Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hey more reasons to have unmarital sex :-D

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Sola.Gratia
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:43:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

Interesting thread here buddy..
"What is sin? It is the glory of God not honored. Holiness of God not reverenced. Greatness of God not admired. Power of God not praised. Truth of God not sought. Wisdom of God not esteemed. Beauty of God not treasured. Goodness of God not savored. Faithfulness of God not trusted. Commandments of God not obeyed. Justice of God not respected. Wrath of God not feared. Grace of God not cherished. Presence of God not prized. Person of God not loved. That is sin." ~John Piper
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:50:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:43:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

Just because one is married does not mean that one will not contract an STI. So long as adultery remains to be a thing which occurs, sexual monogamy is an insufficient isolation to sexually transmitted infection. Moreover, it is equally necessary to note that one does not have to be married to be sexually monogamous. There are relationships where people are married and only have sex with the person with whom they are in an unmarried relationship. Might marriage increase the likelihood of sexual monogamy? Perhaps, but whether that is the case or not, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid STIs.
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:54:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:34:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What if you marry an ex-prostitute?

Then presumably you won't spread what she's got around... pretty novel eh?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:58:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:50:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:43:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

Just because one is married does not mean that one will not contract an STI. So long as adultery remains to be a thing which occurs, sexual monogamy is an insufficient isolation to sexually transmitted infection. Moreover, it is equally necessary to note that one does not have to be married to be sexually monogamous. There are relationships where people are married and only have sex with the person with whom they are in an unmarried relationship. Might marriage increase the likelihood of sexual monogamy? Perhaps, but whether that is the case or not, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid STIs.

Argument from accident. Of course STD's would still exist if folks stopped having pre-marital sex. But it would be significantly decreased. It simply goes contrary to the created order- as evidenced above.. but hey, no one's saying it's easy.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:01:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:54:02 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:34:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What if you marry an ex-prostitute?

Then presumably you won't spread what she's got around... pretty novel eh?

Your reason for not having pre-marital sex was contracting gonorrhea. If I marry someone who has it, then there is no inherent benefit with respect to STIs.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.

I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Give me your argument as to why pre-marital sex is wrong but post-marital sex is right.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:10:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:01:37 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:54:02 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:34:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What if you marry an ex-prostitute?

Then presumably you won't spread what she's got around... pretty novel eh?

Your reason for not having pre-marital sex was contracting gonorrhea. If I marry someone who has it, then there is no inherent benefit with respect to STIs.

That's not my reason for not having premarital sex... my reason is to respect the dignity of the person and marriage and yourself and not sleep around. You're arguing from accident here to a reasonable general rule of thumb. This is fallacious.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:11:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.

I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Give me your argument as to why pre-marital sex is wrong but post-marital sex is right.

Christianity is true.
Sola.Gratia
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:12:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.

I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Give me your argument as to why pre-marital sex is wrong but post-marital sex is right.

Sex was meant for marriage sir not to be gamed or toyed with. That's called fornication and if married and have sex outside of marriage with someone else it's called adultery.. And in the marriage it's the spouses fault for not doing their part to satisfying their partner.. People who are not married and have sex are just gonna be left used bruised scarred and hurt in the end with either a child alone or abort their kids or with some type of disease. That's why sex was intended for marriage not for any other reason.
"What is sin? It is the glory of God not honored. Holiness of God not reverenced. Greatness of God not admired. Power of God not praised. Truth of God not sought. Wisdom of God not esteemed. Beauty of God not treasured. Goodness of God not savored. Faithfulness of God not trusted. Commandments of God not obeyed. Justice of God not respected. Wrath of God not feared. Grace of God not cherished. Presence of God not prized. Person of God not loved. That is sin." ~John Piper
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:15:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.

I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

More misrepresenting of my views- sex is the celebration of a man and a woman's covenant with one another. That sacred covenant holds in a household wherein children can be raised under. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to conform to the popularity of the day and just screw for the pleasure while contracting countless evolved STD's.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:21:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:10:51 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:01:37 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:54:02 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:34:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What if you marry an ex-prostitute?

Then presumably you won't spread what she's got around... pretty novel eh?

Your reason for not having pre-marital sex was contracting gonorrhea. If I marry someone who has it, then there is no inherent benefit with respect to STIs.

That's not my reason for not having premarital sex... my reason is to respect the dignity of the person and marriage and yourself and not sleep around. You're arguing from accident here to a reasonable general rule of thumb. This is fallacious.

Uhh... hello, you started a thread with a link to a gonorrhea article.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:21:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:11:34 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Give me your argument as to why pre-marital sex is wrong but post-marital sex is right.

Christianity is true.

That's not an argument. Try again.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:23:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:58:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:50:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:43:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

Just because one is married does not mean that one will not contract an STI. So long as adultery remains to be a thing which occurs, sexual monogamy is an insufficient isolation to sexually transmitted infection. Moreover, it is equally necessary to note that one does not have to be married to be sexually monogamous. There are relationships where people are married and only have sex with the person with whom they are in an unmarried relationship. Might marriage increase the likelihood of sexual monogamy? Perhaps, but whether that is the case or not, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid STIs.

