GameBanshee Forums

posted by Frogus:
sorry CE if my eyerolling shenanigans have caused you any offence...

Not at all, like Ysh points out, this discussion has gone off in many tangents, since MM:s claims concern many different areas. I have choosen to pick up on the area concerning MM:s arguments that out-of-marriage/pre-marital sex leads to a variety of psychological and social problems.

You, Astafas and other have picked up a perhaps more fundamental questions, namely:

posted by Astafas
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.

MM seems to think he has posted rational, founded facts that demonstrates that his opinions are more true than other people's opinions, but I don't agree and I understand if you Frogus and Astafas are frustrated because MM hasn't addressed you basic question. I however think that my contribution to the discussion is important as well, since MM and the christian website MM linked to, is presenting data that include misinterpretations of actual scientific studies. Corrupting scientific findings is IMO a serious problem, since this leads to many misunderstandings.

posted by EMINEM

Be careful what you call propoganda, Elegans. Just because a website is run by Christians doesn't automatically mean that it can't distrubute un-biased information. Most of the sources quoted were secular, anyway.

I am careful, MM, and I use the same definition of "propaganda" as the one Nippy posted, a common, generally accepted definition. I certainly do not judge information as propaganda because it comes from a christian website, and I also know there are biased atheist websites out there. No, the reason I judged this particular website as distributing propaganda, was as I stated in my post: They misquote, they don't give the full facts but only a selection of facts within a certain area, and they use a highly suspicious reference system.

Christian scientists aren't any more vulnerable to them than non-Christians scientists are, and it would be down right bigoted for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Some of the best scientists I know, including my prof who is world leading in neuroscience and a member of the Nobel committee, are christians. The scientific method is structured in a way so personal opinion has little effect of the result, and I certainly don't believe christian scientists are more vulnerable to bias than any other scientists. But that is not my point. My point is that this website in totally unscientific.

I'm not a scientist or psychiatrist, and thus don't have access to medical journals like you do. I must rely, therefore, on secondary and name-year references to back up my arguments. But please don't assume that, because I don't have access to the original source material, that I harbour propogandistic motives. That has never, ever been my intent.

Sure, I absolutely don't expect you, as a private person, to have access to all this, it costs a lot of money and it takes time to learn how to use scientific data bases. My critisism was directed to the website. The website quote results from various studies without giving the reader a chance to find the original source, that's very unserious and "propagandistic" because as an information-distribution organisation, they should quote study results correctly (which they don't) and they should give full references so people can check whether they are telling the whole story or not. By misquoting, misrepresenting, only giving partial data from studies, use non-peer reviewed studies and/or make a special selection of studies, anyone can build a case for anything - I could probably put together an essay that proves left-handed people are more corrupt and less healthy than right-handed people in a day if I used the above propagande methods.

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.

Sure it's to early to tell, if premarial sex was an important factor in the stabiliy of an area and the well-being of it's population, it's not a very good argument to state than Europe might become a 3rd world continent in the futere, we know so little about this so it's just equal to simply state that "anything could happen in the future". The fact is that all North Western European countries have similar rates of youth and premarital sex as the US, and still the US have more problems with both STD:s and unwanted pregnances.

Btw, I don't view it as depravation if Europe has to import lots of immigrants and Sweden as a nation disappear. I view the very idea of the national state as destrunctive and old-fashined, I'm all for globalism and multicultural societies. The world has several heavliy over populated regions, it's better than people from those regions come to Europe than that we in Europe just create more mouths to feed. EU is preparing for an increase in at least work-immigration (I hope politic immigration will get easier too, but that's outside this discussion) and I think the political system in the EU countries will stand well for this increase.

Originally posted by EMINEM
BTW, I think Elegans made a gross generalization of ALL the studies cited based on what she believes to be the questionability of one or two. There are over one hundred different studies cited in the website that was used to support the argument that abstinance and sex until marriage is preferable to pre-marital sex and non-marriage relationships, and she hasn't demonstrated or proven their conclusions to be invalid, unfounded, or replete with experimenter bias. But until she does (IF she does), don't be so quick to parrot what she hastily labelled as propoganda just because you happen to share the same views as her on this issue.

