The role of sex?

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by ryanjm
A note before I respond:
Guys, just an FYI, but writing essays is a good way to NOT get anyone to read what you have to say about something on a message board. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty busy outside of here and I can only spend so much time reading and responding to messages. Please try and keep it to a few paragraphs and pare down the filler. Thanks.

Sorry, I do try to keep them short, but not everything can be explained in 2 or 3 sentences. I realize we're in an MTV generation that doesn't even remember what MTV is REALLY supposed to be, ha, but I did what I must to try and point out that the topic isn't all religion and morals.

Originally posted by ryanjm
Slave-
To address your points earlier which were interesting but I had admittedly skipped over due to the length of the post:
Skipping to what I believe were your main 2 points
1) Bed-hopping influences later behavior by making it more difficult to stay with one person.
2) You form a more "special" connection with someone that is the only person you've had sex with.

I'd add though, that another main point relating more specifically to the subject is the one about keeping Superman true to his established character. But, just focusing on the "why wait" topic, those are two of the more important ones.

Originally posted by ryanjm
As for point 1, you make the connection between more promiscuity and higher divorce rates. While this may be a factor, it is but one of a huge number. Others include: (1) men and women are less in need of each other for economic survival, and (2) gains made in birth control allow men and women to separate sexual activity from having children.
Also, the divorce rate has actually leveled off in the last few decades, and is not in fact rising much/at all.

Yes, there are many factors contributing to higher divorce rate. Even more than we've listed between the both of us. By the way, if I said rising, my mistake if it has leveled off, but definitely much higher than in the past. Anyway, my point was that it is a strong contributor. At the heart of it, in my mind, in addition to the topic, is a lack of interest in working through even the simplest of relationship problems due to the easy answer of getting a divorce, combined with folks marrying for purely superficial reasons or out of pure loneliness. In other words, not for love.

Originally posted by ryanjm
Another thing is that your point can be argued both ways. You claim that it makes you less likely to have sex with other people if you've only had sex with one, but the other side is that you could wonder about what it is like with other people AFTER you've committed yourself to one person. This curiousity could hurt your partner, while if you had satisfied this curiousity beforehand, you would be even more sure of your decision to stay with one particular person.

Gotta disagree that this can be argued both ways. I do see what your saying, but I don't believe cases like that will arise if you wait until finding someone you LOVE before marrying them. Many people marry when they are unsure, or even knowing it is not really love. Loving someone, in my opinion, includes never wanting to do anything to hurt them, and feeling strongly enough for them that (while lust in general will always be there) your love for them is more powerful than your physical lust for trists with others. Also, don't underestimate the strength it takes to resist temptation over the years. I don't deny it is hard and do not blame people who give in at times (the disappointment comes from their pride in such acts), though in the case of Superman you would expect him to have this strength if other, regular people can have it. Anyway, point being that if you have held out on your search for the right person, your are more mentally and physically prepared to only be with that person. You have more control over yourself and your body. There's a lot of argument that that is not natural, that you should just give in to your body whenever it wants something, and that's the healthy way to live. Not healthy, sorry. If that were true, no one would be practicing safe sex, the overweight crisis would continue to get worse, etc... and so on. To not have any control over your physical urges is to be as a child or as an animal. Not a rational, mature adult. A childlike curiosity should not be stronger than you, and it's pretty sad everytime someone lets it ruin a relationship they care about, but most people aren't prepared because they have not trained themselves to have any sort of self control.

Another problem that may relate to this is the well-intentioned virgin. So many young people want to be part of the "waiting till marriage" crowd that this happens quite often. In the end, you often get two new members of the "sex whenever with whoever" crowd. What I'm talking about are young people who are "waiting," but they are so anxious to get it on that they get married too fast, usually right out of high school and without getting to know the person well ENOUGH. They do often fall victim to this "curiosity" you mentioned, because they haven't learned much control, and quickly end up divorced. This isn't always the case, but I've noticed it happens a lot. Is the answer for them to engage in premarital sex to satisfy their lust? No, that's not going to solve their problem without bringing in the other problems discussed before. A big part of the problem is that sex is on our minds constantly now because it's very "in your face" in our society today. People enjoy the arrousing bombardment, but it does not promote healthy/lasting one-on-one relationships. But, because it's so enjoyable, people make-up excuses for it. Instead of encouraging young people to learn self-control, not the same as suppression, the media, peers, and old hippies are promoting third-date sex, or "falling in love" as often as possible.

Originally posted by ryanjm
As for your second point, this is entirely subjective based on what you percieve sex to mean to you. From a biological perspective, it is what every creature does to carry on the species. If you make something more out of it for whatever reason (which I can only guess is religious seeing as this view is not promoted outside of certain religious goals of monogamy and marriage), then it is entirely personal to you. I would question attaching much significance to this, for if you found someone who was very special, but had previously had sex, do you then find that person unacceptable? Or do you find your relationship less special and deem that person "bad" for not waiting?

