Question....

[Kai]

Sure we can.
Some here just change definitions of words to suit their needs.
1 corinthians 7:1-2 says quite plainly that it is good for a man NOT to touch a woman, ie not have sex,

Some here just change the context of words to suit their needs. First Corinthians 7 1-2 has Paul quoting an extreme Corinthian ascetic sect, not giving a command that men should never have sex.

but in order to AVOID sexual SIN, let him have his own wife....he needs to marry...Some can make any claims they wish to make, but the FACT is that the word HAS a meaning and it isnt restricted to 'temple prostitutions' not even in the letters to the Corinthians.....and without that distortion of the facts, that verse shows quite conclusively that UNmarried sex IS 'whoredom/harlotry/illicit sex".

The only one distorting facts here is you because you're adding a meaning to the words that was never expressed in the passages themselves:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’ 17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 1 Cor 6 (NRSV)

Here is the passage that defines porneia right before 1 Cor 7 and it mentions specifically that temple prostitution is what Paul had in mind. No one has said porneia is restricted to temple prostitutions--it is NOT--but in this particular part of the Corinthians, the part of porneia Paul has in mind he clearly shows to be temple prostitution. Therefore, a truly justified way to interpret the opening lines of chapter 7's porneia reference is in the context of temple prostitution: One reason Paul advises people to marry is so that they can have sex in marriage instead of obtaining it through temple prostitutes. Of course, all other forms of porneia apply here (NRSV's "cases of sexual immorality, v.2), but noncultic, heterosexual premarital sex cannot, because in no passage--whether 6, 7, or anywhere else--is premarital sex either classified as sin or condemned as porneia like temple prostitution and adultery are.

The passage above applies to the UNmarried virgin or widow(er) whether the few can accept it or not.
Exactly.

Yeah, because unmarried couples and widows can seek temple prostitutes for sex. Better that they marry. Hey, Paul did good here!

The argument that a couple needs to have sex to give the relationship a test drive is just bogus nonsense to excuse having UNmarried sex , ie 'sin'.

Wow, you like fighting against arguments that no one's even offered yet too?

Nice cop out. Now, before making yourself appear to be intellectually dishonest again, provide your statistics that unmarried people are promiscuous....If you would like to play the semantics game and say that 'commitment' can be defined as 'marriage', then you are effectively conceding every point I've made in this thread--since my argument has been (from the beginning) that unmarried (in the legal sense) sex is fine (as long as it is in a committed relationship, as I have denied the value of promiscuous sex countless times).

This is what I've been trying to point out countless times to Tipton, i.e., that boyfriend-girlfriend couples who have sex are not necessarily promiscuous or lustful, and that his falsely stating that they are destroys his own argument. Just wait and see: it'll go right over his head. He can't provide a university study or any citation showing that it is so because there isn't any.

 

[HuntingMan]

Yes, and that's why I responded showing how silly the comparison was.

In YOUR honest opinion..

I've substantiated my claim that the advice to marry if you lust is poor,

No, you havent.
Youve only provide your opinion.

and asserted that the Bible was written by people (which I can only assume you agree with-

Of course I agree.

-although I'm sure you'll probably throw in some 'well they were inspired by god' qualification)

And what else do you expect, chap ?
You DO know you are on a christian board full of people that accept that the scriptures are given by God, correct?
This may not be the right forum for you if you dont understand that aspect of discussion here.

You are ignorant if you think marriage is a solution to STDs

And you are just as ignorant if you think that marrying and AVOIDING sexual intercourse outside that union would not GREATLY help to contain the spread of those diseases.

and that committed couples should be forced to marry

I dont remember saying 'forced to marry' anywhere...can you quote me ?
A person shouldnt have to be 'forced'. Their own integrity should cause them to do the right thing.

PROMISCUITY is the problem.

And people who have UNmarried sex, who DONT believe that sex belongs in marriage, are far more likely to move from one relationship to the next having sex with each new partner (of course these days even being married with a license doesnt seem to change the promiscuity of some)
Your agreement isnt required for truth to be truth.
SAve sex for an ACTUAL committed relationship....called 'married' by many...and the promiscuity problem disappears.

You've failed to understand this countless times.

ditto.

Nice cop out. Now, before making yourself appear to be intellectually dishonest again, provide your statistics that unmarried people are promiscuous.

Now THAT is a nice 'cop out'
Where did I actually STATE that all unmarried people are promiscuous?

