Your arguments are weak, as was expected.

First of all correlation does not equate causation. Those studies don't prove your points. Are people who don't have sex before marriage less likely to divorce because they didn't have sex before marriage, or because they're religious peole who don't believe in divorce and will stay together no matter how terrible their relationship is? As for the "stronger upbringing for children" part well, do these studies include the effects that an unhappy dysfucntional marriage can have on children? In the end these studies select certain test subjects that will confirm their hypothesis, and fall into the typicall human logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

(the whole abuse being caused by premarital sex and "homosexual activity" just prooves how deluted you are, and is one of the most insulting and ridiculous things I've ever heard)

The fantasy ideal of family and sex are mere pipe dreams.

The fact that homosexuals are promiscuous has a lot to do with society, and their lack of place in it (unlike heterosexuals, they can't marry and are not encouraged to form monogamous partnerships). The more they becoem accepted, the more this issue will be solved.

I find that the bolded part is in itself degrading to human beings in general. It has a total disinterest of individuality, personal fulfillment and happyness. All people are different and only the individual knows what's best for him/her. No typical formula works for everybody.

Sorry, I don't blindly follow a fantasy entity's subjective whims, that have no grounds in logic and reality, and punish individuality and degrade human beings.

I know that there's no hierarchy of sins, my problem is for some things being considered sins at all. Christianity has too may illogical restrictions which in the end degrade and damage people.

I hope you were joking about the bolded part and don't really beleive that.

But what if that fantasy entity was a real and powerful entity that your existence depended on?

Its funny. Of all the VGC Off-Topic posters, you insult people by delivering ad-hominem attacks, arguing everyone but yourself is illogical, yet never once providing a shred of evidence to support your point of view.

The interesting thing about the pre-marital sex and divorce argument is that the studies usually do not take religion in to account, but divorce studies do. Divorce studies show that religious people get divorced more often than non-religious, which blows your argument out of the water.

Yes, the studies take into account dysfunctional marriages that are still working, because they A/B test between marriages - dysfunctional or working - and divorced situations - dysfunctional and working. The results are always the same, and the studies have been this way since the 1940s.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/06/the-effects-of-divorce-on-america

http://www.troubledwith.com/Relationships/A000000830.cfm?topic=relationships: divorce

http://www.childadvocate.net/divorce_effects_on_children.htm

(these are the top 3 results for effects of divorce. 3 unrelated studies)

Again, its hilarious that you will throw out any study or data that disagrees with you as being false, yet never once lift a finger to study to see if your assumptions are even right. If you keep doing this (like a few other select VGC-OT posters), then I have to question if responding to you is going to ever be worth my time.

You saying all people are different, therefore are exempt from any standard of morals is humorous at best. Sure, you can do whatever you want, but don't argue that the results are always the same. I'm not going to prevent anyone from engaging in any sort of sexual activity, but its always interesting seeing the results of their actions. Its like smoking cigarettes: Sure, you are free to do it. Just don't come running to me when it costs you your health or wallet.

Also, in your argument about homosexual promiscuity and lack of marriages: I'd love to see data you could provide that shows that homosexuals even have a lot of interest in marriage, and are being forced into promiscuity due to the lack of it. Marriage rates among homosexuals in countries that have legalized it are incredibly low after the initial wave of marriages, and in the case of the Netherlands, almost none get married now (last stats I can find are ~1,100 marriages out of approximately 50,000 co-habitating couples compared to about 2,500 marriages and 40,000 couples the year after legalization in 2001). Such data argues that your view may be inherantly false. Now, I'm not saying homosexuals should be prevented from having a legal union due to such data - they should be free to be recognized by the state for whatever status they want - but I am saying that its not an issue as highly regarded as you claim.

You mean italisized?

Well no, I'm not joking.  Think of how many people could be fed based on internet service, and how many people would be helped in the time spent online.

Every action for the self in a way is a sin against others... and people only do things for themselves due to selfishness.

The entity you describe is a tyrant.