Well, I see what you're trying to do here, but the answer is no. As I said, weakness is understandable. Not waiting doesn't make a person bad, and I suppose that's a big part of what annoys the unmarried, sexually active folks so much about this topic. It's the choice that is bad, not the person. It's thinking it was a good choice, and continuing to think so, even after you have moved on to someone else. It's saying it was true love, when it wasn't, which is what people are trying to say happened between Clark and Lana. They may love each other as friends, but if they were "in love," this would turn out differently. However, it wouldn't be surprising if the creators of Smallville DO make things turn out differently. That remains to be seen. Anyway, as I said, no, I wouldn't find that person unacceptable or the relationship less special. I don't encourage people dwell on something that is unavoidable. But, what you are trying to say is that saving yourself for someone is NOT special. This is what I agree with. It's not about what is lost, it's about what can be added. It's just a wonderful gift you can give to the one you choose to be with to say "You are who I have searched for, and I felt you were important enough that I didn't want to make love with another." It's a romantic idea to be sure, and, as I stated before, in that respect it probably means little to non-romantics. BUT, that's where the other issues come in, like how waiting helps train you in self control, which is not just important with sex issues.

Also, you bring up the biological perspective. As I mentioned before, it's not always the best thing to just do whatever your body tells you to do. It's not a religious thing. But, I went into this a while ago. We do try to raise ourselves above the level of animal, and going back to it is de-evolution. And, yes, different cultures ARE different. That doesn't make them better. In some cultures, people still marry 12 year olds. Add that to a lot of other practices, and these types of people noticably still live in the mud, in the jungle. We could all go back to the jungle and to the trees, but it's through rules, morals, and, yes, even certain religions, that we've pulled ourselves to the level we are at now. Yes, there are lots of things we are doing wrong, but most of us would rather live in modern society than back in the jungle. In other words, we should continue trying to move forward rather than back. It seems to be the opposite side of the discussion that keeps trying to make progress out of animal instincts. Not possible. And, calling monogomous relationships unnatural and something no animals do just doesn't work. Wolves are monogomous, and only the alpha male and female mate.

Originally posted by ryanjm
When I originally said "let's be honest" with regard to religion, it is because these "one person, wait until marriage" views only start with people greatly influenced by religion. You can trace almost every person who argues this back to their religious beliefs, which they then try to support.

Despite my religious beliefs, I have not done that, and have been trying to keep it from going there, but it's the other side that keeps wagging the finger and saying "Religion! Religion!."

[/B][/QUOTE] Most people who start with a clean slate, or look outside of religion for answers, do not find the Christian ideals something in tune with a rational, logical way of looking at things, which can be seen by the way anyone responds to this topic--if they are religious, they deem sex before marriage bad. If they are not, then they do not. In the end it is just bashing our heads against the wall and TV will continue to put on what it believes will sell. For myself, it was about time they got it on, and absolutely 100% acceptable from a moral standpoint. I take it there is a minority who will disagree, but that's life. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gotta disagree with this. They say the same thing about the current debate over "evolution vs intelligent design." The problem with this argument is that, even if they are not the majority, there are several scientist, one even has a TV show, that were not Christians until after becoming scientists. I have myself heard one state that it was his studies of biology and other areas that lead him to believe in God. But, then they become religious and are automatically disregarded by the atheists, who they were recently among the ranks of. That sort of "rational and logical" outlook is why it is a lose-lose situation. But, if only one person gets something out of it, that's good enough... Still, getting back on topic, I've known a great many non-religious people (yes, I do, one of my three best friends is an atheists) who have waited, and not just because they couldn't "score." Many site the several reasons I've listed previously. As I have said time and time again, I have not been using "religious" reasons in my arguments, and all one has to do is read them to discover this.

[EmilyH]

Originally posted by Mitko
Strange, if I remember correctly Lois and Chloe are not virgins either, and in Chloe case she was minor and her relationship wasn’t as long or deep as Clark and Lana’s. I don’t see anybody pouring fire and brimstone on them. Isn’t that odd?!

The issue as I see it is two-fold:[list=1][*]Clark Kent, as the future Superman, should be putting the needs of humanity above his physical desires, but he's not.[*]As mentioned in several posts, the degradation of morals on television to such a point where only programs in which sex and violence play a prominent role get good ratings.[/list=1]

Regarding Chloe's and Lois' choices to engage in pre-marital sex, first neither of them is the among most morally respected characters of our time, and second their actions were only mentioned as an aside, not as a highly-toted, much-anticipated source of bogus ratings-grabbing and titilation.

[shirkie]

It's unfair that everyone starts screaming "you religious bigot" even if you express a POV that's anti-fornication without even mentioning religion. If I were to make the argument that sex outside of marriage is wrong because of the emotional damage it can do, because of the potential for pregnancy, and because of the danger of STDs, someone would undoubtedly STILL call me a closed-minded bigot who's sexually repressed and denying the "reality" of humanity.

