Interesting research on the old question of premarital sex and divorce. A few highlights:

• The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners.
• Forty-three percent of women had just one premarital sex partner in the 1970s.
• Twenty one percent of women had just one premarital sex partner in the 2000s.
• Women with 10+ partners jumped from 2% in the 1970s to 18% in the 2010s.
• Virgin brides dropped from 21% in the 1970s down to 5% in the 2010s.

The article also concludes that "marriages preceded by nonmarital fertility have disproportionately high divorce rates."

And the most intriguing part of the research is that females that have had 2 partners have higher divorce rates than those with 3 to 9 partners. They don't know why but say:

My best guess rests on the notion of over-emphasized comparisons. In most cases, a woman's two premarital sex partners include her future husband and one other man. That second sex partner is first-hand proof of a sexual alternative to one's husband. These sexual experiences convince women that sex outside of wedlock is indeed a possibility. The man involved was likely to have become a partner in the course of a serious relationshipwomen inclined to hook up will have had more than two premarital partnersthereby emphasizing the seriousness of the alternative. Of course, women learn about the viability of nonmarital sex if they have multiple premarital partners, but with multiple partners, each one represents a smaller part of a woman's sexual and romantic biography. Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry. The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners, but otherwise sowing one's oats seems compatible with having a lasting marriage.

But not too many oats, if one married after the start of the new millennium. The highest divorce rates shown in Figure 1, 33 percent, belong to women who had ten or more premarital sex partners.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

I'm surprised nobody has any opinions on this. Does the research line up with what you expected or did you think it would be different? If you had a daughter, how would you advise her in this area?

BaylorFTW said:

---

I'm surprised nobody has any opinions on this. Does the research line up with what you expected or did you think it would be different? If you had a daughter, how would you advise her in this area?

---

The same way my parents advised me and my sister. "You'll never have to apologize for being a virgin on your wedding night."

I think it's odd that they lumped together zero and one. According to their data, the divorce rate with one premarital partner is two to four times higher than with none. So they might as well have just said the odds are lowest with zero.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think it's odd that they lumped together zero and one. According to their data, the divorce rate with one premarital partner is two to four times higher than with none. So they might as well have just said the odds are lowest with zero.

---

They are probably just trying to appeal to a bigger audience.

"Big, little, or short, or tall. Wish I coulda kept 'em all. I loved em' every one."

"To all the girls I've love before....who've travelled in and out my door"

Here are a few challenging questions:

If love is wanting the greatest good for someone, can a man really say he loves a woman if he sleeps with her and does not marry her knowing this will hurt her long term chances at pair bonding?

If a man sleeps with a bunch of women, how likely is it that he can downshift to becoming faithful to just one woman for the rest of his life? Has he really harmed his chances of possible long term fidelity? How could the woman he is with really trust him?

The 1960s brought us casual sex. Then, we saw feminism rise as a result of the women feeling (and rightfully so) used. Now, we have seen the rise of things like MGTOW as more men have become fearful of woman due to the feminism movement. Where does this leave things for the future? How do we return to an environment that fosters healthy and loving long term relationships?

I can't think of any friends from high school or college that were virgins when they married who are divorced. And that's 15+ couples.

There are also very few who were not who are divorced so to me it's more about who you are now and your faith/priorities.

If you are constantly growing in your faith and not allowing culture to suck you in the odds are definitely in your favor

I think parents also make a difference. Almost all of those couples came from families who were still married - not divorced parents. Of course that trend is much smaller today unfortunately.

riflebear said:

---

I think parents also make a difference. Almost all of those couples came from families who were still married - not divorced parents. Of course that trend is much smaller today unfortunately.

---

The article supports this claim. As it says "Similarly, people who grew up without both parents had more partners and divorced more."

This research says its focus is "the link between premarital sex and marital stability" but appears to focus only on premarital sex engaged in by women.

Would the results be different if premarital sex engaged in by both partners was studied?

There's the old poem:

Hogamus, higamus,
Men are polygamous.
Higamus, hogamus,
Women monogamous.

But, in my observation (as someone married 38 years), some people of both genders are monogamous by nature, happy to find a life partner to whom they are loyal and faithful, and others aren't. So I wonder if the higher divorce rates ascribed in this study to women with more partners before marriage simply reflect that women with more partners before marriage are more likely to seek more partners throughout life, whether or not they marry. And if the same might be true for men if their premarital and post-marital sexual involvement were studied?