Argument from accident. Of course STD's would still exist if folks stopped having pre-marital sex. But it would be significantly decreased. It simply goes contrary to the created order- as evidenced above.. but hey, no one's saying it's easy.

I enjoy when you attempt to counter arguments you don't like by saying that they're logically fallacious. It's like watching a kid learn to ride a bike.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:26:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:12:28 AM, Sola.Gratia wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Give me your argument as to why pre-marital sex is wrong but post-marital sex is right.

Sex was meant for marriage sir not to be gamed or toyed with. That's called fornication and if married and have sex outside of marriage with someone else it's called adultery.. And in the marriage it's the spouses fault for not doing their part to satisfying their partner.. People who are not married and have sex are just gonna be left used bruised scarred and hurt in the end with either a child alone or abort their kids or with some type of disease. That's why sex was intended for marriage not for any other reason.

Who said anything about playing games? Sex is sex. There are hundreds of reasons to have sex, not just one.

"People who are not married and have sex are just gonna be left used bruised scarred and hurt in the end with either a child alone or abort their kids or with some type of disease. That's why sex was intended for marriage not for any other reason."

WTF are you talking about? Sharing emotional intimacy with a girlfriend through safe sex doesn't lead to any of that. You realize hundreds of millions of people have safe sex every day that results in fulfilling a need, desire, or attraction they have, right? Not every act of sexual intimacy leads to suicide, abortion, and disease like you claim. Intellectual honesty is not your forte, sweetie.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:27:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:23:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:58:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:50:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:43:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

Just because one is married does not mean that one will not contract an STI. So long as adultery remains to be a thing which occurs, sexual monogamy is an insufficient isolation to sexually transmitted infection. Moreover, it is equally necessary to note that one does not have to be married to be sexually monogamous. There are relationships where people are married and only have sex with the person with whom they are in an unmarried relationship. Might marriage increase the likelihood of sexual monogamy? Perhaps, but whether that is the case or not, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid STIs.

Argument from accident. Of course STD's would still exist if folks stopped having pre-marital sex. But it would be significantly decreased. It simply goes contrary to the created order- as evidenced above.. but hey, no one's saying it's easy.

I enjoy when you attempt to counter arguments you don't like by saying that they're logically fallacious. It's like watching a kid learn to ride a bike.

Cool. Now show how it's not an argument from accident and maybe you'll show you're old enough to use my bike.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:30:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:15:09 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.

I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Sex is the celebration of a man and a woman's covenant with one another.

Derp, and how do you get that covenant? Through your particular religion's ceremony before your God that you think exists. I didn't misrepresent sh!t.

That sacred covenant holds in a household wherein children can be raised under. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to conform to the popularity of the day and just screw for the pleasure while contracting countless evolved STD's.

You mention two reasons for having sex as if they're the only two reasons... [http://www.homepage.psy.utexas.edu...] [http://www.webmd.com...] Also, why do you think evolution selected for pleasure in the genitals? To tempt us? No, it's so we want to have sex to further the species.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:31:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:23:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:58:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Argument from accident. Of course STD's would still exist if folks stopped having pre-marital sex. But it would be significantly decreased. It simply goes contrary to the created order- as evidenced above.. but hey, no one's saying it's easy.

I enjoy when you attempt to counter arguments you don't like by saying that they're logically fallacious. It's like watching a kid learn to ride a bike.

http://media.tumblr.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:32:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I empathize with logical people who are forced into illogical belief systems and left to perform mental gymnastics to save face. I used to be there.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:32:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:26:16 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:12:28 AM, Sola.Gratia wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Give me your argument as to why pre-marital sex is wrong but post-marital sex is right.

Sex was meant for marriage sir not to be gamed or toyed with. That's called fornication and if married and have sex outside of marriage with someone else it's called adultery.. And in the marriage it's the spouses fault for not doing their part to satisfying their partner.. People who are not married and have sex are just gonna be left used bruised scarred and hurt in the end with either a child alone or abort their kids or with some type of disease. That's why sex was intended for marriage not for any other reason.

Who said anything about playing games? Sex is sex. There are hundreds of reasons to have sex, not just one.

"People who are not married and have sex are just gonna be left used bruised scarred and hurt in the end with either a child alone or abort their kids or with some type of disease. That's why sex was intended for marriage not for any other reason."

WTF are you talking about? Sharing emotional intimacy with a girlfriend through safe sex doesn't lead to any of that. You realize hundreds of millions of people have safe sex every day that results in fulfilling a need, desire, or attraction they have, right? Not every act of sexual intimacy leads to suicide, abortion, and disease like you claim. Intellectual honesty is not your forte, sweetie.

Intellectual anything isn't yours. No one's saying that sharing emotional intimacy is wrong, we're saying it's best when saved for marriage. That's the Christian perspective and we don't expect it to make sense to those deluded by sin. I most likely had more girls than you, and if I didn't, it was definitely quality over quantity mate. But I look back on all that and it was wrong. But hey, atheists probably don't believe in that moral stuff either.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:34:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At least now I know where WallStreetAtheist's interests lie, it's not in whether or not God exists, it's how much pleasure he can get for himself in this life. Cool- you're a douche.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:35:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:32:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I empathize with logical people who are forced into illogical belief systems and left to perform mental gymnastics to save face. I used to be there.

