sex before marriage

[Paulclem]

the force of every mind is to quit the task.
it is obvious an adult should not have sex wit a minor I do not need a law to tell me it but if some feel they have to be told then what else do they need to be told or not told? spoon feeding is reliance the temptation to go beyond the law is a flavour many savour.
the age of consent allows for sex to go ahead and it tells a sixteen year old that they can. a sixteen year old is still a child.
that is the double meaning of this consent law.
how do you by stigma come with social aspects??

We need the law to protect vulnerable young people from those who have no respect for the law, what anyone says or any social restraint. To think being told will do is naive.

Your point about the age of consent being a sudden permission to have sex - I just don't believe that youngsters work that way - marking off the days to when they can rush out one morning and have sex. I think protection is more important.

By stigma coming from social aspects I mean it is culturally driven through local expectations, or religion. The law is free from prejudice in this and supersedes culture. What might be a practice in Hindu culture - marrying children at 12 - becomes illegal.

[mal4mac]

By stigma coming from social aspects I mean it is culturally driven through local expectations, or religion. The law is free from prejudice in this and supersedes culture. What might be a practice in Hindu culture - marrying children at 12 - becomes illegal.

A quick Google search provides evidence of this law being flouted:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...29#post1262629

Along with recent reports of extremists taking over schools, this is more support for reducing the power of religion in society.

To make things better, you could insist that a civil marriage must take place - you could still have a religious ceremony, but the civil marriage would be the only one with legal validity.

[cacian]

We need the law to protect vulnerable young people from those who have no respect for the law, what anyone says or any social restraint. To think being told will do is naive.

I agree but I do not think the law is the way forward the ultimate task of law is imposition control and ultimately money.

Your point about the age of consent being a sudden permission to have sex - I just don't believe that youngsters work that way - marking off the days to when they can rush out one morning and have sex. I think protection is more important.

of course it does. it says so in the word 'consent'. a sixteen year old are told by the law that they are to consent and so they think it is Ok to have sex.
they are still at school learning and they are also consented for sex. there is something seriously wrong with this law.

By stigma coming from social aspects I mean it is culturally driven through local expectations, or religion. The law is free from prejudice in this and supersedes culture. What might be a practice in Hindu culture - marrying children at 12 - becomes illegal.

hindu culture or not the reason why it gest away with it it is because the rest of the world does not give a dam.
there should be international laws in place to protect children around the world. that is the point.
it is not just about my society and the rest can do one. it is about everyone one under one roof as far as children are concerned.

[Paulclem]

A quick Google search provides evidence of this law being flouted:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...29#post1262629

Along with recent reports of extremists taking over schools, this is more support for reducing the power of religion in society.

To make things better, you could insist that a civil marriage must take place - you could still have a religious ceremony, but the civil marriage would be the only one with legal validity.

The purpose of the law is to protect the vulnerable and prosecute those who would exploit youngsters. it's not really about a prohibition. It's not perfect - what law is/

What has the school thing got to do with this? Religious power is subservient rightly to the law. Religious thought is useful in being another commentator on society - for example the imposition of benefit laws which have made the poor poorer.

People should get married in the way they want, so long as the law is being followed.

I agree but I do not think the law is the way forward the ultimate task of law is imposition control and ultimately money.

Not in this case. Money is one of the levers which could be used to exploit young and vulnerable.

a sixteen year old are told by the law that they are to consent

No they're not told to consent.

there should be international laws in place

You are being inconsistent. You don't like a law that is in place in the UK, but you want to impose an impossible law.

[mal4mac]

What has the school thing got to do with this? Religious power is subservient rightly to the law...

Religious organisations and schools *should be* subservient to the law, but the Tories have shown themselves inadequate in applying the law. In the case of schools, they have let headmasters & governors run schools and thereby have insufficient controls in place to make sure they are not taken over by extremist headmasters and governors. In the case of marriage they have never had sufficient control, hence the repeating scandals of forced & under-aged marriage. This is all down to religion - as Hitchens said, "it poisons everything."

It is up to our elected representatives to reduce the conditions in which extremists can operate, and actually make sure that justice works in schools and marriage halls. A start would be to reduce religion's controlling influence on these institutions.

It's not perfect - what law is

It's not just "not perfect" it's "very bad" on this issue. Just read a few of the newspaper reports!

[Paulclem]

Religious organisations and schools *should be* subservient to the law, but the Tories have shown themselves inadequate in applying the law. In the case of schools, they have let headmasters & governors run schools and thereby have insufficient controls in place to make sure they are not taken over by extremist headmasters and governors. In the case of marriage they have never had sufficient control, hence the repeating scandals of forced & under-aged marriage. This is all down to religion - as Hitchens said, "it poisons everything."

It is up to our elected representatives to reduce the conditions in which extremists can operate, and actually make sure that justice works in schools and marriage halls. A start would be to reduce religion's controlling influence on these institutions.