Why is it that atheists and anti-religious folks seem to think they're so much smarter than those of us who believe in God? You see it in the creationism/evolution debates going on in the media, you see it in apologetics debates, and you see it in forums like these... There is some sort of nauseating superiority emanating from those who pride themselves on being anti-religion.

Many of us have already explained many times over why Superman should remain pure until marriage... Why it's the way it's been done in canon and why we believe abstinence is the morally superior option. If you're too lazy to go back and read our posts, fine, but don't write posts after us saying "Why is Supes supposed to be more moral than others? What's wrong with sex sex isn't bad you stupid puritans!!!"
shirkie

[lzpoof]

Hmm, well, I THINK I see what your saying here. But, most people (not just in the U.S.) know that Osama is evil. So...is morality really relative?

By definition yes. It represents the ideals of a group or society. Just because one group is more a majority doesn't mean it is moral and another one isn't. That'd be like saying there's only one true religion and all the rest of the world is just fooling themselves.


To make the rest of my points clearer in a statement ... I don't think I would really be in an uproar if they did something radical like make Clark wind up with Lana for a while and contradict some comic books. It comes to a certain point in the story where if they just follow what everyone expects them to then the show will simply become boring, stale, and somewhat repetitive. DC comics is almost famous for inventing 'alternate universes' which basically are just attempts to either cover up past inconsistencies in plotline or to just write a past story radically different to see where it goes. Heck Pete's black and doesn't look like he cares about politics at all. Chloe and Whitney never even existed and Lois suddenly knows Clark before he hits Metropolis. As long as Clark winds up becoming the savior of the world does it matter what happens along the way ? I think the purists had the first 3 season. Maybe the next couple go to the dreamers who thought Superman coulda used a little more 'color'.

Is it possible they built up to the scenes as somesort of Dawson's Creek ratings push ? Heck yeah. Do the scenes make me think Clark is a bad or immoral person ? Not really. If he flew around the world and saved people I'd still view him the same way. When we're talking about saving the world, I'm really not going to pass judgment on what the kid does in his bedroom.

If the whole argument here is just for/against premarital sex then I think we really just need to drop it. Some peopel think it's ok, some don't. But it's not like they made Clark maliciously murder 20 people or something. Murder would be judged the same in just about everyone's eyes, premarital sex is a judgment call. Just recognize that anything regarding the morality of superman is going to be an argument and not a discussion .... and also that there may in fact be people who are completely open to a rewriting of some of the mythos.

Originally posted by shirkie
It's unfair that everyone starts screaming "you religious bigot" even if you express a POV that's anti-fornication without even mentioning religion. If I were to make the argument that sex outside of marriage is wrong because of the emotional damage it can do, because of the potential for pregnancy, and because of the danger of STDs, someone would undoubtedly STILL call me a closed-minded bigot who's sexually repressed and denying the "reality" of humanity.

Why is it that atheists and anti-religious folks seem to think they're so much smarter than those of us who believe in God? You see it in the creationism/evolution debates going on in the media, you see it in apologetics debates, and you see it in forums like these... There is some sort of nauseating superiority emanating from those who pride themselves on being anti-religion.

I can answer your questions straight up but it'll be long.

You are completely entitled to your beliefs on premarital sex for whatever reasons but that is your choice, not necesasrily everyone else's. Those reasons may be good enough for you not to, but maybe Clark Kent (or the rest of us) already thought about those decisions and decided they are ok with the consequences and think it servers a purpose in their lives. That is their personal decision and they have a right to it. To say Clark would be immoral ebcause he is not as afraid of emotional distress or STDs does not make sense.... he could just be braver, more mature, or more educated.

As to why people keep bringing up religion when you vehemently are saying you are not bring it in.. well for one thing this is about premarital sex. Marriage will always be associated with religion in our society and so qualifying when you can have sex in relation to a religious event implies your opinions will be religious. It's easier to say the argument for premarital sex can be nonreligious since we are not really relating when you can do it to that religious event. IF we're talking pregraduation sex then we can all be in the nonreligious category.

From my own personal experiences with the various people I've know.. premarital sex is the LEAST observed of all 'religious' practices. I've known people who said they were good catholics while having sex 3 nights a week and yet passing judgment on me for doing the same. Permarital sex is one particular topic that seems to bring out incredible amounts of hypocrisy in people. I think this causes an unusually large amount of guilt in some and anger in others when the subject comes up and we are forced to be truthful to ourselves. We become so accustomed to this behavior that we cannot look at the subject without stirring up some of that guilt or anger and jumping to conclusions related to religions. The same thing would happen if we brought up homosexuality or suicide.

