GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by EMINEM

Now is there a correlation between low birth rates, rejection of the institution of marriage, and sexual promiscuity on a national scale? I can only speculate, but I'm willing to bet that there is.

Please, don't be afraid to speculate on the logic of your speculations as well.

Originally posted by EMINEM


I never said it was. I did imply, however, that a society like Sweden which openly tolerates, and even encourages, sexual immorality over sexual restraint, and rejects marriage for common-law or same-sex relationships, as the proper place in which to raise children, is in the long run doomed to decline and degeneracy - culturally, demographically, economically, and spiritually. But keep in mind that this is just my POV.

Your arguement confounds me in places. It would appear that any change in social/cultural trend MUST have something to do - somewhere - with premarital sex? Do you not believe that a couple making the choice not to have children could be the cause of a declining birthrate? - regardless of whether they are married or not? Should the unmarried couple take responsibility for a national trend?

What about the fact that women are more educated than they were a hundred years ago? That they are more likely to seek a career outside of raising a family? Is this trend for women choosing a career over starting a family another example of the effect social acceptance of premarital sex has on the birthrate and future survival of a country?

btw the 'proper' place to raise a child is in a loving and accepting home.

@ Eminem...MY mind will be changed if you present me with undeniable logic to disprove my beliefs. I've forgotten which politician said: 'As the facts change I change my opinions, what do you Sir?'. It is sad to think that you will not believe somethintg even if it is proved right. This means that you will ALWAYs have the same opinions as you did aged 15 or so, the ones which your parents gave you.

I'll post something constructive later..

Originally posted by EMINEM


It's too early to tell, so I can't make any conclusions, and neither can you. There are many forms of decline; some more gradual than others. I am aware, however, that since 1995 Sweden's birthrate has been at a dismal 1.50, which is significantly below the replacement level of 2.10, which the United States despite its "depravation" has been able to maintain. By 2050, a child-starved Europe, along with Sweden, will have to import over a billion immigrants (which will not happen because your political system will not stand for it) to maintain its current standard of living. Therefore, either Europe raises taxes and radically downsizes pensions and health benefits for the elderly, or Europe becomes a Third World continent. There is no precedence in history for a collapsing birth-rate of this magnitude. Personally (and I'm speaking here simply as a History major), I can't recall any time in the past, except perhaps during the waning years of the Roman Empire, when immorality (of which "free sex" is the modern euphemistic term) has been so rampant and widely accepted. Now is there a correlation between low birth rates, rejection of the institution of marriage, and sexual promiscuity on a national scale? I can only speculate, but I'm willing to bet that there is. Unwanted pregnancies, drugs, violence, and STDs are serious problems, and I'm genuinely glad that Swedish youth are avoiding these better than their American counterparts. But any comparison between our respective societies are superfluous if, in fifty years, America still exists as a nation, while Sweden has ceased to exist as a country.

Reading this statement Eminem, it seems to me that you only look at things from a historical viewpoint. I like to look at things from a geographical and historical.

Have you ever heard of a Demographic Transition Model? This graph shows trend lines in births, deaths the resultant number of people thereafter. There are four definite stages of civilisations at the moment, they go through:

1. High birth, high death rate = A rising population, countries like Ethiopia
2. High birth, lower death rate = Still rising population, countries like Brazil.
3. Loweing birth, lower death rate = Slightly rising population, the middle countries.
4. Low death rate, low birth rate = Early 1980's UK, generally no gain in population.
   [/list=1]
   
   The problem is that there has now been an introduction of a fifth model, this involves lower birth rates than deaths, so when the aged population die, there will not be enough people to replace them. This is due to less violent disease, better family planning and an overall reduction in causes of death.
   
   Your logic is flawed in saying that we will have to 'import' children, there have been other changes of population rapidly and by suggesting that European mothers must have more children than they want is not only ridiculous, it is also going against your point of view that we must avoid rampant sex!

