Marriage in today's society

[Beren]

A general discussion thread for marriage in the conditions of today's societies.

Religious expectations used to exert pressure on people to get married, and often early, to pass on values to the next generation. But how about nowadays?

Women, at least in some circles, were homemakers and children raisers, and often at earlier ages? But nowadays, with roughly equal access to workplace (I assume), does this mean women are delaying marriage and family raising until its too late? Or can they have their cake and eat it to?

How about homosexual relationships?

This post is merely intended as a launch pad for any serious / intellectual discussions regarding the place of marriage in modern civilization.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Actually, the number one pressure leading to early marriage centuries ago (I think that's what you're talking about) was work-force oriented, not religious. These days, the things that changed were the lack of need for that level of work-force and required continued education until much later in life (usually around 18, 22-ish for college). This has pushed the standard 'acceptable' marryable age from 12-14 to 19-23. Now, if you're talking about changes in the last 100 years or so (moving average from 19-23 to 25-40?), then I think women's equality has had a lot to do with it. With women no longer needing a man to provide for them, they've become much more choosy about who 'their man' will be, sometimes to the point of rejecting the idea altogether.

I think today many women are simply trying to figure out what to do with themselves (career, family, 'Mr. Right', go for it all?) and what they value. They've (women in general) had these freedoms long enough to realize they really have to decide what it is they value before they go for it. What that will be seems to depend entirely on the individual woman. For many of them, marriage may become an inconvenience, but I'm betting many more of them still harbor dreams of the perfect Mr. Right, the big (or private) wedding, the dream home, and probably a few kids.

[Gnarfflinger]

Another reason for pushing marriage younger is sex. It is a natural drive in men and women to have sex. But to religion, and many older societies, sex is sacred, and should be limited to the confines of marriage.

However the demands of modern society on the individual and the family has pushed marriage back a few years for most people. With an increased importance on education (at the post secondary level), and the need for two incomes, marriages in the late 20's or even 30's are more common. Because marriage comes so late, pre-marital sex is on the rise. With premarital sex no longer taboo, and common law relationships more common, some may not marry period!

What's being lost is that sacred nature of the union between a man and a woman. With people taking that for granted, the focus becomes not on two people coming together but people trying to satisfy their desires. That works fine as long as they satisfy each other, but when that is not the case, some seek divorce rather than growing together. Then there are those that are abusive, neglectful or unfaithful who outright abuse the sacred blessing that their marriage should be.

Another source of confusion is the fact that the government has attached certain civil rights to the religious ordinance of marriage. This becomes problematic when marriage is brought into play where God never intended it to apply. It becomes problematic when marriage is used but divine implications are not welcome. This creates confusion over who has rights to oversee marriage, and the state trying to wrench it from the hands of Religion, despite a constitutional ammendment forbidding this from happening.

Marriage will continue to be desecrated if the state doesn't learn to keep their nose out of that which is sacred.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

I don't think people are taking the sacred nature of marriage for granted so much as they are ignoring it entirely.

[The Magister]

Honestly I never saw marriage as necessary. At least not in this day and age. I understand that some people see marriage as sacred. I understand that some people believe it to be an act of love to marry. I simply don't understand that last one though. If you love someone why do you need a ceremony and a bit of paper proving that you love them.

[Harbourboy]

Marriage is not really something that should be linked to religion. It's about love and commitment, not about what a god or a holy scripture, or even a government dictates that you do.

I have been married for 4 years now and religion and politics have nothing to do with it.

[Saber]

What's being lost is that sacred nature of the union between a man and a woman

People can have that bond and union without being married. Not all premarital sex is about satisfying desires and carnal urges.

[joacqin]

What is funny with marriage is that it is really just for the last 50-70 years or so and only here in the west that the notion of "romance" and "love" have had anything to do with it.

The core of marriage has always been business, a practical union of two people which hopefully would bring practical advantages to both parts and their families. Maybe if you were really really really poor the notion of love might have come into the picture.

