all of the latinos, and many of them claim that the main point of the bible is teach people that homosexuality is wrong.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Francois: I don't see it as pleasure more of a strenghtehing of the emotion bond.

no no no, I don't care how you see it. Married couples DO have sex for pleasure and reaction. Period. Is this wrong? You didn't answer my question.

Francois: What was the question is it wrong to use it for pleasure? No I don't suppose so as long as it's not someone you just met an hour ago.

valhelm: please do not bring up the bible or we'll have a religious war going on.

Danger: How should I know maybe the person that told me wasn't aware that California no longer allows gay marriage.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

eiyuu: Because sex can get someone pregnant which is a very big physical and emotional burden.

Good. But this reason has nothing to do with morals, it being right or wrong, or anything like that. But that's what the idea of premarital sex has become today. THAT'S what I think needs to change. Of course it will always be a risk, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I don't really find it wrong, but I do find dishonorable not to a huge thing or anything, but like a racial slur.So I suppose I'm not opposed to sex before marriage, but I am opposed to sex with no connection. Like one night stands and such.