honeymoon with the WHOLE family?

[Veiled Princess 1]

So you would advocate making premarital sex illegal?

That's a strange question that presumes alot more than it should.

I presumed that disapproving of a liberty implies that you believe that liberty should not exist. There are certain behaviors of which I do not approve and would not participate in personally, but I fully support the freedom of others to choose that path if they wish.

IOW, I want to have the liberty, even if I choose not to take it.

Should I have the freedom or liberty to go out and kill someone because they cut me off in traffic? Of course not, things that we consider liberties here perhaps should not be. Premarital sex, in my opinion, is devastating to the society and should not be considered a liberty.

No, we should not have the liberty to kill people, and we do not, it is illegal.

I don't understand what your position is? That we should not refer to premarital sex as a liberty or that we should not have the right to engage in it? If it is the latter, then I fail to see how that would not involve making it illegal.

I never said I thought it should be legal. Some states in the US agree... or at least did at some point because there was, or in some cases still is, laws on the books banning premarital sex.

Adultery is illegal and if any court ever decided to uphold the law it could be enforced.... of course as long as the law makers and law enforcers continue to practice the same immoral and illegal action it's not gonna get enforced. Should it not be a person's 'personal freedom' to sleep with whoever they want even if they're already married to someone else??

It's only a recent occurance that states are now beginning to abolish such laws from their books because someone considers it their 'personal freedom' to engage in this act. It has been illegal in many states of this country (although not enforced) since early days.

Before long there will be no laws in this country because everythng will be a liberty.

[Jenn! 918]

Should I have the freedom or liberty to go out and kill someone because they cut me off in traffic? Of course not, things that we consider liberties here perhaps should not be. Premarital sex, in my opinion, is devastating to the society and should not be considered a liberty.

No, we should not have the liberty to kill people, and we do not, it is illegal.

I don't understand what your position is? That we should not refer to premarital sex as a liberty or that we should not have the right to engage in it? If it is the latter, then I fail to see how that would not involve making it illegal.

I never said I thought it should be legal. Some states in the US agree... or at least did at some point because there was, or in some cases still is, laws on the books banning premarital sex.

Adultery is illegal and if any court ever decided to uphold the law it could be enforced.... of course as long as the law makers and law enforcers continue to practice the same immoral and illegal action it's not gonna get enforced. Should it not be a person's 'personal freedom' to sleep with whoever they want even if they're already married to someone else??

It's only a recent occurance that states are now beginning to abolish such laws from their books because someone considers it their 'personal freedom' to engage in this act. It has been illegal in many states of this country (although not enforced) since early days.

Before long there will be no laws in this country because everythng will be a liberty.

Ok, then I did understand your point correctly. That is what I assumed from what you had written. I said, "If it is the latter, then I fail to see how that would not involve making it illegal.", because of szsz's response that she didn't understand how I was relating making premarital sex illegal and your statement about refusing the liberty.

Szsz thought that my question about making premarital sex illegal came out of left field, but I don't think it did.

Edited October 13, 2006 by jenn3539

[Veiled Princess 1]

A marriage only has to be recognizable by God. At least it's a marriage and not just two people out getting it on with no ties to each other.

This is in contradiction with what you previously said.

Premarital sex, in my opinion, is devastating to the society and should not be considered a liberty.

and

It is my position that it is not a liberty at all but rather a form of slavery for women... men give us the 'right' to sleep with them without their need to take any responsibility for her or any children that he may make with her.

If marriage doesn't need to be recognized by society, no harm can come to society from sex outside of marriage. Under these circumstances, how is the responsibility you feel should exist towards women and children enforced? By God, the only one required to recognize marriage?

ETA: If marriage only needs to be recognized by God, it would be something akin to a religious sacrament. You know very well this is not the case in Islam. It is a social contract.

Premarital sex is someone having sex with someone they have no commitment to as husband or wife... If someone makes a commitment to another person before God why are they not married? If a man has a ceremony with a woman and contracts with her to be his wife... why is she not? Just because someone doesn't recognize the contract? God recognizes it and as long as both parties fear God and obey God that's that.

What I am talking about is people who do not make any type of commitment to each other like that. They don't consider themselves married... they have made no commitment... they are just sleeping with someone.

There are miles between a man who does not consider you his wife before God or anyone else and is just sleeping with you and a man who has made a commitment to you before God and whoever else.