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by Gnarfflinger

What's being lost is that sacred nature of the union between a man and a woman.

OK, wait a minute. Now you're saying that the union is sacred? (Title of the thread notwithstanding, presumably you actually meant "union", and not "marriage", or you would have said "marriage".) So a union, whether it's called a marriage or not, is sacred and therefore religious in nature. Then why is it that you're saying a civil union between homosexuals is OK as long as it isn't called a marriage?

Next you're going to say that two people dating has religious overtones.

[Gnarfflinger]

OK, wait a minute. Now you're saying that the union is sacred?

I was taught in school that you can't define a word using that word. I defined Marriage as a sacred union as opposed to a civil union. I've been calling Marriage a sacred union all along...

Then why is it that you're saying a civil union between homosexuals is OK as long as it isn't called a marriage?

Because it's a civil union. It comes from Civil authorities, not from God. What Civil authorities do for homosexuals is none of my business as long as the sacred--marriage--is preserved as sacred.

[The Shaman]

Well, since only the church can perform the sacred ceremony, it shouldn't matter much anyway. Give unto Caesar etc.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but it appears that some of the abstinence-based education appears to be ineffective - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28415602/

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by Splunge

OK, wait a minute. Now you're saying that the union is sacred? (Title of the thread notwithstanding, presumably you actually meant "union", and not "marriage", or you would have said "marriage".) So a union, whether it's called a marriage or not, is sacred and therefore religious in nature. Then why is it that you're saying a civil union between homosexuals is OK as long as it isn't called a marriage?

Looks a bit uncollected at first, but from a premise that marriage is sacred you must arrive at the conclusion that a union which steps into that territory, steps into the sacred territory and has a significance in it. Not to say that any union is sacred, most often the opposite, but it touches on that territory.

Next you're going to say that two people dating has religious overtones.

By extension of above, it actually might. Religion is not just cult, it's one's relationship to the higher power. Certain aspects of life are not arbitrarily placed outside it. Not politics, not sex, not other things. Dating either serves to find someone for marriage or a concubinage, or even a short-term relationship, but at any rate it thus touches on the territory I spoke about in the paragraph above. For me, personally, it has a tone of significance. What it does not is make a religious relationship, by any means. That would be an insane stretch.

Originally Posted by The Shaman

Well, since only the church can perform the sacred ceremony, it shouldn't matter much anyway. Give unto Caesar etc.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but it appears that some of the abstinence-based education appears to be ineffective - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28415602/

The study is biased. Read the title: "Youths who promise abstinence are also less likely to use protection"

That sounds like a point of view from which effective sexual education is one that leads to avoiding unwanted pregnancies, not one that leads to people becoming responsible adults able to found healthy, loving and secure families. It's far easier to teach people successfully to use contraceptives than to teach them succesfully to be able to say no to sex.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

News flash: education based on abstinence has no reason to teach birth control, therefore it does not. Abstinence also often goes in tandem with a belief that birth control is wrong. I don't know to what extent it prevails over their desire to avoid pregnancy - if they have any - but while people who try to follow abstinence have a sex drive like anyone, if they believe potentially abortifacient contraceptives to be homicide, then that is a strong factor.

The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples."

Apart from the fact that I can't possible decypher what precisely they meant in that sentence, it's obvious the sample group has been adjusted.

Doesn't it mean they picked children with similar values and those similar values should yield similar results? So whatever they try to prove, they may only prove that pledges are not obeyed. Compare the pledge fidelity ratio to unwanted pregnancy and STD ratio in non-abstinence education and then you will have a measure of effectiveness in terms of pure success rate.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active — and most do well before marriage — they don't protect themselves or their partners?"

Because not everyone even calls contraceptives "protection" and because we don't encourage them to wait until they are older but to wait until they are married.

Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

Of course.

Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends' attitudes about sex and birth control.

Similar values lead to similar results. Abstinence sex ed is about values. Pledge is an expression of those values.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense."

So you can compare them to whomever you want and put the results in such a light as you want. Yeah.

