Pre-Marital Sex

My opponent has a "plethora" of fallacies, and I will show these fallacies in my following defense and rebuttal My opponent starts his critique by stating, "Two people may choose to never get married and yet remain completely monogamous for the rest of their lives. " My opponent misses the point completely, as he uses this comment while attacking this statement "Having sex with only your spouse is healthier than having sex with multiple partners. " My opponent says they could stay "completely monogamous," but my contention states having "multiple partners" this attack on my contention is invalid and can't be applied because you can not be monogamous and have multiple partners at the same time. Next my opponent attacks the statement, "There are extremely lower chances of getting a STD if a person waits to have sex until they are married than if they don't. " He states, "There are also extremely low chances of getting into a car accident if you never drive a car. Look, some human activities involve certain amounts of risk. However, the risks associated with sex can be mitigated through contraception and other methods. Only the deeply irrational would choose to almost never have sex or drive cars because there are risks associated with those activities. " "Look", sex does not have to be a risky activity. By waiting to have sex until after you are married, you minimize risks, and you can completely avoid risks if your spouse is also a virgin. Additionally, contraception (i. e. , condoms) fail 31% of the time; this is an extremely "risky" high percentage, given the fact that AIDS CAN KILL YOU! !! Also, just like condoms, seat belts are there to help, but these will not always keep you safe. Also recent studies have proven the best prevention of diseases and unwanted pregnancies is abstinence! Not only is this proven, it is also common sense. Only the "deeply irrational" can not recognize this fact. My opponent does not attack my statement saying "If a husband and wife both wait to have sex until they are married STD are impossible to get. " I take this as my opponent conceding to this statement. . http://www.prolife.com... . http://womenshealth.about.com... . http://www.guttmacher.org... "On top of this, two people can choose to be in a deeply committed and loving relationship without ever wanting to get married. " If they are that deeply in love why would they not want to get married, I am sure that some people do this but it is very unlikely that if two people are that deeply in love that they would not want to get married. My opponent does not attack the rest of contention so once again I assume that he concedes to these statements. "This contention is based upon a plethora of irrational assumptions. People can use contraception to avoid getting pregnant. Moreover, women can still choose to get an abortion if they do accidentally get pregnant. On top of this, unmarried couples are not guaranteed to separate when they end up creating a child. " as mentioned before contraception's fail to work and abortions can kill women. Also the rate of separations in unmarried couples is extremely higher than in married couples. My fifth contention does not have any mistakes in reasoning, just as my forth did not. My rebuttal. "The negative consequences of sex, many of which my opponent has mentioned, can all be mitigated through a variety of different means, including contraception. " they can not all be mitigated, except through abstinence once again contraception's fail. "Avoiding sex doesn't have anything to do with the alleviation of suffering or the maximization of happiness of conscious creatures. " Of course it does; all "conscious creatures" have morals, some more than others. Peace of mind, development of self control, and good health can maximize happiness by avoiding sex until marriage. One can alleviate suffering by not catching a STD that they got from having premarital sex. Morals are what a person believes to be right or wrong. "Consequently, it is simply irrational to think that abstinence is noble in any way. " if something is noble, it is putting something above your own sexual, selfish desires or putting someone else first above yourself so waiting ( even though you may not want to ) is noble in itself. Explain to me how sex is not a moral activity because if this were true, there would be no laws against prohibiting any sexual act (i. e. rape, sodomy, prostitution, pedophilia, etc. ) Even the law recognizes the moral issues surrounding sex Morals are what a person believes to be right or wrong. Define Virtuous: pure: in a state of sexual virginity; "pure and vestal modesty"; The absurd implications of my opponent's proposal simply make this resolution untenable. Two people may choose to be in a loving committed relationship and may not want to get married. Or they may be unable to get married if they're members of the same sex. [2] Being abstinent all the way until the arbitrary deadline of marriage is not normal in humans; it's not praiseworthy, and it's not morally virtuous. My opponent can not argue these points because they are simply opinions; he can not define what is normal. Not having premarital Sex is obviously virtuous