The Instigator
squirtdonthurt
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DCH
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Wait for sex with the one you love before marriage--NON BIBLICAL APPROACH Pro

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,705 times Debate No: 24451
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

squirtdonthurt

Pro

debate Flow (Pleas use spaces in between when answering each part)

Round 1
Part 1
State if you are married/single/dating/ at this present time.

Part2
State Why they chose to debate on this topic and if you believe in the bible or not. My title says non biblical approach, it does not mean you cant use biblical references, I was simply stating that its not the reason for my argument in this debate on why I think sex before marriage should have to wait. But because the bible says to wait, I don't think using it will help you much against me. Lol I personally believe in the bible and is a Christian, I just found a secular reason for waiting until marriage as well.

part3
When was the First time they had sex age of both participants (not just intercourse anything sexual aside from masturbation, and with who(name not necessary make up one) Details on how or why it happened aren't important unless specifically asked.

part4
Name any time at one point it was good and time when it was bad. (Details are not necessary) just simply it was bad because blank blank and good because blank blank. Example." it was bad because the person did not listen when I said it hurt and told them to stop, or it was bad because the person didn't know what they were doing, or it was bad because my partner was watching tv or playing video games in the middle of it. Or it was good because the person was very attentive to what I wanted, it was good because the guy had a great package and knew how to work it/ the girl was good because she had a lot of experience or it was good because I felt like we were making love and not just having sex and love they way they talked to me.

Part 5 (to those that apply)
These are just examples lol use your own. If opponent has NOT had sex or did anything sexual you may still debate,if you did something sexual please state. Also state if you are married/single/dating. in round 2 Use stories you have heard from family or friends, books or tv to defend your case why one should have sex before marriage, my stance is that they should not.

Part6 ( if apply)
any side notes or comments about any of the other parts,

After the Parts section please state Open argument.
Side Note: In cases of rape or molestation welcome to omit, stating it is on your discretion it could help or hurt your stance.

Round 2
rebuttal to open argument and comments and questions on anything opponent said in Parts section of round 1

Round 3
rebuttals/questions/responses to questions if asked in 2 round

Round 4
Rebuttals/answers/closing argument part 1

Round 5
rebuttals/Closing argument part 2

Debate

Part 1
I am engaged

Part2
I chose to debate this topic, because outside of the biblical approach I found a rational and reasonable stance for one to wait for marriage with the one they love and yes I do believe in the bible.

Part 3
The first time was when I was 22yrs old and person was 21

Part 4
It was bad one time when I could not feel anything, It was good was when the experience lasted a long time.

Part 6
I have had sex before, but this new concept of waiting came much later in life after I found my one true love.

Open Argument
I will keep it simple for now, I believe we should wait for marriage because if you don't then you would be just like the other billions of the people who did not wait for marriage, how beautiful is it to wait then, if so many other people could not? How special do you make your partner, if all the other people you didn't wait, but this one you choose to wait for them, this will make them above all else anyone else you ever been with. Hence why it is worth the wait, is it easy no.

My opponent may or may not bring up matters of Testing it out first and checking compatibility, but I think that is a cop-out, if you love someone you will work through anything, science and doctors can help any discrepancies, but will touch in this further in the debate
DCH

Con

Part 1. I am married.
Part 2. I chose this topic because I believe that truth and inner meaning are important. I believe that it is very important for people to love themselves and others with clarity. I am a polyreligious Gnostic. I practice meditative arts from most of the world's religions. I read and find deep meaning from the texts of all religions. I do so with a non literal and metaphorical understanding. For me that understanding is more powerful if not taken literally.
Part 3. The first time for me was in college. We were each 20 years old. We cared for each other as friends (with benefits I suppose they say now).
Part 4. It was not as good as I hoped it would be. The first time I attempted to make thanksgiving gravy was with another first timer to making gravy. Neither of us had any education in making homemade gravy. The results were not so good with the gravy either. When someone asked one of us to pass the mashed potatoes we had to sheepishly admit that, what they thought was a bowl of mashed potatoes, was actually our attempt at making gravy. More flour more flour!!!!! Now, more water, more water!!!!
Part 5. My experience is for love to be the crucial ingredient for good sex and that good sex is an important part of life. Subpar sex is almost always the result of not being in love. Being married in no way implies a good and healthy loving relationship.

