honeymoon with the WHOLE family?

[Veiled Princess 1]

I don't think it should be a personal freedom or liberty because I believe it negatively affects the society as a whole... and I've beat that horse to death in explaining why I feel that way.... when it negatively affects me it's no longer your issue of privacy or personal liberties.

Well here in the United States we are established as a society of individuals. Its the basis of everything we stand for that includes personal freedoms (choices) that other's do not have to subscribe to. Many things can affect one in a negative way, however it does not mean that the laws should change, it could just mean tolerance could be elevated.

I don't know, I think what our country is founded on is so very important - personal freedom. Many people from very conservative backgrounds have found ways to assimilate without giving up their fundamentals.

Shouldn't our melting pot allow for such freedoms? Freedom to choose how to live your life?

It depends... if your freedom infringes on my (or others') rights then no.. you shouldn't have that freedom.

I ask again... do I have the personal freedom to randomly kill folks in the street? NO! Should I? NO! I don't even have the freedom to hit them lightly with a stick

We have the right to freedom of speech here too but if you yell fire in a crowded place that's not gonna fly.

There are limits to everyone's personal liberties... the second they overstep onto anothers'.

I think we already went over the killing angle, no?

I'm talking choices such as what a woman does with her body or what she chooses as her life's work, etc.

In this particular case... what she does with her body affects other people. The same as her decision to kill a tiny life inside it because she made a poor choice in regards to her body a few weeks/months prior.

[honeyblonde 0]

I ask again VP - how does a consenting male and female having sex in private outside of marriage affect you? (unless the man is in a supposedly monogamous relationship with you and then yes, it is wrong because he had a commitment to you that he broke).

Edited October 13, 2006 by honeyblonde

[LaL 418]

It depends... if your freedom infringes on my (or others') rights then no.. you shouldn't have that freedom.

I ask again... do I have the personal freedom to randomly kill folks in the street? NO! Should I? NO! I don't even have the freedom to hit them lightly with a stick

We have the right to freedom of speech here too but if you yell fire in a crowded place that's not gonna fly.

There are limits to everyone's personal liberties... the second they overstep onto anothers'.

how does my hopping in bed with my fiance (at the time) affect your life? He is not yours, I am not in your family, we did not get pregnant, NOR did we marry before the eyes of god, etc., etc. I am curious as to why you think legal consquences are appropriate for my actions.

you can argue abortion, fine, but me having nookie prior to being married? i fail to see how it "oversteps into another's" (yours).

[Veiled Princess 1]

ETA: again... everyone has choices... no one can take that away... the question is should there be a legal consequence for this particular choice... I say yes and I'm apparently the only one

leila - i am sooo confused about your argument. You state it should be ok for law to not recognize a marriage (ie: married in eyes of god only), but law should govern pre-marital sex and therefore have legal reprecussions? you stated earlier the laws have not been upheld for marriage, but now suggesting legal consequences for pre-martial sex?

if a marriage is unknown to the LAW then it is still premarital sex - again - according to the LAW!

I haven't worked out how it could be enforced yet... I'm just saying I don't think it should be considered anyone's personal liberty.

I ask again VP - how does a consenting male and female having sex in private outside of marriage affect you? (unless the man is in a supposedly monogamous relationship with you and then yes, it is wrong because he had a commitment to you that he broke).

It affects the whole society and I have given my thoughts on that already in this thread... you can go back and find them

[LaL 418]

ETA: again... everyone has choices... no one can take that away... the question is should there be a legal consequence for this particular choice... I say yes and I'm apparently the only one

leila - i am sooo confused about your argument. You state it should be ok for law to not recognize a marriage (ie: married in eyes of god only), but law should govern pre-marital sex and therefore have legal reprecussions? you stated earlier the laws have not been upheld for marriage, but now suggesting legal consequences for pre-martial sex?

if a marriage is unknown to the LAW then it is still premarital sex - again - according to the LAW!

I haven't worked out how it could be enforced yet... I'm just saying I don't think it should be considered anyone's personal liberty.

Leila - please do not take this as an attack on you - it am honestly lost on your logic.

You did not answer my other point. I do not believe you can govern pre-marital sex legally if you ascribe to being married only in the eyes of god (regarless if later registered). dear lord - all the buddhists, hindus, etc. will feel the wrath of the legal system!

[Veiled Princess 1]

ETA: again... everyone has choices... no one can take that away... the question is should there be a legal consequence for this particular choice... I say yes and I'm apparently the only one

leila - i am sooo confused about your argument. You state it should be ok for law to not recognize a marriage (ie: married in eyes of god only), but law should govern pre-marital sex and therefore have legal reprecussions? you stated earlier the laws have not been upheld for marriage, but now suggesting legal consequences for pre-martial sex?

if a marriage is unknown to the LAW then it is still premarital sex - again - according to the LAW!

