I think that sex should be something special between a couple, although I am aware, this is not the normal value of today's society. People might even call me 'old-fashioned' in fact I am far from it and if I am that, what makes 'modern' beliefs and values Predominantly better?

It's not that easy to explain, but when you're wit someone you love, you feel safer naturally because you can trust them. Sorry if that's a bit vague.

True. I accept your reasoning and premises - but whether indirectly a result of his bad karma accumulated by raping people, it does not mean you should take pleasure out of someone's misfortune. Just because he did something wrong, in time he will pay for it but it is no-one's business to encourage misfortune upon him.

I agree. But you don't need God to tell you that for it to be true.....

To take an objective perspective, you shouldn't really vent your own experiences or project them onto others.

Sex has nothing to do with how well things are going to flow...

I beg to differ, research shows the hormones stimulated by intercourse are beneficial to the mind and relationship; they sometimes call it the 'spark'.

Secondly, I am not saying I have anything against people who do opt for sex beforehand. That is their choice and theirs alone.

However an interesting question and not non-germane would be is sex just overrated?

Wow. I can't believe you actually just said that.

Saddest thing is, you're probably right.

Details, details, details... I simply was stating an opinion as I believe I like all others have freedom of expression?! If you read it again, you would see that everyone makes choices on their basis and therefore by simple logic, they have a reason that is plausible in their mind - e.g. if someone believed they should have sex before marriage, so be it. If not, they will both have reasons - wanting to for instance is just one of many. Not the reason as not everybody holds the same values and cares so much about having birth control/ protection during intercourse.

I'm sorry to hear that. But you are only quoting a unique/ unfortunate case to you.

It is probably safer though to marry someone after you know them enough. After marriage is important for family and getting to know your partner more - but think about this: if you don't even know everything about yourself, or what you're capable of despite having been with yourself since the second you were born, what chance do you have if you get married/ have intercourse when you don't know that much about your partner?

It's really a question of whether you can trust someone enough, then either way sex after/ before marriage is wouldn't even be important.

At least the old songs had some meaningful message to convey, or a simple story.

I agree this is the case, but as I was brought up with classical music mainly, I have to say that my ears don't agree with the harsh qualities of rap 'music'.

If you are a sinner, then you aren't a Christian by your own logic

True, but then you would be excluding practically everybody from being a declared 'Christian'.

Why don't you take into account all of the sins they avoid instead of focusing on the sin they do not avoid?

Well, the only problem I see with this is you talk of Gays much too disparately and possibly have generalised their behaviour?

The point is, we still see gays as a 'specialised group' as with Srom's 'special case' for the gays so - called specific sin.

A sin is a sin, but love is love. It can't be helped who you are attracted to.

I'd say Gays can be whatever they want.

And.........................it's a free country, so they are allowed to buy alcohol and yes, they can wear skirts (freedom of expression), along with all other men on the planet.

They say the brain is the most complex and amazing biological matter, well, when it comes to 'music' nowadays..

Obviously not.

Under that logic, you are also condemning everyone who carries a genetic disease

Hmm..I don't think so- a bit slanted maybe.

Animedude69 was clearly just saying that it wouldn't be a good idea if they were not sterile for these many prudent reasons:

a) If one parent carries a genetic disease, there is a 50% chance that the first child will inherit it, although it becomes less towards the latter.

b) It would be their choice, but it can/ does cause suffering in some cases. Just a heads up.

c) I know we were talking about Incest prior to this moment, but it is a relevant point to make. There are some serious facts; besides the shame some people may wrongly associate/ identify 'incest' with vulgar things of which I do not hold, genetic disease is just one reason which is more prevalent with incest, sorry, well back to the statement made, he did not condemn incest, neither do I recall condemning everyone who carries a genetic disease. Quite impossible as most people are unaware/ unaffected by being the carriers who will pass it on.

d) Also, you haven't stated your own opinion yet. Do you think incest justified/ doesn't need to be justified/ not justified?

e) Technically you could be condemning both ( a person with genetic disease involved in incest) but that isn't the main point.

The law doesn't condemn incest, nor the Bible and neither do I.

I don't think it should be an 'eye for an eye', courts I don't care for much - they could be bribed, but I do believe that a person should still have their rights/ dignity.

And now I read that this person wasn't even convicted, he was only being held on remand! Please get facts right first. what I have wrote since may have been slightly judgmental now.

I agree, what is the rush to have sex beforehand?

If you're ready to be married one can logically assume that they love eachother and that they wouldn't risk it. However, it is their choice.

That is not the reason for many people not caring about having a one night stand - and religious doesn't exactly mean you hold that value either.

If you had to tiptoe around, instead of saying what you really want to express - it wouldn't be freedom of speech would it?

It might be a completely justified argument in calling someone truthfully a liar, but....it doesn't mean you have the right to do so.

Plus....why stoop so low? I'd just ignore them! ;)

That is true, but who said this was anything to do with God?

Why does it have to revolve around God?

Isn't it just asking you whether you have confidence in your opinions at all?

Most of the time, I have to admit- we all like to think we're right, right?

But, I wouldn't disagree that I have been wrong more than once..

We're all equal, and just because the police's can sometimes involve shooting civilians it doesn't mean the damage caused is any less than if it were the other way round.

Therefore, I conclude that it would not be fair to give anyone more leeway when it comes to such a serious crime (dependent on circumstance as always.)

The Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax

If everyone were to have a little sense and weren't short - sighted in this 'I want it now! Society', then the world wouldn't fall for 'fad diets'.

People fervently searching ingredient labels for the dreaded HFCS, but are entirely okay with a label that lists its first or second ingredient as sugar as long as its “natural” sugar… meanwhile obesity/heart disease/diabetes continues. Corporations 1 : Dimwitted population 0

Well yes, sugar derived from fruit may be lower in calories but what they don't tell you is that eating to much sugar causes a crash in your blood - sugar levels consequently and that fructose is more easily stored as fat than regular sugar. Poison is 'naturally occurring' as we see in limitless examples, but can you blame the food industry? If people are gullible enough to believe the values of their claims??!

Also, it's not a crime to digress.

I would have thought the point was fairly clear, perhaps I was wrong....

Oh well.