Once they start engaging in UNmarried sex (ie 'sin'), then many DO end up having more than a single sexual partner...ie 'promiscuous'.
Not sure what this says exactly, but took about .042 seconds to find it.

Link-> 29 percent of men, 9 percent of women say they’ve had 15 or more partners

Im having VERY hard time believing that someone who actually looked at this for more than 13 seconds is even arguing the issue as you are.
And I quite positive that if I take an hour Ill find enough evidence to flood this thread with. We BOTH know it.

A marriage, as I stated, is a type of commitment. Marriage and commitment however, and not mutually inclusive terms. There can be commitments that are not marriages.

According to Gods word 'commitment' IS marriage where that sort of relationship goes.

If you would like to play the semantics game and say that 'commitment' can be defined as 'marriage',

Wrong.
In Gods word the 'commitment' between a man and a woman who are having sex (and 'committed' to one another) IS 'marriage'. But it doesnt happen by default. The intent has to be there and seemingly must be declared.

(In other words, using your re-definition of the word, I have been saying from the beginning that a "married" [committed] couple having sex is fine, even if their "marriage" [commitment] is not recognized by the state [marriage]).

The state is irrelevant where GODS recognition of, and defintion of, marriage is concerned.
Scriptural marriage is a covenant between the man and the woman, whether made knowingly before God or not (ie atheists who marry ARE married in Gods eyes, even if they do not believe in Him).

Ceasars licensing is for Ceasers benefit and does not validate or nullify a mans covenant to a woman.

Once again, this is purely semantic, based on your descriptions above.

Hardly.
You just fail to understand what biblical marriage is and that I accept the scriptures and what they present as a whole in this matter.

 

[HuntingMan]

For the record, I am ignoring certain posters here entirely.

I dont want lurkers to think that I am overlooking anyones response, normally I respond to every post regardless, but to avoid the personal attacks, etc that have been an ongoing issue in a couple threads here, I am not reading or responding to at least one poster.

 

[Kai]

And you are just as ignorant if you think that marrying and AVOIDING sexual intercourse outside that union would not GREATLY help to contain the spread of those diseases.

And you are even more ignorant to presume that unmarried couples who avoid intercourse outside their relationships aren't containing the spread of those diseases.

And people who have UNmarried sex, who DONT believe that sex belongs in marriage, are far more likely to move from one relationship to the next having sex with each new partner (of course these days even being married with a license doesnt seem to change the promiscuity of some)
Your agreement isnt required for truth to be truth.

Funny how you bastardize the word "commitment" just as you have bastardized the word "promiscuous." Promiscuity means having indiscriminate sex with many different partners other than the person one formed a relationship with (or it may signify sex without a relationship with someone period). As long as people who have sex remain faithful to each other and don't seek sex outside their relationship, they are not promiscuous. Your real problem then is with the number of sexual partners one may have throughout his lifetime, not whether one marries or not. And according to your own scheme, one can have many sexual partners in a lifetime as long as one marries more than once. Your scheme then, suffers the same problem you claim sexually active unmarried couples have.

SAve sex for an ACTUAL committed relationship....called 'married' by many...and the promiscuity problem disappears.
ditto.

Laughable. Your kind of "promiscuity" can be rampant within marriage because of adultery. In addition, married people go on to have sex with several people other than their original spouses because of death and things which lead up to divorce.

Once they start engaging in UNmarried sex (ie 'sin'), then many DO end up having more than a single sexual partner...ie 'promiscuous'.

And hence your perversion of the word "promiscuous." Promiscuity has nothing to do with the mere number of sexual partners one has throughout a lifetime, but whether one has sex with a person(s) other than the person he/she is in a relationship with. Married couples can be promiscuous by committing adultery with someone not their spouse--it's the same concept.

Link-> 29 percent of men, 9 percent of women say they’ve had 15 or more partners

Im having VERY hard time believing that someone who actually looked at this for more than 13 seconds is even arguing the issue as you are.
And I quite positive that if I take an hour Ill find enough evidence to flood this thread with. We BOTH know it.

Your haste in acquiring an article from which to bolster you argument didn't serve you well, because the article contains several major flaws. Here's a quote from it:

The median number of lifetime female sexual partners for men was seven; the median number of male partners for women was four.

All the article lists is the mere number of sexual partners males and females have throughout their lifetimes. It does not include factors like promiscuity because it didn't ask the test subjects whether or not they had at one point in their lives had sex with someone other than the person they were in a relationship with (which is promiscuity). It doesn't even include the element of marriage and divorce, so definitely a part of the median "seven" partners men have sex with throughout their lifetimes represent women they had married.