I haven't worked out how it could be enforced yet... I'm just saying I don't think it should be considered anyone's personal liberty.

Leila - please do not take this as an attack on you - it am honestly lost on your logic.

You did not answer my other point. I do not believe you can govern pre-marital sex legally if you ascribe to being married only in the eyes of god (regarless if later registered). dear lord - all the buddhists, hindus, etc. will feel the wrath of the legal system!

I believe I already addressed this... if someone has taken whatever steps they feel necessary to consider themselves married then they are. I believe this should be accepted. If they have committed themselves to each other then I don't think that is considered premarital sex.

I'm talking about the sex that's just sex.... the sex that produces unwanted babies that are raised on the welfare system (or killed!), the sex that spreads diseases throughout the society because everyone is sleeping with everyone and no one is committed to anyone, the sex that leaves children without one of their parents because that parent was not committed to being part of a family.

I admit marriage is not perfect and one of the parties could back on on their side of the commitment but I just don't feel sex outside of marriage/commitment should be allowed... it causes too many problems.

[honeyblonde 0]

ETA: again... everyone has choices... no one can take that away... the question is should there be a legal consequence for this particular choice... I say yes and I'm apparently the only one

leila - i am sooo confused about your argument. You state it should be ok for law to not recognize a marriage (ie: married in eyes of god only), but law should govern pre-marital sex and therefore have legal reprecussions? you stated earlier the laws have not been upheld for marriage, but now suggesting legal consequences for pre-martial sex?

if a marriage is unknown to the LAW then it is still premarital sex - again - according to the LAW!

I haven't worked out how it could be enforced yet... I'm just saying I don't think it should be considered anyone's personal liberty.

Leila - please do not take this as an attack on you - it am honestly lost on your logic.

You did not answer my other point. I do not believe you can govern pre-marital sex legally if you ascribe to being married only in the eyes of god (regarless if later registered). dear lord - all the buddhists, hindus, etc. will feel the wrath of the legal system!

I believe I already addressed this... if someone has taken whatever steps they feel necessary to consider themselves married then they are. I believe this should be accepted. If they have committed themselves to each other then I don't think that is considered premarital sex.

I'm talking about the sex that's just sex.... the sex that produces unwanted babies that are raised on the welfare system (or killed!), the sex that spreads diseases throughout the society because everyone is sleeping with everyone and no one is committed to anyone, the sex that leaves children without one of their parents because that parent was not committed to being part of a family.

I admit marriage is not perfect and one of the parties could back on on their side of the commitment but I just don't feel sex outside of marriage/commitment should be allowed... it causes too many problems.

Leila,

I certainly agree with you that the rampant "just sleep with anybody regardless of the consequences" is not a healthy attitude, but outlawing it won't make it go away. I do think that teaching our children (who will grow up to be the adults of tomorrow) to be responsible in their decisions is the only way to change things.

I said before that teaching teens to have safe sex is a far cry from condoning it. If you already know they're going to be doing it, and bury your head in the sand, you are actually going to make things worse, not better. Also, like someone else pointed out, making things illegal sometimes makes them even more desirable, especially for rebellious teens and thrill-seekers.

Also, there are children who are living on welfare whose parents are married. Marriage alone does not guarantee that a child will not be poor. One of my sons buddies got married last year and his wife is expecting twins. Even with him working 3 part time jobs they still qualify for food stamps. Marriage isn't always the answer.

Limiting sex to marriage can actually guarantee the failure of some marriages. Those who marry quickly rather than just chose to live together first to make sure they are compatible may find out after a short time that they aren't, but they are already married so getting out of the relationship can be much more complicated. I'm not saying that everyone should live together before marriage, but for some that works better than just getting married when they think they are "in love."

[jpaula 20]

ETA: again... everyone has choices... no one can take that away... the question is should there be a legal consequence for this particular choice... I say yes and I'm apparently the only one

leila - i am sooo confused about your argument. You state it should be ok for law to not recognize a marriage (ie: married in eyes of god only), but law should govern pre-marital sex and therefore have legal reprecussions? you stated earlier the laws have not been upheld for marriage, but now suggesting legal consequences for pre-martial sex?

if a marriage is unknown to the LAW then it is still premarital sex - again - according to the LAW!

I haven't worked out how it could be enforced yet... I'm just saying I don't think it should be considered anyone's personal liberty.

Leila - please do not take this as an attack on you - it am honestly lost on your logic.