Open debate: Con- A person should not strive to be married before having sex for the first time.
1.There is an importance to being in love with the person you are with. They call it "Making Love" for a reason. I think that both sides agree to this assumption so I will not elaborate unless there is disagreement from Pro.
2.Marriage is not a measure of healthy loving relationships. Marriage is a contract between two individuals brokered by the church and state.
a.The history of marriage- For the vast majority of human history marriage was done for strategic alliance and without consent of the parties, especially the woman who was generally regarded as property. The Saxons used marriage to particular advantage in their semi-bloodless conquest of Britain. Marriage was not regarded as a holy sacrament by the church until the 12th century. Of particular importance to us, love was not considered to be an important component of marriage until the Victorian era. http://www.bbc.co.uk.... Marriage was originally designed to avert lawlessness and violence between competing males. Until very recently it was impossible to determine paternity of a child by scientific means (genetic paternity test). Some societies made it a rule to subjugate woman to the ownership (marriage) of a male. It was a crime punishable by stoning execution to fornicate with (Adultery) the spouse of another human being. This strict prohibition reduced violence and conflict between all parties. In particular it almost guaranteed knowledge of paternity among males. Knowledge of paternity allowed for a patriarchal society to supplant the former matriarchal societies who had ruled previously (Sumer/Babylonia). These religious ideologies of the desert, over time, conquered and persuaded most of the western world into adopting their religion and moral laws. In short, marriage was designed as political contract and not for the ecstatic spiritual joining we now know as loving sexual union.
b.The idea of marriage is often an unconscious trap of circular causality for many people. You have to be in love to be married therefore if I get married I must be in love. The last statement is false as it is circular illogic. While there is limited documentation of the above statement consider two wrong reasons that people stay married under less than ideal conditions for: Fear of enough communication to either become closer or split up; for the sake of the children. People are afraid of divorce so they do not communicate and therefore are not properly partnered to their mate. If they are able to get passed fear of separation they will be able to communicate and become closer. People erroneously think that staying in a loveless marriage is better for their children. In reality their children will grow up to emulate those unhealthy relationships in their own lives. Marriage can and should be a wonderful thing for two people who deeply love each other. The act of being married does not imply love.
c.Shame. The idea of sex before marriage still engenders the negative emotion of shame to many people. The church/ state apparatus do not still stone to death "adulterers" in most of the Western World. Much of the conservative wing of the church/state apparatus still seeks to inflict shame on an individual for having "sex out of wedlock". To be clear I am not trying to straw man Pro. I know that Pro did not in her argument promote shame. Still, others do promote shame for sex outside of wedlock and that does still resonate with many. What we see today is more of a reaction to shame that results in more loveless perversion. http://scielo.isciii.es... In the words of the band Cake, "Excess ain't rebellion… You're still drinkin what there're sellin……." http://www.lyrics007.com...
d.If marriage is a state contract and we assume that a person should be married to have sex then we are continuing to relinquish control of our bodies to the state and then asking for permission to use our bodies in a matter that the state/church approves of. Often there are implied conditions attached. Can we afford to be married yet? Should we have to gain some stature in society to become married well and then grant ourselves permission with the blessings of others before having loving physical union with our soulmate/partner? Only when we love ourselves, know ourselves and take complete ownership of ourselves are we able to love another- Eric Fromm, The Art of Loving.
e.Conclusion- The correct chain of causation is this: Clarity and self/other love creates communication which enables deep understanding , compassion and connectedness to your soul mate which can then result in a wonderful physical/spiritual union. All of these things should be a part of a healthy marriage but a good marriage also has many other requirements. Trust, common goals and common ethics are also very important to a good marriage. This is just a small list of important components of a good marriage. In short great sex is the fruit of love understanding and communication. It is also an important part of marriage. Sex is not a fruit of getting married. Many marriages lack love and sex. Many loving relationships lack a marriage contract. The idea of requiring marriage before sex is at best confusing. It is possible to have great loving and sex by waiting until marriage. It is unlikely to do so. People learn by living. Wouldn't it be better to know you are with the right soul mate from experience or is it better to roll the dice based on an illogical assumption?
Debate Round No. 1
squirtdonthurt

Pro

I agree that marriage is not necessarily for one to be in love, even brothers and sisters or dad and a daughter, cousins aunts and uncles can make love to each other, outside of just sex, but call it "making love" and do so without getting married, if they want go ahead and do that and if its not against the law in some states no one has a true reason to tell them not to do so, we all know the Christian God is against it and that's why in that aspect marriage was create so that much leeway wouldn't be created. But that is not my argument, I agree two people can be in love without being married, I have religious reasons for them doing so but again that is not my argument in this particular debate. I also agree that being married doesn't magically make someone be in love, I agree that marriage was used differently back then in the 16th century it was even used to gain pieces of land and marry woman who wasn't even in love with them.

My argument is this,......That sex is WORTH the wait, it looking for my opponent to show that it is NOT worth the wait and that it should be done before marriage.

