Sex Before Marriage and Multiple Sex Partners Causes Economic Stress, Unwanted Pregnancies and STDs
Debate Rounds (4)
I will be arguing on the pro side of this debate.
Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments and rebuttles.
Round 4 is for closing arguments.
I look forward to this debate.
Many thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to debating you on this matter.
I'll start with the economic stress premarital sex and multiple sex partners puts on our economy. Many problems exist economically in this country (the United States) and some of these problems stem from multiple sex partners. The reason being; more unwanted pregnancies and more chance for contracting an STD. Economically, this is not a good thing, for obvious reasons such as the physical pain involved, mental pain between sex partners, and also medical expenses. Most of these medical expenses are being payed for by insurance companies or the tax payer, John Doe. The higher the risk of pregnancy or an STD, the higher the chance you, the tax payer, has to fork the bill for the medical expenses. Whether it's for you or someone else. This puts more strain on the economy for obvious reasons. The more we have to pay for other's medical expenses through higher taxes, the less we're able to put money into smaller businesses. And small business is what makes the economy thrive.
Premarital sex is also a strain on our economy. Let's take, for example, John and Jane Doe. They aren't married, and have no intention of getting married. John just wants a piece of "A" and Jane is willing to give it up to him because she thinks he'll love her if she does. Oops! Jane is pregnant. Well, John doesn't want any part of that, so he leaves. Now this whole thing about child support. John doesn't pay up so he's court ordered to pay. He still doesn't pay, because he's a dead beat with no job. He goes to jail. Tax payers are now responsible for his stay. More money spent on jails and prisons for more criminals mean higher taxes. More strain on the economy.
The more children with no parents or dead beat parents, the more government programs are needed to "support" these children. These programs come from us, the tax payer. This puts even more stress on the economy. We have less money and we cannot spend as much on small businesses. This in turn puts small businesses out of business. People lose jobs.
Unwanted pregnancies and higher risk for STDs are an even greater disadvantage of premarital sex and multiple sex partners. Abstenance until marriage and only engaging in sex with your spouse is the safest way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs. It also would cut abortions down significantly.
If everyone had only one sex partner their entire life, the risk of contracting an STD would be next to non existant. If two people are married they have more willingness to have children and can often prepare for it. No unwanted pregnancies.
STDs are spread from one person to the next through sexual contact. The fewer the partners one has, the less likely one will contract a disease. If you have ONE sexual partner for life, no disease.
Premarital sex and multiple sex partners causes economic stress, unwanted pregnancies, and higher risk for STDs.
In order for prop to win this debate they must show 3 things: Firstly that sex before marriage and polygamy result in the spread of STD"s. Secondly that sex before marriage and multiple sexual partners result in unwanted pregnancies. Crucially and finally they must prove that pre-marital sex and polygamy result in economic stress. When we move on to economic stress we encounter issues regarding the definition of economic stress, which is not a formal economic term. Taking it on the definition most commonly used, economic stress is when people struggle financially. However prop has not used this definition, they have argued more about the effect of these social issues on the U.S. economy as a whole. So I shall take props definition, which is dangerously vague and this debate principally hangs on props definition of economic stress, i.e. how much the economy would have to be impacted for this to be classified as economic stress. Prop has not provided a definition and any given after this opening argument will be considered invalid as it could simply be used to fit props argument. I will take it to mean significant harm to GDP and economic growth.
It"s important to start from basic principles. The argument that having multiple sexual partners will directly result in the spread of STD"s is sound, con accepts the prop argument that maintaining a single sexual partner will significantly reduce the spread of STD"s. However, pre-marital sex is not by definition polygamous, so therefore that is inherently not the issue. The spread of STD"s is not decreased by a ceremony in a church and recognition from the state. As evidenced marriage is fairly irrelevant within the debate about STD"s. However, due to the phrasing of the debate prop has successfully demonstrated that sex does lead to the spread of STDs.
It would painfully ignorant to argue that sex before marriage and multiple sexual partners do not result in unwanted pregnancies. However it is important to note that unwanted pregnancies occur within monogamous marriages and monogamous relationships. This is self-evidently true. Between 2006 and 2010 married couples gave birth to nearly 3 million unintended children, therefore the argument that sex before marriage and having multiple sexual partner"s results in unwanted children is fundamentally undermined by the fact that it happens irrespective of marriage (http://www.cdc.gov...). However again because of the phrasing of the proposition they have successfully proved that yes, sex does lead to unwanted pregnancies. This is a virtually impossible point to contend although it is notable that polygamy and pre-marital sex are not by definition the causes. Alcohol, poor sex education and the ineffectiveness of contraceptive devices undoubtedly play a significant part.
