Most modest approximations fall around $10,000. I don't know about you, but I don't have 10 large lying around just to give the baby away.
to give the baby away?
I wish I weren't such a realist. The world would be so much easier to deal with.
50% is uneasy to take, but certainly isn't majority.
If you stood on a street corner in the closest city and polled every person who walked past you for their definition of "love," you would have a vast array of different answers. This isn't my baseless supposition, this is plain fact based not only on my own 27 years of life experience, but on the ungodly amount of studies that have been done on human emotions and the like.
but opinions on love aren't fact. There is a love that rarely if not ever fails. If people stopped selfishly believing in this Romance garbage that wears off fast, divorce wouldn't be high because people wouldn't expect life to be cloud nine with their soulmates.
It's right in the passage I quoted! Here it is again:
Emphasis mine. I AM willing to shell out for protection. By your logic, I can bang away all I want.
>.< Well punch me in the gut, i did say that! Ok, but please refer to my denial of saying such a thing. It's not my logic, it was an unfortunate error on my part.
Becoming tan is a natural consequence of exposure to the summer sun. Suppose that someone likes their pale complexion but still wants to enjoy the sun, so the use an "artificial technology" called sun block and then they go out in the sun, assume that the time they spend in the sun would be enough to get them tan but not enough to cause burns or damage. Is this wrong? It is using an artificial technology to prevent some of the outcomes of an activity.
The problem here is that you are assuming pregnancy is a negative consequence of sex. It's not supposed be negative.
You say that you find it unethical to have sex only for enjoyment because sex is for procreation, but why is this the case? Why do you feel that because sex can do one thing it should only be used if that thing is desired, especially when that effect is preventable? Sex for procreation may be the most "natural" way, but there is nothing inherently wrong with un-natural things, unnatural medicines save lives every day.
First, all of the functions of sex favor a monogamous life term relationship, yet some of these functions are not favorable in any other relationship. That is why i don't believe in sex just for enjoyment. And to add something i should have said before, i believe extramarital (anything outside of marriage, whether with or without the ceremony) sex is adultery.
Second, yes I do infact believe it appropriate to use unnatural things to prevent negative things from occuring.
Also I just wanted to point out that you might not want to use a comment off a random article as your source, unless they cite thier sources there. Even then you would be better off just going straight to the source they posted.
I was all ready to go straight to the source with those studies, but when there are so many in that one comment i'm not gonna bother copying and pasting them all.
You continue to use the words "I believe."
how many others in this thread have done this and have yet to be chastised for this incredable sin? Or am i the sole exception?
You believe that sex is wrong for pleasure, for example but don't give any logical explanation
other than "it's for procreation."
i have said other things, And perhaps sometimes one only needs one point to respond to one point?
Also, you "believe" that sex should only be for marriage.Again, I said that it's FINE you had an opinion that sex is only for life term commitments. However, you have a poor defense of this belief (you only cite that sex should be only used for procreation).
Again, I've just added more to my defense. I acknowledge my point hasn't been succesful at shaking the likes of you, so i'm saying what i should have said.
Firstly, you're implying that only through marriage can a couple have kids (incorrect)
You are wrong to say this since, as i didn't say that. I said that married couples are
best at raising kids not that they can only be the ones to raise
and secondly, that the primary function of sex is for procreation which is debatable.
I find this humerous. So you're saying that procreation (i'm going to start using reproduction now, as i see it as a better word to use) could be seen as not a primary function of the human body? Since when is reproduction not a primary function of life? This sounds so absurd.
If you use a condom correctly, most family planning sites give the success rate at 98% (again, correctly; many people don't put it on correctly).
proof? Statistics? You just can't say this.
And I don't get the point "if you don't want to use a condom, don't use it." You were saying previously that safe sex isn't completely safe. I said that if properly used, contraception can prevent pregnancies successfully. And now you're replying with "People don't want to have safe sex." How is this relevant in anyway?
I'll just do us both a favor and say this isn't relevant. It was just an unfortunate product of me trying to debate this point. i'm not perfect.
This articles says that children determine the happiness of the family, not how effectively parents (or a parent) can raise the kid. Your source is irrelevant to the point.
I find it relevant that married couples are happier with children compaired to unmarried couples that don't find happiness in kids because it is an indicator of how well they can raise children since if parenthood (having kids) makes you happy, you should find a correlation between that and how willing and commited you are to raise children.
Furthermore, your generalization that cohabiting couples aren't fit to raise children is fallacious.
Ok i'm wrong... But i have a question. How did we get on cohabiting couples and all these other types of stuff in the first place (ok, i did cohabiting couples, but still- this seems far different than what the original argument on whether marriage is serious or not and whether a married couple can raise kids the best or not).
Common-law couples =/= Single parents. Again you cite irrelevant sources. I would naturally agree that single parents would probably do a poorer job of raising offspring due to the lack of resources, lack of time and other factors, but common law couples are not single parents.
Common law couples are the same as married couples. A government recognition is the sole requirement of a legit marriage. Now, the source IS relevant since it is attacking single parents as not being able to raise kids as well as married couples.
Wait, you "think" it's ethical to enjoy sex because it's used for procreation? How is it unethical in anyway? I can see the enjoyment of sex and intimacy as a primary product from intercourse and pregnancy as an unwanted by product (especially in the eyes of young adults).
So if procreation is not primary and is unwanted... wow, think about population...
Furthermore, with married couples, some choose to not have children. Therefore, by your logic, they should not consummate their marriage, because they don't want to have children (as sex is primarily an act of human procreation).
Yup. Absolutely.
And then you swing the opposite way, saying that humans should enjoy sex, because they are sexual animals. I don't see how pregnancy is a necessary event that has to come after enjoyment and intimacy.
It's not swinging the opposite way. Enjoyment and reproduction aren't mutual of each other in sex. Sex is enjoyment of reproduction, because that's what it biologically is.