Jinx 2 said:

---

This research says its focus is "the link between premarital sex and marital stability" but appears to focus only on premarital sex engaged in by women.

Would the results be different if premarital sex engaged in by both partners was studied?

---

The old idea has been that men are less negatively impacted by premarital sex. But as I mentioned above, I think that men are negatively impacted because it is hard for them to adjust after developing those bad habits. I think the article points out women are handicapped because they will often have children from prior encounters and that wrecks havoc on future relationships.

Jinx 2 said:

---

But, in my observation (as someone married 38 years), some people of both genders are monogamous by nature, happy to find a life partner to whom they are loyal and faithful, and others aren't. So I wonder if the higher divorce rates ascribed in this study to women with more partners before marriage simply reflect that women with more partners before marriage are more likely to seek more partners throughout life, whether or not they marry. And if the same might be true for men if their premarital and post-marital sexual involvement were studied?

---

Congrats on nearing 40 years of marriage. That is great.

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

BaylorFTW said:

---

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

For years, social pressure was the means, and that worked imperfectly and mostly to control women's behavior, because an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful, and because women who were sexually active outside of marriage were widely viewed with much more disapproval than men (who, in some circles, actually gained status by being players).

Birth control helped to level the playing field. Women who wanted to be more sexually active could be without (as much) fear of an unplanned pregnancy. But, at least in my era (the 70s and early 80s), sexual activity outside of marriage was still much more acceptable for men than women. And it's always been the case that the consequences of a birth control failure are much worse for men than women.

Some advocate eliminating options, including any form of what's termed "artificial" birth control, that allow people more sexual freedom as a way to control sexuality. I don't think that's the right solution, nor do I think every adult is truly capable of a long-term partnership that requires sacrifice, compromise, kindness, consideration and working together to establish and achieve common goals, including having a family. I am glad women are no longer trapped, economically or otherwise, in loveless relationships with unfaithful or abusive partners because their opportunities for education, work, controlling their fertility and supporting themselves and their children have been limited or eliminated. My mother had many friends in such marriages.

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

For years, social pressure was the means, and that worked imperfectly and mostly to control women's behavior, because an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful, and because women who were sexually active outside of marriage were widely viewed with much more disapproval than men (who, in some circles, actually gained status by being players).

Birth control helped to level the playing field. Women who wanted to be more sexually active could be without (as much) fear of an unplanned pregnancy. But, at least in my era (the 70s and early 80s), sexual activity outside of marriage was still much more acceptable for men than women. And it's always been the case that the consequences of a birth control failure are much worse for men than women.

Some advocate eliminating options, including any form of what's termed "artificial" birth control, that allow people more sexual freedom as a way to control sexuality. I don't think that's the right solution, nor do I think every adult is truly capable of a long-term partnership that requires sacrifice, compromise, kindness, consideration and working together to establish and achieve common goals, including having a family. I am glad women are no longer trapped, economically or otherwise, in loveless relationships with unfaithful or abusive partners because their opportunities for education, work, controlling their fertility and supporting themselves and their children have been limited or eliminated. My mother had many friends in such marriages.

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

---

Social pressure was effective at controlling men's behavior too. Women were vulnerable, but they also had agency in terms of setting sexual boundaries. Birth control only made it more difficult for chaste women to compete. It took away the agency and left the vulnerability.

Jinx 2 said:

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

---

What is natural? Some people are predisposed to alcohol or drugs? Should we indulge those "natural" tendencies too? If you have a faith in God, I don't see why you couldn't work towards following what he advocates for which is monogamous marriage. What one is really working through is a self-centeredness and selfishness that needs to be given up in lieu of a sacrifice to honor God? Obviously, this may be harder for some people than others but given the alternative can lead to divorces, the breaking up of families, affairs can lead to harming other people's chances for fidelity, etc. All told, I think the vast majority of people can live up to these standards and we shouldn't be changing society to accommodate a small minority of folks who can't.

Quote:

---

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

---

Of course, newer generations of women have taken your ideas and created new problems of their own. Now, many women are ending up getting the job they wanted and realizing in their 30s or 40s they really wanted a family and are miserable and become alcoholics and develop a range of cancers due to the stress of getting the life they thought they wanted. Effectively, they set their own trap and became their own jailer.

