Wait for sex with the one you love before marriage--NON BIBLICAL APPROACH Pro

Previously Pro made an anecdotal argument substituting falsely substituting incest relationships for other genuinely loving relationships between two prior to marriage. Pro has now defended this prior area with another logical fallacy the slippery slope. Pro- "agreed, premarital sex is not akin to incest, the incest relationship analogy was to show that they too can be in love, to most, it is sickening, but if we are to say that they cannot truly love, that would be an opinion since we cannot read people's hearts, I only mentioned the leeway aspect because if we allow one group to do something, then people who was formally looked down upon like incest will seek to claim they love each other". And then people may wish to marry animals and then plants and then…… The slippery slope argument is wrong because it can be contrived to seemingly prove any statement. It is never in any way actually bounded to the question at hand. Further along Pro states- "Premarital sex doesn't mean great sex can't exist, but even if it did, I'm saying what happens when after marriage when, a mental life issue causes no sex drive, or health issue that makes it hurts and partner doest want to, or accident happened and sex isn't like it used to or no longer possible, what would do you then? run away? If you can stick it through after such events, surely you can stick it through before marriage without any of those events. Then it becomes less about testing" There is a Straw Man assertion and also a false substitution made by pro here. Pro has asserted that the point of lovemaking outside of a legal marriage contract is to "test" a potential partner's sexual compatibility as a condition of continued long term relationship and possibly marriage. This was never asserted by me. This "testing" that Pro refers to is indicative of casual sex. A person does not compassionately care for their partner if that person would abandon that partner immediately over unsatisfying physical coupling. This debate was to be confined to loving couples before and after marriage. Con has already admitted that marriage does not imply love. All of Cons arguments, however, misdirect us to false anecdotes of couples who are not in love but have sex before marriage. Pro has stated that testing is bad in reference to people seeking compatibility. Pro then goes on to substitute her own testing, the waiting before marriage to have sex kind of testing, as a condition of compatibility. Pro does articulate her argument in round three more clearly. Pro states- "Argument. (When I say sex is worth the wait, I'm implying that the person who chooses to wait, their partner could find greater satisfaction because one waited, not that sex is worth the wait because the sex act itself will be great, but because of how it would make the partner feel by the act of waiting, not how good the actual sex is.)" This is definitely a clearly stated and common sentiment. There is however a flaw in this notion. The explanation will seem course at first and I will get to that later. Pro is artificially applying a scarcity model to an abundant good. It would be more appropriate to wait to say fly to the moon on a private space flight if you were limited by financial resources to take only one flight with one person in your lifetime. This is not the reality of loving relationships. We live in a world of abundance. That abundance promotes more abundance and also some situations of scarcity. It is very important to recognize which areas of our lives are governed by abundance and which areas of our lives are governed by scarcity. Scarcity is a temporal model. Right at this moment there may be 4 apples in a bowl with 5 people who wish to consume those apples. Over time the situation may trend toward abundance or further scarcity. As people behave and enter into agreements with each other as to how more apples may be produced then the existence of apples in future time possibility streams may become more or less abundant. Scarce resources are properly manipulated to produce abundant results. Time and beginning raw materials are finite and scarce. Human spirituality and innovation are limitless. The power of love is limitless. Genuine loving is without limit. If the initial inputs of time and attention are artificially constrained, however, then abundance is not allowed to perpetuate. It is precisely the act of treating abundant processes as scarcity that stifles the abundance. Here Pro has misidentified what is abundant and what is scarce. Pro has argued that time is abundant. To paraphrase pro- "We can always wait to have sex until after marriage and then fix it later if it is not great". That is false. Time is scarce. Pro believes that love is scarce. That is false. Pro believes that it would be special thing to share it with one person only after marriage. All we really have to start with is time. If we live in the moment there is nothing that is not possible to us. A person learns how to love over time and through experience. There is no other way. Love is not magically granted onto us by some divine being if we wait until the very last before sanctioned minute to express our love to our soul mate. Love is available to all of us right now in this very moment and at no other time. Also, you did not lack space to complete your last argument. The limit is 2000 word. It may have been more accurate to say that you did not have time.