In fact there is a strong argument to be made that it is not polygamy or pre-marital sex that are causing the spread of STD"s and unwanted pregnancies. Both of these things are perfectly preventable using condoms or other contraceptives. Would prop concede that pre-marital sex and polygamy are not the social issues we should be dealing with, rather we should be dealing with the U.S. attitude towards contraception and sex education?
Moving on to economic stress. There has been no evidence offered by prop to demonstrate the economic impact of STD"s and unwanted pregnancies so I believe this fundamentally undermines the prop argument. While it is true STD"s and unwanted pregnancies do result in some economic harm, in the long run this is not harming economic growth for a number of reasons. The argument that parents that do not financially support their children damage the economy as the U.S. government spends less than watertight. Crucially this is an entirely different social issue, this is parental responsibility not polygamy or pre-marital sex. 45% of single mothers were in monogamous relationships, this increases to over half for single fathers (http://singleparents.about.com...) so parents not contributing to the care of the child happens regardless of monogamy and marriage. Even if we accept that pre-marital sex and polygamy are the social issue there are a few points of contention. Once again a lack of evidence to show how much money is spent supporting single parents fundamentally undermines props argument. Furthermore the money not spent raising the child is not lost, it is invested back in to the economy, the "dead beat" father uses that money to buy items or invests it in a bank and therefore it is invested in props favourite destination: small businesses. Which is another issue, prop has created this myth that money invested in small businesses is a) crucial to the economy and b) is being diverted to deal with STD"s and to support single parents. The money the U.S. government invests in "general economic, commercial and labor" (a category small businesses would fall under) is a tiny proportion of state expenditure (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). Furthermore the amount invested is irrelevant to amount spend on welfare. This two issues are not in any way connected.
Covering STDs briefly, they cost the U.S. medical sector roughly $16 billion dollars (http://www.cdc.gov...) however I would question props reasoning as to what happens to this money? It pay doctors and nurses fees and supports pharmaceutical companies. Surely, this is beneficial to the economy? Once I again I am forced to reiterate however, that it is not polygamy and pre-marital sex that are the issue. HPV (the most prominent STD) is largely preventable by a vaccine. In fact all STDs are preventable by condoms and other forms of protection. Once again, are we not forced to concede that it is the attitude towards contraceptives that are the issue?
Another factor to consider is the economic advantages of sex before marriage and having multiple sexual partners. Bars, nightclubs and alcohol all contribute significantly to the economy, the alcohol industry alone contributed $400 billion in 2010 (http://www.discus.org...). I have no evidence to support this, but how many people go to the nightclubs, bars and drink alcohol in order to have sex with a stranger? I would wager it was a significant motivator, particularly among young men. Pre-marital sex also contributes to society by enabling relationships and by extension supporting the restaurant and gift industry. On a more psychological note, sex in general is important to people. Being sexually active is an important thing to lots of people and helps keep them happy and prevents them developing depression. Depression is a huge drain on the U.S. economy principally due to lost work days and the loss of skilled workers due to suicide.
A further issue prop has to cover is what alternative they would offer. Pre-marital sex occurs because people want to. People have multiple sexual partners, because they want to. Even if we accept they do cause economic damage (which I have conclusively proven that they don"t), how do we stop them? Make it illegal to have sex before marriage or with more than one person? I"m curious to hear props answer to this issue.
Thank you again for this debate, I look forward to hearing your response.
Con pointed out that my definition of economic stress was a bit off point, stating that my example of economic stress isn't the normal idea of most people when they think of economic stress. I will counter point that my example is indeed broader than he admits. Economic stress is when people struggle financially, yes, but also when people are forced to pay for something they cannot really afford, such as other people's insurance and doctor visits. The more money that is being forced out of American's pockets, the less money they have to spend on their own needs, such as house payments, groceries, car payments, etc. Economic stress means a lot of different things. http://brown.edu...
Con's argument that a ceremony does nothing to decrease the threat of STDs is correct. I agree with this. However, it is more likely that if one does get married, he or she will be less likely to "sleep around." So does marriage help to prevent the spread of an STD or help curb it? I believe it does. I do understand that marriage is not a "safe zone," however.