For the record, I am ignoring certain posters here entirely.I dont want lurkers to think that I am overlooking anyones response, normally I respond to every post regardless, but to avoid the personal attacks, etc that have been an ongoing issue in a couple threads here, I am not reading or responding to at least one poster.

Your loss. And I never set the tone for any personal attacks by calling my opponents "wimps," "predators," or "promiscuous." I don't speak for Questionist, but I have every right to respond to you whether you decide to cop out on me or not.

 

[theQuestionist]

In YOUR honest opinion..

Well that's what we're discussing here; Opinions. For the record, your interpretation of the Bible is also an opinion.

No, you havent.
Youve only provide your opinion.

Which is what we are discussing...

And what else do you expect, chap ?
You DO know you are on a christian board full of people that accept that the scriptures are given by God, correct?
This may not be the right forum for you if you dont understand that aspect of discussion here.

There are certainly Christians and Christian denominations that look at the Bible as merely a historical account of events than a magical god-inspired book. I assumed you wouldn't agree with that, but I instered that assumption into parenthesis should I have been incorrect.

And you are just as ignorant if you think that marrying and AVOIDING sexual intercourse outside that union would not GREATLY help to contain the spread of those diseases.

Yes and slicing off your genitals would also solve the problem.

I have never affirmed that abstaining from sex won't solve the problem of STDs. My affirmation has been that marriage is an impracitcal solution to the problem. Also, you've yet to concede that married couples are still succeptable to STDs (after all...sex isn't the ONLY way to contract many common STDs)...which makes your solution even more impractical.

Instead, I've repeatedly stated that refraining from promiscuity is the best solution (and of course, using contraceptive devices and talking to your partner about any potential health risks beforehand).

I dont remember saying 'forced to marry' anywhere...can you quote me ?

I asked if, in your perfect world, committed couples should be forced to marry. And your response was:

"Yes, I know how hard it is for man to not behave like a mindless animal driven about by every whim of his genitalia."

A person shouldnt have to be 'forced'. Their own integrity should cause them to do the right thing.

Seems like you're changing your mind now....

And people who have UNmarried sex, who DONT believe that sex belongs in marriage, are far more likely to move from one relationship to the next having sex with each new partner (of course these days even being married with a license doesnt seem to change the promiscuity of some)

And why is that? Why would an unmarried indidivual be more likely to move from one relationship to the next? Are you assuming that those who choose not to get married, do not participate in long-term relationships?

SAve sex for an ACTUAL committed relationship....called 'married' by many...and the promiscuity problem disappears.
ditto.

Of course! Because as we can see (especially in the US), no marriages ever end in divorce that came as the result of infidelity!

Now THAT is a nice 'cop out'
Where did I actually STATE that all unmarried people are promiscuous?

You have stated over and over again that if a couple chooses not to get married, they are not committed to each other. What else am I supposed to take from such assertions?

Once they start engaging in UNmarried sex (ie 'sin'), then many DO end up having more than a single sexual partner...ie 'promiscuous'.
Not sure what this says exactly, but took about .042 seconds to find it.

Having more than one partner does not denote promiscuity. If you think it does, then you must believe that people who save sex for marriage, yet who have also been married multiple times, must be promiscuous.

Dictionary.com defined promiscuity as:

characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

One can have multiple partners without engaging in casual sex. The average human lifespan is around 70 years, which means about 50 of those years are lived as adults. In that example, one could have 15 sexual relationships in thier lifetime, if each one lasted 3 years.

Now, I'm not saying having 15 partners is the best scenario, but in that sense...the sexual activity would be far from promiscuous.

Link-> 29 percent of men, 9 percent of women say they’ve had 15 or more partners

Im having VERY hard time believing that someone who actually looked at this for more than 13 seconds is even arguing the issue as you are.
And I quite positive that if I take an hour Ill find enough evidence to flood this thread with. We BOTH know it.

Yes, and in what context were those sexual relationships in? That statistic says nothing about promiscuity. Not only that, but 29% and 9% are quite a minority.

It's interesting that the same article you gave states that the lifetime average for men is 7 and the average for women is 4. I don't see that as being unreasonable or promiscuous.

According to Gods word 'commitment' IS marriage where that sort of relationship goes.

Then, as I already stated, your disagreement is purely semantic.