You did not answer my other point. I do not believe you can govern pre-marital sex legally if you ascribe to being married only in the eyes of god (regarless if later registered). dear lord - all the buddhists, hindus, etc. will feel the wrath of the legal system!

I believe I already addressed this... if someone has taken whatever steps they feel necessary to consider themselves married then they are. I believe this should be accepted. If they have committed themselves to each other then I don't think that is considered premarital sex.

I'm talking about the sex that's just sex.... the sex that produces unwanted babies that are raised on the welfare system (or killed!), the sex that spreads diseases throughout the society because everyone is sleeping with everyone and no one is committed to anyone, the sex that leaves children without one of their parents because that parent was not committed to being part of a family.

I admit marriage is not perfect and one of the parties could back on on their side of the commitment but I just don't feel sex outside of marriage/commitment should be allowed... it causes too many problems.

All of these disasterous consequences of "sex that is just sex" are easily avoided by the use of condoms. They can also all be encountered within a marriage. Teaching and encouraging women (people) to be responsible for the actions they choose is part of advocating choice. We do have (enforced) laws governing sex, namely that those involved must be of consenting age. We have the same requirement for a marriage. If I am of age I can consent to have or not have sex. I won't live in a country where that is not the case. The decision to have sex is a big one, but it is a profoundly personal one. It is also one that, to be taken well, requires knowledge and self-respect. And this is my problem...making sex sound like something horrible and dangerous is both a little sad and greatly disempowering to men and to women, but mainly to women. And I think it can thus encourage really bad, uninformed, choices.

Equating someone else's having sex with murder is a false anaolgy of the most misleading and self-rightous kind. There is an enormous spectrum of actions that affect other people to varying degrees. I could make a list of things that you do that effect me including advocating for laws that forbid me to have sex. The individualist slant in this country means we err on the side of tolerance. I am grateful for that for I truly believe that, unless it is your husband, who I sleep with is absolutely none of your business. Nor is it any business of the law. Aside from a false analogy to murder I do not see that you have made any real argument to the contrary.

I hate these discussion as they remind me of why I left Algeria and why my husband and I can never live in his country. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is women who perpetuate this on other women. For you can claim that you want men to be bound by the same requirements, but you also know this is never really the case. And, the shame of sex, of being seen, the entire notion that women carry the honor of the men is painful for me to watch. Laws governing sex are never equal, neither in intent nor enforcement.

[jordanianprincess 0]

ETA: again... everyone has choices... no one can take that away... the question is should there be a legal consequence for this particular choice... I say yes and I'm apparently the only one

leila - i am sooo confused about your argument. You state it should be ok for law to not recognize a marriage (ie: married in eyes of god only), but law should govern pre-marital sex and therefore have legal reprecussions? you stated earlier the laws have not been upheld for marriage, but now suggesting legal consequences for pre-martial sex?

if a marriage is unknown to the LAW then it is still premarital sex - again - according to the LAW!

I haven't worked out how it could be enforced yet... I'm just saying I don't think it should be considered anyone's personal liberty.

Leila - please do not take this as an attack on you - it am honestly lost on your logic.

You did not answer my other point. I do not believe you can govern pre-marital sex legally if you ascribe to being married only in the eyes of god (regarless if later registered). dear lord - all the buddhists, hindus, etc. will feel the wrath of the legal system!

I believe I already addressed this... if someone has taken whatever steps they feel necessary to consider themselves married then they are. I believe this should be accepted. If they have committed themselves to each other then I don't think that is considered premarital sex.

I'm talking about the sex that's just sex.... the sex that produces unwanted babies that are raised on the welfare system (or killed!), the sex that spreads diseases throughout the society because everyone is sleeping with everyone and no one is committed to anyone, the sex that leaves children without one of their parents because that parent was not committed to being part of a family.

I admit marriage is not perfect and one of the parties could back on on their side of the commitment but I just don't feel sex outside of marriage/commitment should be allowed... it causes too many problems.

All of these disasterous consequences of "sex that is just sex" are easily avoided by the use of condoms. They can also all be encountered within a marriage. Teaching and encouraging women (people) to be responsible for the actions they choose is part of advocating choice. We do have (enforced) laws governing sex, namely that those involved must be of consenting age. We have the same requirement for a marriage. If I am of age I can consent to have or not have sex. I won't live in a country where that is not the case. The decision to have sex is a big one, but it is a profoundly personal one. It is also one that, to be taken well, requires knowledge and self-respect. And this is my problem...making sex sound like something horrible and dangerous is both a little sad and greatly disempowering to men and to women, but mainly to women. And I think it can thus encourage really bad, uninformed, choices.