One can't get around the fact that women generally have a small fertility window and have a biological imperative to have kids. Their sexual market value also typically declines with age faster than men. For these reasons, it still behooves most women to establish a monogamous relationship in their 20s or (30s at the latest) if they want to have a family.

What I am most concerned about your response is I haven't seen you mention God's role in any of this? You did mention the church but you simply meant that as social pressure rather than any need to honor God or what does God want. Is it so unreasonable to believe that God knows best?

riflebear said:

---

I think parents also make a difference. Almost all of those couples came from families who were still married - not divorced parents. Of course that trend is much smaller today unfortunately.

---

I realized this a few years after I married. It's a small sample size. I had 12 friends/relatives serve as groomsmen and ushers at my wedding 30 years ago.

Of the 12, only one had divorced parents and it was when he was quite young and there was a good relationship between parents. His stepdad and mom have been married nearly 50 years (and were influential youth leaders when I was growing up).

Of those 12 plus me, two are divorced today. I don't know the situation for one. For the other, his wife had some addiction issues that forced the breakup though he was incredibly patient.

So small sample size but I believe parenting makes a difference and why I worry about so many single parent households.

midgett said:

---

riflebear said:

---

I think parents also make a difference. Almost all of those couples came from families who were still married - not divorced parents. Of course that trend is much smaller today unfortunately.

---

I realized this a few years after I married. It's a small sample size. I had 12 friends/relatives serve as groomsmen and ushers at my wedding 30 years ago.

Of the 12, only one had divorced parents and it was when he was quite young and there was a good relationship between parents. His stepdad and mom have been married nearly 50 years (and were influential youth leaders when I was growing up).

Of those 12 plus me, two are divorced today. I don't know the situation for one. For the other, his wife had some addiction issues that forced the breakup though he was incredibly patient.

So small sample size but I believe parenting makes a difference and why I worry about so many single parent households.

---

I'd agree with this. When we were married nearly 20 years ago, our pre-marital counseling with the preacher was very brief.....his first question was "How long have your parents been married?" Our answer was "nearly 35 years". He then asked about whether or not we'd been raised in church. Our response was a definite "Yes" as we detailed our small town southern baptist experience. At the end of the first (and come to find out our last) session he said, "Well. Y'all have been raised in Christian homes with parents who modeled God's intent for the family and they showed love for each other so their children could see it. I don't see any need for any more pre-marital counseling and in fact, y'all need to be teaching a marriage class."

So, yeah, a 2 parent household, and specifically a 2 parent Christian household, makes a big difference. I pray that God is preparing Godly spouses for our children in the same model as my parents.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

For years, social pressure was the means, and that worked imperfectly and mostly to control women's behavior, because an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful, and because women who were sexually active outside of marriage were widely viewed with much more disapproval than men (who, in some circles, actually gained status by being players).

Birth control helped to level the playing field. Women who wanted to be more sexually active could be without (as much) fear of an unplanned pregnancy. But, at least in my era (the 70s and early 80s), sexual activity outside of marriage was still much more acceptable for men than women. And it's always been the case that the consequences of a birth control failure are much worse for men than women.

Some advocate eliminating options, including any form of what's termed "artificial" birth control, that allow people more sexual freedom as a way to control sexuality. I don't think that's the right solution, nor do I think every adult is truly capable of a long-term partnership that requires sacrifice, compromise, kindness, consideration and working together to establish and achieve common goals, including having a family. I am glad women are no longer trapped, economically or otherwise, in loveless relationships with unfaithful or abusive partners because their opportunities for education, work, controlling their fertility and supporting themselves and their children have been limited or eliminated. My mother had many friends in such marriages.

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

---

Social pressure was effective at controlling men's behavior too. Women were vulnerable, but they also had agency in terms of setting sexual boundaries. Birth control only made it more difficult for chaste women to compete. It took away the agency and left the vulnerability.

---

Requiring women to wear burqas and not allowing women to leave home without a male relative are effective at preventing premarital sex and eliminating "competition" for chaste women. Especially when marriages are arranged.

Female genital mutilation is great for discouraging premarital sex, because it often makes sex hurt so bad for the woman that engaging in it is a misery.

