honeymoon with the WHOLE family?

[Jenn! 918]

Well, then it is a liberty that YOU need not take advantage of.

It's a liberty to which there is no advantage, but time is often what is needed to give you the proper perspective that is lacking in youth.

So you would advocate making premarital sex illegal?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So you would advocate making premarital sex illegal?

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

[Jenn! 918]

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.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why does it follow that one must support others engaging in something they themselves disapprove of? And, if they don't approve, it follows that they advocate making it illegal? That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't support the liberty of raising children to believe they are entitled to receive whatever they want, which too many parents do these days, but making it illegal is not the solution to that, nor is supporting their "freedom" to do so.

One thing that you may want to consider is that when something immoral is celebrated and advocated, it is because there are people making money from it. Who's making money from free sex? Hugh Hefner, his pimp daughter, Christy, and their ilk. Porn stars, the Girls Gone Wild folks, cable channels, pharmaceutical companies, psychologists, film makers, etc., etc.

Who makes money off of those who are more modest about their sexuality and wait until marriage? No one.

Edited October 13, 2006 by szsz

[Jenn! 918]

Why does it follow that one must support others engaging in something they themselves disapprove of? And, if they don't approve, it follows that they advocate making it illegal? That doesn't make sense to me.

Liberties are assigned to an entire group of people. If I do not have the liberty to do something, then no one has that liberty. Take abortion. If I do not want to have the choice to have an abortion, then no one else can have that choice either; abortions must be illegal. If that choice exists, then I can choose not to exercise my right by not having an abortion, but that right still exists for me and others. I may disapprove of abortions, but I support that the choice exists.

Maybe we're talking semantics here? I read, "I don't want this liberty". To me that means that nobody can have this liberty because I don't understand how liberty can be taken away from one person but not another. Does it instead mean, "I do not want to exercise my liberty"?

[Henia 11]

What is a "real Muslim" anyway? Are any of us really fit to the make that determination?

I believe she was saying the family considered her a 'real muslim' because she was muslim before she met her husband and has been married to a muslim / Arab man before and have children who have been raised as muslims... etc etc etc.... I don't think she was claiming to be a 'real muslim'.

At least that's what I got out of the posts.

I wasn't referring to what Moody or Henia said, but speaking generally. What is a "real Muslim"? It isn't the first time I have heard the expression used (and outside of VJ as well).

Well what I meant by *real* Muslim...what my family and I think many others consider a real Muslim, is a Muslim who actually DOES the fard pillars of Islam...which is sad since all the 5 pillars are manadatory but many people (here at least) find there are Muslims in name only... so when I said *real* Muslim I was reffering to the fact my family here appreciates and loves the fact I actually do pray, follow the laws of Islam (best I can) instead of just doing what I like... also I think they appreciate and some are actually in awe that I am converted Muslim...I converted on my own (so I was Muslim before knowing my present husband and also my ex)...so basically that is what I meant...sorry if that was not clear...

[Bosco 1]

Well what I meant by *real* Muslim...what my family and I think many others consider a real Muslim, is a Muslim who actually DOES the fard pillars of Islam...which is sad since all the 5 pillars are manadatory but many people (here at least) find there are Muslims in name only... so when I said *real* Muslim I was reffering to the fact my family here appreciates and loves the fact I actually do pray, follow the laws of Islam (best I can) instead of just doing what I like... also I think they appreciate and some are actually in awe that I am converted Muslim...I converted on my own (so I was Muslim before knowing my present husband and also my ex)...so basically that is what I meant...sorry if that was not clear...

Right, but any person can adhere to the five pillars and still lie, cheat, disrespect their parents or their spouse, neglect their children, drink, have sex outside of marriage, be unfair in business dealings, or even rape, murder, etc. All of those actions can be performed with no real feeling attached. Obviously God would know the intentions of a person, but its seems rather spurious criteria for people to judge other people as "real" Muslims.

[Ban Hammer 12,872]

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

dang and i missed all the fun last night

[Veiled Princess 1]

everyone is so convinced that women have been 'liberated' because we are allowed to sleep around without consequences but this isn't a liberty that I want.

Well, then it is a liberty that YOU need not take advantage of.

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.

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.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Liberties are assigned to an entire group of people. If I do not have the liberty to do something, then no one has that liberty. Take abortion. If I do not want to have the choice to have an abortion, then no one else can have that choice either; abortions must be illegal. If that choice exists, then I can choose not to exercise my right by not having an abortion, but that right still exists for me and others. I may disapprove of abortions, but I support that the choice exists.

Ok. Is this illogic from a civics class, coz I don't get it? You're the one that slapped the concept of liberty on sleeping around, jenn. I just said it's immoral and should be discouraged. It's not exactly legal or illegal to engage in premarital sex, and I doubt even falls into the category of a liberty in the legal sense. So, I fail to see how saying that lept to banning liberties. My bad, I guess.

Maybe we're talking semantics here? I read, "I don't want this liberty". To me that means that nobody can have this liberty because I don't understand how liberty can be taken away from one person but not another. Does it instead mean, "I do not want to exercise my liberty"?

Where do you live that this would be the only outcome of disapproving of certain acts? I's not semantics that's the problem, it's an improper use of the concept of liberty.

[Bosco 1]

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.

I am not trying to re-open the old debate; however, you have talked about the harm that comes from premarital/extramarital sex. If a marriage is not recognizable by society, the same exact harm can come to the woman.

[Jenn! 918]

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.

[Veiled Princess 1]

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.

I am not trying to re-open the old debate; however, you have talked about the harm that comes from premarital/extramarital sex. If a marriage is not recognizable by society, the same exact harm can come to the woman.

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.

[Jenn! 918]

Liberties are assigned to an entire group of people. If I do not have the liberty to do something, then no one has that liberty. Take abortion. If I do not want to have the choice to have an abortion, then no one else can have that choice either; abortions must be illegal. If that choice exists, then I can choose not to exercise my right by not having an abortion, but that right still exists for me and others. I may disapprove of abortions, but I support that the choice exists.

Ok. Is this illogic from a civics class, coz I don't get it? You're the one that slapped the concept of liberty on sleeping around, jenn. I just said it's immoral and should be discouraged. It's not exactly legal or illegal to engage in premarital sex, and I doubt even falls into the category of a liberty in the legal sense. So, I fail to see how saying that lept to banning liberties. My bad, I guess.

Maybe we're talking semantics here? I read, "I don't want this liberty". To me that means that nobody can have this liberty because I don't understand how liberty can be taken away from one person but not another. Does it instead mean, "I do not want to exercise my liberty"?

Where do you live that this would be the only outcome of disapproving of certain acts? I's not semantics that's the problem, it's an improper use of the concept of liberty.

VP said, "This is a liberty I do not want." I did not slap the concept of liberty on it, she did.

I think my point has been totally misconstrued and lost. I do not understand what the confusion is or how you think that liberty and the law are unrelated. Liberty is the right to do something free from restriction. If I say I do not want to have the right to do something, does that not directly imply that I want that thing to be illegal?

[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.

Edited October 13, 2006 by Bosco