Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is starting at 16. It should start at 2.
Of course. But it's pretty hard to talk (effectively, must less at all) about something that you have been socialized to repress and to never talk about.
So it's not immoral if the 16-year-old's don't reproduce? Or if the two people having sex before marriage live in a country where you don't pay taxes?
You decide what's moral based on how much things cost you?
I decide morals by how my actions effect others. Like I said, sex isn't the problem. kids having a kid that they can't afford is. Then having sick people think it is totally appropriate to make others pay for it. No matter how many there are.
It aint rocket science. But the tax comment mite be a red flag.
I don't mean to disrespect anyone's beliefs, but what is the moral and religious argument against sex before marriage?
It seems like a loving God would want His creatures to enjoy each other's bodies safely and responsibly.
Religion does not prohibit sex. It regulates it.
If you feel you are stepping into the adulthood and sex is your need, then go get married, make a commitment and live an organized life.
Think of a city where people would drive their car without a license and without following any road signals versus driving in a city with a license and obeying the traffic laws.
If you feel you are stepping into the adulthood and sex is your need, then go get married, make a commitment and live an organized life.
Think of a city where people would drive their car without a license and without following any road signals versus driving in a city with a license and obeying the traffic laws.
Why not think of a city where people would drive without a license and follow all signals and obey all the traffic laws?
The license is not what guarantees the ability to drive well and responsibly.
The majority of bad or reckless drivers have licenses.
If you feel you are stepping into the adulthood and sex is your need, then go get married, make a commitment and live an organized life.
Think of a city where people would drive their car without a license and without following any road signals versus driving in a city with a license and obeying the traffic laws.
EXCELENT word. I love good writers.
How do we regulate people that always say "how do you know?" or "what gives you the right?"? From a logistical stand point hope and regulation is a serious problem with my non belief.
Why not think of a city where people would drive without a license and follow all signals and obey all the traffic laws?
The license is not what guarantees the ability to drive well and responsibly.
The majority of bad or reckless drivers have licenses.
yeah, but they have a license. Thats the point. What do you think the death rate change to without the regulations.
The only flaw in this thinking is that it does not address consequences. I see kids having a kids and others have to pay for it. If we didn't I wouldn't care even a little bit. "morally" that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
what? the problem is who pays for the children of children. don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. Its real simple to see why the cycle isn't broken. Grandma at 40, and other people pay for all three stupid generations. That's why it is immoral.
So, if I'm reading your posts correctly, you are OK with 16 year old kids having sex and producing babies as long as their families can afford to support and care for them. Right? If grandma and grandpa agree to house and feed them, then all is moral and OK?
So, if I'm reading your posts correctly, you are OK with 16 year old kids having sex and producing babies as long as their families can afford to support and care for them. Right? If grandma and grandpa agree to house and feed them, then all is moral and OK?
yes, to a degree thats what I mean. But I don't have many absolute truths in my life. I mean being a baby machine isn't the best route no matter how much money we have. "Fair treatment" does not mean "equal treatment" in every case.
the op ask for any moral reason to limit sex out of wed lock. I gave one. Sex = children. So what does having children mean to us. All of us.
yes, to a degree thats what I mean. But I don't have many absolute truths in my life. I mean being a baby machine isn't the best route no matter how much money we have. "Fair treatment" does not mean "equal treatment" in every case.
the op ask for any moral reason to limit sex out of wed lock. I gave one. Sex = children. So what does having children mean to us. All of us.
BABY MACHINE? Women do not consider themselves baby machines. That is the realm of disrespectful men.
I do not see you speaking about men and their responsibilities for taking care of their children. Rather than hold them to their responsibility, you denigrate women having children.
BABY MACHINE? Women do not consider themselves baby machines. That is the realm of disrespectful men.
I do not see you speaking about men and their responsibilities for taking care of their children. Rather than hold them to their responsibility, you denigrate women having children.
other than you emtional dislike of the words "baby machine" and taking it out of my context and putting it into your context you are right. The father is equally resposible for the child.
After my first kid I understood why my dad "worked so hard and so many hours" and how many men can just walk out on a marriage. Its easier ... Far easier to leave then to stay home and deal with the emtional nightmare we call raising a family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.