I can't really check on 100s of publications when the title of the work, the initals of the authors isn't given. The reason I grew suspicious after just having checked a couple of references was, as I stated before:

A. The websites misquoted a serious study, the researchers reported a correlation, whereas the website claimed A leads to B. Don't you still understand the importance of this difference, MM? Let me examplify, you saw the US/Sweden statistics I posted? When christianity is high, and STD:s are high US, and unwanted pregnancies are high in the US, whereas all three factors are low in Sweden, that means that a simple correlation calculation like Rxy (Pearson's r) will show a correlation between these three factors. Thus, if I reason like the people on this website, I would claim that according to CIA factbook, governmental statistics, various studeis etc, chrisitanity leads to higher rates of STD:s and more unwanted pregnancy than atheism! Now, do you understand why it is incorrect to claim that a correlation is says anything about causality?
This kind of basic errors is highly unscientific and can only be the result of either a conscious propaganda effort or a lack of knowledge to such an extent so the webiste should not make this kind of claims in public and claim it to be educative material.

B. The website had left some references topopular media like the Times, which is also unserious since the Times like all other newspapers, can write whatever they like. I looked for one reference, Scott 1994, and couldn't find it.

I still haven't found Scott 1994, an important reference since several different results and quotes come from this work.

Voodoodali's link provides critism against another often used reference, Waite and Gallagher 2000, so I won't address that.
EDIT: Perhaps I should add that Waite and Gallaghers work is not a work of research, instead, it's a book called "The case for marrige" (The title sound like a giveaway), and in an interview, Gallagher claims that there is scientific evidence that man should live according to Genesis. She also has some really odd claims, such as that your children love you more if you are married. Read the interview here, and note the many claims she make. I'd love to have a copy of this book and check out the references and the study results they claim to have:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_w ... ge_is.html

The website has some references to a journal called "Journal of Family and marriage". This journal is claims they have "experts reviewing submitted articles", but it is not on ISI:s list of peer-reviewed journals, which simply means they are not fulfilling the standards for a peer-reviewed scientific journals. The experts they refer to could be anyone, we don't know.

I'll look up more references when I have the time, but by now I'm personally convinced this website is propaganda.

Originally posted by C Elegans
I still haven't found Scott 1994, an important reference since several different results and quotes come from this work.

@CE Did you check the reference page of this website? I've seen references done like this before, generally they refer to the articles cited in a bibliography at the end of the article... And some of them are on that page, but I couldn't find all the ones I checked for. However, there are two different references that could be (Scott, 1994):

Scott, Doug, "Should We Wed The Unchurched?" Leadership, 15, No. 2, (spring 1994): 98-103.

Scott, K.C., "Mom, I Want To Live With My Boyfriend," Reader's Digest, February 1994, 77-78.

... I think those speak for themselves

Originally posted by Georgi
@CE Did you check the reference page of this website? I've seen references done like this before, generally they refer to the articles cited in a bibliography at the end of the article... And some of them are on that page, but I couldn't find all the ones I checked for. However, there are two different references that could be (Scott, 1994):

Scott, Doug, "Should We Wed The Unchurched?" Leadership, 15, No. 2, (spring 1994): 98-103.

Scott, K.C., "Mom, I Want To Live With My Boyfriend," Reader's Digest, February 1994, 77-78.

... I think those speak for themselves

Thanks Georgi, I actually did check one of the reference pages, but that one was not the same as your link. A problem is still that we don't know which of the two Scotts the "Scott 1994" references refer to, since both works are from 1994 and no initials are given. Well, the Readers Digest we don't need to comment or even check. Leadership is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that much I can say, but I don't know what it is The title of the work, "Should we wed the unchurched" however makes it highly probably that the work is tendentious (is this the correct word for something that proclaims a specific message/view/opinion as opposed to presenting data?).

Originally posted by C Elegans

<snip>makes it highly probably that the work is tendentious (is this the correct word for something that proclaims a specific message/view/opinion as opposed to presenting data?).

tendentious a. aimed at helping a cause, not impartial.

I applaude the amount of time all involved are spending on trying to be objective and non-tendentious - Curdis !

Originally posted by Yshania


With all due respect, Eminem, your citations have also been generalistic. That and adoptive of a single site that promotes your opinion. I wonder at your accusing anyone here as guilty of bigotry, when you yourself seem reluctant to accept that your way is not necessarily the only way ....

I've never stated that "my way" is the "only way." What I've been trying to argue all along is that my way (ie. abstinance and sex until marriage vs. pre-marital sex marriage, common-law and non-married relationships) is the best and safest way to go. It is by no means easy (I mean, how many 22-year old virgins do you know?), but I believe wholeheartedly that the later rewards (ie. securer, happier marriage) will far outweigh whatever sacrifice and inconvenience it took to get there.

Originally posted by EMINEM
I believe wholeheartedly that the later rewards (ie. securer, happier marriage) will far outweigh whatever sacrifice and inconvenience it took to get there.

