On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:34:11 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <eu35t4$4b4$1@news04.infoave.net>

The Chief Instigator wrote:

You, too? (I started at just short of 21, and met the farmer's daughter who
is my wife at 32. I've not yet lost any sleep over that, either.)

I need to wake up before reading the groups. All this talk about sex and
then "the farmer's daughter" made me read the above as "I've not yet
lost any sheep over that, either."<g>

New Zealander, eh?

On Mar 22, 7:40 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

On 22 Mar 2007 15:35:31 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 21, 7:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

On 21 Mar 2007 16:14:50 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If something is not moderated, I do not consider
it acceptable.

That's nice. I don't consider your opinion acceptable.

Why not? I won't try and get you to change it, but I'm curious.
Why don't you agree with my opinion?

Because I've *HAD* sex so I know you don't know what you're talking
about.

I know people who have "*HAD* sex" that do not perform any
of the behaviors I'm referring to. Are you trying to say I MUST
do these things? If so, then aren't you forcing YOUR morals
or whatever on me? What REQUIRES me to have this sex?

And maybe you should T-E-L-L me what the heck I'm talking
about.

Having sex with every "hot girl" you see is not
"moderated" in my view.

Your judging others is not acceptable in my view.

Does that mean you do it?

Do what? Have a lot of sex? Sure.

Not just "have a lot of sex", but have a lot of sex outside
marriage, homosexual sex, like to strut around in skimpy
outfits being all promiscuous, etc?

Marriage provides a moderation. It is
a commitment, between one man, and one woman, to each other,
it curbs the spread of disease

Monogamy curbs the spread of disease, whether married or not. Married
promiscuity doesn't.

What's _bad_ about marriage, then?

Nothing. What's bad is a kid who's still soaking wet behind the ears
telling people older than his grandparents that sex outside marriage
is bad. If I spotted you 10 clues you'd still have to find a few more
to be clueless.

Then you rather consider trying to find something objectionable
about me instead of the argument, since you cannot refute the
argument.

and if it's good, helps provide a
good environment for raising children

A stable family environment provides a good environment for raising
children. A piece of paper and a few words doesn't.

True marriage isn't just a "piece of paper".

You said it's the piece of paper that makes the difference. You're
wrong. Accept it.

I did not say that. I said "marriage", and to me marriage is not just
a piece of paper. It involves a special sort of relationship between a
man and a woman.

I guess I have a
bit different definition of "marriage" than you do, one that
involves a much larger sence

I have no idea what a "sence" is, but anything else can be had without
marriage. Only the paper can't.

Uh, I seem to have stopped writing there. I think I was going to say
it involves a much deeper relationship than just a silly piece of
paper.
True marriage means the people are intimately committed to each
other, and love each other very deeply, and have taken a vow to
be this way as long as they live

(that's the "marriage" part. But the
rest is needed for it to be "real", in my view.). And love is not the
same as sex. Love goes beyond someone's "hot body". Heck, they
could have a not-so-hot body and yet the love could be very deep.

-- which is the purpose of sex to produce

In your opinion.

Even with your pure-evolution view

It's not a "pre-evolution" view any more than it's a "sun appears to
rise in the east" view. Evolution happens. If you have a problem
with that, it's your lack of intelligence that's the problem.

"Pre-evolution"? I said "pure-evolution". I did not say that evolution
did not happen, I simply was saying it as in "purely naturalistic
evolution with no God". Maybe "atheistic" would have been better.
"Even with your purely athetistic view" would probably be a better
phrasing.

that's why it evolved.

What's why what evolved? (If you know as little about evolution as
you know about real life, this won't even come up to the level of
slightly amusing.)

Sex evolved to produce offspring. Well, actually that's not strictly
correct, since there are organisms that reproduce without sex
(bacteria, for example). It does carry an evolutionary advantage
though since it allows for a descendant to carry traits from two
individuals instead of one, allowing for more combinations of
favorable traits. It is for reproductive purposes.

