silasraven
Well-Known Member
your making this way too complex for something so simple. sex before marriage isnt for me, was just that. i dont need to back that statement up with anything because it doesnt need it. your wanting a why and a debating of why sex before marriage blah. i dont know how to debating sex before marriage isnt for me. i had sex with a women i wasnt in a relationship with, it didnt stimulate me. i had a relationship without sex and we pushed the boundries of what we said we thought was exceptable an it really blew my mind. i got more pleasure out of never going below the belt then i ever thought possible. so for me keeping sex limited is the key to opening up another world.But here's the thing. The statement from you that drew me in was "Limiting sex is not bad."
There it is, declarative and unqualified. You assume the duty of defending it as stated. No revisions, qualifications, circumscriptions. Don't nudge the goalposts when you think we're not looking. I was hoping for something like a debate by the rules of reason. You've established the premise, and i have been questioning it. You can't just change what you're saying. you have to prevail by the rules of debate, or you are duty-bound to expressly and formally retract, yes, to declare that you weren't right.
So let's have at it then. I challenge your bold claim, and ask that you back it up with an acceptable source, one not drawing at its core upon "revealed truth", which i hold to be neither. cn