My opponent stated this,

"is it possible to have great loving and sex by waiting until marriage? It is unlikely to do so. People learn by living. Wouldn't it be better to know you are with the right soul mate from experience or is it better to roll the dice based on an illogical assumption?"

Let me rephrase this....

is it possible to have flawless children and not have to worry bout them ever messing up? It is unlikely to happen. People learn by having other peoples children first, wouldn't it be better to know you are fit to have children before you have them? or is it better to not have children because you afraid you have no experience and will do a bad job?

Again the "Experience first" theory is a cop out, its a genuine assessment and I understand, but by that logic we should have other peoples children first for a "Learn by living concept" just to see if they are right for us, but most people just have children even with no experience, and because they are in love they work it out together through the process, people could do the same with no sex before marriage how is it unconditional love if it halted by a condition?

If you hope to have a healthy child and it turns out retarded you don't abandoned it, you love it unconditionally if you have a child that is healthy and then made retarded by an accident, again unconditional love applies.

If you had no sex before marriage and it was not what you expected, if you are in LOVE like you love a child you don't give up and there is plethora of ways to improve videos, doctors etc and have great sex!

If you had sex before marriage and its the best thing ever, and then after marriage a life changing health issue happens and sex is bad, what, are you going to give up? sad thing is I seen this happen. No you push through.

So you see if you have unconditional love, it wont matter
DCH

Con

Pro starts her argument with an anecdotal fallacy-" I agree that marriage is not necessarily for one to be in love, even brothers and sisters or dad and a daughter, cousins aunts and uncles can make love to each other, outside of just sex, but call it "making love" and do so without getting married, if they want go ahead and do that and if its not against the law in some states no one has a true reason to tell them not to do so"
Pro has falsely substituted incest relationships for the spiritually loving and compassionate relationships that this debate was intended to explore. Is all premarital sex akin to incest according to pro?

In the first part of her "non argument" my opponent uses an appeal to authority- Pro- "we all know the Christian God is against it and that's why in that aspect marriage was create so that much leeway wouldn't be created." It is nice that you have "God on your side", so to speak, but this is a debate between two people. This statement is also false for factual reasons in the second part. What leeway was the Christian God attempting to avoid pre Victorian England? It has already been established that love was not an essential part of marriage until Victorian England. The leeway to be avoided was the injustice and uncertainty of one man unknowingly raising another man's child and so loosing the ability to pass land and title to his male heirs. The leeway to be avoided was jealous murder at the prospect of infidelity. The leeway to be avoided was one man not receiving fair compensation for his betrothal payment of 15 goats. If love were not a key component of marriage for the Christian church until the Victorian age how could the prohibition of adultery and premarital sex be for the benefit of the sex.
I need for my opponent to clarify her argument at this point. Is pro saying that love is the prerequisite for great sex and that marriage is a prerequisite for love or is pro saying that marriage not love is the prerequisite for very good sex?
Pro next continues her argument as a misrepresentative Straw man/ anecdotal attack- "Let me rephrase this....

is it possible to have flawless children and not have to worry about them ever messing up? It is unlikely to happen. People learn by having other people's children first, wouldn't it be better to know you are fit to have children before you have them? Or is it better to not have children because you afraid you have no experience and will do a bad job?"
You certainly did rephrase it…. into something completely different. Apples into oranges. A parent child relationship is very different from a romantic and spiritual partnership between two people. The child will gradually develop a separate personality and become more independent over time. The two adults will maintain their individual personalities but continue to bond and grow with each other. It is precisely the ability for the adults to love each other which helps the child flourish. So, using intelligence and experience to choose and create a wonderful spiritual relationship aids greatly in parenting. In our romantic relationships we have choices in our parenting we have some choices but the genetic template of the child is not our choice. Your argument is to point to a situation without choice and advocate artificially taking away choices in another area by comparison.
Also Pro stated "How is it unconditional love if it is halted by a condition"? What would that condition be? Not good sex? So now we have a circular argument from pro- people should wait for marriage to have sex because waiting will make the sex better. "Sex is worth the wait" People should not have sex before because if the sex is bad then they might not want to get married, the fear of bad sex is a "condition" to be avoided. Love cannot be unconditional if we do not worry that the sex will be bad so we must wait. Then, after the appropriate sanctioned legal and church ritual the sex will become magically good. It will become magically good because the couple chose to ignore its importance or in any way experience it before the magical act of marriage. Also who is saddled with the "condition"? Waiting before marriage seems like much more of an artificially imposed "condition" than living healthfully does.
I would like clarification from pro. Is great sex the goal? It would seem so from her statement " Sex is worth the wait". My belief is that great sex is the fruit of great love and communication. It cannot be the primary motivation. If great sex is the ultimate goal than waiting for marriage or not waiting for marriage will both fail. This is true in the same way that a person cannot have a great and satisfying career for the money. People are, in both the cases of sex and money, clouded by their greed. As a practicing tantric I know this to be true. If I say "it is not about the hour long orgasm…." everything I say about true loving and communication after that will not be heard. It is the same phenomena when the entrepreneur Richard Branson gets onto a Virgin jet and says "It's not about the money"…. People are so distracted by those types of fruits that they lose sight of the important processes that generate those fruits. Richard Branson thrives on the excitement of being a creative entrepreneur. It really is not about the money for him. In the same way couples who generate crystal clear communication and spiritual loving really do that for its own sake. The joy of physical union is only a part of the benefits of the loving. The loving itself is the main benefit. Would Richard Branson have been well served to abstain from all business activity until he formed his first company Virgin? Should he expect his unconditional love for Virgin to propel his business without any help of prior business experience? The benefits of a couple having experience have been stated clearly by myself. We have heard no argument from pro concerning the real and tangible benefits of waiting. All we have seen from pro is cloudy misdirection. I expect that the real sentiment underlying pros argument is the unhealthy emotion known as shame.
Debate Round No. 2
squirtdonthurt