The above will also explain why the 'atheists' and 'antigod' people can become so bigoted on here (I myself am one of these). When someone who labels themselves as any religious group needs to make a judgment on whether an action is right or wrong they are pressured in to following the advise/opinion of a book or someone who died years ago at the risk of losing the 'right' to still carry their label. When I look at a situation and have to make a judgment I rely on my own beliefs that have been formed with people who are living in the world today that I do. When I am having a discussion with someone ,I want to hear their opinions and not the opinions that that their group or some book has. When religion gets involved and people start labelling themselves, we get either people who are blindly following whatever rules their group chooses for them (shoudln't we pick what group we want to be in if at all by our beliefs and not the other way around ?) or hypocritical people who refuse to give up their group name even when they don't believe in the group's ideals anymore. I often feel more self-righteous about my side of things because I know I am sure I an voicing my own beliefs in my heart and mind and do not have the doubt that I might just be voicing someone else's that I've been programmed with. I lose respect in the opinions of those that can't say the same.

So to sum up this wonderful essay answer.

1) As long as marriage is considered a religious event in our society, the 'no sex before marrigage' argument will be considered by most to be a religious POV. The antiargument that you can have sex when you feel right about it does not relate to marriage technically and thus has no religious connotations. A nonreligious argument similar to yours would be ' You can have sex when you feel confident in spending your whole life with that person' (note that it has the same meaning... but doesn't include the religious event).

2) Atheists/agnostics are usually more confident that their opinions come from themselves and not what they read in church.We pass judgment when and if we can form our own opinions on topics and we 'question the answers' that are fed to most kids in church. You're entitled to your opinions, just don't expect respect from us unless you're sure they're your own.

If you don't agree with me on a subject feel free but don't blast me for the above as I was trying to answer you honestly.

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by lzpoof
By definition yes. It represents the ideals of a group or society. Just because one group is more a majority doesn't mean it is moral and another one isn't. That'd be like saying there's only one true religion and all the rest of the world is just fooling themselves.

Ah, but that's the whole flaw in your statement, isn't it? Think about it for a moment. Don't just go by what you've been taught is politically correct or dictionary definitions. Really stop and think about what you've just written for yourself. No matter whose religion is correct, and, yes, everyone, including atheists (clearly, and yes, atheism requires faith because there is no proof, therefore it is just another religion) believe THEIR religion is correct. But, seriously, forgetting WHICH one the individual thinks is correct, logically, only ONE of them can be correct, and, whether it's Atheim, Buddism, Christianity, Hinduism, or even something unknown, whatever, one IS correct. That's just logical. That might not be totally clear, so, let me put it this way. Despite dictionary definitions and the beliefs of different cultures, good is good and bad is bad. Some societies have some of their ideas right and others wrong. OUR society has some ideas right and others wrong. Can you imagine a society where slavery, rape, child abuse, or things like that are right just because the society accepts or applauds it? Well, you're free to believe that morality is relative, I'm going to have to say that, logically, that seems ilogical to me. To quote a line from the film "Adventures of Huck Finn," and, heck, either side of the argument can use this to support them, "Just 'cause you're taught somethin' is right, and everybody says it's right, that don't make it right." Whether we agree on which or not, it seems a pretty tough sell to try to say that there are no absolute right or wrongs. Cultural differences aren't an excuse.

Originally posted by lzpoof
To make the rest of my points clearer in a statement ... I don't think I would really be in an uproar if they did something radical like make Clark wind up with Lana for a while and contradict some comic books. It comes to a certain point in the story where if they just follow what everyone expects them to then the show will simply become boring, stale, and somewhat repetitive. DC comics is almost famous for inventing 'alternate universes' which basically are just attempts to either cover up past inconsistencies in plotline or to just write a past story radically different to see where it goes. Heck Pete's black and doesn't look like he cares about politics at all. Chloe and Whitney never even existed and Lois suddenly knows Clark before he hits Metropolis. As long as Clark winds up becoming the savior of the world does it matter what happens along the way ? I think the purists had the first 3 season. Maybe the next couple go to the dreamers who thought Superman coulda used a little more 'color'.

*Sigh* Again, the issue is not about changes in storyline, it's about the character of Superman himself, which is more than just being a savior of the world. Repeating this is getting exhausting. If this WERE trying to be an alternate Universe, attitudes might be different, but there's been no indication that this is a universe where Clark's one true love is going to be Lana. Especially not since they've introduced Lois.

Originally posted by lzpoof
If the whole argument here is just for/against premarital sex then I think we really just need to drop it. Some peopel think it's ok, some don't. But it's not like they made Clark maliciously murder 20 people or something. Murder would be judged the same in just about everyone's eyes, premarital sex is a judgment call. Just recognize that anything regarding the morality of superman is going to be an argument and not a discussion .... and also that there may in fact be people who are completely open to a rewriting of some of the mythos.