This entire time I was been referring to "marriage" in the context of a ceremony that legally binds two individuals together through a contract that is recognized by the state.

If you want to define marriage as any two people in a committed relationship, then you shouldn't disagree with anything I've stated thus far, because in that sense, any couples who are committed to each other are "married" so their sex isn't "sinful".

The state is irrelevant where GODS recognition of, and defintion of, marriage is concerned.

Thus, more semantics.

Scriptural marriage is a covenant between the man and the woman, whether made knowingly before God or not (ie atheists who marry ARE married in Gods eyes, even if they do not believe in Him).

Then, any two people in a relationship are married. Semantics, semantics.

Hardly.
You just fail to understand what biblical marriage is and that I accept the scriptures and what they present as a whole in this matter.

[/quote]

Ha...sounds like you're just disagreeing here for the sake of disagreement.

I've already stated that I am referring to "marriage" as a contract recognized by the state (which can only be obtained through certain ceremonies). You then, have responded by stating that state recognition is irrelevant, and that any committed relationship is "marriage". Thus, every single time that I've been referring to non-promiscuous individuals in a committed relationship (without the state-recognized ceremony), according to you, I am referring to a marriage couple.

So your entire disagreement this whole time has been semantic, which is quite disingenuous.

 

[HuntingMan]

And round and round we go

I have no intention of going page after page with this nonsense, Q.
Ive given my views and the readers here, many of whom ACCEPT biblical definitoins of marriage, not the states (ie, two men CANNOT be 'married') can see for themselves what the facts are.

That said, from here on out Im only responding to points made in your posts that arent simply rehashing the same point over and over and over and over and over..........

Well that's what we're discussing here; Opinions. For the record, your interpretation of the Bible is also an opinion.

Then prove those opinions wrong. That would be your first order of business.

Yes and

'nuff said...

slicing off your genitals would also solve the problem.

Agreed.
Have you ever READ much scripture, poster?

I have never affirmed that abstaining from sex won't solve the problem of STDs.

huh. Imagine that

Instead, I've repeatedly stated that refraining from promiscuity is the best solution

And if EVERYONE on the planet ONLY ever had sex AFTER they were married then the problem would be GREATLY contained. Even in remarriage they would only still affect a very limited number of people instead the number that many end up having sex with.
Its just killing you that this is actually sensible, isnt it...

I asked if, in your perfect world, committed couples should be forced to marry. And your response was:

Youre a hoot. That had nothing to do with FORCED marriage. It was about mans lack of self control where sex is concerned.

Seems like you're changing your mind now....

no...you just dont READ and UNDERSTAND someones point.
If anything my position has been solidified by your lack of valid response.


.

 

[HuntingMan]

You have stated over and over again that if a couple chooses not to get married, they are not committed to each other.
What else am I supposed to take from such assertions?

That I believe that the state does not define (or permit) marriage nor has authority to do so. That is Gods alone to do and His word does it well.
See, if the state defines marriage, then, as we see with CA, pretty soon men will be marrying men all over the country.
Gods word does not ever recognize marriage as being anything but a man and a woman....the usage determines its definition (ie 'gay' is now also sexual preference)
Marriage was created by God for man and HE is the One who determines what marriage is.
You seemingly made the mistake of assuming that I think that state licensing is marriage....I dont.
Licensing serves the purpose of providing legal protections firstly to the state and other entities, then to the married couple.
It does not validate or nullify a sincere covenant of marriage given by a man to a woman.
Many marriages even with a license are completely fraudulent as far as the sincerity of the person making the vow.

Licensing means nothing as far as the covenant of marriage itself is concerned.
When an honorable mans word is given in sincerity, no license is needed for him to keep it.
When his word is given without sincerity, then no license will force him to honor it.
When there is no word given at all, then there is no reason to believe he has any intent of honoring something he has not given to begin with.

Its quite sad that the church has come to define marriage by that license.
She should instead see Caesars licensing for what it is...coerced legal 'protection' for their loved ones in case of death....with a few token considerations given such as tax breaks so that we'll cooperate without arguing the issue.

Having more than one partner does not denote promiscuity. If you think it does, then you must believe that people who save sex for marriage, yet who have also been married multiple times, must be promiscuous.

Now THAT is semantics
People that MARRY are COMMITING to that marriage (again, Im not talking about state licensing but about a SINCERE oath to be husband and wife).
Unlike those who shack up and refuse to make that commitment.