It's not just "not perfect" it's "very bad" on this issue. Just read a few of the newspaper reports!

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Birmingham OFSTED results. I think the question of the age of consent is more complex in itself. I don't think the law is intended as a prohibition to teenagers having sex. I think it's primary aim is the protection of youngsters from exploitative individuals including those who would impose their own cultural/ religious values in this country. The age of consent isn't intended to stop young ones themselves having sex. How could it? That is a social matter for education, parenting etc

Religion is subservient to the law. The implication of it is another matter. Child brides taken from the UK is a scandal that should be better policed.

I don't need to read any newspaper reports to know that we have the highest numbers of teen pregnancies is Europe, but, again, that's down to poor sex education policy, parenting etc etc

[DocHeart]

I agree with cacian, 16 is definitely too young. I started having sex at 16 and never was able to stop. Young boys and girls, if you're reading this, please take your uncle DocHeart's advice: stay off this stuff, it's extremely addictive.

[cacian]

Not in this case. Money is one of the levers which could be used to exploit young and vulnerable.

well yes it is. if someone has sex with a minor under sixteen, which happens all the time, then one has broken the law, in this case the age of consent law. they go to court and then pay the consequences and one of them is a fine they would have to pay.

laws are always broken the more of it and the more breakage and then the more fines/money.
that is the ultimate point of a law is to make money because the law knows it will be broken.
that is the flip side of the law.

a sixteen year old are told by the law that they are to consent

No they're not told to consent.

no?? the clue is in the title the age of consent . this suggest to me that sex is allowed to go on.
it is like deploying sweet shots around the city. people will go them.
the age of consent is a set up. it says go and have sex at sixteen.

there should be international laws in place

You are being inconsistent. You don't like a law that is in place in the UK, but you want to impose an impossible law.

I am not being inconsistent I am being fair. instead of deploying age consents randomly instructing sex at sixteen or thirteen deploy laws that prohibit children being used for sex at a very early age.

[Paulclem]

well yes it is. if someone has sex with a minor under sixteen, which happens all the time, then one has broken the law, in this case the age of consent law. they go to court and then pay the consequences and one of them is a fine they would have to pay.

laws are always broken the more of it and the more breakage and then the more fines/money.
that is the ultimate point of a law is to make money because the law knows it will be broken.
that is the flip side of the law.




no?? the clue is in the title the age of consent . this suggest to me that sex is allowed to go on.
it is like deploying sweet shots around the city. people will go them.
the age of consent is a set up. it says go and have sex at sixteen.


I am not being inconsistent I am being fair. instead of deploying age consents randomly instructing sex at sixteen or thirteen deploy laws that prohibit children being used for sex at a very early age.

The age of consent laws are not about fines and making money. Sex with a minor is likely to result in a prison sentence. It's not the same as driving offenses.

It's true - the clue is in the term age of consent. This refers not to the permission to say yes when a teen is 16, but to the fact that legally a child under 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult even if they say yes. What this means in effect is that the whole responsibility remains with the adult, making them culpable to a charge of sex with a minor or statutory rape.

As for consistency - on one hand you can't disagree with a law and then suggest it should be applied internationally. I might even agree with you on that except that there are problems with who would make and enforce it. There are different versions of the law in different countries and so the first problem would be to agree on an age.

[hannah_arendt]

I agree with cacian, 16 is definitely too young. I started having sex at 16 and never was able to stop. Young boys and girls, if you're reading this, please take your uncle DocHeart's advice: stay off this stuff, it's extremely addictive.

I agree with you. However, there are young people starting at the age of 13. It can be addictive but also have very bad influence on psyche.

[togre]

I am incredibly hesitant to jump into this conversation for a number of reasons, but I'll try to add some insight.

The Christian Bible doesn't treat sexual intimacy merely with a list of don'ts (No ding-ding without a wedding ring). Rather it starts with at an even more basic place--What is sex?

Seriously, what is sex? And no, I'm not talking about a biological description of that act. What does it mean? What does it express? What does it cause? Can we all agree it is a more meaningful act than shaking hands or sleeping? Can we agree that it can be a powerful bond in a relationship or can cause feelings of betrayal or guilt or shame?

The Bible first speaks of sexual intimacy in Genesis 2:24,25 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Well, sin happens. So much sin is selfish. I don't want to use God's blessings the way he designed them. Food is yummy, I think. Forget moderation--I'm headed to the buffet. And so, I'm fat. It leads to regrets, ailments and so on. No surprise there. Using God's blessings in a selfish manner often seems enjoyable, but so often causes negative things.


Apply this to the gift of sex. What God intends as a blessing, sinful humans (myself included) want without the guidelines. So the whole gambit of sexual sins--ranging from lustful thoughts in the heart to outwards acts--are really different attempts to use a blessing in a way it was not intended by God. Is it surprising that this leads to emotional turmoil, abuse, etc....?