Those do the same thing that eliminating access to female-controlled birth control does: Shift the responsibility for controlling male behavior, up to and including the murder of the girl you got pregnant because you don't want the baby and she does, from men to women.

As for "chaste women" "competing," if you view finding a mate as a competition that someone "wins" rather than as a search for a good life partner who will be with you in every area of life, not just for sex, it's not a competition.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Of course, newer generations of women have taken your ideas and created new problems of their own. Now, many women are ending up getting the job they wanted and realizing in their 30s or 40s they really wanted a family and are miserable and become alcoholics and develop a range of cancers due to the stress of getting the life they thought they wanted. Effectively, they set their own trap and became their own jailer.

One can't get around the fact that women generally have a small fertility window and have a biological imperative to have kids. Their sexual market value also typically declines with age faster than men. For these reasons, it still behooves most women to establish a monogamous relationship in their 20s or (30s at the latest) if they want to have a family.

What I am most concerned about your response is I haven't seen you mention God's role in any of this? You did mention the church but you simply meant that as social pressure rather than any need to honor God or what does God want. Is it so unreasonable to believe that God knows best?

---

FTW, I haven't mentioned God's role because I don't think laws governing anyone's behavior should be religiously based in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

There's also the question of whose version of God's will is implemented. Strict sects of Islam and Judaism arrange marriages and no birth control is used. Women's dress and their subservient roles are strictly defined. Although it is illegal to do so in the United States, some cultures practice female genital mutilation to curtail sexual activity in women, and girls are taken to their home countries for this procedure, which can happen as early as age 6.

Mormons also discourage the use of both control, because women are viewed as the means by which men achieve their highest aims.

Although most Catholics don't follow the teaching, the Catholic Church believes God should make all decisions regarding life and death, up to and including using their "Ethical and Religious Directives" to preserve any possibility of a pregnancy that might result from a rape.

You say that women "have a biological imperative to have kids." I think that's true for some women, but not all. Having grown up with a younger sibling who was profoundly disabled, both physically and intellectually, and whose care was extremely demanding 24/7, I had seen a worse-case scenario. I was my brother's guardian in the early years of our marriage, so my husband understood my concerns about having children. I had both of my children in my 30s and celebrate the fact that both were normal and healthy every day.

I am really uncomfortable with anyone making decisions for every woman in America based on a set of religious beliefs that aren't universally shared. Allowing women more freedom, rather than trying to restrict their options, enables those who share your view that God's will is supreme to follow that calling, and empowers those who don't share that view to decide for themselves how to live their lives and whether to marry and become mothers.

What's wrong with that, as long as you and other members of your church have the opportunity to live out your beliefs? Do you believe you should be empowered with the force of law to impose those beliefs on others with different religious traditions or who aren't believers at all? In a country with freedom of religion, shouldn't their freedoms be respected, too?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

For years, social pressure was the means, and that worked imperfectly and mostly to control women's behavior, because an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful, and because women who were sexually active outside of marriage were widely viewed with much more disapproval than men (who, in some circles, actually gained status by being players).

Birth control helped to level the playing field. Women who wanted to be more sexually active could be without (as much) fear of an unplanned pregnancy. But, at least in my era (the 70s and early 80s), sexual activity outside of marriage was still much more acceptable for men than women. And it's always been the case that the consequences of a birth control failure are much worse for men than women.

Some advocate eliminating options, including any form of what's termed "artificial" birth control, that allow people more sexual freedom as a way to control sexuality. I don't think that's the right solution, nor do I think every adult is truly capable of a long-term partnership that requires sacrifice, compromise, kindness, consideration and working together to establish and achieve common goals, including having a family. I am glad women are no longer trapped, economically or otherwise, in loveless relationships with unfaithful or abusive partners because their opportunities for education, work, controlling their fertility and supporting themselves and their children have been limited or eliminated. My mother had many friends in such marriages.

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

---

Social pressure was effective at controlling men's behavior too. Women were vulnerable, but they also had agency in terms of setting sexual boundaries. Birth control only made it more difficult for chaste women to compete. It took away the agency and left the vulnerability.

---

Requiring women to wear burqas and not allowing women to leave home without a male relative are effective at preventing premarital sex and eliminating "competition" for chaste women. Especially when marriages are arranged.

Female genital mutilation is great for discouraging premarital sex, because it often makes sex hurt so bad for the woman that engaging in it is a misery.