Ya still are. You're invited to ascend to something higher.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:36:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:27:54 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:23:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:58:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:50:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:43:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

Just because one is married does not mean that one will not contract an STI. So long as adultery remains to be a thing which occurs, sexual monogamy is an insufficient isolation to sexually transmitted infection. Moreover, it is equally necessary to note that one does not have to be married to be sexually monogamous. There are relationships where people are married and only have sex with the person with whom they are in an unmarried relationship. Might marriage increase the likelihood of sexual monogamy? Perhaps, but whether that is the case or not, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid STIs.

Argument from accident. Of course STD's would still exist if folks stopped having pre-marital sex. But it would be significantly decreased. It simply goes contrary to the created order- as evidenced above.. but hey, no one's saying it's easy.

I enjoy when you attempt to counter arguments you don't like by saying that they're logically fallacious. It's like watching a kid learn to ride a bike.

Cool. Now show how it's not an argument from accident and maybe you'll show you're old enough to use my bike.

This is the accident fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)

This is your argument:

P) Married people are monogamous.
P) Monogamy prevents STIs.
C) If married, then no STIs.

Here are the problems:

One must only be in a monogamous relationship if one is going to have sex, not to contract STIs. One does not have to be married to be monogamous, nor does marriage indicate that people will be monogamous. So, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid contraction of STIs.

BTW:

When you accuse someone of making a logically fallacious argument, it is your responsibility to substantiate that claim, because you have made the claim. It is not their responsibility to prove you wrong, whether you are or not, because otherwise your claim is warrantless.

In any event:

I want you to learn to ride your bike without the training wheels, so I'll explain why you're wrong.
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:39:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:30:11 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:15:09 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:04:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:56:23 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:35:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What do you suggest in the 10-20 interim between sexual maturity and marriage? Mutual masturbation?

No I suggest the moral road of respecting each other's dignity... we're humans, not monkeys who screw the first thing they see. Yes folks slip up, use a condom then. But pre-marital sex is still wrong.

I respect the dignity of every girl I sleep with. Yes, we're humans; humans like to f*ck. It's an innate part of who we are. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to establish a litigious religious ceremony prior to copulation.

Sex is the celebration of a man and a woman's covenant with one another.

Derp, and how do you get that covenant?

Making love.

Through your particular religion's ceremony before your God that you think exists. I didn't misrepresent sh!t.

What are ya talking about there fella? You seem to be trying to make something of an argument?


That sacred covenant holds in a household wherein children can be raised under. We wouldn't have survived this long if our instincts were hampered by having to conform to the popularity of the day and just screw for the pleasure while contracting countless evolved STD's.

You mention two reasons for having sex as if they're the only two reasons... [http://www.homepage.psy.utexas.edu...] [http://www.webmd.com...] Also, why do you think evolution selected for pleasure in the genitals? To tempt us? No, it's so we want to have sex to further the species.

Lord knows why evolution selected for pleasure in the genitals- in EVODEVO we know there's no "best adaptation for" but rather a "trade-off of." Now that we humans have been endowed with the mental capacity to not f*ck like animals, me thinks it reasonable to, well, not f*ck like animals.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:44:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:31:32 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:23:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:58:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Argument from accident. Of course STD's would still exist if folks stopped having pre-marital sex. But it would be significantly decreased. It simply goes contrary to the created order- as evidenced above.. but hey, no one's saying it's easy.

I enjoy when you attempt to counter arguments you don't like by saying that they're logically fallacious. It's like watching a kid learn to ride a bike.

http://media.tumblr.com...

Hey hey
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:46:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:36:58 AM, YYW wrote:


Cool. Now show how it's not an argument from accident and maybe you'll show you're old enough to use my bike.

This is the accident fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)

This is your argument:

P) Married people are monogamous.
P) Monogamy prevents STIs.
C) If married, then no STIs.


No that's a straw man.. ;-) you love me.

Here are the problems:

One must only be in a monogamous relationship if one is going to have sex, not to contract STIs. One does not have to be married to be monogamous, nor does marriage indicate that people will be monogamous. So, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid contraction of STIs.

First, marriage to me just IS when a man and woman make love. Marriage your'e talking about is a ceremony, how very naive of ya. Also I never asserted marriage promises monogamy. Where are you getting this stuff? Simply put pre-marital sex is wrong on Christianity, I think Christianity is true. The non-Christian alternative doesn't seem to be working out so well for society- maybe they should re-think how they live their lives? It's preachy but I don't see how it's wrong.


BTW:

When you accuse someone of making a logically fallacious argument, it is your responsibility to substantiate that claim, because you have made the claim. It is not their responsibility to prove you wrong, whether you are or not, because otherwise your claim is warrantless.

In any event:

I want you to learn to ride your bike without the training wheels, so I'll explain why you're wrong.

You're pretty lame at pissing contests bud. I thought it'd be fun to mess with you a bit but if I wanted my own comeback I would've told your mom to spit it back out.