Of course, folks are just as likely to waltz out of a marriage with state licensing so neither sincerity nor licensing actually means squat. And quite apparently its been that way since at least Israels days in the wilderness.

One can have multiple partners without engaging in casual sex. The average human lifespan is around 70 years, which means about 50 of those years are lived as adults. In that example, one could have 15 sexual relationships in thier lifetime, if each one lasted 3 years.

Marriage is for life, not for 3 years.
Changing partners every 3 years is 'casual sex'...not much more commitment there than a car lease.

Then, as I already stated, your disagreement is purely semantic.

That must be your new word for the week
Its hardly semantic. You simply have failed to comprehend what has been expressed.

Yes, and in what context were those sexual relationships in? That statistic says nothing about promiscuity.

15 partners IS promiscuity. Marriage is meant for life, not till we're bored.

Not only that, but 29% and 9% are quite a minority.

Firstly that was for 15 partners or more. And given that fact thats a VERY high number considering the POINT is the spread of STDs.
Connect the dots, poster. Quit acting like each sentence is given in a vacuum.

It's interesting that the same article you gave states that the lifetime average for men is 7 and the average for women is 4. I don't see that as being unreasonable or promiscuous.

When GODS intent for man is one man and one woman for life, that number is outrageous.

Then, any two people in a relationship are married.

No, they arent.
The problem here is you seem to think that a mans word is meaningless.
If you give yourself in marriage to a woman, does the STATE have to FORCE you to do the right thing ?
If so, then I submit that you do not have the slightest idea what God says about marriage.
I dont keep my word to my wife because of a meaningless state license. I keep my word to my wife because it IS MY OATH to her.
That you cannot comprehend that marriage ISNT about licensing but IS about an OATH/PROMISE doesnt really alter the fact.

Semantics, semantics.

Learn a new word...that one is losing all meaning.

Ha...sounds like you're just disagreeing here for the sake of disagreement.

Ive actually been thinking the same thing about you for a few posts now.

if you dont have something worth responding to I think you and I are done here.


.

 

[HuntingMan]

I've already stated that I am referring to "marriage" as a contract recognized by the state (which can only be obtained through certain ceremonies). You then, have responded by stating that state recognition is irrelevant, and that any committed relationship is "marriage". Thus, every single time that I've been referring to non-promiscuous individuals in a committed relationship (without the state-recognized ceremony), according to you, I am referring to a marriage couple.

No, you just keep assuming that lack of licensing = no marriage...which shows me that you do not understand what BIBLICAL marriage actually is...and that you seemingly believe if someone DOES take in marriage that they cannot be trusted to KEEP THEIR WORD but MUST be FORCED to do so by godless govt.
I find that somewhat disturbing.

Let me ask you this.
Without licensing, if you promise yourself in marriage to someone would you be 'bound' to stay in that marriage, even if it turned out to be a very bad marriage (not abusive and no adultery tho) ? OR do you feel that it would be ok to just break things off if the two of you couldnt get along and make it work ?

So your entire disagreement this whole time has been semantic, which is quite disingenuous.

No, again, you simply do not seem to comprehend that a mans WORD is supposed to mean something and that he shouldnt have to be FORCED to keep it by the state.
That you fail to comprehend an issue does not invalidate it.
And apparently you have two new words this week.

 

[theQuestionist]

And round and round we go

I have no intention of going page after page with this nonsense, Q.

Fine with me. I'm tired of responding to your semantic games.

Ive given my views and the readers here, many of whom ACCEPT biblical definitoins of marriage, not the states (ie, two men CANNOT be 'married') can see for themselves what the facts are.

And I've given my views based on reason, not an ancient group of stories written by nomads

Then prove those opinions wrong. That would be your first order of business.

Well that's what we've been discussing this whole time. We've been sharing our opinions, and have been attempting to counter objections. Besides our own views concerning the rationality of our own positions, the only outside sources either of us have referred to are a) the Bible (which you think is a tome of knowledge and is self-justified, despite its terrible advice), and the msn article (which confirmed that the number of sexual partners the majority of people have in their lifetime is relatively low--a number that does not denote promiscuity).

Have you ever READ much scripture, poster?

Yup. I would probably still be a Christian had I not decided to thoroughly read the Bible.

And if EVERYONE on the planet ONLY ever had sex AFTER they were married then the problem would be GREATLY contained. Even in remarriage they would only still affect a very limited number of people instead the number that many end up having sex with.

And if EVERYONE on the planet ONLY practiced safe sex, and made sure to avoid casual sexual relationships that would also restrain the problem.