There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control."

Umm... Does accurate information come with "knowledge" that condoms are ethically mandatory?

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by chevalier

Looks a bit uncollected at first, but from a premise that marriage is sacred you must arrive at the conclusion that a union which steps into that territory, steps into the sacred territory and has a significance in it. Not to say that any union is sacred, most often the opposite, but it touches on that territory.

My issue was that Gnarff seemed to be saying that any union, whether it is called a marriage or not, is sacred and thus has religious overtones; this is the complete opposite of what he had previously been saying, in that he exempted civil unions from being sacred as long as they aren't called marriages. However, I now realize that he is confused by the term "union", just as he is unclear on the definitions of "accept" and "willing".

By extension of above, it actually might [...] Dating either serves to find someone for marriage or a concubinage, or even a short-term relationship, but at any rate it thus touches on the territory I spoke about in the paragraph above.

Doesn't this contradict what you say next?...

For me, personally, it has a tone of significance. What it does not is make a religious relationship, by any means. That would be an insane stretch.

It either touches on it (assuming that, by "it", you mean religious overtones), or it doesn't.

[Barmy Army]

I don't think I'd ever want to get married. I don't see the point in it.

[Harbourboy]

Marriage is cool.

But I still object when people say that marriage is something that is somehow owned by religion and that if you're not married religiously then you're not really married.

I'm no anthropologist but I bet humans had some sort of monogamous relationships long before the Bible was written.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Barmy Army

I don't think I'd ever want to get married. I don't see the point in it.

Two words for you Barmy. TAX BREAKS!

Seriously though, if you are happy with someone, there's no reason not to settle down. And there are some societal benefits of actually getting hitched rather than just cohabitating. My wife and I did get married in a church. However, that was more of a means of pleasing my wife's parents. I wouldn't have cared if we were married by a JOP instead of a priest. Not that I was bothered by being married by a priest, either.

I do think people of today are getting married much later than they were just 20 or 30 years ago. The number of people who marry in their early 20s is very small among the people I know. Most people seem to wait until they are at least around 25 before they marry, which makes sense seeing as how a lot of people don't even have a stable job until then anyway.

Kids, on the other hand, is a whole other story. I felt that the change of going from single to married was small compared to the change of going from no kid to having a kid. I think it must have something to do with you having some idea of what you're getting into when you get married. You usually know your spouse for a while before you get married, but with a kid you really have no idea what to expect, or what you're going to get.

[Munchkin Blender]

Originally Posted by Harbourboy

Marriage is not really something that should be linked to religion. It's about love and commitment, not about what a god or a holy scripture, or even a government dictates that you do.

I have been married for 4 years now and religion and politics have nothing to do with it.

Well said.

I also have been married for four years. I married my wife out of love and commitment.

To me marriage signifies that two people have agreed to stay faithful to each other through hardship and good times.

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by Splunge

My issue was that Gnarff seemed to be saying that any union, whether it is called a marriage or not, is sacred and thus has religious overtones; this is the complete opposite of what he had previously been saying, in that he exempted civil unions from being sacred as long as they aren't called marriages. However, I now realize that he is confused by the term "union", just as he is unclear on the definitions of "accept" and "willing".

A union should be a marriage. Marriage may be a marriage without being a religious one. Actually, in Roman law, you could marry by usucaption through continued exercise of marital authority over a woman. Not like it was the highest form of marriage, strictly speaking, but it was closer to marriage than anything else. A de facto union may thus be not so far away from a purely secular marriage. In fact, one of the Roman forms of marriage was contracted by cohabitation and consent to marry, where consent was presumed by lack of contrary intention. So you married unless you opted out.

Doesn't this contradict what you say next?...

It either touches on it (assuming that, by "it", you mean religious overtones), or it doesn't.