Equating someone else's having sex with murder is a false anaolgy of the most misleading and self-rightous kind. There is an enormous spectrum of actions that affect other people to varying degrees. I could make a list of things that you do that effect me including advocating for laws that forbid me to have sex. The individualist slant in this country means we err on the side of tolerance. I am grateful for that for I truly believe that, unless it is your husband, who I sleep with is absolutely none of your business. Nor is it any business of the law. Aside from a false analogy to murder I do not see that you have made any real argument to the contrary.

I hate these discussion as they remind me of why I left Algeria and why my husband and I can never live in his country. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is women who perpetuate this on other women. For you can claim that you want men to be bound by the same requirements, but you also know this is never really the case. And, the shame of sex, of being seen, the entire notion that women carry the honor of the men is painful for me to watch. Laws governing sex are never equal, neither in intent nor enforcement.

I don't think anyone is perpetuating anything on anyone. If you hate these discussions then why do you participate. Its great to know your opinion but we don't need to be slapped on the wrist for having this discussion. Maybe you can't live in Algeria but thats not to say that the women that live there are unhappy. Sex is not shameful at all, but in most Middle East countries people prefer to keep the private details of their life PRIVATE and there is nothing wrong or shameful about that. I don't know why you think women carry the honor of their men, they carry their own honor and self respect. If a women chooses to sleep with whoever then thats her choice, but its unfair for you to say or imply that women are making the choices they do bcz of the governing laws about sex in their country. For most people in the Middle East abstaining from sex is usually a decision based on religion.

Trust me when I say the Middle East is not full of Virgins. There are pleny of women that sleep around there but they just don't talk about it. Why do you think they have a $50 quick fix for those women that want to appear like they are virgins again? You also cant make a judgment about sex laws based just on Algeria, in Jordan if a man takes away a womans virginity before they are married, he will be forced to marry her. The men are held to the same starndards there and it is not acceptable for anyone to talk about such a private matter. I would be mortified if my husband told someone what we did in the bedroom, why would I want anyone to know? So they can picture it? Just because ppl choose not to talk about sex doesnt make them prudes and it doesnt make emotionless about it.

[Veiled Princess 1]

All of these disasterous consequences of "sex that is just sex" are easily avoided by the use of condoms.

I don't want to argue about this anymore. I have stated my opinion and explained why I feel the way I do... I just wanted to point out that this statement is not correct as even condom manufacturers and doctors will and do stress that condoms are not 100% effective and there are many pregnancies and diseases that occur each year because of condom failure.

Edited October 13, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[jordanianprincess 0]

All of these disasterous consequences of "sex that is just sex" are easily avoided by the use of condoms.

I don't want to argue about this anymore. I have stated my opinion and explained why I feel the way I do... I just wanted to point out that this statement is not correct as even condom manufacturers and doctors will and do stress that condoms are not 100% effective and there are many pregnancies and diseases that occue each year because of condom failure.

[Together4ever 1]

Society rarely supports/nurtures taking responsibility for one's own actions... whatever they may be.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ok, I have read all the way from page 14 to here and I honestly wonder what some folks are reading.

There is no doubt that Liz insulted people who don't believe in sex before marriage as not thinking for themselves.

Opening your legs to men to test how they treat you after is not feminism. It is confusion.

Desite Layla's beliefs, she is not married, for you can't just go around pretending to be married because you feel like you are and it is your opinion that you are. Islam doesn't sanction this due to the lack of protection for the parties. Marriage in Islam is not a sacrement, it is a covenent between you, God and society, and if you avoid completing the covenent, you have avoided marriage.

Liberty, in this secular society, is a concept grounded in religion. The founding fathers believed that God granted certain freedoms that were inalienable and not to be interfered with by government. There is no way that one can equate premarital sex with liberty since it is commanded against by the Abrahamic faiths upon which the US was founded, thus, would not be a freedom granted by God. That is why premarital sex was illegal for some time in this country, and still is in some forms.

Doodlebug, I didn't start this topic and didn't keep it going all day, so I reject your contention that I am responsible for the turn of subject. I made an observation that the topic had already gone off course, I didn't claim it then, and I don't now.

Edited October 14, 2006 by szsz

[Veiled Princess 1]

deleted

Desite Layla's beliefs, she is not married,

You have never been able to prove this claim no matter how much hot air you blow up anyone's butt here.

My marriage is not the topic here and I did not say anything to you at all.... nor have I insulted you or anyone else here. I have reported you again because I'm not going to stand for your foul manners of insulting me in public every chance you get. Have a nice day

Edited October 14, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[sarah and hicham 3]

Shuckers I missed a big day around here!

I'm too tired to read the 10 new pages but I guess I have something to do tomorrow!