Did you know that the prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa salaam) married one of his wives who, at the time, lived in Makkah while he was there on a peace treaty from Medinah? He wasn't even allowed to stay there for his wedding or anything, he asked for permission to stay a few extra days and they said NO and kicked him out... he had to leave his wife in Makkah and return to Medinah to wait for her to be able to get out of Makkah... do you think this marriage was 'recognizable' or 'enforcable' in Makkah?

I'd bet if she went to the leaders of Makkah and said she didn't want that marriage they would have considered it invalid just to hurt the prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa salaam).... still, they were married.

[MrsAmera 41]

Jenn - your argument makes perfect sense. I find it a little hard to understand how you can argue a point and only have knowledge of one side of the argument. I don't think it's wrong to encourage teenagers who are going to have sex, what a condom is etc. If they are going to do it - be safe. That doesn't mean you shouldn't encourage them to wait, explain to them the consequences, etc but knowing how to keep themselves safe if they make such a choice I feel there is little harm. To take it a step farther to something that really irritates me is the current US administrations dislike, or simply abandoning of safe sex campaigns in places like Sub-Saharan Africa where AIDS is riddled the population. Because of their insistance on abstinance only programs, a lot of funding for birth control outreach was cut. Here's the kicker. Many of the women engaged in sex, are married, some are encouraged by their husbands to sell themselves to feed the family. Where are the protections for them? It's pretty hard to preach when you haven't eaten for a week. Now I admit this is a completely different situation than recreational sex and I would also agree that there are other underlying issues in my example but it's just a thought. Those of you who have been married and have kids have obviously had the good fortune to have fathers for them who take their responsibility seriously. I hate to tell you however that this is not always the case. No matter what, marriage or no marriage it is just as easy for a father to walk away from his responsibility. So maybe we should just stop all intercourse and become eunuchs......

[Veiled Princess 1]

Those of you who have been married and have kids have obviously had the good fortune to have fathers for them who take their responsibility seriously. I hate to tell you however that this is not always the case. No matter what, marriage or no marriage it is just as easy for a father to walk away from his responsibility. So maybe we should just stop all intercourse and become eunuchs......

This is true... both of my children are from my previous marriage and it's nearly impossible to collect child support from their father.... not completely impossible... if I were rich and not in need of child support and could afford to pay an expensive lawyer to file mounds of paperwork in other states besides the one the children actually live in then it would at least be something he could be punished for... but alas, since the only rights afforded in this country come with a monetary price it is a no-win situation *sigh*

ETA: of course, if he were a God fearing individual, I bet he would feel some sort of duty to take care of his children regardless of whether the law makes him or not

Edited October 13, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Bosco 1]

A marriage only has to be recognizable by God. At least it's a marriage and not just two people out getting it on with no ties to each other.

This is in contradiction with what you previously said.

Premarital sex, in my opinion, is devastating to the society and should not be considered a liberty.

and

It is my position that it is not a liberty at all but rather a form of slavery for women... men give us the 'right' to sleep with them without their need to take any responsibility for her or any children that he may make with her.

If marriage doesn't need to be recognized by society, no harm can come to society from sex outside of marriage. Under these circumstances, how is the responsibility you feel should exist towards women and children enforced? By God, the only one required to recognize marriage?

ETA: If marriage only needs to be recognized by God, it would be something akin to a religious sacrament. You know very well this is not the case in Islam. It is a social contract.

Premarital sex is someone having sex with someone they have no commitment to as husband or wife... If someone makes a commitment to another person before God why are they not married? If a man has a ceremony with a woman and contracts with her to be his wife... why is she not? Just because someone doesn't recognize the contract? God recognizes it and as long as both parties fear God and obey God that's that.

What I am talking about is people who do not make any type of commitment to each other like that. They don't consider themselves married... they have made no commitment... they are just sleeping with someone.

There are miles between a man who does not consider you his wife before God or anyone else and is just sleeping with you and a man who has made a commitment to you before God and whoever else.

Did you know that the prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa salaam) married one of his wives who, at the time, lived in Makkah while he was there on a peace treaty from Medinah? He wasn't even allowed to stay there for his wedding or anything, he asked for permission to stay a few extra days and they said NO and kicked him out... he had to leave his wife in Makkah and return to Medinah to wait for her to be able to get out of Makkah... do you think this marriage was 'recognizable' or 'enforcable' in Makkah?