The difference is that my solution doesn't involve silly religious rituals, and silly religious rules (and silly religious definitions, at that).

Youre a hoot. That had nothing to do with FORCED marriage. It was about mans lack of self control where sex is concerned.
no...you just dont READ and UNDERSTAND someones point.

I asked you a yes or no question, and the first word of your answer was "yes"...which wasn't followed by anything relevant. What more could I possibly have concluded?

If anything my position has been solidified by your lack of valid response.

Putting something in bold doesn't validate it.

 

[HuntingMan]

Fine with me. I'm tired of responding to your semantic games.

Maybe you should look up the word 'semantic' to see what it means.
That you refuse to accept that I do not define 'marriage' by the states method but instead by Gods, does not mean there are any semantics going on here.

And I've given my views based on reason, not an ancient group of stories written by nomads

You call that reason ?
Nomads and religion aside for a second, your views as expressed in this thread are hardly representative of logic or reasoning.

Well that's what we've been discussing this whole time. We've been sharing our opinions, and have been attempting to counter objections.

Youve spent less time discussing and more time telling me that my points are simply a matter of 'semantics' while refusing to accept the fact that I dont define 'marriage' by Caesars method but Gods.

Besides our own views concerning the rationality of our own positions, the only outside sources either of us have referred to are a) the Bible (which you think is a tome of knowledge and is self-justified, despite its terrible advice), and the msn article (which confirmed that the number of sexual partners the majority of people have in their lifetime is relatively low--a number that does not denote promiscuity).

7 sexual partners is hardly 'low'.
Remember where this started ? STDs.
Is it a good idea for everyone on the planet to have sex with 4-7 people given the facts about STDs ?

Yup. I would probably still be a Christian had I not decided to thoroughly read the Bible.

interesting response given the fact that a few atheists and non Christian Jews have BECOME believers because of reading the bible.

And if EVERYONE on the planet ONLY practiced safe sex, and made sure to avoid casual sexual relationships that would also restrain the problem.
The difference is that my solution doesn't involve silly religious rituals, and silly religious rules (and silly religious definitions, at that).

If ONE person had sex with ONE other person, yes.
There is still the UNmarried sexual sin to be considered, but I dont expect nonbelievers to actually care about that issue.

Bahaha...right...because my responses don't involve the mindless reference of ancient superstitious teachings, they're invalid. You're going to have to try harder than that.

What was astounding to me is that you so horribly misread my posts as to actually think I had changed my views at some point.

Anyways, so far we've seen nothing from you but semantic nonsense,

You seem to like that word

canned religious rhetoric,

Look around, chap....where exactly is it that you believe you are posting ?
Dont come to a CHRISTIAN forum and not expect to see 'religion'.

and bawwwwwwwwing about how we're going round and round in circles--even after your every post is nothing more than a re-affirmation that your views are not based on anything more than your own dogma.

My dogma is concerning UNmarried sex.
The facts about STDs and UNmarried sex stand alone and speak for themselves.

 

[theQuestionist]

Oh wow...in proof-reading my response I discovered that there's more....

That I believe that the state does not define (or permit) marriage nor has authority to do so.
That is Gods alone to do and His word does it well.
See, if the state defines marriage, then, as we see with CA, pretty soon men will be marrying men all over the country.

Nothing wrong with that.

Gods word does not ever recognize marriage as being anything but a man and a woman....the usage determines its definition (ie 'gay' is now also sexual preference)
Marriage was created by God for man and HE is the One who determines what marriage is.
You seemingly made the mistake of assuming that I think that state licensing is marriage....I dont.

Great.

Licensing serves the purpose of providing legal protections firstly to the state and other entities, then to the married couple.
It does not validate or nullify a sincere covenant of marriage given by a man to a woman.
Many marriages even with a license are completely fraudulent as far as the sincerity of the person making the vow.

Irrelevant (well....outside of your tiny religious bubble).

Licensing means nothing as far as the covenant of marriage itself is concerned.
When an honorable mans word is given in sincerity, no license is needed for him to keep it.
When his word is given without sincerity, then no license will force him to honor it.
When there is no word given at all, then there is no reason to believe he has any intent of honoring something he has not given to begin with.

Irrelevant to the discussion (other than helping to clarify what has thus-far been revealed to be nothing more than a semantic discrepancy).

People that MARRY are COMMITING to that marriage (again, Im not talking about state licensing but about a SINCERE oath to be husband and wife).
Unlike those who shack up and refuse to make that commitment.