Originally posted by Yshania
What about the fact that women are more educated than they were a hundred years ago? That they are more likely to seek a career outside of raising a family? Is this trend for women choosing a career over starting a family another example of the effect social acceptance of premarital sex has on the birthrate and future survival of a country?

Would it be presumptuous of me to bring up the issue of women putting their careers before children? I have no problem with that except if the women decide to have a child when they are more likely to have the child effected with Down syndrome or something similar.

Originally posted by frogus
@ Eminem...MY mind will be changed if you present me with undeniable logic to disprove my beliefs. I've forgotten which politician said: 'As the facts change I change my opinions, what do you Sir?'. It is sad to think that you will not believe somethintg even if it is proved right. This means that you will ALWAYs have the same opinions as you did aged 15 or so, the ones which your parents gave you.

I'll post something constructive later..

I HAVE presented you (and others I don't care to mention) with undeniable logic to disprove your beliefs, but for some reason you still seem to think otherwise. For example; the practice of "safe," pre-marital, and promiscuous sex, for all its contemporary applause and acceptance, carries a greater risk of contracting and further spreading STDs and HIV than the practice of sexual abstinance (read: 100% immunity!) and waiting for sex until marriage. So, to my mind, it's smarter, better, and safer, to wait, pursue purity, and save yourself for your future husband and wife. Not having sex won't kill you, but having pre-marital, promiscious, and "safe" sex, very well might do so.

Originally posted by EMINEM

carries a greater risk of contracting and further spreading STDs and HIV than the practice of sexual abstinance (read: 100% immunity!) and waiting for sex until marriage

Ok. Your point is - if I don't have "promiscous" sex I can't catch any diseases. I accept that as a fact.

But I still don't see the difference between sex in a unmarried partnership as I have (so we're NOT talking about a short-term partnership) an sex in a married partnership.
I fail to see any advantage in being married. (Still - solely apllied to my situation. )

Again - sorry for sounding stubborn.

No worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Would it be presumptuous of me to bring up the issue of women putting their careers before children? I have no problem with that except if the women decide to have a child when they are more likely to have the child effected with Down syndrome or something similar.

From this I understand you are referring to those women who choose to have children later in life? After they have established their career? On this subject, I believe the average age in the UK now for a women to have her first child is 27, not a risk age group. For those who do leave it until they are in their late thirties (and I know quite a few) they do have an increase risk of Downs, also of pregnancy related problems for the woman herself. That said, the screening available today...and the medical knowledge that is now available, enables most women to go on to have a healthy pregnancy, and child

My own arguement considered the possibility that more women are choosing not to have children in order to persue a career...

Another idea to throw in the discussion of reducing birthrates, could be the fact that in many western countries, we no longer live in the extended family situations that we did years ago....so we do not have this support when it comes to childcare. For a couple to have children, quite often the cost of childcare negates any income the 'stay at home' partner may be able to bring in. Taking London as an example, it is nigh on impossible to get a mortgage to afford to live here on one wage - I have been there. It therefore becomes necessary for both partners to work, in some situations, or to compromise your standard of living. This taken into consideration, it is not surprising that the average family size in the UK is two children.

I have two children. Following back the generations, my father was one of 5, his father was one of 9, and his father was one of 13 IIRC...Trends.

Originally posted by EMINEM


I HAVE presented you (and others I don't care to mention) with undeniable logic to disprove your beliefs, but for some reason you still seem to think otherwise. For example; the practice of "safe," pre-marital, and promiscuous sex, for all its contemporary applause and acceptance, carries a greater risk of contracting and further spreading STDs and HIV than the practice of sexual abstinance (read: 100% immunity!) and waiting for sex until marriage. So, to my mind, it's smarter, better, and safer, to wait, pursue purity, and save yourself for your future husband and wife. Not having sex won't kill you, but having pre-marital, promiscious, and "safe" sex, very well might do so.