Depends what you mean by overtones and from what point of view you address dating. Dating as an institution is not religious in overtone. However, what you do with it has significance. If marriage is sacred to you, then the consideration whom to marry and whom not, the looking for a person to marry, those things become a very important point in your religious and spiritual life, as well as matter of many prayers. But this doesn't mean that dating is something like a lesser form of marriage or a lesser grade of religiously sanctioned relationship.

Originally Posted by Harbourboy

Marriage is cool.

But I still object when people say that marriage is something that is somehow owned by religion and that if you're not married religiously then you're not really married.

I agree, although with some slight reservations, i.e. some non-religious marriages are not real and some religious marriages aren't real either. This is not to say that the sacramental quality of valid Christian marriages makes no difference - it makes a whole lot of difference. This is not, however, to say, that e.g. two atheists married by a JP aren't validly married, assuming they aren't of the same gender, ancestor and descendant, forced or deceived etc, or that none of them is bound to follow canon law as a baptised Catholic not having formally defected. This is a religious perspective, Harbs, not some supposed secular alter ego of mine and I'm not having a split identity here.

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by chevalier

from a premise that marriage is sacred you must arrive at the conclusion that a union which steps into that territory, steps into the sacred territory and has a significance in it. Not to say that any union is sacred, most often the opposite, but it touches on that territory.

Originally Posted by chevalier

A union should be a marriage. Marriage may be a marriage without being a religious one.

Depends what you mean by overtones and from what point of view you address dating. Dating as an institution is not religious in overtone. However, what you do with it has significance. If marriage is sacred to you, then the consideration whom to marry and whom not, the looking for a person to marry, those things become a very important point in your religious and spiritual life, as well as matter of many prayers

This is not to say that the sacramental quality of valid Christian marriages makes no difference - it makes a whole lot of difference. This is not, however, to say, that e.g. two atheists married by a JP aren't validly married, assuming they aren't of the same gender, ancestor and descendant, forced or deceived etc, or that none of them is bound to follow canon law as a baptised Catholic not having formally defected. This is a religious perspective, Harbs, not some supposed secular alter ego of mine

I may have been guilty of thinking that you have the same sort of flawed reasoning process as Gnarff. Now that I think I've gotten past that, it sounds to me that you are saying a marriage is sacred only if the intent of the man and woman is to make it sacred. A non-religious courthouse union can still be called a marriage (with a few exceptions you mention in the last quote), even though there is nothing sacred about it, and calling it a marriage doesn't create a "covenant" (as Gnarff likes to call it), implied or otherwise, with god.

Am I correct in my understanding of your position here?

[The Shaman]

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by chevalier

The study is biased. Read the title: "Youths who promise abstinence are also less likely to use protection"

That sounds like a point of view from which effective sexual education is one that leads to avoiding unwanted pregnancies, not one that leads to people becoming responsible adults able to found healthy, loving and secure families.

I don't see how a study that also includes measurement of how a certain program affects the use of other contraceptives (other than its primary focus - abstinence) is necessarily biased. And if a program focuses on abstinence, neglecting study of other contraceptives, and there is no net difference in abstinence levels (as the study suggests), then "ineffective" is the right word for it. As for making people responsible adults, that's almost as hard to quantify as it is to do - but unwanted pregnancies and STDs are good indicators.

Originally Posted by chevalier

News flash: education based on abstinence has no reason to teach birth control, therefore it does not. Abstinence also often goes in tandem with a belief that birth control is wrong. I don't know to what extent it prevails over their desire to avoid pregnancy...

Yet if education neglects to mention widely used and usually successful methods, how good is it? One thing the study points out is that in 82% of the cases studied when the kids took a virginity pledge, they subsequently broke it. A program that did not include the study of other methods to avoid unwanted pregnancy/STDs simply does not work for them - and a similar percentage of teenagers who do not take such a pledge. Not only that, but if the effect of the entire pledge is suspect, why not tailor the program to the needs of the 82+% of the kids that are going to have pre-marital sex - and are most in need of sexual education anyway?