*Sigh* Again, the issue is not about being for or against premarital sex, it's about the character of Superman himself, which is more than just being a savior of the world. However, those who were not happy about Clark losing his virginity to Lois have had to explain several times why that goes against the character of Superman, and that involves the moral issues, etc, etc,... it's all been posted over and over. And, also posted several times is how comparing the sex issue with the violence issue is cheap and irrelevant. It's a different topic all together, so please stop trying to justify the sex issue by saying, "Hey, at least it's not violence!" That's not efficient debating. Oh, and backtracking on your statements about morality is also a mistake. Before, you said that morality is relative, now, you're saying murder and violence issues aren't morality issues to cover that up. They ARE morality issues. And, whether or not there are people open to the rewriting, fine, there are also people opposed. Allow us to both be represented, not just one-side.

Originally posted by lzpoof
You are completely entitled to your beliefs on premarital sex for whatever reasons but that is your choice, not necesasrily everyone else's. Those reasons may be good enough for you not to, but maybe Clark Kent (or the rest of us) already thought about those decisions and decided they are ok with the consequences and think it servers a purpose in their lives. That is their personal decision and they have a right to it. To say Clark would be immoral ebcause he is not as afraid of emotional distress or STDs does not make sense.... he could just be braver, more mature, or more educated.

And you are entitled to your beliefs. It's fine if those many reasons aren't good enough to inspire one to cease destructive behavior (and please, don't ask how it is destructive, because we've made long lists, not all solved by condoms, you even mentioned one yourself). Yes, it's a personal decision people have a right to. But, as said before, Clark Kent/Superman has represented a specific type of morality for over 50 years. We're just not cool with them suddenly changing a 50 year personality canon. More mature? Hardly. Giving into physical lust despite the possible negative implications is exactly the opposite of mature, it's the opposite of bravery, and it's not supported by education.

Originally posted by lzpoof
As to why people keep bringing up religion when you vehemently are saying you are not bring it in.. well for one thing this is about premarital sex. Marriage will always be associated with religion in our society and so qualifying when you can have sex in relation to a religious event implies your opinions will be religious. It's easier to say the argument for premarital sex can be nonreligious since we are not really relating when you can do it to that religious event. IF we're talking pregraduation sex then we can all be in the nonreligious category.

A great many people in this society are married WITHOUT religious beliefs, so the above statement is without any validity, and you can find a great many atheists, even here on the boards (check the forum on THIS week's episode) who were not happy about Clark not waiting for Lois. Marriage is about the union of two people, with or without religion. Yes, it takes place frequently in this country without involving religion.

Originally posted by lzpoof
From my own personal experiences with the various people I've know.. premarital sex is the LEAST observed of all 'religious' practices. I've known people who said they were good catholics while having sex 3 nights a week and yet passing judgment on me for doing the same. Permarital sex is one particular topic that seems to bring out incredible amounts of hypocrisy in people. I think this causes an unusually large amount of guilt in some and anger in others when the subject comes up and we are forced to be truthful to ourselves. We become so accustomed to this behavior that we cannot look at the subject without stirring up some of that guilt or anger and jumping to conclusions related to religions. The same thing would happen if we brought up homosexuality or suicide.

I'll agree with the above statement. Except for the statement of (not having) premarital sex being a "religious" practice only (and sometimes referred to as only a Christian practice here on the boards). Totally inaccurate. It's just an easy argument to refer to not-having premarital sex as a religious issue. It seems that way particularly because most of the people who have held to the idea in this century tend to be religious. The idea itself spans cultures and is not always based in religion.

Originally posted by lzpoof
The above will also explain why the 'atheists' and 'antigod' people can become so bigoted on here (I myself am one of these). When someone who labels themselves as any religious group needs to make a judgment on whether an action is right or wrong they are pressured in to following the advise/opinion of a book or someone who died years ago at the risk of losing the 'right' to still carry their label. When I look at a situation and have to make a judgment I rely on my own beliefs that have been formed with people who are living in the world today that I do. When I am having a discussion with someone ,I want to hear their opinions and not the opinions that that their group or some book has. When religion gets involved and people start labelling themselves, we get either people who are blindly following whatever rules their group chooses for them (shoudln't we pick what group we want to be in if at all by our beliefs and not the other way around ?) or hypocritical people who refuse to give up their group name even when they don't believe in the group's ideals anymore. I often feel more self-righteous about my side of things because I know I am sure I an voicing my own beliefs in my heart and mind and do not have the doubt that I might just be voicing someone else's that I've been programmed with. I lose respect in the opinions of those that can't say the same..