Poorly-raised children are NOT a good thing. Children are
the future of the world. If we want the future to be good, the
children should be good.

MANY poorly-raised children were raised by married parents, so maybe
we should outlaw marriage?

No, it just means they aren't good parents.

It means that marriage has nothing to do with whether parents will be
good parents. It means another of your uneducated assertions is
nonsense.

And you think that your "education" (which costs money, by the way.
I'm poor. Oh, and don't say you need to be "born rich" to be rich,
that's
just an ego booster and shows more of the low morals of atheists.)
makes your view better? How do you know that it is not, in fact, a
worse view?

I did not say bad
marriages were _the_ reason for poorly-raised children,
I said they were _a_ reason.

You intimated that marriage is necessary to raise children well.
Marriage has nothing to do with whether people will raise their
children well. The same couple that will raise their children well as
a married couple will raise their children well as an unmarried
couple. The license doesn't make any difference.

See the definition of marriage I've given above. A true marriage
is more than just pieces of paper.

Your parents were most likely married and look at the impertinent jerk
THEY raised.

And "impertinent jerks" (a colorful term for people you disagree with)
have come out of non-married "couples" too.

To me, marriage is a good moderation system for sex.

You're assuming that, and you're assuming that sex needs to be
moderated. You haven't shown the slightest shred of actual evidence
that either one is true, so we have to assume that both are just your
opinion.

So then you deny that unmoderated sex can lead to more disease
than controlled sex?

Of course. Having monogamous sex 10 times a day, every day, doesn't
cause disease. Microorganisms cause disease. If you have sex with
someone who's disease-free, sex isn't going to create viruses. You
have some strange, pre-civilization, ideas.

But the very fact that you have committed it to monogamy (one partner
only) is a form of moderation. Unmoderated sex would be polygamy.

That it can influence someone's perceptions of people?

How do you know that your parents don't have sex every morning and
every night? And 3 times on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. How do
you know that they aren't both having extramarital affairs? Do you
think they'd tell you if they were?

Because I know them well enough. And you probably won't want to
believe it.

And you have also provided no proof that UNmoderated sex is
better, so I guess I'll have to take that as just your opinion too.

I didn't say it was better, I said it was none of your business what
two consenting adults do with each other in private. You know
nothing about sex and, evidently, not much more about English.

I do know about English, I can understand your arguments, it's just
that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM. Different thing. It means I understand
them and I percieve them as WRONG.

I would like to know how the allowance of "loose" sex is superior
to "moderated" sex. Personally, I don't see a big problem with
moderating my sex

Most virgins don't.

So? That doesn't mean my opinion is going to change.

It means your "opinion" is worthless. It's not an opinion, it's a
guess, with nothing to base it on. An opinion doesn't have grounds
for certainty, you don't even have coffee grounds.

And your "opinion" is just as worthless as it too is based on
personal "guesses" as you call them.

(when I'm old enough to actually have sex, that
is. Of course I can't have _any_ sex now, it wouldn't be legal.).

You're not even 16, and you're trying to teach people old enough to be
your grandparents (maybe even older than your grandparents) about
something you've never experienced? You don't know anything about
sex.

Then you obviously have never heard of "wisdom beyond
one's years".

I've heard of it, long before your parents were born. You, my deluded
little friend, have less wisdom than the keyboard I'm typing this on.
You're lacking in basic common sense.

Tell me where I'm "lacking in basic common sense". You mean because
I do not believe it is acceptable to have sex outside marriage? Fine.
It's my PERSONAL BELIEF, and it does not affect you. I'm going to quit
this argument for that reason. My personal beliefs do not hurt you,
and
your personal beliefs do not hurt me. If they help or hurt anyone it
is
ourselves and only ourselves (and/or whoever any sex is done with.).

Thanks to our little discussion I've gained quite a bit of insight
into these
atheists -- they seem to like to play rough, hardball with the people
they
disagree with. Some religious fundamentalists do so too. I guess BOTH
sides are wrong....