In order for any program to be effective, it should plan for contingencies. IMO even if the people engaging in premarital sex were 20%, they should merit notice and instruction. In the US, and probably other places, the ratio is probably more like 80%, if not higher. That is a very good reason to teach birth control, imo - whatever the focus of the program is.

Originally Posted by chevalier

Doesn't it mean they picked children with similar values and those similar values should yield similar results? So whatever they try to prove, they may only prove that pledges are not obeyed. Compare the pledge fidelity ratio to unwanted pregnancy and STD ratio in non-abstinence education and then you will have a measure of effectiveness in terms of pure success rate.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you want to compare the impact of different programs, you need kids with the same values - because otherwise you can not determine whether the effect was due to the program or previous teaching, family environment, what have you. It's much easier to measure the effect of a variable if the other factors are constant.

Now, sure, the study is inconclusive, as most studies are. That does not mean it's worthless.

Originally Posted by chevalier

Because not everyone even calls contraceptives "protection" and because we don't encourage them to wait until they are older but to wait until they are married.

Using contraceptives - condoms in particular - makes sex a whole lot safer, whether the couple is married or not. Encouraging people to not have premarital sex is ok, but given the percentage that does not wait for marriage, educating them how to make the best of their situation is even more important.

Originally Posted by chevalier

Similar values lead to similar results. Abstinence sex ed is about values. Pledge is an expression of those values.

Education is more than values - it is also skills and knowledge. Especially as, given the percentage of teens in the survey who did not stay true to their pledge, values are likely to change. A good program should prepare for contingencies - and while I do think that a program should mention that the only way to guarantee no STDs is not to have sex, not talking about the alternatives is, to put it mildly, irresponsible. To the best of my knowledge, proper use of condoms can reduce STD risks by over 95%, and pregnancy chances by over 99% - correct me if I'm wrong. Whether that makes them ethically mandatory or not depends on the user - I personally think that if I care enough about a woman to have sex with her, spending 50 cents on a condom is the least I could do.

Aaaanyway, marriage. We are really talking about two very different sides of the same coin, aren't we? Religion - any religion - treats marriage as a spiritual institution, a connection between the two spouces, usually with the express intent of raising children. Administratively, marriage is a contract which makes two adults in a administrative unit - which children may be a part of, but I think that there is no express expectation.

IMO both are significant to some degree, but neither of these can make a marriage work - the most important part is the emotional connection the spouces share. If it's lacking, all that marriage is is a set of half-forgotten vows and (usually minor) financial incentives. On the other hand, people may live together without any of the religious or administrative paraphernalia and still be very committed to their relationship and dedicated to each other - I personally know several such cases, and while some of them eventually moved to marriage (which afaik did not change the couples' relationship much), some did not. If we consider love and child-raising to be the two most important aspects of common life, I think marriage today is more of an aid than a necessity for couples.

[Gnarfflinger]

from a premise that marriage is sacred you must arrive at the conclusion that a union which steps into that territory, steps into the sacred territory and has a significance in it. Not to say that any union is sacred, most often the opposite, but it touches on that territory.

I take the position that when you step into sacred territory, you are under sacred covenant. That's why I argue for a different term for those that want God and that which is sacred to be specifically excluded from the union in question.

My issue was that Gnarff seemed to be saying that any union, whether it is called a marriage or not, is sacred and thus has religious overtones; this is the complete opposite of what he had previously been saying, in that he exempted civil unions from being sacred as long as they aren't called marriages.

I don't see where I said that. In fact, I've even tried to differentiate between sacred and civil unions...

I'm no anthropologist but I bet humans had some sort of monogamous relationships long before the Bible was written.

But to the Religious (Abrahamic religions, anyway), Adam and Eve were the first humans, which placed marriage square in the hands of Religion...

Two words for you Barmy. TAX BREAKS!

And those same tax breaks could be extended to alternative unions with little fuss and fanfare, but it's been rejected...

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by Gnarfflinger

I don't see where I said that. In fact, I've even tried to differentiate between sacred and civil unions...

Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but you said it right here:

Originally Posted by Gnarfflinger

What's being lost is that sacred nature of the union between a man and a woman.

You seemed to be calling any union sacred, and not excluding civil unions from this.

But it appears that it was just a poor choice of words on your part, as I acknowledged in the part of my earlier post that you didn't bother to include in your quote.

[Harbourboy]

But to the Religious (Abrahamic religions, anyway), Adam and Eve were the first humans, which placed marriage square in the hands of Religion...

Realistically though, there were cavemen and the like, and they had no bibles until someone got around to inventing written language, so some of them must have been married long before they heard about what the bible has to say about it.

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by Harbourboy

Realistically though, there were cavemen and the like, and they had no bibles until someone got around to inventing written language, so some of them must have been married long before they heard about what the bible has to say about it.

While I agree with what you're saying, HB, that's basically the difference between creationism and evolution. Those who believe in god deny that cavemen evolved into modern-day humans. Adam and Eve were the first, and the bible simply put into writing the rules that god made from the outset (I think).

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by Splunge

I may have been guilty of thinking that you have the same sort of flawed reasoning process as Gnarff. Now that I think I've gotten past that, it sounds to me that you are saying a marriage is sacred only if the intent of the man and woman is to make it sacred. A non-religious courthouse union can still be called a marriage (with a few exceptions you mention in the last quote), even though there is nothing sacred about it, and calling it a marriage doesn't create a "covenant" (as Gnarff likes to call it), implied or otherwise, with god.

Am I correct in my understanding of your position here?

That's a bit hard to answer and an accurate answer would require a great deal of detail, but basically, a valid marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and while the sacramental quality belongs only to a valid Christian marriage (in a certain sense it is as if the sacramental quality "attaches" to a valid marriage, although the tie is more intrinsic, since exclusion of sacramentality prevents validity for Christians), I wouldn't want to go as far as to say that there is "nothing sacred" about say, a bona fide courthouse marriage of two people who intentions and disposition make for a valid marriage.

Originally Posted by The Shaman

I don't see how a study that also includes measurement of how a certain program affects the use of other contraceptives (other than its primary focus - abstinence) is necessarily biased. And if a program focuses on abstinence, neglecting study of other contraceptives, and there is no net difference in abstinence levels (as the study suggests), then "ineffective" is the right word for it. As for making people responsible adults, that's almost as hard to quantify as it is to do - but unwanted pregnancies and STDs are good indicators.

Abstinence is not a contraceptive. A contraceptive is something which allows you to have sex without the female partner becoming pregnant. Abstinence is not having sex at all, so it starts a level before. And I'm not talking about the kind of "abstinence" which does everything but going the whole way.

I reject the proposition that being a responsible adult necessitates being proficient in the use of contraceptives. People should be responsible about sex in the first place and contraceptives aren't even the right way to approach it.

The good way to be responsible about sex is to have sex in a permanent partnership in which both partners will be parents, i.e. marriage, and only when one is ready to have children.

Those teenagers who were examined did not keep their abstinence, but putting contraceptives in the story is like talking about trade wind in the context of arctic climate. Contraceptives come from a different system of values and rest on different premises.

Yet if education neglects to mention widely used and usually successful methods, how good is it?

The only successful method is abstinence and only if it is kept. Individuals choosing not to keep it does not make the method bad. Humans make choices. One of those is to have sex or not.

A program that did not include the study of other methods to avoid unwanted pregnancy/STDs simply does not work for them - and a similar percentage of teenagers who do not take such a pledge.

Sexual education reducing the purpose of human sexuality to avoiding unwanted pregnancy - and avoiding STD as a bonus goal - begins from the wrong end. Children are not our enemies and procreation is a natural result of sexual intercourse. Contraception is preventing that natural result so that people could enjoy their pleasure without consequences, and in many ways an illusion.

In order for any program to be effective, it should plan for contingencies. IMO even if the people engaging in premarital sex were 20%, they should merit notice and instruction. In the US, and probably other places, the ratio is probably more like 80%, if not higher. That is a very good reason to teach birth control, imo - whatever the focus of the program is.