Those do the same thing that eliminating access to female-controlled birth control does: Shift the responsibility for controlling male behavior, up to and including the murder of the girl you got pregnant because you don't want the baby and she does, from men to women.

As for "chaste women" "competing," if you view finding a mate as a competition that someone "wins" rather than as a search for a good life partner who will be with you in every area of life, not just for sex, it's not a competition.

---

Contraception does diminish women's responsibility for and control over male behavior, but it's a mistake to imagine that the burden is somehow shifted to men. In fact birth control does the same thing that burqas and mutilation do: empower men without holding them accountable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

For years, social pressure was the means, and that worked imperfectly and mostly to control women's behavior, because an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful, and because women who were sexually active outside of marriage were widely viewed with much more disapproval than men (who, in some circles, actually gained status by being players).

Birth control helped to level the playing field. Women who wanted to be more sexually active could be without (as much) fear of an unplanned pregnancy. But, at least in my era (the 70s and early 80s), sexual activity outside of marriage was still much more acceptable for men than women. And it's always been the case that the consequences of a birth control failure are much worse for men than women.

Some advocate eliminating options, including any form of what's termed "artificial" birth control, that allow people more sexual freedom as a way to control sexuality. I don't think that's the right solution, nor do I think every adult is truly capable of a long-term partnership that requires sacrifice, compromise, kindness, consideration and working together to establish and achieve common goals, including having a family. I am glad women are no longer trapped, economically or otherwise, in loveless relationships with unfaithful or abusive partners because their opportunities for education, work, controlling their fertility and supporting themselves and their children have been limited or eliminated. My mother had many friends in such marriages.

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

---

Social pressure was effective at controlling men's behavior too. Women were vulnerable, but they also had agency in terms of setting sexual boundaries. Birth control only made it more difficult for chaste women to compete. It took away the agency and left the vulnerability.

---

Requiring women to wear burqas and not allowing women to leave home without a male relative are effective at preventing premarital sex and eliminating "competition" for chaste women. Especially when marriages are arranged.

Female genital mutilation is great for discouraging premarital sex, because it often makes sex hurt so bad for the woman that engaging in it is a misery.

Those do the same thing that eliminating access to female-controlled birth control does: Shift the responsibility for controlling male behavior, up to and including the murder of the girl you got pregnant because you don't want the baby and she does, from men to women.

As for "chaste women" "competing," if you view finding a mate as a competition that someone "wins" rather than as a search for a good life partner who will be with you in every area of life, not just for sex, it's not a competition.

---

Contraception does diminish women's responsibility for and control over male behavior, but it's a mistake to imagine that the burden is somehow shifted to men. In fact birth control does the same thing that burqas and mutilation do: empower men without holding them accountable.

---

Conservative religious traditions really struggle with women who want to be sexually active outside of marriage or women who want an active sex life within marriage that doesn't also come with unlimited child-bearing. As for the "burden" being somehow "shifted to men," my point is that men have NEVER born the burden of illicit sex. What contraception controlled by women has achieved is to reduce that burden for women. Which troubles religious conservatives.

Contraception that women can control has enabled women who want to be sexually active but don't want to become pregnant to greatly reduce their risk of pregnancy, although it's never totally eliminated. If you believe all decisions about "life," including pregnancy, should be God's and that a woman who uses contraception is actively flouting God's will, her use of contraception may trouble you. I don't believe that, and I think fewer unplanned pregnancies, especially among teenagers, is a major benefit of contraception.

Outlawing contraception or eliminating access to it wouldn't end that struggle. Nor would the potential higher consequences of sex outside or within marriage stop people from having sex.

The generation currently coming of age is less religious and more tolerant of people of both sexes having the ability to decide for themselves to be sexually active, not totally without judgment, but with less judgment. What's surprising to me is the high number of young people I know who either have no religious tradition or come from a liberal religious tradition, but who aren't interested in casual sex.

So, if a woman wants a marriage to last, she should not stop at two dudes.

Hey girl. You telling me you're getting married Saturday. Have y'all had sex? Just him? One other guy years ago?

I can help your marriage work.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

With regard to your long term fidelity of partners statement, I think the question is what is a better state for men and women rather than discussing what is natural and what is not? Even if some may be more predisposed to have a bunch of partners, it would seem they should be encouraged to develop self control and reach a state where they are less likely to act on their base desires.