Great. People "shack up" for reasons other than committed love. This is irrelevant to why pre-marital sex is harmful.

Marriage is for life, not for 3 years.

It's intended to last for life when the commitment is first made...but of course, that doesn't always work out.

Changing partners every 3 years is 'casual sex'

No it's not. There's nothing "casual" about a committed relationship that lasts 3 years.

...not much more commitment there than a car lease.
That must be your new word for the week
Its hardly semantic. You simply have failed to comprehend what has been expressed.

Cute. Sadly, your comprehension of the word "semantic" is about as confused as your views concerning what constitutes casual sex.

So far you've revealed that your entire position rests on your definition of the word marriage, as opposed to the modern usage which denotes a ceremony that is followed by state-recognized sanctions. That is a semantic discrepancy.

15 partners IS promiscuity. Marriage is meant for life, not till we're bored.

Lots of things are "meant" for life. That doesn't mean they last for life.

Again, your comprehension of the word "promiscuous" is about as advanced as your practical view of marriage.

Firstly that was for 15 partners or more. And given that fact thats a VERY high number considering the POINT is the spread of STDs.

STD prevention and marriage are two very different things. This has been reiterated to you several times.

The problem here is you seem to think that a mans word is meaningless.
If you give yourself in marriage to a woman, does the STATE have to FORCE you to do the right thing ?

Huh?

If so, then I submit that you do not have the slightest idea what God says about marriage.
I dont keep my word to my wife because of a meaningless state license. I keep my word to my wife because it IS MY OATH to her.

That's fine. And there are plenty of unmarried couples who do the same thing.

That you cannot comprehend that marriage ISNT about licensing but IS about an OATH/PROMISE doesnt really alter the fact.

Of course they are related. You cannot legally state that you are married unless the marriage is recognized by the state. If you want to defy that and say "oh well the bible defines marriage [x] way" then fine...you can go live in your little semantical christian fantasy land while the rest of us live in the real world.

Learn a new word...that one is losing all meaning.

You haven't presented a new word. You're attempting to redefine one that already exists. Thus, you are presenting a semantic dispute.

Ive actually been thinking the same thing about you for a few posts now.

No, I disagree with most of what you say because I don't live my life based on the scribblings of ancient, superstitious, bronze-age nomads, who think that their relationships are sanctified by an invisible man in the clouds.

if you dont have something worth responding to I think you and I are done here.

Bold text.

 

[theQuestionist]

Maybe you should look up the word 'semantic' to see what it means.
That you refuse to accept that I do not define 'marriage' by the states method but instead by Gods, does not mean there are any semantics going on here.

You are redefining a common word. That is a semantic dispute.

You call that reason ?
Nomads and religion aside for a second, your views as expressed in this thread are hardly representative of logic or reasoning.

Ah right....and this is obviously true because I haven't appended each response with 'god this' and 'god that'.

Youve spent less time discussing and more time telling me that my points are simply a matter of 'semantics' while refusing to accept the fact that I dont define 'marriage' by Caesars method but Gods.

That's because I already made my points, and you've spent the last 3 responses doing nothing but trying to redefine the word "marriage" to fit your biblical view.

7 sexual partners is hardly 'low'.

Based on what? Oh right...rhymes with liable.

Remember where this started ? STDs.
Is it a good idea for everyone on the planet to have sex with 4-7 people given the facts about STDs ?

If they practice safe sex, you could probably double that number and there wouldn't be a problem.

interesting response given the fact that a few atheists and non Christian Jews have BECOME believers because of reading the bible.

"Atheist" and "non-Christian" does not mean "rational". Lots of people of all types of world views fall victim to religious nonsense all the time.

If ONE person had sex with ONE other person, yes.
There is still the UNmarried sexual sin to be considered, but I dont expect nonbelievers to actually care about that issue.

Right because STDs make sure to check the number of sexual partners a person has had before infecting them--making sure to avoid those who've only had one partner.

As I stated, the spread of STDs can be avoided by practicing safe and non-casual sex (usually the two go hand in hand).

What was astounding to me is that you so horribly misread my posts as to actually think I had changed my views at some point.

Of course you did. My initial statements were that people in committed non-married (ie...state recognized) relationships should have no problems engaging in sexual intercourse (of course, as long as they take proper precautions, like discussing whether or not they have any STDs, practicing safe sex, etc). You then vehemently disagreed what that....only to redefine marriage later in the thread as not necessarily being state-sanctioned....which would mean my initial scenario would be marriage under your new definition.