See above.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you want to compare the impact of different programs, you need kids with the same values - because otherwise you can not determine whether the effect was due to the program or previous teaching, family environment, what have you. It's much easier to measure the effect of a variable if the other factors are constant.

"Pledge" is not a contraceptive. We're talking about people who believe premarital sex to be wrong on moral grounds. They already accept a moral obligation not to do it and that pledge is only a public reinforced recognition of that already existent moral duty. But the values stay the same and so likely does the observance.

Using contraceptives - condoms in particular - makes sex a whole lot safer, whether the couple is married or not. Encouraging people to not have premarital sex is ok, but given the percentage that does not wait for marriage, educating them how to make the best of their situation is even more important.

Safer? The only safe way to avoid STD is having sex only with a person you're married to and the other person doing the same. It would be a very sad thing to see a married couple that can't trust each other on this one. As for unwanted sex, again, children are not a danger and are not a hostile force that invades our safety.

Education is more than values - it is also skills and knowledge.

Skills to do things one considers immoral? Learning how to do something you consider immoral is already a breach of a moral duty which one recognises.

and while I do think that a program should mention that the only way to guarantee no STDs is not to have sex, not talking about the alternatives is, to put it mildly, irresponsible

I don't like the way unwanted pregnancy and STDs are lumped together. Avoiding disease is one thing, avoiding pregnancy is another.

Whether that makes them ethically mandatory or not depends on the user - I personally think that if I care enough about a woman to have sex with her, spending 50 cents on a condom is the least I could do.

The 50 cent argument won't work.

If I care enough about a woman, I marry her and then have sex responsibly, i.e. without an obsessive fear that a natural consequence of sexual intercourse, which is a child, will somehow ruin our lives. If I care for her but don't want to marry her, the care requires not having sex with her. In short, if I care about a woman, I don't reduce her to providing sexual pleasure to me, but deal with an integral person.

Aaaanyway, marriage. We are really talking about two very different sides of the same coin, aren't we? Religion - any religion - treats marriage as a spiritual institution, a connection between the two spouces, usually with the express intent of raising children. Administratively, marriage is a contract which makes two adults in a administrative unit - which children may be a part of, but I think that there is no express expectation.

Yes, that is what the law mandates. That is what a secular marriage is according to the law. Doesn't mean it's marriage.

IMO both are significant to some degree, but neither of these can make a marriage work - the most important part is the emotional connection the spouces share. If it's lacking, all that marriage is is a set of half-forgotten vows and (usually minor) financial incentives. On the other hand, people may live together without any of the religious or administrative paraphernalia and still be very committed to their relationship and dedicated to each other - I personally know several such cases, and while some of them eventually moved to marriage (which afaik did not change the couples' relationship much), some did not. If we consider love and child-raising to be the two most important aspects of common life, I think marriage today is more of an aid than a necessity for couples.

The point is to be responsible for one's actions and for the other person as well - and yes, loving, kind, charitable. Without that, there's no love, there's only sex.

Originally Posted by Gnarfflinger

I take the position that when you step into sacred territory, you are under sacred covenant. That's why I argue for a different term for those that want God and that which is sacred to be specifically excluded from the union in question.

There we'd disagree - a step into a sacred territory might well be an infringement of it and infringement is not a covenant, in fact, infringement in this case happens by entering into that territory without there being a covenant.

Originally Posted by Splunge

I'm no anthropologist but I bet humans had some sort of monogamous relationships long before the Bible was written.

Correct, but God already existed before the Bible.

Originally Posted by Harbourboy

Realistically though, there were cavemen and the like, and they had no bibles until someone got around to inventing written language, so some of them must have been married long before they heard about what the bible has to say about it.

If they were human enough to have a soul, they may well have been married. The Bible, however, wasn't a one-time compendium of all you need to know or do before which nothing happened. The same message existed long before it was put in writing and God already existed. Creation began before evolution started.