Pro

agreed, premarital sex is not akin to incest, the incest relationship analogy was to show that they too can be in love, to most, it is sickening, but if we are to say that they cannot truly love, that would be an opinion since we cannot read peoples hearts, I only mentioned the leeway aspect because if we allow one group to do something, then people who was formally looked down upon like incest will seek to claim they love each other. We got side tracked with this, its a different issue, I apologize.

"I need for my opponent to clarify her argument at this point. Is pro saying that love is the prerequisite for great sex and that marriage is a prerequisite for love or is pro saying that marriage not love is the prerequisite for very good sex?"
Perhaps we did get mixed up with a play on words of love sex and marriage. I will try to be a bit clearer.

Argument.
(When I say sex is worth the wait, I'm implying that the person who chooses to wait, their partner could find greater satisfaction because one waited, not that sex is worth the wait because the sex act itself will be great, but because of how it would make the partner feel by the act of waiting, not how good the actual sex is.)

The partner would probably feel more special knowing that their partner chose specifically to do something they have never done with anyone else, which is to wait. It doesn't mean that you cant do something else that would mean love is evident, I'm simply pointing out that waiting is an additional and powerful way of showing your love to a partner. Getting married does not guarantee great sex, but it can be just as good as those who experienced it before marriage and if it is not it can be improved. Premarital sex doesn't mean great sex cant exist, but even if it did, I'm saying what happens when after marriage when, a mental life issue causes no sex drive, or health issue that makes it hurts and partner doest want to, or accident happened and sex isn't like it used to or no longer possible, what would do you then? run away? if you can stick it through after such events, surely you can stick it through before marriage without any of those events. Then it becomes less about testing

Sex can be good or bad, before and after marriage. If there is bad sex before marriage, one could break it off, and either probably never loved the person enough, or probably wants someone compatible because great sex is important to them but sex can be just as important to someone who chose to wait. I don't see why one needs to break it off for the sole and only purpose that sex was bad disregarding all experiences and happy times they shared an great communication and there was no other issue than the sex. Couples can overcome challenges. After a while, you'll know how to get in tune with them, with work, communication, and honesty, bad sex based on physical issues can be improved.

But if it's a mental disconnect that's making sex bad, it's tougher to fix. touch on later. Out of space
DCH