You seem to like that word

Yes, because you seem to like playing word games.

Anyways, since you can't stop responding to my posts (despite stating that you would), I will stop responding to yours. You can "bible this" and "bible that" all day long--the fact of the matter is that unmarried safe sex is no more harmful than married sex. The problem lies in individuals who live promiscuous lifestyles while not taking the necessary precautions to avoid STDs.

 

[HuntingMan]

You are redefining a common word. That is a semantic dispute.

Interesting.
Which do you think came first, the Hebrew bible or the Websters ?
Who is 'redefining' here ?

Ah right....and this is obviously true because I haven't appended each response with 'god this' and 'god that'.

Again, look around and recognize where you are, chap.
Dont expect to come to a CHRISTIAN website and not have many of the members appeal to the authority of our God and His word.

That's because I already made my points, and you've spent the last 3 responses doing nothing but trying to redefine the word "marriage" to fit your biblical view.

Again, which came first the Hebrew bible or the Websters?
Again, WHO is 'REdefining' here ?

Based on what? Oh right...rhymes with liable.

Given the facts about STD's it should be based on common sense.

If they practice safe sex, you could probably double that number and there wouldn't be a problem.

"As long as youre wearing your seatbelts its ok to drive like a lunatic"

Right because STDs make sure to check the number of sexual partners a person has had before infecting them--making sure to avoid those who've only had one partner.

Some of your responses make it clear that you either arent actually reading or arent understanding what you are reading.

As I stated, the spread of STDs can be avoided by practicing safe and non-casual sex (usually the two go hand in hand).

And as Ive stated STD's are BEST avoided by ONE person being with ONE person sexually in their lifetimes. Committed MARRIAGE would be a great place for that

Of course you did.

You need to learn to pay attention. That you have misunderstood yet one more response doesnt mean that *I* changed what I believe.

My initial statements were that people in committed non-married (ie...state recognized) relationships should have no problems engaging in sexual intercourse (of course, as long as they take proper precautions, like discussing whether or not they have any STDs, practicing safe sex, etc). You then vehemently disagreed what that....

The ONLY thing Ive agreed with is that even if UNmarried people have ONE sexual partner that the probability of STDs is reduced just as much as married couples who do the same.

only to redefine marriage later in the thread as not necessarily being state-sanctioned.

This is an outright fabrication.
My views on marriage changed YEARS ago. You simply have not read and understood what was said.

...which would mean my initial scenario would be marriage under your new definition.

There was nothing NEW about it. Ive had this SAME view for years.

Yes, because you seem to like playing word games.

No, you just cant seem to pay attention to what IS being said and you seemingly like to ADD to what ISNT said.

Ive had the SAME exact view of marriage for YEARS. There is no reason for me to 'change' to what Ive presented in this thread...its been the same for quite a long time.

Anyways, since you can't stop responding to my posts (despite stating that you would), I will stop responding to yours.

If you dont want me to respond to you then one possible solution is to not read or respond to my posts...kwim ?

You can "bible this" and "bible that" all day long--the fact of the matter is that unmarried safe sex is no more harmful than married sex.

UNmarried MONOGAMOUS (ONE partner) sex is as 'safe' as married sex with a single partner.
Once either has added even one additional sexual partner the odds of STDs increase regardless of what you wish to believe.

The problem lies in individuals who live promiscuous lifestyles while not taking the necessary precautions to avoid STDs.

Sir, we can BOTH find instances online where condoms or 'safe sex' did not keep someone from getting an STD.
Condoms break and I am a first hand witness to that fact.

The wife and I were just told by her doctor that the HPV virus DOES make it thru latex condoms because they are small enough to do so(not that either of us have it, it just came up in a conversation like this one).
So much for that theory.
The only 'safe' sex is 'no' sex.

.

 

[HuntingMan]

This 'safe' sex thing is becoming a bit silly.

Could we get a CLEAR definition of 'safe sex' here, Questionist ?

Give a detailed explanation of what all 'safe sex' includes, if you dont mind doing so, and maybe also toss out the reason FOR having 'safe' sex instead of just regular old normal 'unsafe' sex.

 

[HuntingMan]

Just digging around for a second and came across this.
Pretty interesting thought down at the bottom.

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]Have sex with fewer people. More partners = more risk![/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]Have sex with one partner who has sex with only you.[/FONT]

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/STD/hpv.htm