---

My question here--and it's an earnest one--is whether men and women can successfully be "encouraged" to resist their natural tendencies, if they truly are "predisposed" to seek multiple partners rather than committing to one, and if so, how can that be done?

For years, social pressure was the means, and that worked imperfectly and mostly to control women's behavior, because an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful, and because women who were sexually active outside of marriage were widely viewed with much more disapproval than men (who, in some circles, actually gained status by being players).

Birth control helped to level the playing field. Women who wanted to be more sexually active could be without (as much) fear of an unplanned pregnancy. But, at least in my era (the 70s and early 80s), sexual activity outside of marriage was still much more acceptable for men than women. And it's always been the case that the consequences of a birth control failure are much worse for men than women.

Some advocate eliminating options, including any form of what's termed "artificial" birth control, that allow people more sexual freedom as a way to control sexuality. I don't think that's the right solution, nor do I think every adult is truly capable of a long-term partnership that requires sacrifice, compromise, kindness, consideration and working together to establish and achieve common goals, including having a family. I am glad women are no longer trapped, economically or otherwise, in loveless relationships with unfaithful or abusive partners because their opportunities for education, work, controlling their fertility and supporting themselves and their children have been limited or eliminated. My mother had many friends in such marriages.

I say this from the standpoint of a successful marriage that's worked as an equal partnership based on mutual respect and support for many years: no one should be trapped in an abusive situation, however they define abuse, because the duration and appearance of their marriage means more to their society or their church than its actual benefits for both partners.

---

Social pressure was effective at controlling men's behavior too. Women were vulnerable, but they also had agency in terms of setting sexual boundaries. Birth control only made it more difficult for chaste women to compete. It took away the agency and left the vulnerability.

---

Requiring women to wear burqas and not allowing women to leave home without a male relative are effective at preventing premarital sex and eliminating "competition" for chaste women. Especially when marriages are arranged.

Female genital mutilation is great for discouraging premarital sex, because it often makes sex hurt so bad for the woman that engaging in it is a misery.

Those do the same thing that eliminating access to female-controlled birth control does: Shift the responsibility for controlling male behavior, up to and including the murder of the girl you got pregnant because you don't want the baby and she does, from men to women.

As for "chaste women" "competing," if you view finding a mate as a competition that someone "wins" rather than as a search for a good life partner who will be with you in every area of life, not just for sex, it's not a competition.

---

Contraception does diminish women's responsibility for and control over male behavior, but it's a mistake to imagine that the burden is somehow shifted to men. In fact birth control does the same thing that burqas and mutilation do: empower men without holding them accountable.

---

Conservative religious traditions really struggle with women who want to be sexually active outside of marriage or women who want an active sex life within marriage that doesn't also come with unlimited child-bearing.

Outlawing contraception or eliminating access to it wouldn't end that struggle. Nor would the potential higher consequences of sex outside or within marriage stop people from having sex.

The generation currently coming of age is less religious and more tolerant of people of both sexes having the ability to decide for themselves to be sexually active, not totally without judgment, but with less judgment. What's surprising to me is the high number of young people I know who either have no religious tradition or come from a liberal religious tradition, but who aren't interested in casual sex.

---

I'm not interested in stopping people from having sex. I just want them to know what the consequences are, as opposed to what our culture might imagine them to be. The consequences of sex without contraception aren't necessarily higher, but they are different. They fall more on the people making the choices rather than on children and society, which in my opinion is a good thing.

Jinx 2 said:

---

What's wrong with that, as long as you and other members of your church have the opportunity to live out your beliefs? Do you believe you should be empowered with the force of law to impose those beliefs on others with different religious traditions or who aren't believers at all? In a country with freedom of religion, shouldn't their freedoms be respected, too?

---

The problem with this is other people don't live and let live. They demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives. Sadly, their actions have a corrupting effect on the lives of others in the church. They bring everyone down and create additional negative pressures to sin by their actions. For example, look at what has happened with pornography in the US. There was a time when this stuff was prohibited and we were able to largely avoid it. However, those who couldn't live and let live started to cram it down our throats by changing the laws and making it ubiquitous. They were willing to do very ethically questionable things to achieve this end including passing of "Kinsey research" as real scientific research and killing any true dissent. They undermined and cut the funding of research that would highlight the negative effects of porn early on and they were even willing to use a Holocaust film to get around censors. So it has never been live and let live. It has been we will do what we want and if you don't like it, to bad. At the present, we are now paying the costs of these actions and now the church is forced to deal with these issues that these bad actors started.