You stating to have presented undeniable logic doesn't make your highly dubious arguments any more valid. Premarital sex isn't necessarily more promiscious or unsafe than marital sex. However, it's obvious that you believe this to be the case. Your misconception is caused by your ignorance of the meaning of word "premarital" and of your bad habit of adding information to all hypothetical situations presented to you. Now, lets do this one more time, shall we?

We have two couples, one is married and one is not. This is the ONLY difference between the two couples - even their fingerprints are the same, no matter how incredibly this may sound.

Now Eminem, without adding ANYTHING at all, please tell me why the premarital sex in this situation is more dangerous than the marital sex.

Originally posted by Yshania
From this I understand you are referring to those women who choose to have children later in life? After they have established their career? On this subject, I believe the average age in the UK now for a women to have her first child is 27, not a risk age group. For those who do leave it until they are in their late thirties (and I know quite a few) they do have an increase risk of Downs, also of pregnancy related problems for the woman herself. That said, the screening available today...and the medical knowledge that is now available, enables most women to go on to have a healthy pregnancy, and child

I would be cynical about averages with reference to pregnancy, if it was referred to as the most common age for women to have babies then it might be useful but an average in this type of situation is not an accurate test.

I have known women to have babies at 45-48 and none of them had downs, the ratio for the people i know would be 100% without downs, but then that isn't an accurate figure to the UK as a whole.

@Astafas, wouldn't it be easier to refer to"pre-marital sex" as "out of marriage sex" (just fo rthis debate purposes) since some couples never end up married and so the term pre is not accurate.

I believe someone mentioned this before, it would hopefully help stop the digression of this conversation into semantics.

Okay, after browsing through some websites, I’ve found other research that addresses the interesting topic of why I think pre-marital sex is wrong, and why marriage is preferable to living together common-law or unmarried. Bear with me, the list is pretty long:


First, the sociological reasons:

1. Those who live together before marriage are the least likely to marry each other.

2. Those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates.

3. Those who live together before marriage have unhappier marriages.

4. Those who are sexually active before marriage are much more likely to divorce.

5. Those who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well.

6. Those who live together are likely to have a fleeting romance rather than a lasting relationship.

7. Those who have "trial" marriages do not have better marriages.

8. Those who live together have no lasting commitments or responsibilities.

9. Those who live together miss something in the maturing process.

10. Those living-together avoid dealing with some of the joint decisions that married couples have to make.

11. Those who live together often have a "marriage of convenience" or a "marriage of compatibility" rather than a marriage of commitment.

12. Those having premarital sex may be fooled into marrying a person who is not right for them.

13. Those living together have superficial and significantly weaker relationships.

14. Those who live together have more difficulty resolving conflicts.

15. Those who live together before marriage can kill the romance.

16. Those who live together before marriage often lay a foundation of distrust and lack of respect.

17. Those who live together do not experience the best sex; married people have both more and better sex than singles do.

18. Those who live together often face parental disapproval.

19. Those who live together hurt their children.

20. Those who live together before marriage often lack a common purpose.

21. Those who live together before marriage do not have an egalitarian relationship.

22. Those who live together before marriage do not have specialization of responsibilities.

23. Those who live together before marriage have less support and benefits.


Now to the legal reasons, at least as they apply to Uncle Sam:

1. Those living together before marriage do not have a common law marriage unless... yadda, yadda, yadda... see the hyperlink.

2. Those living together expose themselves to litigation over issues of income and palimony when they split up.

3. Those living together have no legal property ownership rights.

4. Those living together need an additional written property agreement when purchasing a home.

5. Those living together have additional parenting issues because they are not automatically recognized as the legal parents.

6. Those living together cannot make financial decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney."

7. Those living together cannot make medical decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney for healthcare." Those living together cannot make end of life decisions for the other if he or she is dying.

8. Those living together cannot make funeral arrangement if the other dies.

9. Those living together do not automatically receive survivor inheritances if the other dies as would be the case if married.


