To prove a point through alleged consequences, you would have to separate those unwanted events that follow from promiscuity and those that follow from going steady. My guess is that the latter group have few STDs or pregnancies. Second, you would have to build a case that the risks are sufficiently great that to engage in the sort of activity I have suggested is irresponsible. That was the point of the automotive analogy. If it is not irresponsible of me to get in a car, because the risks are reasonable, and if society is not remiss for permitting automotive traffic, despite deaths and dismemberment, than how does one assess the risks associated with sex in a caring, long term relationship that falls short of marriage? Again, I don't have the statistical breakdown, but I would guess that no one would judge the risks to be prohibitive, on a comparative basis.
I personally think that marriage should be entered into solemnly, and that every reasonable attempt to stay together should be made. In other words, the barrier to divorce should be very high, certainly as a matter of conscience, and I think as a matter of law. For this very reason, it makes sense to have lesser degrees of commitment, more easily suspended, before making so strong an avowal. In such a circumstance, what people do with their sexual impulses is a matter of interest. I am looking for a clear reason to forbid them from acting on their impulses, albeit responsibly........ |