"Between 2006 and 2010 married couples gave birth to nearly 3 million unintended children,"
As con has pointed out, married couples give birth to millions of "unintended children", but "unintended children" doesn't necessarily mean unwanted. And just as with STDs, marriage can HELP detour unwanted pregnancies, because a couple who dedicates themselves to the bond of marriage are more willing to start a family. Pregnancies are much more welcome than if they were not married. Pregnancies are less likely to be unwanted and more likely to be welcomed. And thanks to programs like Medicaid, average Americans with jobs have to flip the bill for unwanted children. The more government programs instituted, the more tax dollars are being spent. http://townhall.com...
"However again because of the phrasing of the proposition they have successfully proved that yes, sex does lead to unwanted pregnancies. This is a virtually impossible point to contend although it is notable that polygamy and pre-marital sex are not by definition the causes. Alcohol, poor sex education and the ineffectiveness of contraceptive devices undoubtedly play a significant part."
I agree with con's argument that alcohol, poor sex education, and the ineffectiveness of contraceptive devices play a part in unwanted pregnancies. I don't agree with his logic that marriage does nothing to limit unwanted pregnancies or STDs. As I have stated marriage does a lot to limit these problems. And since marriage can detour the spread of STDs and limit unwanted children, it also helps ease up on economic stress of having to pay for other's mistakes.
Con also points out that it isn't polygamy and pre marital sex that causes the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, but essentially the embarrassment of using a condom. I find this to be silly, because public schools, while I disagree with most sex education, are doing a lot to curb embarrassment of using condoms and other contraceptives. Most young people today don't think twice about using these things. I believe American's attitudes toward contraceptives are generally good. http://www.guttmacher.org...
While having sex with only one person and only in a marriage may not completely erase economic stress due to government programs paying for unwanted children and cures for STDs, it does ease it quite a bit. Because of multiple sex partners and engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage, there are more unwanted pregnancies and more cases of STDs. The government introduces more social programs which cost tax payers more money and in turn more financial responsibility for the average working American. Stress on our economy goes up.
"Another factor to consider is the economic advantages of sex before marriage and having multiple sexual partners. Bars, nightclubs and alcohol all contribute significantly to the economy, the alcohol industry alone contributed $400 billion in 2010"
I would also like to point out that if it were not for bars and nightclubs, we wouldn't have nearly the amount of STDs or unwanted pregnancies. Bars and nightclubs, while highly entertaining and sometimes enjoyable, don't bode well when it comes to preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Social outlets such as these only increase the risk. And con's argument that sex is fun and curbs depression, doesn't really help with unwanted pregnancies and STDs. The more sex partners one has, the higher the risk for STDs. And STDs don't help with depression. They might be a contributing factor.
And making it illegal to engage in sex with multiple partners or have sex before marriage isn't the answer, but maybe incentives. Maybe if churches and other religious groups donated money or other incentives to those who decided not to have sex with multiple people or before marriage, it would encourage people not to. Maybe not completely eradicate the problem, but significantly reduce it.
And, again, thank you to my opponent for his detailed argument and I hope to hear from him soon.
Fundamentally I agree that married people are less likely to engage in polygamy. But the motion was that pre-marital sex leads to the spread of STD"s and the point I was trying to make was that pre-marital sex is not the cause of the spread of STD"s, it is polygamy.
Evidently there is a distinction between unintended and unwanted. However there is no evidence to statistically show how many of these births are unwanted. So anything said on this issue by either side is pure speculation.
It is correct to say that the state does support parents who have unwanted children. However it is important to note that it does also support married couples who have children. The article provided by prop simply states that 48% of births are paid for by Medicaid and that roughly the same percentage of births are out of wedlock. Con suspects that a large proportion of the births paid for by Medicaid are children born into wedlock. However the higher tax rate to fund Medicaid does undoubtedly have an impact on the economy, and the larger proportion does go to unmarried parents. As stated in the previous argument, where does prop imagine this money goes? It pays doctors, nurses and supports pharmaceutical companies. Money parents receive buys food, clothing etc. and by extension supports these companies. This significantly reduces the economic impact. Furthermore the money which is taxed would not necessarily be invested into the economy and taxing it and giving it to families in need is a fantastic way of diverting excess funds back into the economy.