[mal4mac]

Can we agree that it [sex] can be a powerful bond in a relationship or can cause feelings of betrayal or guilt or shame?

Why do Christians never talk about sex without linking it to sin, betrayal, guilt and shame. It can involve these things, but surely not all the time! Any human activity can lead to these negative feelings, if you burn the dinner you might feel shame. But when you bring up cooking, the first feeling that come to mind inspires isn't shame! So why is that when sex comes up that "sin" and "shame" springs to mind? It's the pernicious effect of Christianity, and especially "celibate but not yet" St Augustine. As Hitchens says, "Religions poisons everything", and Christianity especially poisons sexual relationships.

It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Why listen to this old tyrant? Why not listen to the elders of Hawaiian society instead?

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/ar...ct-hawaii.html

ranging from lustful thoughts in the heart to outwards acts--are really different attempts to use a blessing in a way it was not intended by God. Is it surprising that this leads to emotional turmoil, abuse, etc....?

You see a beautiful woman in a summer dress, have a lustful thought, then say it's a shame, sinful, against God, etc, then indeed you will have emotional turmoil! If you have a natural feeling and declare that feeling to be awful you are heading for a great deal of anguish. Me, I just enjoy the feeling. (With some regret that she's quickly out of view! And no I don't stare... you can have the feeling, how can you stop it, but you can choose not to act on it in such a way as to upset anyone else in any way... that's just being civilised...)

[Paulclem]

I am incredibly hesitant to jump into this conversation for a number of reasons, but I'll try to add some insight.

The Christian Bible doesn't treat sexual intimacy merely with a list of don'ts (No ding-ding without a wedding ring). Rather it starts with at an even more basic place--What is sex?

Seriously, what is sex? And no, I'm not talking about a biological description of that act. What does it mean? What does it express? What does it cause? Can we all agree it is a more meaningful act than shaking hands or sleeping? Can we agree that it can be a powerful bond in a relationship or can cause feelings of betrayal or guilt or shame?

The Bible first speaks of sexual intimacy in Genesis 2:24,25 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Well, sin happens. So much sin is selfish. I don't want to use God's blessings the way he designed them. Food is yummy, I think. Forget moderation--I'm headed to the buffet. And so, I'm fat. It leads to regrets, ailments and so on. No surprise there. Using God's blessings in a selfish manner often seems enjoyable, but so often causes negative things.


Apply this to the gift of sex. What God intends as a blessing, sinful humans (myself included) want without the guidelines. So the whole gambit of sexual sins--ranging from lustful thoughts in the heart to outwards acts--are really different attempts to use a blessing in a way it was not intended by God. Is it surprising that this leads to emotional turmoil, abuse, etc....?

Your views aren't a problem to a christian, but society is made up of more than Christians and we need a law that applies to all. What you're talking about is down to parents, church leaders etc, but has little application in a wider sense. That's one of the West's advantages - there are laws that can fairly be applied to preserve the rights of anyone, whatever their religion or lack of.

[YesNo]

Sex is not dirty or wrong. It is intended by God to be a blessing and a joy. Yet, as he is the one who gives the gift, he is the one who tells us how it is to be used--Within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. This is his plan and will for this blessing. As the two are joined in this union, they join together in physical intimacy as well.

Well, sin happens. So much sin is selfish. I don't want to use God's blessings the way he designed them. Food is yummy, I think. Forget moderation--I'm headed to the buffet. And so, I'm fat. It leads to regrets, ailments and so on. No surprise there. Using God's blessings in a selfish manner often seems enjoyable, but so often causes negative things.

Based on the Young and Alexander summary, The Chemistry Between Us (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chemistry-.../dp/B00D9TCPDO) we have bodies that encourage pair-bondings after repeated sexual activity. Pair-bonding is not a cultural phenomenon. It is biological. Even species such as prairie voles have this. What culture adds on to this are various institutions of marriage and expectations of monogamy such as the one you have presented, togre.

Since pair-bonding is not biologically deterministic, there are also mechanisms for divorce. Governments provide protections when those pairs break up. Because religions provide community assistance and traditional wisdom for people going through marriage and divorce, I don't see anything wrong with them either.

[Paulclem]

Based on Young and Alexander summary, The Chemistry Between Us (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chemistry-.../dp/B00D9TCPDO) we have bodies that encourage pair-bondings after repeated sexual activity. Pair-bonding is not a cultural phenomenon. It is biological. Even species such as prairie voles have this. What culture adds on to this are various institutions of marriage and expectations of monogamy such as the one you have presented, togre.

Since pair-bonding is not biologically deterministic, there are also mechanisms for divorce. Governments provide protections when those pairs break up. Because religions provide community assistance and traditional wisdom for people going through marriage and divorce, I don't see anything wrong with them either.

Haha
Whatever would we do without science to prove it. It does many things well but not the bleedin obvious.