Con

Previously Pro made an anecdotal argument substituting falsely substituting incest relationships for other genuinely loving relationships between two prior to marriage. Pro has now defended this prior area with another logical fallacy the slippery slope.
Pro- "agreed, premarital sex is not akin to incest, the incest relationship analogy was to show that they too can be in love, to most, it is sickening, but if we are to say that they cannot truly love, that would be an opinion since we cannot read people's hearts, I only mentioned the leeway aspect because if we allow one group to do something, then people who was formally looked down upon like incest will seek to claim they love each other".
And then people may wish to marry animals and then plants and then……
The slippery slope argument is wrong because it can be contrived to seemingly prove any statement. It is never in any way actually bounded to the question at hand.
Further along Pro states-
"Premarital sex doesn't mean great sex can't exist, but even if it did, I'm saying what happens when after marriage when, a mental life issue causes no sex drive, or health issue that makes it hurts and partner doest want to, or accident happened and sex isn't like it used to or no longer possible, what would do you then? run away? If you can stick it through after such events, surely you can stick it through before marriage without any of those events. Then it becomes less about testing"
There is a Straw Man assertion and also a false substitution made by pro here. Pro has asserted that the point of lovemaking outside of a legal marriage contract is to "test" a potential partner's sexual compatibility as a condition of continued long term relationship and possibly marriage. This was never asserted by me. This "testing" that Pro refers to is indicative of casual sex. A person does not compassionately care for their partner if that person would abandon that partner immediately over unsatisfying physical coupling. This debate was to be confined to loving couples before and after marriage. Con has already admitted that marriage does not imply love. All of Cons arguments, however, misdirect us to false anecdotes of couples who are not in love but have sex before marriage. Pro has stated that testing is bad in reference to people seeking compatibility. Pro then goes on to substitute her own testing, the waiting before marriage to have sex kind of testing, as a condition of compatibility.
Pro does articulate her argument in round three more clearly. Pro states-
"Argument.
(When I say sex is worth the wait, I'm implying that the person who chooses to wait, their partner could find greater satisfaction because one waited, not that sex is worth the wait because the sex act itself will be great, but because of how it would make the partner feel by the act of waiting, not how good the actual sex is.)"
This is definitely a clearly stated and common sentiment. There is however a flaw in this notion. The explanation will seem course at first and I will get to that later. Pro is artificially applying a scarcity model to an abundant good. It would be more appropriate to wait to say fly to the moon on a private space flight if you were limited by financial resources to take only one flight with one person in your lifetime. This is not the reality of loving relationships. We live in a world of abundance. That abundance promotes more abundance and also some situations of scarcity. It is very important to recognize which areas of our lives are governed by abundance and which areas of our lives are governed by scarcity. Scarcity is a temporal model. Right at this moment there may be 4 apples in a bowl with 5 people who wish to consume those apples. Over time the situation may trend toward abundance or further scarcity. As people behave and enter into agreements with each other as to how more apples may be produced then the existence of apples in future time possibility streams may become more or less abundant. Scarce resources are properly manipulated to produce abundant results. Time and beginning raw materials are finite and scarce. Human spirituality and innovation are limitless. The power of love is limitless. Genuine loving is without limit. If the initial inputs of time and attention are artificially constrained, however, then abundance is not allowed to perpetuate. It is precisely the act of treating abundant processes as scarcity that stifles the abundance. Here Pro has misidentified what is abundant and what is scarce. Pro has argued that time is abundant. To paraphrase pro- "We can always wait to have sex until after marriage and then fix it later if it is not great". That is false. Time is scarce. Pro believes that love is scarce. That is false. Pro believes that it would be special thing to share it with one person only after marriage. All we really have to start with is time. If we live in the moment there is nothing that is not possible to us. A person learns how to love over time and through experience. There is no other way. Love is not magically granted onto us by some divine being if we wait until the very last before sanctioned minute to express our love to our soul mate. Love is available to all of us right now in this very moment and at no other time.
Also, you did not lack space to complete your last argument. The limit is 2000 word. It may have been more accurate to say that you did not have time.
Debate Round No. 3
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Thanks for your response, I like your writing style. it seems we got compoundedly sidetracked with the incest analogy, I cant go In depth it strays away from debate. There is a misunderstanding here, I was only responding to a statement you made about anyone can love without being married and I was agreeing with that, I added to what you were saying not a rebuttal by simply saying, that based on the Christian perspective, marriage was designed a certain way, so leeway couldn't't be created like incest or like you said marriage to a plant or animal. Although due to peoples nature, this leeway has been breached, there was a woman who married the Eiffel Tower her last name is now, Eiffel. http://www.nydailynews.com...

"Con has already admitted that marriage does not imply love." I agree on the technical level that, one could marry without being in love, but I do not agree that one SHOULD get married without being IN love nor, I believe one shouldn't marry if they cannot keep a commitment and commitments are kept because they love someone, so I do in fact believe marriage is for love, I agreed with you in the sense that individuals can personally choose to marry and not base it on love within their personal concepts.

"Pro has stated that testing is bad in reference to people seeking compatibility. Pro then goes on to substitute her own testing, the waiting before marriage to have sex kind of testing, as a condition of compatibility"
A simple misunderstanding; I don't see waiting for sex as a test for compatibility, basing it on trying to see if variable "A" or "B" will test/prove or show that marriage, sex or love will work out, is a flawed test from the onset. Outside factors will always come into play that is independent of this supposed test and thwart such a test from a genuine assessment. So waiting until marriage for compatibility is inaccurate expression of love. However, Con seems to hint at testing, Con stated "People learn by living. Wouldn't it be better to know you are with the right soul mate from experience or is it better to roll the dice based on an illogical assumption?"