Slightly disappointed that prop has mischaracterised my argument about the ineffectiveness about sex education. I wasn"t in the slightest claiming that people are just "embarrassed to use condoms" and prop knows that wasn"t the point I was trying to make. I shall attempt to be concise, since it is not the issue at hand, but there are huge issues with sex education in the U.S. Abstinence only programmes and contraception only programmes are still hugely popular in American high schools, despite attempts to withdraw funding and their conclusively proven ineffectiveness. There is a direct link between a comprehensive sex education and a reduction in unwanted pregnancy, students in the U.S. are 50% less likely to get pregnant if they get a comprehensive sex education (https://www.dosomething.org...). In the Netherlands, a country praised for its comprehensive sex education, the number of people living with HIV/aids is 0.2% as compared to 0.6% for the U.S. (http://www.alternet.org...) Furthermore the sex education students do receive is often too late, in Philadelphia 15% of students below 13 have had sex, meaning 15% of people in Philly have no sex education before having sex. (http://www.theguardian.com...). You cannot eliminate these issues completely, however effective, comprehensive and early sex education can have a huge impact on these issues. Contraception is still not used, 18% of 15-19 year olds at risk of an unintended pregnancy do not use any form of contraception (http://www.guttmacher.org...) at all.
STD"s and unwanted pregnancies are not inherently an issue. The economic impact of these issues is what we were discussing. Of course clubs increase the spread of STD"s and the amount of unwanted pregnancies, but economically they are hugely advantageous. Prop did not refute my argument that having sex is a huge motivator for people attending clubs, and STD"s and pregnancy are risks you cannot avoid. So therefore, it is evident that sex contributes significantly to the economy and the benefits of this out weigh the economic drawbacks of STD"s and unwanted pregnancies. Furthermore to claim STD"s may lead to depression establishes a fairly tenuous link which is torn down in this article (http://www.thebody.com...). However you have only have to look at the news recently as to what happens when people don"t have sex and it"s fairly simple logic to see that sex and the release of sexual desire improves society, improves people quality of life and reduces the number of people who are depressed.
A further economic advantage that has so far been neglected in this debate is the demand for labour in the U.S. economic system. Quite frankly without people willing to take on jobs that require unskilled workers, the U.S. economy simply could not function. Who is filling these positions? A large proportion of the native workers in these unskilled positions are parents seeking to support their children. Furthermore these unwanted pregnancies contribute significantly the rise in population. As historians and economists will point out that having a population which is increasing in size is hugely economically beneficial.
I feel the need to summarise my arguments to this point. STD"s do cause some economic stress, as do pregnancies as a whole. Pre-marital sex does not cause the spread of STD"s because they are not inherently monogamous. There are still a considerable amount of unintended births within wedlock Polygamy does lead to the spread of STD"s and having sex leads to unwanted pregnancies. On the note of economic stress my argument can be summarised rather simply: the economic drawbacks are so insignificant, especially when compared with the economic benefits that sex provides.
It is an interesting suggestion prop offers, on reflection it is probably irrelevant to the debate what you"d do about this issue. But it"s an interesting discussion. If I"m being honest I don"t think you can stop pre-marital sex or polygamy. Personally I think they are only going to increase and I don"t think there"s anything wrong with that. So you have to embrace it. The church especially is in risk of becoming irrelevant if it maintains its view on sex. You have to improve sex education, invest in more effective contraceptives and (regardless of your opinion on it) make abortions more available. Irrespective of the debate I"m intrigued to hear props and anyone"s opinion on these issues.
Thank you again.
I will begin the final round by saying I really enjoyed is debate. It was civil and respectful. Thank you to my opponent for his civility.
Since I already posted my arguments to this debate, I will end with my closing arguments. I feel I have proved with not just opinions, but facts, that premarital sex and multiple sex partners causes economic stress, high risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It isn't difficult to see that multiple sex partners increases the risk of STDs. Safe sex does help to decrease the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but does not detour them 100%. The best prevention is one sex partner for life. My opponent would like you to believe that because sex is enjoyable we can't stick to one partner. That isn't really a good argument.
I also believe that sex education is fine, but does not work to detour sex completely. Handing out condoms only encourages kids to engage in sexual behaviour with multiple partners.
In closing, I'll just say this... Abstinence and only one sex partner for life retards the spread of STDs, unwanted pregnancies and economic stress. HIV would be close to non existent and there wouldn't be the need for many of our government programs that drain our economy.
Thank you to my opponent for this debate.
thebuoyancyofcitrus forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.