remember those teenage abstinence pledges?

[Boris Godunov]

Everyone I like seems to be hellbound. The insufferable ones seem to be the ones going to heaven. At least we'll be in good company.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Sava

But yes, I'm going to hell. I just hope to secure a position in management.

It's not all it's cracked up to be.

[The Mad Viking]

I bet the abortion rate is higher for those who take the pledge...

[Ben Kenobi]

Also missed the part where the kids got married earlier.

In my experience that's usually done to justify having sex yet fulfilling their pledges.

And what is wrong with marrying earlier?

Better than sleeping around, isn't it?

I think that is hypocritical, condemning those who get married early to keep their pledge, while condemning those who do not keep their pledge, as evidence how pledges do not work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet the teens who had taken pledges were less likely to know they had an infection, raising the risk of their transmitting it to other people,

This assumes that they will not keep their pledge. If they keep their pledge, then they should not have an std to worry about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And what is wrong with marrying earlier?

They aren't prepared emotionally to handle the responsibilities of marriage and aren't experienced enoug as adults to know whether they are making the right decisions. Early marriages are more likely to result in divorce than those who wait.

Better than sleeping around, isn't it?

Not really, no.

[Spiffor]

And what is wrong with marrying earlier?

Better than sleeping around, isn't it?

There is an age where it is better to sleep around than to get married. The age where you're too young to know with whom you can commit for the rest of your life. Hasty marriage is the main reason for sivorces, as shown by the great part of divorces that occur in the first years of marriage.

I'd take a period of sleeping around any day over a hasty marriage resulting in divorce.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless, of cource, they marry someone carrying a std.

Then that's not the fault of pledges, to consider those who do not pledge.

Using the pill has indeed a very limited effect when it comes to stopping the spead of std.
(edit: Unless you consider offspring to be a form of std...)

Just quoting the position of the birth control folks.

Of course, the pill does not help with stds, that is why you need to use a condom along with a pill.

It's crazy I tell you. All those precautions, yet if the condom breaks you are ****ed.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And what is wrong with marrying earlier?

Better than sleeping around, isn't it?

I think that is hypocritical, condemning those who get married early to keep their pledge, while condemning those who do not keep their pledge, as evidence how pledges do not work.

I don't have a problem with people marrying early (well, actually I do, in that they're likely too immature).
I do have a problem with people getting married only to satisfy their craving for sex. Not much commitment there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This assumes that they will not keep their pledge.

It's a pretty safe assumption, since most don't. Children who recieve proper sex-education delay sexual initiation longer than those who receive abstinance only education or none at all. They are less likely to get pregnant or have an STD.

Christians are anti-children.

[Ben Kenobi]

They aren't prepared emotionally to handle the responsibilities of marriage and aren't experienced enoug as adults to know whether they are making the right decisions.

So why do we allow them to get married? I would argue against all of your points, that if they are old enough to be having intercourse, they ought also be old enough for marriage.

Early marriages are more likely to result in divorce than those who wait.

Among those who pledge? I would argue the opposite, that those who pledge and marry early would be less likely to divorce than those who do not pledge and also marry.

Emphasis is placed on those who pledge with developing the relationship first.

Not really, no.

So divorce is worse than sleeping around? That's an interesting perspective.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Christians are anti-children*

*except the 1 in 25 Catholic priests accused of being too pro-children

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a pretty safe assumption, since most don't. Children who recieve proper sex-education delay sexual initiation longer than those who receive abstinance only education or none at all.

So the goal here is to make them wait a year longer to have intercourse?

Sorry, that is not acceptable.

Pledging, if you look at my first post, has a big effect on whether or not kids wait for marriage, which ought to be the goal, not 'waiting until you feel ready' which just means that if you are horny enough, you should go for it.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So divorce is worse than sleeping around? That's an interesting perspective.

I take you've never been thru a divorce?

[Ben Kenobi]

I do have a problem with people getting married only to satisfy their craving for sex. Not much commitment there.

Sure there is, if you believe that you should love those whom you sleep with.

Look at the perspective of someone who pledges. You've loved someone for years before getting married, yet have not slept with them. Don't you think that when you finally get married, you are going to look forward to sleeping with that person for the rest of your life?