It seems the way your going about it, is a test, not to use a straw man argument, but need a honest understanding of your stance, I agree we do not just marry on a whim and hope it works, getting married does take some living by experience situations, But sex doesn't have to be one of them, we can perform a genuine assessment of a persons character in other ways. I'm confused, Con mentioned that sex isn't necessary to pursue long term relationship and Con agreed that if one is compassionate with another they would not drop the relationship because of sex, If Con agrees with this, then why does one NEED to have sex before marriage?

Will address scarce model next round. I did run out of space last rd, I couldn't type. (maybe a glitch idk) also I'm a Man not a woman
DCH

Con

Before I debate this round I want to say how pleased I am with this debate. While I do not agree with my opponent's position or arguments, I am very pleased with his intent. Both of us are genuinely motivated to seek truth in this question. While it is accepted to argue for the sake of argument on this website, I am pleased that we are not taking that course here. Well done Pro.
The Eiffel tower evidence is a continuation of the slippery slope argument. People do weird things in France. Does her marriage to the tower hurt anyone? Is this not more proof that marriage does not equal love? Did we not both already agree to the last statement? I am trying to confine our debate to the original question. Assertion - two people in love should wait until after marriage to have sex.
I will now clarify my position on the nature of "testing" indictments by both of us. The assertion by pro is- people should wait for after marriage to have sex. I in no way seek to morally arm twist people into having sex before marriage. This is a personal choice for anyone to make. Each person has different needs based on personal background, religion and psychology. We are all of us wired just a little differently from each other. I am debunking the assertion that people should wait until after marriage. My argument is as follows:
1.)Marriage is an institution created to ensure political and economic ties between people that were created to promote a new political reality. Historically, marriage had no formal connection with love per church and state until the Victorian era. Please see evidence I presented in round 1 to that effect.
a.People falsely equate marriage as a love garuntuer. The relationship becomes a paper tiger. People are then afraid to pursue communication and healthy loving for fear of losing the paper tiger.
b.The pushing of sex before marriage is often done with an element of shame. This shame is inherent in our society from two millennia of shame brokering by church and state. It is not a part of my opponent's stated argument. Shame is a destructive emotion that inhibits communication and therefore love. Shame is detrimental to everyone's health.
c.Marriage is a church/state contract. It is designed to put real and binding results onto what each of us can do with our bodies. The notion that we should "wait until marriage to have sex" asks us to voluntarily relinquish control of our bodies to the moral authority of the prevailing church/ state influence in society and then receive "permission" to have "sanctioned" and "sinless" intercourse. The best way to promote optimal spiritual/ mental/ physical health is to realize complete personal control of each of our spirit/mind/bodies right here and now. This approach is known to be of benefit to health. Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of psychological improvement. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
d.The assertion "people should wait until after marriage to have sex" misidentifies the nature of the key process and input. The assertion puts falsely dictated boundaries on an abundant process-physical/spiritual union from genuine love. It also misidentifies the key input time as abundant. Time is the scarcest input available.
I am not suggesting that partners "test" each other to see if they are "good at sex" before deciding who to marry. That sentiment is another straw man argument on the part of pro. I did say- "People learn by living. Wouldn't it be better to know you are with the right soul mate from experience or is it better to roll the dice based on an illogical assumption?"
At no time did I mention having sex in the above statement. My argument is for people to communicate and love freely at all times. We primates do tend to seek a soul mate/partner to share our lives with. We do select based on criteria. That criterion is different for everyone. My suggestion for criteria, as it pertains to this argument is the capacity to communicate and love. We learn to communicate and love by the act of communicating and loving. I seek to help all others no matter what their abilities for the above criteria may be. For my partner, the one who closest to me who will enable (or inhibit) me to complete these tasks of goodwill that I have for others I select for an openness and ability to grow in the areas of communication and loving. The above assertion of this debate is wrong. It is incorrect because it falsely inhibits communication and loving to no good end. The imaginary fruit of "I waited to do this with only you" is just that, imaginary. Pro has not supplied any evidence to support the benefit of waiting. I have clearly and concisely debunked the assertion proving the detriments of waiting.
Pro. Can you elaborate again on the benefits of waiting. In particular it would be good to know how this "feeling special for having waited" is a tangible benefit and not a misguided sentiment based on other emotions, possibly shame. I have given evidence that love is an abundant process and that time is a perfectly finite input. Do you choose to refute the above two statements?
Cheers. Con.
Also I mistakenly thought you were a woman because you said your first intercourse led to discomfort. My misunderstanding there.
Debate Round No. 4
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Am I allowed to say LOL in a debate? with only 9 minutes left to respond before I go to work, and if I wait until after work my time will have run out. So I apologize if my responses are not thorough,Yes, I also enjoyed this non aggressive debate with respect to Con would love to do this again sometime. I present my last stance…..
I do want to clarify when someone says SHOULD, it can express a sense of authority, control or superiority. I wanted to clarify that when I said we should wait for sex, if was not expressing domination of ones actions, but rather encouragement, saying should In the sense of as a friend would say it like ‘Should not drive drunk"
Another clarification, in debate I was thinking on broader scope with sub issues of two people being in love, but again my 3,000 limit made this feat difficult. Such as how past sex behavior can affect marriage life. If one gives in to moral temptation before marriage, what's to stop him or her from giving in to moral temptation once married? sex partners in the past have effected marriages, they were more prone to infidelity, because of pleasure thoughts of old partners they wish they could have tried out one more time, sex is powerful and creates atomic bomb psychological attachments, we have even seen good men who loved their wife, destroyed by one case of infidelity, contrary to popular belief its been rumored that even Dr. Martin Luther King, gave in to this.
Con clarified for me he was referring to testing he was only saying "We learn to communicate and love by the act of communicating and loving." However the flaw is that we are always communicating a loving, a criteria can be met, but not perfectly, and at best it is idealized, even when criteria was met before marriage, after marriage many of that criteria seems to dissipate as couples get feel one no longer meets that criteria. communication and love was is important yes, but even though Con did not say the word sex, Cons default stance in this communication and love implies though sex to be a part of that communication, I I am implying that it does not need to be. We can discuss the past and communicate and love and develop intimacy.
…If we wait until marriage, that person will be the only experience, Many think a relationship without sex is no relationship at all but Sex is what is killing many relationships and leaving many people heartbroken. The longer a couple waited to have sex, the better that sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability was in marriage. how does a parent respond when asked, "Why did you not wait until you were married?" what example does that set for the child? If divorced, what example do parents set in regard to dating and sex? Do they believe it is acceptable for them, to have pre-marital sex whenever they feel like it? If so, should they expect anything different from their children? Now unwanted pregnancies and stds will abound. :( out of space
DCH

