Pre-marital sex

However, he has presented a series of unfounded assertions, straw man arguments, religious arguments, and what I think is a red herring. He has failed to even address my own arguments. I would like to reiterate something my opponent missed in my last argument. Consider the following scenario: A pair of virgins are in a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship, but are not married. With what in that does my opponent find fault? RESPONSES Family: While he presented this point under "why people get married", he presented arguments for sex after marriage--that children do better with married couples. Not only has my opponent failed to provide the research he claims exists, but he has also failed to give any reason why children have anything to do with pre-marital sex. Marriage does not mean children, and children before marriage does not mean single parent. As I pointed out in my last argument, couples can remain together without getting married. Love: My opponent bases his assertion partly on Biblical and church teachings, both of which are irrelevant. He has not provided sources, either. Neither does his assertion really mean anything. None of his comments about sex and love exclude pre-marital sex. Sex does not suddenly contain love once a couple is legally bound. Furthermore my opponent admits masturbation isn't good enough--if you love someone, wouldn't you want them to be fulfilled sexually beyond simple masturbation? Why would you deprive someone you love? "A maximum sexual relationship exists where mutual communication, understanding, affection, and trust have formed, and two people have lastingly committed themselves to each other in a permanent relationship. The more of these qualities that are present, the deeper the intimacy and the more meaningful the relationship. It becomes more valuable as time passes because it is one of a kind-- unique. " My opponent has provided no reasoning for why this cannot exist before marriage. "To spread the intimacy around through a variety of sexual liaisons destroys the accumulated value of the previous relationship(s) and dilutes and scatters (in little doses to a number of people) what one has to give. " My opponent again provides no reasoning for his assertion. I have already asked in my last argument what reasoning exists for this belief, I can only assume none exists. Intimacy and sex are not finite resources. "A real challenge faces young people today. Given the choice between hamburger at five o'clock or filet mignon at seven-thirty, are there any good reasons to forego the hamburger and wait for the filet? .. .Too many hamburgers ruin one's taste and appreciation for filet and tend to turn filet into hamburger as well! " If we are going to use food metaphors, I'd like to point out that one has to taste a lot of wine to develop a taste for it. Similarly, you cannot have a good taste for or a good appreciation of something which you have never experienced. Biological: Ignoring for a moment that my opponent continues to argue against straw men, the need for human interaction is biological (coming, as it does, from the brain) and there are in fact health problems which come from abstinence. This includes higher death rates among men, increased aggression and cruelty generally, and dyspareunia in women. Dyspareunia--that's painful sexual intercourse. Meaning, a woman who stays a virgin will find sexual intercourse generally more painful. This is distinct from simple "first-time" pain. The vaginal opening is narrowed and it is a medical condition. [1] [2] Nature: "First, God has built into the natural world a mechanism for sexual release: nocturnal emissions, or orgasmic release during dreams. " I reject my opponent's statement about what his god has done, they are unfounded and cannot be proven. My opponent below admits that masturbation is not as good as real sex. "Second, nature rejects human promiscuity, as the growing problem of sexually- transmitted diseases makes abundantly clear. " This is ludicrous. First my opponent states his god is responsible, then he states it was nature. But nature is not an entity, either, it does not create anything. Sexually transmitted diseases are simply organisms which are existing just as anyone else, by getting energy and reproducing. They have evolved to do so by the best means, from traveling on snot particles to traveling on sperm particles. Projecting human moral judgments on micro-organisms makes as much sense as declaring what the trees think of our sexual activity. Nevermind that Statistical: Another straw man argument. Proof of love: Another straw man argument, but one with some merit. As I have pointed out above, sex has been proven to confer health benefits and relationship benefits, and it is superior to masturbation as my opponent admitted. Lack of sex also causes serious health problems. Why would you hurt someone you love and deny them health benefits and happiness? Finally, as mentioned before, if a couple trusts and loves each other enough for marriage, sex is not problematic. My opponent provided no reasoning for why sex with someone you love would make sex reflexive. Quote: Any person who insists on making sex the ultimate proof of a genuine relationship isn't saying "I love you," but rather "I love it. " Marriage is consummated by sex, is it not? Is that not a declaration of love and intimacy? Partners should not demand or insist on sex from their partners, I agree. But my opponent has no problem with this occurring once a legal document has been signed. In fact, marriage night consists of intense pressure to have sex, from the new spouse and the entire family. "Ultimately he or she enters marriage with something of a distortion as to what real intimacy means, to say nothing of having to deal with the memories of previous loves. " My opponent provides no reasoning. And someone who has practiced abstinence enters marriage with NO idea what intimacy is, let alone real intimacy. "The broader perspective sees sex as an integral and important part of a meaningful relationship but not the totality of it. " I agree completely. My opponent, however, for some reason believes that sex as an integral but not total part of a relationship can only exist once marriage has occurred. He has in this statement admitted that sex is part of but not all of a relationship yet has provided no reason for why this cannot occur outside of marriage. Furthermore, why should pre-marital relationships be denied the ability to be a real relationship by being denied sex? How can you decide on whether you want a lifelong, legal relationship with a person if you have not yet experienced a full, sexual one? Marriage is a legal contract that creates kinship, or family bonds. [3] Binding together families has little to do with love, and even the concept of marital love is not universal. Many of my opponent's arguments simply do not apply to much of the world. CONCLUSION My opponent presupposes that pre-marital sex is inherently different. Only legal and familial differences exist. I would like to reiterate my arguments in the last round, which are: 1. Sex provides health benefits. 2. Sex strengthens current relationships. 3. Sex improves sex in future relationships. 4. Cluelessness is risky and can weaken relationships. 5. A focus on abstinence encourages lying and marriage for sex. My opponent has not addressed any of these points, and continues to act as if pre-marital sex equals promiscuity. Sources: 1. . http://www.forbes.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...