I'd bet if she went to the leaders of Makkah and said she didn't want that marriage they would have considered it invalid just to hurt the prophet (sal allahu alayhi wa salaam).... still, they were married.

Again, this is a spurious argument.

You have stated

1) A marriage needs only to be recognized by God.

2) Premarital sex is harmful to society

3) men give us the 'right' to sleep with them without their need to take any responsibility for her or any children that he may make with her.

The first one directly contradicts the two and three. If a marriage only needs to be recognized by God, it is no different than premarital sex as far as society is concerned. Both can cause equal harm as society has no way of distinguishing one from the other.

You also state that an Islamic only marriage assumes a responsibility on the part of the man. That is laughable. If you have been involved in any Muslim community, I am sure you are well aware of the victims of Islamic only marriages. A man can only be forced to take responsibility if the marriage is ENFORCABLE by society. It is no different than what you say results from #3.

Again, you are framing this as if marriage is a sacrament rather than a contract. We are not discussing whether it is halal to have sex with a man you are only Islamically married to. We are discussing the harm that can come to society and the woman. In this regard, an Islamic marriage that is not recognized as legal in the society where it is conducted is no different in terms of the harm that can result than the same from premarital sex. How can you possibly argue differently?

Your point about the Prophet's marriage makes no sense to me. He married in the way that was recognizable and enforcable at that time. To imply he would do otherwise is beyond irreverent in my opinion.

[doodlebug 3]

Why did my thread about what to wear around the house turn into a premarital sex debate?

It's been several pages since it was about what to wear around the house. I started reading around page 9 or 10. Not much about it there.

Well I've asked for it to be closed since you obviously continue to dismiss the fact that I'd rather not have this be a premarital sex debate. Start your own thread if you'd like on that topic.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Why did my thread about what to wear around the house turn into a premarital sex debate?

It's been several pages since it was about what to wear around the house. I started reading around page 9 or 10. Not much about it there.

Well I've asked for it to be closed since you obviously continue to dismiss the fact that I'd rather not have this be a premarital sex debate. Start your own thread if you'd like on that topic.

lol

[honeyblonde 0]

I am who I am and I am a woman who thinks that many women who will openly say they won't have sex outside of marriage do it a whole lot more than they admit

I missed this the first time. It's a very defensive comment as well as an offensive insult. Why is it necessary to demean women who say they won't have sex out of marriage as hypocrites in order to validate your own position that it's ok to have sex outside of marriage? Is it about guilt, or is there something inherently more noble about announcing one's hedonistic tendencies than there is about saving oneself for marriage so that it will have a sweetness that cannot be equaled by bed-hopping in search of the kind of intimacy one gets from committment?

I find it curious that you need to juxtapose openly saying that you will have pre-marital sex with saying that one will not engage in such a practice by including a defensive comment that puts down those who disagree with you even as you are not attacked. I'm not intending to attack myself, just making an observation about your strange way of making your point.

Somehow you seem to think that I am the child of hippies who raised me to be like them. I have said before that I am the daughter of a strict Baptist minister who also happened to be a child molester. I went to Christian high schools and a Christian university (one of the largest in the nation) and I am not "assuming" anything, rather speaking of what I saw with my own eyes.

I guess I can't expect people who see sex differently from what I do to understand my viewpoint so I guess there's no point in trying to explain myself.

I think that it is a bit hypocritical to say one fights for women's rights and then deny that women have just as strong of a need for sex as men do and assume that if a woman has sex outside of a committed relationship she is somehow being exploited or easy or fast or that she is buying into the whole Larry Flint porn world.

I guess I'm just lucky that my husband's favorite writer is Simone de Bouvier, not someone I'm guessing any of you have even heard of, much less read. He understands that treating women differently in this area than we treat men is just another form of sexual discrimination. That said, we both agree that when someone chooses to enter a monogomous relationship, they should take that committment seriously and not betray the other person's trust.

Jenn, Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say. Human liberty is something everyone needs to respect. Just because it isn't something you would personally choose to do doesn't give you the right to prohibit someone else from doing it. No two people are going to think exactly alike, so when some group dares to think they have a right to decide how other people should live their lives there will be major problems.