Con

I will start by refuting Pro's argument for this round before making my own closing arguments.
I think you chose the wrong example with the drunk driving. Drunk driving is a situation that a friend should authoritatively another friend not to participate in. Consensual loving sex is a situation for (you are suggesting) encouragement to wait.
Pro states, "If one gives in to moral temptation before marriage, what's to stop him or her from giving in to moral temptation once married? sex partners in the past have effected marriages, they were more prone to infidelity, because of pleasure thoughts of old partners they wish they could have tried out one more time, sex is powerful and creates atomic bomb psychological attachments, we have even seen good men who loved their wife, destroyed by one case of infidelity, contrary to popular belief its been rumored that even Dr. Martin Luther King, gave in to this."
Pro does not define "moral temptation". The meaning of those words is not made clear. I suspect that according to Pro a person is doing something "bad" if they have sex before marriage, something that they may become ashamed of. Please see evidence posted in previous rounds provided by myself as to the negative effects of shame on human health.
Pro does not give evidence for her theory that "sex partners in the past have effected marriages" (affected right?). It is pure speculation on the part of Pro that spouses cheat because they had sex before marriage. Using the example of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is an anecdotal logical fallacy. We do know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had extramarital affairs because the FBI bugged his phone and then sent the recordings to his wife. This was part of the criminal COINTELPRO operation that was later revealed under the Church committee senate hearings. We do not know why he cheated. There are a number of theories as to why spouses cheat on each other. It is believed that one factor is observed and emulated behavior based on parents who have cheated. I would like some evidence as to pro's theory of infidelity. It looks as though this statement was invented by pro in the nine minutes she had before going to work.
Pro states- " but even though Con did not say the word sex, Cons default stance in this communication and love implies though sex to be a part of that communication, I I am implying that it does not need to be. We can discuss the past and communicate and love and develop intimacy."
Another straw man argument from pro. I did not at any time say at any time that sex was a necessary tool for communication. Clearly, I stated that loving spiritual/physical union was a fruit of great communication and loving.
Pro finishes with: "If we wait until marriage, that person will be the only experience, Many think a relationship without sex is no relationship at all but Sex is what is killing many relationships and leaving many people heartbroken. The longer a couple waited to have sex, the better that sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability was in marriage. how does a parent respond when asked, "Why did you not wait until you were married?" what example does that set for the child? If divorced, what example do parents set in regard to dating and sex? Do they believe it is acceptable for them, to have pre-marital sex whenever they feel like it? If so, should they expect anything different from their children? Now unwanted pregnancies and stds will abound. :( out of space"
The above paragraph is a series of logically flawed unsupported statements. I will respond to them in order:
"If we wait until marriage that person will be the only experience"
So? Pro has not, per my request, provided any evidence as to why her above statement is good. I have provided a sound argument into the nature of scarcity of time and the abundant nature of love. I have asked that Pro attempt to refute my abundance/scarcity model and she has not done so.
"Sex is what is killing many relationships and leaving many couples heartbroken"
In earlier arguments Pro stated that the sex would be better for waiting. Is Pro labeling sex as a bad? That is new to our debate. It is also inconsistent with Pros previously stated argument.
"The longer a couple waited to have sex, the better that sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability was in marriage."
This looks like a direct quote but no source is listed. I am now struck with raw curiosity as to the source.
". how does a parent respond when asked, "Why did you not wait until you were married?" what example does that set for the child?"
Pro is begging the question. Pro has an imaginary offspring demanding to know why his/her parents did not wait to have sex until they were married. Why did the children ask? Because pro wanted them to. There is no evidence from pro that a child will ask that question unless exposed to the shaming question by pro and others who agree with pro.
"If divorced, what example do parents set in regard to dating and sex? Do they believe it is acceptable for them, to have pre-marital sex whenever they feel like it? If so, should they expect anything different from their children? Now unwanted pregnancies and stds will abound. :( out of space"
Again we have the slippery slope from pro. This is a classic almost textbook example of that particular logical fallacy. Children can be discouraged from having sex for reasons of their own physical/emotional/spiritual health. Adolescents can be taught what real love is and why they are probably not ready for it. They can be apprised of the emotional scarring that can take place if, at a young age, they engage in loveless sex. Also there are and should continue to be family planning alternative made readily available to adolescents. There is no rational causal chain of: Adults have extramarital sex leads to adolescents having extramarital sex leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This is another slippery slope invention by pro.