Seriously? Linking a study done by an organisation like Focus on the Family? (and for your information this was just my first ad-hominem attack on this topic, and it's not a logical fallacy, as it's only logical to question to sources that you linked, which are obvious biased right wing organisations with an agenda). And what do those links have to do with sex before marriage? None of those studies show that people who have sex before marriage are more likely to divorce (or that the having sex veofre marriage part leads to the divorce part). It's just anti-divorce propaganda that aims to manipulate people to stay in miserable marriages.

Considering the sources of those studies you linked, and the fact that they're based on the typical logical error I previously noted, there's not much to them (except the third link, though I wonder if the "positive" effects of seing mommy and daddy fight and scream at eachother all the time help children in any way). I'm not rejecting them because I disagree with their conclusion, I disagree with them because they're based on logical errors, and they have a propagandistic purpose (especially considering their sources).

People are different, and what works for one person doesn't work for another. The trick when using an analogy to illustate your point is that it has to be a valid one. You're using a faulty comparison to make your point. It's been scientifically proven that smoking is harmfull, and it can be explained exactly why that is - smoking is unecessary to the human body, brings no benefits whatsover and causes addiction. Sex is a natural biological function, it brings several benefits, both phisiological and psychological, and is one of the basic human needs. This of course wouldn't matter in an analogy, but what's importnat here is the nature of the negative consiquences.

The dangers of smoking are drawn by the very activity, as smoking destroys your lungs, plain and simple. When talking about the "dangers" of sex before marriage - which can also be the dangers of sex after marriage if adultery exists - a more valid comparison would be with the risks of horse back riding, or driving a car - in all 3 cases carelessness could lead to grave consiquences, however in none of the 3 cases are negative consiquences mandatory outcomes, and more often then not, they're not. They only happen if you're not carefull, and are not inherent to the 3 activities mentioned (the negative outcomes of smoking are inherent).  The negative consiquences can only happen if you're not careful and are not reasons to not do the 3 actions I mentioned - sex, horse back riding and driving a car.

As for your final paragraph, homosexuals do want the right to marry. Whether or not they do marry is irrelevant to them recieving those rights. There's no tradition in homosexuals marrying, no social pressure for them to do so. Many heterosexuals wouldn't marry if it weren't for social pressure. Same sex marriage has only been legal for a little over a decade, and that's in the Netherlands. In most of the other countries where it's legal it has been that way for less then a decade. Society doesn't change in such a short time. You show me data, but it doesn't at all disprove my view, unless you apply the logical fallacy again. Those numbers just show a situation, not the cause of said situation. To prove my point I'd have to ask some of my proffesors at Uni for books regarding society, marriage and sexuality (in the fields of anthropology, sociollogy and psychology) to find nfo regarding the mechanisms mechanisms that influence heterosexuals to marry, not be as promiscuous etc., and why there are no mechanisms to influence homosexuals to do the same (which is obviously the fault of society, not of homosexuals). That is worthwhile if I'm writing a paper for Uni, but it is too much effort for a vgchartz forum topic, so I'm sorry.

Another thing that I found interesting was that your links talked about the financial burden caused by divorce, and that it should be a  reason against divorce. Well, today I just read an interesting article showing that children are a huge financial burden, and that they don't lead to happiness. It sounds like a study that you should enjoy, considering the arguments used (which are better founded than those you provided for divorce being bad).

Here you go: http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/

Enjoy.

(I will not be writing such long posts in the future)

Are you religious Khasz? You use the word "sin" way too much.

I'm all for helping others. It's necessary for all people to have a certain standard of living, so that society is stable. However I don't think that people should live to help others.

People need a little "selfish" indulgence (like reading a good book, playing a video game, or commenting on forums), in order to be happy.  These things shouldn't make you feel guilty. It's the desire to be able to do these things is what drives us forward. Even when helpign others, we do it so that they too can enjoy thse things. If we didn't such "selfish" things, we'd all be miserable. Ascentism is one of the worst vices.

well when you create a universe you can decide how you want to rule it ;)