Next, the health reasons:

1. Those who live together have very high and increasing rates of health-destroying and dangerous behaviors.

2. Those who live together and stay single are at high risk of premature death.

3. Those who choose to marry rather than live together live longer and healthier lives.

4. Those who live together are at high risk for having an unwanted pregnancy.

5. Those who live together are at high risk for contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.


Psychological reasons:

1. Those who are sexually active before marriage have greater behavioral problems.

2. Those living together often do so to "prove" their love to their partner.

3. Those who live together before marriage abuse each other more often and more severely than dating couples or married couples.

4. Those who live together before marriage suffer from greater depression and anxiety.

5. Those living together before marriage are not as happy.


And finally, the religious/Biblical reasons:

1. Those who live together before marriage do not experience God's best for their lives individually or together.

2. Those who live together in sexual intimacy outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage are sinning against God.

3. Those who live together before marriage often suffer from guilt and fear.


To summarize the facts, then:

1. Premarital sex tends to break up couples before marriage takes place.

2. Many men do not want to marry a woman who has had intercourse with someone else. The strange logic seems to be, “Its okay for me to have sex with the girl you marry, but it’s not okay for you to have sex with the girl I marry.”

3. Those who have premarital sex tend to have less happy marriages. The physical relationship is an inadequate foundation upon which to build a lasting relationship.

4. Those who have premarital sex are more likely to have their marriages end in divorce.

5. Persons and couples who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well. This is especially true for women; those who engaged in sex before marriage are more than twice as likely to have extramarital affairs as those who did not have premarital sex.

6. Having premarital sex may fool you into marrying a person who is not right for you... sex can ‘blind’ you.

7. Persons and couples with premarital sex experience seem to achieve sexual satisfaction sooner after they are married. However, they are likely to be less satisfied overall with their sex life during marriage. It seems that their premarital sex experiences often rise to haunt them.

Originally posted by EMINEM
I HAVE presented you (and others I don't care to mention) with undeniable logic to disprove your beliefs, but for some reason you still seem to think otherwise. For example; the practice of "safe," pre-marital, and promiscuous sex, for all its contemporary applause and acceptance, carries a greater risk of contracting and further spreading STDs and HIV than the practice of sexual abstinance (read: 100% immunity!) and waiting for sex until marriage.

Assumed point in passing: "safe, pre-marital, and promiscuous sex, for all its contemporary.." is a phrase that confounds (as you've done repeatedly) the idea of pre-marital sex with promiscuous sex, regarding them as a single entity; and that's simply not the case, by any statistical research. Promiscuous sex exists in some cases of pre-marital sex--and it also definitely exists in couples who are married.

I've know quite a few married couples who scream incessantly at one another, abuse their children regularly, and get some on the sly. I also know several non-married couples who have lived together for more than a dozen years happily, raising close-knit, well-adjusted families in an atmosphere of love. The curious thing is, by putting your emphasis on an institution rather than a spiritual condition, you seem to be supporting an abstract container under law and religion which can be a breeding ground for vipers; rather than the spiritual and bodily union of souls--whether with religion's blessing, or otherwise--which you profess to be the highest condition outside of godly celebacy.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
@Astafas, wouldn't it be easier to refer to"pre-marital sex" as "out of marriage sex" (just fo rthis debate purposes) since some couples never end up married and so the term pre is not accurate.

I believe someone mentioned this before, it would hopefully help stop the digression of this conversation into semantics.

Sure, it's the same thing so I see no problem with that. However, it would be easier only if Eminem does the same. And his arguments clearly shows that he doesn't.

Originally posted by fable


I've know quite a few married couples who scream incessantly at one another, abuse their children regularly, and get some on the sly. I also know several non-married couples who have lived together for more than a dozen years happily, raising close-knit, well-adjusted families in an atmosphere of love.

