Listen, dingelheimer, I didn’t say or infer anything from a religious perspective. I belong to no organized religion, and I’m not a Christian. I simply pointed out that sex before marriage is not a good idea. You know perfectly well what social pathologies it produces, as does everyone else here who is willing to surrender his philsophies and values to providing a pass for the Palins.
I'd start with a personal insult too, if I had to try to shovel the sh!t you're working at.
You're not a Christian? And not only that, you belong to no organized religion?
But you declare, without any limitation, that sex before marriage should never take place?
What, exactly, is "marriage," dingelheimer? Is it some promise muttered before a government clerk, according to laws that allow another muttering to dissolve it? THAT is what every human being should be required to do before making love with someone they love?
Or is it a spiritual promise, dingelheimer? But without being a Christian or a member of an organized religion, what is the nature of the spiritual promise that should make up this "marriage" that should be the absolute WALL between two people EVER making love, according to you?
This hardly seems like a trivial question. After all, seven billion people are waiting for an explaination of exactly what they need to do before they can make love, and you alone know the answer - it is "marriage" - but NOT associated with any particular religion, especially Christianity, of which you belong to NONE.
So what is this "marriage" YOU ALONE can define, that stands in the way of LOVE ITSELF, dingelheimer?
An ENTIRE PLANET wants to know.