This is a bigoted view of religious folk. Many, myself included, look beyond words in a book and compare them to the world around them. My previous posts on this topic are examples of that. What's truly sad is how little interest the more vocal members of the opposite side appear to have in books and anything written by dead people, though I know this does not represent the entire atheist population. Books are a good thing. Really. Don't assume that because someone's beliefs agree with the Bible, or whatever other book, that they didn't come to those beliefs FIRST and then realize their beliefs made them a part of the group rather than the other way around. Anyway, few people come to their beliefs %100 originally. Don't take credit for discovering atheism. It's more a matter of hearing or reading something and saying "that makes sense to me." That is often the way people come to their religions, even if that religion is atheism. It's not blind following. I sympathyze with your dislike for hypocritical religious types though, and I've noticed that such types are a big part of what often turns people against ANY sort of religious beliefs. Which is sad, because it's not so much a case of deciding for yourself as becoming annoyed and then bigoted. One of the biggest enemies of religious expansion is the people themselves setting bad examples. There are many denominations and churches that make religion look bad as a whole, and they are often the most visible. It's easy to notice the bad and overlook the good. Many people become anti-religion because they were raised in a strict sort of church that WAS very controlling and full of rituals. Then, there are people who lead quiet lives and don't even attend church, but look to their Holy book as a source of ancient wisdom that they believe is divine. But that doesn't mean they all follow it blindly. Because something was written by dead people, even if you don't believe it is divine and many people do, that does not mean it is full of useless words and bad advice. It's a bleak future we are heading for when people begin disregarding the writings of their ancestors just because they are dead. Learning from other peoples' mistakes is better than making your own, but that is one of the hardest things to convince people of. The old, dead, and the words they left behind have great value, whether we are talking of religious scripture, poetry, works of fiction, or anything else. The respect is dying in favor of MTV and Girls Gone Wild, and that ain't good.

Originally posted by lzpoof
So to sum up this wonderful essay answer.

1) As long as marriage is considered a religious event in our society, the 'no sex before marrigage' argument will be considered by most to be a religious POV. The antiargument that you can have sex when you feel right about it does not relate to marriage technically and thus has no religious connotations. A nonreligious argument similar to yours would be ' You can have sex when you feel confident in spending your whole life with that person' (note that it has the same meaning... but doesn't include the religious event).

Again, marriage spans cultures and is not an exclusively religious event. It's only been stigmatized as such. It is the union between two people. For many, that is emphasized by being "Before God," but not for all.

Originally posted by lzpoof
2) Atheists/agnostics are usually more confident that their opinions come from themselves and not what they read in church.We pass judgment when and if we can form our own opinions on topics and we 'question the answers' that are fed to most kids in church. You're entitled to your opinions, just don't expect respect from us unless you're sure they're your own.

If you don't agree with me on a subject feel free but don't blast me for the above as I was trying to answer you honestly.

Have confidence. Don't be scared of a response. Discussions should be two-way (no matter how much the other side doesn't like that, ha). The problem is that many atheists THINK or like to spread the idea that religious people ony believe what they believe because they read it in a book. Most, if they didn't agree with what they read, would not stay with it. Sure, you have those kids who believe in something just because they were taught to by mom and dad, but get real, atheists are full of those types too! You have hypocrites and those who only believe what they've been told even among atheists. And, in general, we are all agreeing with ideas we didn't come up with ourselves. The important thing to note is this: Atheists are ALSO only agreeing with something they read in a book. Atheism is just a religion that doesn't include a god, because it takes total faith to believe in it, as there is no scientific "proof."

[Mitko]

Just one remark - atheism is not religion. Atheists don’t believe that there is no God. They just think that God is not necessary for explaining the world around us.

[ixnay]

slave2moonlight,

I've been reading all of your topics and you say several times that Clark will not end up with Lana so that's not true love. Altough I agree with some of your main ideas, I really cannot agree with this one.

And I find it kinda unfair you being judging their act (having sex) just because in the end, the story states that Clark will stay with Lois. You are making a judgment based on something you know beforehand! And Clark isn't... he seriously believes and hopes that Lana is the true love of his life.
Clark has no indication that he will stay with Lois! So he has the right to choose if he wants to have premarital sex or not with the woman he loves. If he thinks that it's the right thing to do, well.. we ALL have to respect that. People have the right to choose and having premarital sex with the person you love does not seems a moral issue at all.

In life people make this kind of decisions based on past and present facts. They love each other (can someone says they do not?) so they decided to make love. There's nothing wrong with that I believe.

Cheers

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by Mitko
Just one remark - atheism is not religion. Atheists don’t believe that there is no God. They just think that God is not necessary for explaining the world around us.

Atheists believe there is no God. What you say is more like being agnostic (the don't know, don't care idea). Anyway, the way you describe it is still putting your trust/faith in a theory. It's a Religion. Religion is something no one can truly say they are without unless they have no opinion on the matter at all. Atheists have a very strong opinion that there is no God.

Originally posted by ixnay
slave2moonlight,

I've been reading all of your topics and you say several times that Clark will not end up with Lana so that's not true love. Altough I agree with some of your main ideas, I really cannot agree with this one.