What guarantee do you have that by saving youself for marriage the "later rewards" will materialise? Just because you and your bride are virgins on your wedding night does not necessarily mean you will have a happier and more secure marriage.

Marriage is not just about sex; a healthy physical relationship is important for a good marriage, but there is a financial component, a spiritual component and an intellectual component to marriage. Plus you must be on the same page as far as the way you divide household duties, how your are going to raise your children (or if you're even going to have children), how much control your parents are going to have over you and/or your spouse, whether you are willing to relocate, and a host of other issues.

Originally posted by HighLordDave


What guarantee do you have that by saving youself for marriage the "later rewards" will materialise? Just because you and your bride are virgins on your wedding night does not necessarily mean you will have a happier and more secure marriage.

I don't hear Eminem saying that anything as cut-and-dried as guarantees are involved in affairs of the heart. Human relationships and matters of faith aren't based on reason, or facts. They're based on feelings (and some would say, higher intuition or inspiration), and if this is something Eminem (and presumably whatever woman he hooks up with) feels strongly enough about, having "kept themselves pure for one another" may just prove one of many abiding areas of satisfaction in their marriage.

(And no, I wasn't a virgin by any means at the time of my marriage, even discounting the three previous years in which my wife and I lived together, or the two when we dated before that. In fact, I know my prior sexual experience helped, since my wife had been unable to achieve a sexual climax during normal penetration with her previous partners. Had I been completely unexperienced, I don't think I would have been able to create an atmosphere of reassurance and affection, let alone known what might assist matters.

So I'm not arguing in favor of virginity-'til-wedlock, or against it. I suppose, at best, I'm suggesting that nobody has dibs on saying which condition is better in any sense, since it's all in the cultural setting, whether virginity is a jewel yielded only to your wedded partner, or an empty room waiting to be filled with unique experiences.)

Bumping a thread. It's permitted in modern day societies.

Originally posted by fable
Bumping a thread. It's permitted in modern day societies.

Sinner!!!! (whips himself into zealous anger)

I'm not going to pretend that I've read this whole thread, since I haven't. But skimming it through it seems this discussion is going like this; some, mainly Eminem, is arguing strongly for marriage, as most of the others don't see the significance in it and state that a couple can be as committed without marriage. Correct?

For what it's worth, here's my opinion.

I think that two people loving and respecting each other may have equal level of commitment whether or not they are married. This goes without saying. I also believe that two people can be married and live without love and/or respect towards each other. This is fairly obvious too.

The meaning of marriage is all the time diminishing, as there isn't public and religious pressure towards it anymore, at least not like it was 50-100 years ago. So people don't get married anymore just because they are afraid of what their neighbours/relatives would say otherwise. Therefore, one could presume that people who get married are in fact more committed to each other than the couples who don't. But on the other hand the divorce rates are up. It is easier to get a divorce than it used to be, and the marriage isn't anymore "till death do us apart". So some couples may get married after only a short time of dating period, and don't really know if they are "compatible". This also increases the divorce rate.

To conclude: I think there is no right or wrong in this matter, and we should avoid generalizing - it is totally up to person(s) how they live their life and whether or not get married.

About me; I've lived 5 years together with my lady and we aren't married - yet. I don't have any religious agenda in this matter, so I'm not in a rush.

I'm not going to pretend that I've read this whole thread, since I haven't. But skimming it through it seems this discussion is going like this; some, mainly Eminem, is arguing strongly for marriage, as most of the others don't see the significance in it and state that a couple can be as committed without marriage. Correct?

Our conversation here has more recently covered promiscuous sex, non-married couples, the "golden age" of marriage, if any, the advantages, biological or otherwise, of different married or non-married states, the relationship of non-married couples to a presumed decrease in national morality and birthrate and an increase in illicit drug consumption, and the historical basis for marriage. Hope that helps.

Originally posted by Beldin
8 years and counting, unmarried, 2 children, no problems so far.

In these 8 years 2 of my friends married and got divorced after about 3 years, and while I'm typing this 2 more are getting ready to break up - 1 of them married the other not.

SO I can't really say if marriage is good or bad for a partnership. I think it just depends on the people in a partnership - not on their martial status.