Sorry, fable, but there are significantly more non-married couples who "scream incessantly at one another, abuse their children regularly, and get some on the sly," than couples who are actually married. Similarily, there is a greater likelihood for married couples to live together longer, raise a close-knit, well-adjusted family, than their non-married or common-law counter-parts. To quote one of the studies above:

Numerous studies have found that physical attacks are clearly much more common and more severe among live-in couples than among those who are married (e.g., Scott 1994:79; Jackson 1996 and others below). One reason suspected is that cohabitants live in isolation from the rest of their families. A study found that 40 percent of cohabiting women were forced to endure a kind of sex they disliked (Scott 1994:77). The U.S. Justice Department found that women are 62 times more likely to be assaulted by a live-in boyfriend than by a husband (Colson 1995). Those who cohabit in college have twice the rate of violence and twice the rate of physical abuse than in marriage (Johnson 1996). In a study at Northern State University published in Family Therapy, sociologists found, while researching college students, that "those males who had cohabited displayed the most accepting views of rape." Previous studies have found that men typically cohabit because of the "convenience"of the relationship, whereas women cohabit with "the expectation that cohabitation will lead to marriage" – thus creating a relationship in which men are likely to "hold a position of power" over women who expect much more from the relationship than they do. This puts women who cohabit in a perilous position. Dr. Jan Stats of Washington State University, one of the most noted researchers on the issue of cohabitation found evidence (Stets 1991:670) "that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners. During a one-year period, about 35 out of every 100 cohabiting couples have experienced physical aggression, compared to 15 out of every 100 married couples." She also found that "approximately 14 percent of those who cohabit admit to hitting, shoving, or throwing things at their partner during the past year, compared to 5 percent of married people (ibid. P.674). A recent study at Penn State University (Brown & Booth 1997) confirmed that cohabitors argue, shout and hit more than married couples. The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire found after studying 2,143 adults that "cohabitors are much more violent than marrieds (Yllo and Straus 1981:339). They specifically found that the overall rates for "severe" violence was nearly five times as high for cohabitants when compared with marrieds. Marriage inhibits male violence. Another study found that spousal killings are higher in common law unions (Wilson and Daly 1992:197). The National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the U.S. Justice Department shows that of all violent crimes against women by their relatives or intimate partners between 1979 and 1987, about 65 percent were committed by either a boyfriend or ex-husband, while only 9 percent were committed by husbands. The evidence is convincing. Statscan, a Canadian government agency, reported "in a one year period, one in every five women who live in common law is assaulted- and those with male partners under 25 are at most risk." A recent British study found that child abuse was twenty times more common in cases where the mother was cohabiting with a man other than her husband. When we consider that before 1960, cohabitation was relatively uncommon and that by the mid 1990s more than 50 percent of young couples were choosing to cohabit either before or in place of marriage, it should be no surprise that the incidence of domestic violence has increased.

@EMINEM

Do you have the links to prove your findings? Or is this a summary of your beliefs? There are a couple I would query straight off...

First, the sociological reasons

8. Those who live together have no lasting commitments or responsibilities.

What about children? financial interest? are these not a lasting commitment?

9. Those who live together miss something in the maturing process.

Where?

10. Those living-together avoid dealing with some of the joint decisions that married couples have to make.

Again - where?

11. Those who live together often have a "marriage of convenience" or a "marriage of compatibility" rather than a marriage of commitment.

So their children are a convenience too?

13. Those living together have superficial and significantly weaker relationships.

Proof?

14. Those who live together have more difficulty resolving conflicts.

Really?

15. Those who live together before marriage can kill the romance.

In some cases, marriage can kill the romance - whether or not you have lived together first...

16. Those who live together before marriage often lay a foundation of distrust and lack of respect.

LMAO! How?

17. Those who live together do not experience the best sex; married people have both more and better sex than singles do.

*ahem* proof?

18. Those who live together often face parental disapproval.

Not in a society that aceepts co-habitation as a norm.