I will not reiterate my entire argument as that would be unneeded repetition. To sum up: The burden of proof is on Pro made the statement -People should wait till marriage for sex with the one you love. Pro has not supported any of her statements with evidence. I have made clear arguments as to the nature of time as a scarce input and to love being an abundant process given the right conditions- compassion, communication, etc. Therefore, since time is exactly scarce and loving is abundant with the right person, there is no reason to wait until marriage. Marriage, as I have explained, is a creation of the Church/State made to bend individuals to the will of others in society. Love was not officially part of marriage until the Victorian era. Due to the historical nature of the marriage contract, the idea of waiting for marriage posits control of our bodies back to the church/ state. The idea of waiting for marriage has historically been enforced by shame to do otherwise. As I have provided evidence for previously, both shame and lack of agency for one's own body are psychologically anathema to human health and wellbeing.
Pro has stated that she lacked time to complete arguments and also that either her computer or this website limited her responses to 2000 words each. I definitely have sympathy for those situations. We are all doing this as a hobby after all. I think it might have been better for pro to pick fewer statements and actually support them than to make a larger number of unsupported statements. I would like to reiterate my happiness regarding Pro's intent regarding this debate. She has shown her intent to be toward seeking the truth and I have enjoyed the spirit of this debate. Thank you again Pro. It has been a lovely debate.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
oh okay thanks Ximen
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
For the future, there's thread in the DDO section of the forum where you can post a link to a debate with no votes.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
not to my knowledge, its suppose to happen on its own, it probably lost fame due to my bad arguements and they felt it wasnt even worth voting on lol, but yeah if the debate has a good amout of iews, people who track it should naturally vote on it at the end of the debating period
Posted by DCH 4 years ago
DCH
I am new to this site. Are we supposed to draw attention to the debate? I do not feel comfortable recruiting votes.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
no one is voting lol probably my fault
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
thanks for the debate Con! as well, this is actually my first debate on this site or any time in life, it seems i need to improve on areas on clarifying and providig evidence to support statments. Thanks again, also remember i am a he not a she : ) although i get called a lesbian alot
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
no message per se it just reached zero, so it seemed authentic but your posts seemed longer eh. i will make another round for this some other time with at least 5k characters next time
Posted by DCH 4 years ago
DCH
I think the limit is 2000 words not 3000 characters. What is the error message say exactly?
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
i wanted to address so much more, im sorry Con i could not, lack of time and space, i will not make the mistake of such a short character limit next time
Posted by squirtdonthurt 4 years ago
squirtdonthurt
its very strange it seems Con was able to have more than 3,000 characters, mine would not let me go past that. or perhaps his posts just seemed longer idk
No votes have been placed for this debate.