And I could make a similar case for other parts of the sexual liberation movement from abortion, contraception, and so on. The idea of freedom sounds all well and good until a large part of your population ends up making bad choices that harm the rest of society. If it is ok for us to have drug laws, alcohol laws, cigarette laws, etc. there is no reason why we can't have laws in other areas of life.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Conservative religious traditions really struggle with women who want to be sexually active outside of marriage or women who want an active sex life within marriage that doesn't also come with unlimited child-bearing.

Outlawing contraception or eliminating access to it wouldn't end that struggle. Nor would the potential higher consequences of sex outside or within marriage stop people from having sex.

The generation currently coming of age is less religious and more tolerant of people of both sexes having the ability to decide for themselves to be sexually active, not totally without judgment, but with less judgment. What's surprising to me is the high number of young people I know who either have no religious tradition or come from a liberal religious tradition, but who aren't interested in casual sex.

---

I'm not interested in stopping people from having sex. I just want them to know what the consequences are, as opposed to what our culture might imagine them to be. The consequences of sex without contraception aren't necessarily higher, but they are different. They fall more on the people making the choices rather than on children and society, which in my opinion is a good thing.

---

People of both sexes who use contraception are demonstrating their knowledge that pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex. What other consequences do you think they don't know about?

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What's wrong with that, as long as you and other members of your church have the opportunity to live out your beliefs? Do you believe you should be empowered with the force of law to impose those beliefs on others with different religious traditions or who aren't believers at all? In a country with freedom of religion, shouldn't their freedoms be respected, too?

---

The problem with this is other people don't live and let live. They demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives. Sadly, their actions have a corrupting effect on the lives of others in the church. They bring everyone down and create additional negative pressures to sin by their actions. For example, look at what has happened with pornography in the US. There was a time when this stuff was prohibited and we were able to largely avoid it. However, those who couldn't live and let live started to cram it down our throats by changing the laws and making it ubiquitous. They were willing to do very ethically questionable things to achieve this end including passing of "Kinsey research" as real scientific research and killing any true dissent. They undermined and cut the funding of research that would highlight the negative effects of porn early on and they were even willing to use a Holocaust film to get around censors. So it has never been live and let live. It has been we will do what we want and if you don't like it, to bad. At the present, we are now paying the costs of these actions and now the church is forced to deal with these issues that these bad actors started.

And I could make a similar case for other parts of the sexual liberation movement from abortion, contraception, and so on. The idea of freedom sounds all well and good until a large part of your population ends up making bad choices that harm the rest of society. If it is ok for us to have drug laws, alcohol laws, cigarette laws, etc. there is no reason why we can't have laws in other areas of life.

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

FTW, I don't believe that anybody should be able to buy any kind of gun and any kind of ammo. But I live in America, where that's currently the law. From my perspective, we as a society have made a decision to value unlimited availability of guns capable of killing 9 people and wounding 27 others in 30 seconds over public safety. Not everyone shares that view, or even my perspective of the trade-off we've made in favor of virtually unlimited gun sales and ownership. I am, however, free NOT to buy and carry, and also free not to attend public events where I realize a shooter could easily kill a lot of people because escape routes and hiding places are limited.

In short, our laws allow people to make choices I don't like. But they don't require me to make those choices.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Conservative religious traditions really struggle with women who want to be sexually active outside of marriage or women who want an active sex life within marriage that doesn't also come with unlimited child-bearing.

Outlawing contraception or eliminating access to it wouldn't end that struggle. Nor would the potential higher consequences of sex outside or within marriage stop people from having sex.

The generation currently coming of age is less religious and more tolerant of people of both sexes having the ability to decide for themselves to be sexually active, not totally without judgment, but with less judgment. What's surprising to me is the high number of young people I know who either have no religious tradition or come from a liberal religious tradition, but who aren't interested in casual sex.

---

I'm not interested in stopping people from having sex. I just want them to know what the consequences are, as opposed to what our culture might imagine them to be. The consequences of sex without contraception aren't necessarily higher, but they are different. They fall more on the people making the choices rather than on children and society, which in my opinion is a good thing.