I'd have to say that in this specific area of the question asked of EMINEM, I don't 100% agree with Eminem. I view public wedding ceremonies(i.e., the big fancy things in churches) the same way I view baptism. It is symbolic of the commitment being made between the two getting married. I believe that, technically, a couple could be married without having had a ceremony and without the legal stuff; however, there is a problem here. If that was how things were done, then a couple could claim to be 'married,' just so they can have sex without it being called extramarrital sex. Thus, the legal aspects of marriage were set up, by God, in order to provide guidelines since humans are rarely wise enough, especially at a young age, to make the best decision. Am I making any sense?

One of the things I'm trying to say is that it is possible for a couple that isn't married to have an even better relationship than a couple that isn't married; however, this has to do with whether or not they are married in God's eyes or not. A couple that can stay together no matter what, whether having gone through marriage ceremony or not, is more married than a couple who have gotten married and then divorced. If you do not truly believe you can keep your vows of marriage, then you should not marry, nor should you connect in such a way as sex connects to people. If you know beyond any doubt that you can keep your wedding vows, then you should marry, then you are free to connect with the one you love in the intimate way reserved for those who truly love each other.

If you do not love a person enough to go through with a marriage ceremony of some kind, symbolic of the commitment you are making, and spend the rest of your life with him/her, then what right do you have to experience that intimacy with them?

I get rather provoked when someone claim a certain way to be together is imoral or wong in some way. As long as no person(s) in a relationship are suffering there is no problem present.

And to judge from the outside of a relationship without even knowing the involved persons or judging on a general basis is imo a thing far beyond arrogance. It is worse yet when the opinion is backed up by pointing to a higher autority, like God or laws. I think the human species have suffered enough tragedies due to the fact that people are following orders without thinking.

Originally posted by Dottie
I get rather provoked when someone claim a certain way to be together is imoral or wong in some way. As long as no person(s) in a relationship are suffering there is no problem present.

And to judge from the outside of a relationship without even knowing the involved persons or judging on a general basis is imo a thing far beyond arrogance. It is worse yet when the opinion is backed up by pointing to a higher autority, like God or laws. I think the human species have suffered enough tragedies due to the fact that people are following orders without thinking.

First, I just want to point out that I do not condemn anyone who doesn't agree with me or lives in a way that I think is wrong. I am merely voicing my opinion on the matter and why I believe what I believe, as best as I can explain it. However, I do not follow orders without thinking. If I did, I wouldn't get in so many arguments with my 'rents.

I highly doubt that EMINEM just 'follows oders without thinking' either.

To assume that just because someone believes in God and what God says, or in what law says, that means they are just 'following orders without thinking' is a rather arrogant assumption.

*goes off to find a less offensive topic to post in so she doesn't end up getting herself in trouble*

It wasnt my intention to upset you even if it might have looked that way. The post wasnt directed to you or eminem specificaly either. Think of it more like a general comment to all of SYM

Originally posted by Dottie
It wasnt my intention to upset you even if it might have looked that way. The post wasnt directed to you or eminem specificaly either. Think of it more like a general comment to all of SYM

I understand, and please excuse my probably *****y attitude. I just got back from Disneyland today, which means I'm exhausted, and my best friend probably won't be online until late tomorrow at the earliest.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

A couple that can stay together no matter what, whether having gone through marriage ceremony or not, is more married than a couple who have gotten married and then divorced. ?

Nicely put.... I couldn't have said it better.

No worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by fable
In fact, I know my prior sexual experience helped, since my wife had been unable to achieve a sexual climax during normal penetration with her previous partners. Had I been completely unexperienced, I don't think I would have been able to create an atmosphere of reassurance and affection, let alone known what might assist matters.

Anyone who have read the Kinsley report or it's many modern follow-ups, knows that this is very common. In fact, it's not uncommon that women can't experience climax at all with a partner, although they can if they are alone. It is also quite common but perhaps less discussed, that male sexual dysfunctions are equally, if not even more, common. Ejaculation is not necessarity synonymous with climax for a man, and premature ejaculation as well as erectile problems, are very common among men in all ages.

(Mods, you may delete this if you think it's to sexually explicit, my statements are however statistical facts that can be found in any basic psychology or psychotherapy textbook and IMO education is the best way for young people to avoid problems connected to sex.)

IMO, physical and sexual intimacy is as important as emotional intimacy in a loving relationship - they should be united, and emotional closeness in not a guarantee for sexual closeness. Just like some people just don't fit each other emotionally, some people just don't fit each other sexually. I know several people who have had problems they would most probably not have overcome if they, or at least one of them, had previous sexual experience. Everybody is of course entitled to their opinions and I respect the choices MM and SS have done, it's their personal choices according to their personal values, but I certainly don't think other people's choices should be viewed as less good or less moral just because they don't coincide with biblical texts.