Amera, I agree. I've seen so many teens get pregnant because their parents felt that teaching them about birth control would somehow condone them having sex. Hello! They're already doing it. Teens don't frequently look for their parents approval before deciding to impulsively respond to their hormones.

szsz, are you really so non-empathetic that you can't understand being supportive of those you do not choose to be like? I am for gay rights, but I am not gay. I think gay people should have as much right to marry and live together as husband and wife as I do, even though I do not want to go live with another woman as her spouse. I've stood in Home Depot before and chatted with the mid 50s gay male "mother" of two adopted children before and did not freak out when the kids called him "mom" although I could tell that was the normal response he got and he was worried that I would. It was obvious to me that these two kids had two parents that loved them, which was definitely better than growing up in an orphanage somewhere with hundreds of other kids sharing a few caretakers.

Why do people have to be so freaking narrow-minded about what other people choose to do with their lives? It's really nobody's business but their own. That's all I was trying to say.

VP, One does not have to be religious to know that murder is wrong. Non-religious people do have moral values too, maybe not always the same as those who are religious, but many times more humanitarian.

ETA: of course, if he were a God fearing individual, I bet he would feel some sort of duty to take care of his children regardless of whether the law makes him or not

Yeah right! I know plenty of "god fearing" men who don't pay their child support, or pay it only reluctantly, at the bare minimum the law forces them to. My ex was one of them.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Again, this is a spurious argument.

You have stated

1) A marriage needs only to be recognized by God.

2) Premarital sex is harmful to society

3) men give us the 'right' to sleep with them without their need to take any responsibility for her or any children that he may make with her.

The first one directly contradicts the two and three. If a marriage only needs to be recognized by God, it is no different than premarital sex as far as society is concerned. Both can cause equal harm as society has no way of distinguishing one from the other.

You also state that an Islamic only marriage assumes a responsibility on the part of the man. That is laughable. If you have been involved in any Muslim community, I am sure you are well aware of the victims of Islamic only marriages. A man can only be forced to take responsibility if the marriage is ENFORCABLE by society. It is no different than what you say results from #3.

Again, you are framing this as if marriage is a sacrament rather than a contract. We are not discussing whether it is halal to have sex with a man you are only Islamically married to. We are discussing the harm that can come to society and the woman. In this regard, an Islamic marriage that is not recognized as legal in the society where it is conducted is no different in terms of the harm that can result than the same from premarital sex. How can you possibly argue differently?

Your point about the Prophet's marriage makes no sense to me. He married in the way that was recognizable and enforcable at that time. To imply he would do otherwise is beyond irreverent in my opinion.

Nothing I have said contradicts anything else. Perhaps you just don't understand my position.

However, I find the statement that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic and then referring to it later as an 'Islamic only marriage" to be contradictory.

I'm not framing it as a sacrament... there is a contract involved... however, you would make that contract, which should be legally binding anywhere, void just because someone doesn't recognize it..

Should we take our cues on what is right or wrong from what is or is not recognized by a particular society? Especially one that has written God out of any laws that they make up to govern themselves?

This particular society is on the verge of recognizing gay marriages.. it already recognizes the right to kill babies, sleep with another man's wife (or vice versa), and many other immoral acts ... does that make it right? I'd say no.... so why does the fact that they don't recognize something make it wrong?

Immorality is actually driving the law making process in this society... do they really have the right then to dictate what is or is not acceptable?

Why did my thread about what to wear around the house turn into a premarital sex debate?

It's been several pages since it was about what to wear around the house. I started reading around page 9 or 10. Not much about it there.

Well I've asked for it to be closed since you obviously continue to dismiss the fact that I'd rather not have this be a premarital sex debate. Start your own thread if you'd like on that topic.

Oh poo! You're no fun

That was a joke BTW for those of you who are humor challenged

[Bosco 1]

I guess I'm just lucky that my husband's favorite writer is Simone de Bouvier, not someone I'm guessing any of you have even heard of, much less read.

Is this arrogance really necessary Liz?

Why do people have to be so freaking narrow-minded about what other people choose to do with their lives? It's really nobody's business but their own. That's all I was trying to say.

I think you assume that because someone chooses to wait, they are judging you. I personally care very little what adults choose to do with their lives. It doesn't that I have to choose to have sex outside of marriage at this point in my life myself. You have judged those who wait just as harshly as you feel judged, accusing them of being unable to think for themselves.

[

Edited October 13, 2006 by Bosco

[Veiled Princess 1]

VP, One does not have to be religious to know that murder is wrong. Non-religious people do have moral values too, maybe not always the same as those who are religious, but many times more humanitarian.

