Ugh. For some reason, I don't feel like writing, or doing anything today. I'm even posting this early to get some sleep. So, readers, consider this question:
Does forbidding sex before marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage?
If you can only have sex with someone after you marry them, is that equating marriage to sex? Will more people get married for the purpose of sex instead of their love for each other?
Or is sex the only point of marriage? Should the fact that the couple has sex with no one else define the relationship?
Is it only the happy floaty idealists who think love should be a major component of a romantic relationship? Do you want to argue what reality is and is not? (Speaking of that, I'll discuss argumentative techniques next week.)
Please discuss. Pleeeeease.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Argumentative techniques, cool. I do hope you'll talk about fallacies as well. Reductio ad Hitlerum is illogical, but a lot of fun to use against someone.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer is different for each couple that wants to get married (or doesn't). What are the reasons for marriage? You're sure that you'll never want to leave your partner; you're in love and aren't really thinking decades ahead; you want the tax benefits; your partner needs citizenship; you're drunk and were passing by City Hall.
As far as I know, most people see marriage as something you commit to with someone you love, and love is not just about your partner's personality, their aptitude at sex also factors in.
And all of this just applies to people who believe in marriage. Isn't it largely a religious institution? So partners of two different religions, or none at all, might disagree. Since state governments issue marriage licenses, does a license for two atheists even mean the same thing as a license for two Catholics?
Why do you ask?
Also: is there a way to make Blogger comments easier to edit? I can't select all, cut, copy, or paste in this textarea.
Well, I was thinking more about the motion or idea than actual couples. Some people take it as a standard that sex before marriage is bad, and people who do that will either get an STD and die or go to hell.
ReplyDeleteIf it's supposed to be beneficial or moral on a surface level, does it fail later on because it promotes the idea of tying marriage to sex? I can see the purpose of this idea- keeping people from having sex if they don't actually love each other. However, the reverse is also going to be true, where people marry each other just so they can have sex. Check Romeo and Juliet.
It does mean tons of different things on individual levels- you're right. But how effective would it be to promote this idea and insist that others believe in it? Would it be more effective to promote the opposite? Argh.
Sorry about the comments. The 'comments' editing section in Blogspot won't let me change any of that.