19. Those who live together hurt their children.

How the hell did you come up with this one? *sigh*

20. Those who live together before marriage often lack a common purpose.

Proof?

21. Those who live together before marriage do not have an egalitarian relationship.

Would you please expand on this one?

22. Those who live together before marriage do not have specialization of responsibilities.

What do you mean here?

23. Those who live together before marriage have less support and benefits.

From who?


Regarding the legalities, I agree - and argue the law should be relaxed to offer equal rights to common law cohabitors.


Next, the health reasons:


1. Those who live together have very high and increasing rates of health-destroying and dangerous behaviors.

Can you offer an example?

2. Those who live together and stay single are at high risk of premature death.

Hmmm...again - can you provide an official source for this information?

3. Those who choose to marry rather than live together live longer and healthier lives.

As above.

4. Those who live together are at high risk for having an unwanted pregnancy.

Higher maybe, but not necessarily high risk.

5. Those who live together are at high risk for contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

From each other? We are taliking about living together as a committed couple who just exercise the choice *not* to get married....

Reasons psychological:

1. Those who are sexually active before marriage have greater behavioral problems.

Examples?

2. Those living together often do so to "prove" their love to their partner.

And often those getting wed, do so just to prove their love.

3. Those who live together before marriage abuse each other more often and more severely than dating couples or married couples.

Hello?

4. Those who live together before marriage suffer from greater depression and anxiety.

Proof?

5. Those living together before marriage are not as happy.

Proof?

And finally, reasons religious;

Not applicable to many, married or unmarried and I will not get involved in a religious debate.

In summary, then:

1. Premarital sex tends to break up couples before marriage takes place.

Proof that this may have been wise, to try before you buy?

2. Many men do not want to marry a woman who has had intercourse with someone else. The strange logic seems to be, “Its okay for me to have sex with the girl you marry, but it’s not okay for you to have sex with the girl I marry.”

Old fashioned ideal IMO.

3. Those who have premarital sex tend to have less happy marriages. The physical relationship is an inadequate foundation upon which to build a lasting relationship.

Do you believe that living together is only for the sex?

4. Those who have premarital sex are more likely to have their marriages end in divorce.

Proof?

5. Persons and couples who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well. This is especially true for women; those who engaged in sex before marriage are more than twice as likely to have extramarital affairs as those who did not have premarital sex.

And what about those that have abstained, only to wonder what they may have missed?

6. Having premarital sex may fool you into marrying a person who is not right for you... sex can ‘blind’ you.

LOL!

7.
Persons and couples with premarital sex experience seem to achieve sexual satisfaction sooner after they are married. However, they are likely to be less satisfied overall with their sex life during marriage. It seems that their premarital sex experiences often rise to haunt them.

*sigh*[/b][/QUOTE]

Eminem, all I see here is a list of prejudiced comments, offering no more back up than a personal opinion.

Edit - you have now posted your links - I will have a look.

Don't get so worked up, Ysh. I'm not that computer literate, and still in the process of learning how to insert a URL in the text. I just finished doing so, so you can go ahead and read the hyperlinks if you so desire. 'Just hold back on the sarcasm next time, all right?

@yshania: Just collecting data here - are YOU married ? If I remember correctly you stated haveing 2 children - correct ?

@all: Wouldn't it be interesting if all of you stated your "martial status" - just to see from which position you're tackling the subject.

(Besides - I'm just plain curious .)


No worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by Astafas


Sure, it's the same thing so I see no problem with that. However, it would be easier only if Eminem does the same. And his arguments clearly shows that he doesn't.

So Eminem are you willing to change your terminology, just for the sake of this becoming less of a semantic discussion?

Originally posted by Beldin
@yshania: Just collecting data here - are YOU married ? If I remember correctly you stated haveing 2 children - correct ?

@all: Wouldn't it be interesting if all of you stated your "martial status" - just to see from which position you're tackling the subject.

(Besides - I'm just plain curious .)


No worries,

Beldin

Yes, I am married