ETA: of course, if he were a God fearing individual, I bet he would feel some sort of duty to take care of his children regardless of whether the law makes him or not

Yeah right! I know plenty of "god fearing" men who don't pay their child support, or pay it only reluctantly, at the bare minimum the law forces them to. My ex was one of them.

Well for one, I didn't say "god fearing man" in quotes I said a God fearing man! Meaning... a man who truly fears God and is not just putting on a show.... If he truly fears God then he won't openly disobey Him and he would take care of his children.

In regards to the bolded part... who gets to decide what is wrong and what is not? Murder is wrong you say but some don't agree, hence the right to abortion... so who decides what should and should not be considered a liberty?

[Bosco 1]

Nothing I have said contradicts anything else. Perhaps you just don't understand my position.

However, I find the statement that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic and then referring to it later as an 'Islamic only marriage" to be contradictory.

I never said that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic. Again, I am not talking about what is Islamic or not.

You said premarital sex causes harm to a woman and society. Yet you say marriage do not need to be recognized by society. How does society than distinguish between the harm that results from premarital sex versus the harm that results from a marriage it isn't expected to recognize? This is what I am asking you to explain.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Nothing I have said contradicts anything else. Perhaps you just don't understand my position.

However, I find the statement that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic and then referring to it later as an 'Islamic only marriage" to be contradictory.

I never said that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic. Again, I am not talking about what is Islamic or not.

You said premarital sex causes harm to a woman and society. Yet you say marriage do not need to be recognized by society. How does society than distinguish between the harm that results from premarital sex versus the harm that results from a marriage it isn't expected to recognize? This is what I am asking you to explain.

Again... premarital sex is just as the name implies... sex before/outside of marriage.... if one has taken whatever steps they believe is correct to marry then they can not be considered as engaging in premarital sex.... because they are married.

A woman choosing to engage in this act without any type of commitment from the man is detrimental to her view of her own self worth. This is harmful to her.... she teaches this to her children (who possibly have no contact with their fathers because he made no commitment to stick around for them) who then pass this on to their children. All those children with no father figure in their lives learn that men do not love or value us enough to stick around anyway so what's the point of expecting them to commit? The boys learn that it's acceptable to sleep around with women while making no commitment to them whatsoever.... and so the cycle continues and spreads until we find ourselves in this modern day society of single moms and welfare checks because the men in this society do not care to and are not expected to take responsibility for anything.

If more women expected to be married before having sex and making babies with men it would send the message to them that it won't be tolerated when they skip out... whether their agreement is 'recognized' or not. By engaging in premarital sex we send the opposite message to them... take what you want from us and you don't have to commit if you don't want to. This is a bad message to send and it's one that affects generations to come.

[Bosco 1]

Nothing I have said contradicts anything else. Perhaps you just don't understand my position.

However, I find the statement that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic and then referring to it later as an 'Islamic only marriage" to be contradictory.

I never said that not registering a marriage with the govt is not Islamic. Again, I am not talking about what is Islamic or not.

You said premarital sex causes harm to a woman and society. Yet you say marriage do not need to be recognized by society. How does society than distinguish between the harm that results from premarital sex versus the harm that results from a marriage it isn't expected to recognize? This is what I am asking you to explain.

Again... premarital sex is just as the name implies... sex before/outside of marriage.... if one has taken whatever steps they believe is correct to marry then they can not be considered as engaging in premarital sex.... because they are married.

A woman choosing to engage in this act without any type of commitment from the man is detrimental to her view of her own self worth. This is harmful to her.... she teaches this to her children (who possibly have no contact with their fathers because he made no commitment to stick around for them) who then pass this on to their children. All those children with no father figure in their lives learn that men do not love or value us enough to stick around anyway so what's the point of expecting them to commit? The boys learn that it's acceptable to sleep around with women while making no commitment to them whatsoever.... and so the cycle continues and spreads until we find ourselves in this modern day society of single moms and welfare checks because the men in this society do not care to and are not expected to take responsibility for anything.

If more women expected to be married before having sex and making babies with men it would send the message to them that it won't be tolerated when they skip out... whether their agreement is 'recognized' or not. By engaging in premarital sex we send the opposite message to them... take what you want from us and you don't have to commit if you don't want to. This is a bad message to send and it's one that affects generations to come.

So if a couple within a society feels they are married by the exchange dates and milk, an exchange of vows between the two, etc. their sex is then less harmful to society because they too are married according to their standards?

Edited October 13, 2006 by Bosco