And I find it kinda unfair you being judging their act (having sex) just because in the end, the story states that Clark will stay with Lois. You are making a judgment based on something you know beforehand! And Clark isn't... he seriously believes and hopes that Lana is the true love of his life.

Well, I have also stated several times that I understand that Clark does not know this. Thanks for reading 'em all once. You maybe should read them again. The point was that we, the audience, KNOW that he ends up with Lois. So WE, the audience, shouldn't be cheering this on as an act of true love. As for Clark not knowing he will ever love Lois, that is one of the reasons we (the side that agrees with waiting till marriage) believe in waiting. The bigger issue with Clark, though, as I also stated several times, was the fact that over the past 50+ years, he has represented traditional American morals, which include waiting for marriage. Yes, I know few people practice that today, but many do, and Superman should always represent the highest example of western morals.

Originally posted by ixnay
Clark has no indication that he will stay with Lois! So he has the right to choose if he wants to have premarital sex or not with the woman he loves. If he thinks that it's the right thing to do, well.. we ALL have to respect that. People have the right to choose and having premarital sex with the person you love does not seems a moral issue at all.

Yes, that's correct that people have the right to make that decision on their own, but I refer you again to my previous statement. Clark Kent/Superman is an established character with a 50+ year history (why do people keep bringing up the same old rebuttles, even now that they say they've read all the posts?). Certain things are expected of him by his longtime fans. Alter him in certain ways, and he ceases to be the character we have tuned in to watch. I hope I made that clear, because I've had to repeat it so many times.

Originally posted by ixnay
In life people make this kind of decisions based on past and present facts. They love each other (can someone says they do not?) so they decided to make love. There's nothing wrong with that I believe.

Cheers

They do not. They lust for each other. They love each other as friends, but they are not IN love, which is what I assume you're talking about when you say they love each other. Folks, being in love, really being in love, is not temporary. Clark goes on to marry Lois. Not because Lana is dead. No, he chooses Lois over Lana. That doesn't say much for his "love" for Lana. Now, it's true, Smallville could rewrite that ending if they wanted to, but I don't think they are going to.

[Cathrina Devil]

gloryficus sanity

to dear "longpoast"slave2moonlight!!!!

I never did say waiting is wron nor did i make any insults about the people who wait! just wanted to get that of my chest.
i really do NOT need to wait 4 the ONE TRUE LOVE that i'll marry to be bedded.
i sholud know, after all i waited for my nr ONE and only.
i had all those cool kids in highshool telling me all that typical load of crap " but all the other kids are doing it" speaches and still i said NO THANKS and waited for my prince charming to sweep me of my feet... gotta tall ya i DIDNT SUCK!.. but just to ease your pain ..i WILL MARRY HIM, NOT FOR HIS ABILLITYS N THE SACK for the greatness of his HEART
nor did i say that i couldnt live without the big O. please stop making these accusations , and accusations they are no matter how wizardly u shrowd them
im very sure that u are right in about 50 % of the thing u say but all isnt so..
it is my belife that under this devine magicly spun sky, there is a special someone for everyone.
and that if u happen to find them to be u'r 1than hey GONRATS from my big heart.
BUT if you 've gone through life and did kiss a cuple of toads before prince/princess charmig came along then in this society its more than 98% sure that they've done exactly that in theyr surch 4 you!
as for lana being his dreamgirl=lust.
then i gotta tell you once more only i'll explain it better this time....
ready steady go...As far as Clark knows she is the girl he'll marry,
unfortunally for him we do know it is not so BUT he doesnt know that , she's his first true love, in his eyes, nomatter how much we know it isnt so he still belives it so dont be to hard on him nor me for appriciating the love that is NOW , for as much as we know and hope the thing we have will last foerver and ever even beyound death
that last part was more me than CK either way i do have to appologiese for my first enety in this world of fourms, i've just found my curage to join in on this amazing world of debate. it just my bad luck to've stumbled on to you'r dabeting eye.
didnt mean to piss ya off moonlight.
it was kinda good u tried to put me in my scrumshes litlle place.
till next time .......sencierly yours Cathrina D

im sorry for my spelling but sometines these keys are just ..grrr darn and i live in sweden ( just a reminder) so chanses are i'm not in when u guys debate!

[slave2moonlight]

Hey, Cathrina, don't take any of this stuff personally. No one ticked me off. It's really just a friendly discussion, aside from when there is namecalling (we did have a lot of "mature, intellectual" atheists trying to put the ignorance label on anyone who disagreed with them). And, seriously, I was never coming down on anyone, just rebuting as one should in a debate. Heck, I'm too busy responding most of the time to even read who I'm responding too. Sorry if you took anything as a personal shot, and no one here is trying to belittle people for their choices. We are simply expressing what we believe are good ideas and bad ideas, and our distaste for the alteration of a classic American Icon's image at character/personality levels.