---

People of both sexes who use contraception are demonstrating their knowledge that pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex. What other consequences do you think they don't know about?

---

Related to the thread topic, failed marriages are a consequence of premarital and extramarital sex (both of which contraception facilitates, by the way). So even if people are aware of pregnancy as a possible short-term consequence, they may not be aware of the long-term consequences to any children they eventually decide to have.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Conservative religious traditions really struggle with women who want to be sexually active outside of marriage or women who want an active sex life within marriage that doesn't also come with unlimited child-bearing.

Outlawing contraception or eliminating access to it wouldn't end that struggle. Nor would the potential higher consequences of sex outside or within marriage stop people from having sex.

The generation currently coming of age is less religious and more tolerant of people of both sexes having the ability to decide for themselves to be sexually active, not totally without judgment, but with less judgment. What's surprising to me is the high number of young people I know who either have no religious tradition or come from a liberal religious tradition, but who aren't interested in casual sex.

---

I'm not interested in stopping people from having sex. I just want them to know what the consequences are, as opposed to what our culture might imagine them to be. The consequences of sex without contraception aren't necessarily higher, but they are different. They fall more on the people making the choices rather than on children and society, which in my opinion is a good thing.

---

People of both sexes who use contraception are demonstrating their knowledge that pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex. What other consequences do you think they don't know about?

---

Related to the thread topic, failed marriages are a consequence of premarital and extramarital sex (both of which contraception facilitates, by the way). So even if people are aware of pregnancy as a possible short-term consequence, they may not be aware of the long-term consequences to any children they eventually decide to have.

---

We now go to a downtown church with a diverse congregation. In one study group we joined, we were asked to share facts about our families we had discovered as adults. One woman told the group that she discovered as an adult that, in addition to fathering her and her five siblings in a stable marriage, her father had fathered 24 additional children through extramarital affairs, including one fathered while her mother was pregnant with her. The expressions on the faces of other members of the group while Julie was sharing this revelation were priceless.

She met all 24 of the "long term consequences" of her father's extra-marital affairs as an adult but didn't know about them as a child.

riflebear said:

---

I can't think of any friends from high school or college that were virgins when they married who are divorced. And that's 15+ couples.

---

And you know this how? Do you honestly think your friends would tell you they played?

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

---

Do you think there is broad societal agreement on what constitutes a family for the purposes of laws intended to promote and preserve the "well-being of the family"?

For example, we have old friends, a gay couple, who adopted two children from the foster care system. One was an infant they fostered for almost a year; the other was his younger sister (who likely had a different father).

Their children are now teenagers and enjoying what I would consider a comfortable, stable middle-class life with 2 conscientious parents who have been committed to each other for 31 years now and who married as soon as that became a legal option for them. Both parents have professional jobs; one is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ, having left the United Methodist Church because that church would not ordain openly gay ministers.

Should society outlaw their marriage and their family because a minority of Ameicans have religious objections to their sexual relationship and orientation? Should their children be removed from their home and placed with a male/female couple if one can be found willing to adopt 2 teenagers?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

riflebear said:

---

I can't think of any friends from high school or college that were virgins when they married who are divorced. And that's 15+ couples.

---

And you know this how? Do you honestly think your friends would tell you they played?

---

Really? Because I was close to them and also knew the girls really well. I was also in just about all their weddings and they actually talked about it.
Do you not talk to your friends?

Of course not all my friends who got married were but the ones I spoke about above were.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

---

Do you think there is broad societal agreement on what constitutes a family for the purposes of laws intended to promote and preserve the "well-being of the family"?

For example, we have old friends, a gay couple, who adopted two children from the foster care system. One was an infant they fostered for almost a year; the other was his younger sister (who likely had a different father).

Their children are now teenagers and enjoying what I would consider a comfortable, stable middle-class life with 2 conscientious parents who have been committed to each other for 31 years now and who married as soon as that became a legal option for them. Both parents have professional jobs; one is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ, having left the United Methodist Church because that church would not ordain openly gay ministers.

Should society outlaw their marriage and their family because a minority of Ameicans have religious objections to their sexual relationship and orientation? Should their children be removed from their home and placed with a male/female couple if one can be found willing to adopt 2 teenagers?

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.