I WILL try my best to forgive you, though, for bringing up the "Clark doesn't know he's not going to end up with Lana" thing again. I've explained this several times, and it's really getting irritating that people just keep bringing it up like they didn't read the previous posts. From the very beginning, what I said about that was that WE should not be so happy about them having sex because WE know that they are not each other's TRUE love. And, again, this is one of the reasons we encourage waiting for marriage. As adult as everyone on the other side of it seems to claim these two are, I highly doubt that Lana would agree to marry Clark if he had proposed to her that night, and I bet it wouldn't all be about financial stability or other sensible reasons. At that age, even people who think they're in love will realize how unsure they are when that subject comes up, or they'll get married and divorced within a year or two. Yes, I know there are exceptions. I'm not really saying it's impossible for people to become mature adults at 18 with relationships that last forever, but it happens less often in our current society in which often people are still in school till mid-twenties at least.

Oh, but on the topic of accusations, consider the fact that a posted response here sometimes includes responses to multiple posts. It's possible that I responded to yours and someone else's in the same post, or made reference to past remarks by others when referring to the opposing side as a whole. Like I said, don't take the comments personally if they don't apply to what you said, because if I made a comment/accusation, it was only in direct response to something that WAS said by SOMEONE, and I don't believe I ever made any direct claims about anyone using names. I sometimes will use the word "you," which often means "the reader" or a person in general, to suggest a hypothetical situation. Perhaps that is what confused you. I'm not too sure, since i'm not sure which posts or statements you are referring to. Trust me, I never made any accusations, only responses to accusations and weak rebuttles (I've yet to hear a solid rebuttle from those who have expressed such superiority in the matter), and references to comments that were offered up freely.

Anyway, a point I think you missed is that none of us have been calling on people to "judge" or "degrade" people who have had premarital sex, only that the act itself is not something to be so proud about, and that waiting is the better choice. No one has to agree with that, but after this forum, I don't see why anyone wouldn't. And, again, even our references to Clark were not a call for people to bash Clark. I don't hold anything against Clark, even though I feel the choice was bad. I am upset with the writers because the choice seemed out of character, even for Smallville Clark, and definitely out of character for the long-held tradition of Clark/Superman.

Hey, look at it this way, you go through life and kiss a few toads before you find a prince, sure. We're just trying to say that you have the option to avoid sleeping with those toads, and taking that option comes with plenty of benefits, while the more toads you spend time with, the more negatives you bring on yourself. The opposing side insists there ARE NO negatives. Well, we layed them out for ya here a while back, and they are NOT religion based and they are NOT all about diseases. It's just a matter of making the better choice, but folks have come on here saying they are "smarter and braver" because they choose to ignore the negatives, which makes no sense.

Well, I appreciate that you think I'm probably right on 50% of what I've said. I think I'm right on 100% of what I've said, but I guess that's something we all have in common here, thinking our beliefs are 100% correct. That's what makes them our beliefs.

[lzpoof]

Can't we let this thread die ? I think we've beaten this to death.

[Cathrina Devil]

PEACE UNDERSTANDING

DEAR MOONLIGHT!
hey!
yes its me again,
im writing just to let ya know that ive read your last post and thakns for the somewhat appologie.
i'm thinkinhg tats as good as it gets.
i wil keep in mind not to take more than half of all of this seriously, cus if you really think about it , who cares what you & the rest of us fans really think about it all. seemes to me that either way we're never gonna get in to that writers room anyway & change the things the writers do.
but i will give u this... you have a right to an appinion. as do i and aslong we dont star to call eachoter bad bad thing it's all good!allthough i have been reading the rest of your posts so i do understand that you've got sick with over explaining the same thing so i will only write this once more.. Clark & Lana sitting in a ...loft.... K.I.S.S.I.N.G !!! smiles love hi hi hi!

[slave2moonlight]

ha ha. Yes, that IS about as good as it's gonna get, though I wouldn't say I was apologizing for anything really, except saying sorry if you might have gotten confused by the posts. Of course, you're right that to be civilized members of society we must agree to disagree.

Anyway, to respond to Izproof, I'm perfectly willing to let the subject die, in THIS thread at least (since it's already moved on to the next episode's forum, no point falling behind anymore here), where it has been played out. We'll have to see if the other posters will allow it.

[love_sv]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but I just want to comment.

I personally was very disappointed by the "Clanafornication". I don't know why they had to do it. Yes they "love" each other but I'm not even sure about that because sometimes lust can masquerade as love. Anyway, I'm not just disappointed because I'm a Chlarker. I genuinely think, even if they want to be together, they don't have to have sex straight away.

Morals, tptb, morals!!!

[Mrs Kent]

What role of sex? Sorry did I miss something? I didn't see any sex or role of sex. I think they should of showed a little bit more.

Personally even if they did have it off! Fair play, there's nothing wrong with that.

Sex is part of humanity, I didn't say normality and if Clark wanted to have it away with Lana, at least he chose someone he loved and cared for and not just any girl.