Hahaha :O

I absolutely agree that the symbolic meaning plays a huge role in it.

In most areas, civil unions do not guarantee all the same rights as marriage, thanks largely to campaigning by those who are against same sex marriage (and who simply would not be happy with a couple getting the same rights as a married couple, even if they weren't called such), which is why it's such an issue. The rights are generally pretty important ones, such as being considered family and thus being allowed to see one's partner in the hospital when non-family are not allowed and the possibility of shared custody should the two divorce. There was a an incident not too long ago in which an elderly same sex couple were put into different nursing homes, and when one of them died (alone, I might add), his belongings (house and everything) were sold as his partner was not counted as family and he had no one else. All of this happened because they had a civil union, rather than a marriage, and because of that, there's likely very little the widower will be able to do legally.

Granted, I'm from the US, not NZ, so things are likely very different there.

Yeah, the US tends not to be a forerunner on such issues.

Edit: Just for interests sake, if you look up "Where is gay marriage legal" on google images you find some very interesting info in graph and map form, so it's not a lot of reading.

I think it's great if you want to save it until marriage. It all comes down to a personal decision

I think that to some extent sex has been cheapened. However, the way some people have elevated saving it until marriage has alienated people who had sex before marriage (and who wish they hadn't) or people who were raped who cannot get that back.

Either way, sex without being in love is just a ridiculous decision, in my opinion.

I don't know if sex has been cheapened Clarise, but our culture sure looks at it differently than ever before.

I'm confused by that Nyx... What so you mean by "sexually compatible"?

I don't believe it cheapens the experience, because I don't equate sex with love. Doing so, I've found, is unhealthy and puts you at the mercy of others. Just my two cents.

@ Dr. Nyx : I get it now :) thanks...

Mmmmm ;) No sex until marriage? That's a sweet rule to live by :) Except in our society today, no sex=no love basically (sooo not true however) And I was about to rant about how some guys just have a girlfriend for sex...*tries not to rant*

If you want to you can rant... it could be interesting

I personally don''t believe in sex until marriage. But it should be saved for when your in love with someone. AND USE PROTECTION. It's something special you should share with someone you care about.
Secondly, it's perfectly fine and natural to have sexual impulses, and so (duh) is sex.
So have at it, ruffle your bedsheets! (within moderation, and while retaining some self-respect, I should hope)

I agree with you. I also feel that it's something meant for two people to share together. I don't want to give myself to just anyone. I want to share that intimacy with my (future) husband.

Also because I have a phobia of sex and sexual acts, so I'm definitely not ready mentally or emotionally to have sex. I feel that most teenagers aren't at the mental or emotional maturity to really handle it.

Hm.. I don't believe in it, because not all citizens have the right to get married. I believe if a couple is in a monogamous relationship and plan on spending the rest of their lives together, whether it be common law, marriage, whatever..I believe it is alright for them to have sex. I myself have had sex before marriage.. ..well if you want to call it sex. It was more like 1 minute of intrusion that wasn't suppose to happen but did.. but I hope that in my next relationship I can have a real commitment before sex.

That is true, I think you bring up a good point. I know that women typically prefer romance to sex, but perhaps this is a taught behavior. Then again the media is trying to make it so that women are portrayed as loving sex. So maybe it isn't. Hmm. so conflicting. Either way to bring up a point, often one partner in an open relationship will remain monogamous. Really it normally is only the other partner that wants the open relationship. I think a lot of humans do have the desire to be monogamous. But do you really want to be like animals who just have sex to procreate?(Well I think some animals have sex because they think they can procreate with the same gender but end up being unable to XD) I don't think humans would be happy with that because then because then some of them would never have sex. Sex does equal babies(for the most part), and lots of people want the sex but not babies.

Um...few things I need to correct. No, not every animal besides humans has sex simply to reproduce. Dolphins and bonobos are two species off the top of my head that engage in prostitution, masturbation, homosexual relations, and casual sex. And that doesn't include animals who cannot reproduce for any number of reasons yet still have a sex drive. Also, I do not appreciate the implication that it's either monogamy or not-love. Polyamorists are not soulless, loveless monsters, despite what those who worship monogamy may think, and we're perfectly capable of loving all of our partners, not simply one. I see no reason why that is not the case with non-human animals who do not keep a single partner throughout their lives. Just because it is not love as you know it (romantic, anyway; most other forms of love are not only not restricted to a single person, but it's generally considered very strange to only love one person that way), does not mean it is not love.

And quite frankly, whoever thinks women want romance and not sex is an idiot. Oh, certainly, some people may be more into romance than sex, but they're just as likely to be men as women. That mentality is the reason the first legal male straight prostitute in Nevada was a flop. Well, that, and him being a complete and utter douche, but.

I personally don't see much of a point in marriage apart from legal benefits so sex outside of wedlock is no big deal in my book.

I think your decision is definitely a good one, just a bit extreme. Being 16, I certainly think I shouldn't be having sex at my age and I do plan to wait until I'm independent and out of college and such, but probably not before marriage. I'm rather cynical too, so I'm not assuming I'm getting married.

Thank you for calling me an idiot. that was very nice of you. I don't know all animal species because i don't care for animals. Though I won't have you bash my opinion on monogamy. I do know people who are in relationships with more than one person. I mean monogamy in a way where they're only committed to each other. One of my best friends is in a...well different relationship, but they're committed to each other. Anyway... I mention the whole women liking romance thing because personally I wouldn't want to just be like "Hey lets have sex" No I want to be courted!! I know plenty of other women who agree with me. So I think Romance is indeed needed.

Of course there are women that love sex. There are women who want open relationships. I have one friend who is in one so she can..sleep with other girls and her boyfriend. The point is that everyone is an individual, but in general terms monogamy for me is better. And I also think that monogamy is better for a lot of other people too. Not all. I've had sex, it was not enjoyable. Perhaps the man sucked. I prefer...umm self help instead of sex honestly. Though I think if I were with someone I loved and committed to then I would have sex with them. I don't want some douche pressuring me into having sex constantly, then having it suck majorly. So perhaps if I had had your experience of enjoying sex(though maybe you didn't enjoy sex the first time, idk, I can't assume that but I will say it cause you are saying you enjoy sex)

and please, don't think that just because I believe in monogamy, that I'm one of those closed minded people. Yes I also know of the gay dolphins and gay penguins, and etc. Which is why I put in the whole "them having sex because they think they are reproducing but aren't" thing about the homosexual thing. Which also supports homosexuality, and why homosexuals should be able to get married because as you said animals have homosexuals too. You know I respect your opinion and decisions. They're not mine, people can do what they want, and goodness know they do. But the fact that you seem to think monogamy sucks..well.. I guess if you could just agree that we disagree. Then that's fine.

My husband and I waited 5 years before doing anything. Keep in mind though he was 14 when we started dating. Keep in mind that it also was a very long distance relationship. We just felt and still feel that we really connect with one another. We've been together for over 10 years and being together has just as much meaning as it did before we were married.

So no, I don't believe in waiting to be married. As long as you're not having sex just to have sex and your comfortable and old enough to be having sex then I don't see why not.

I didn't realize I was referring to you, or I would not have used that terminology. The way you said it suggested it was simply a mentality you'd heard of or experienced, and it was those people I was referring to. I make no apologies, however. You decided to speak for an entire group of people, something you had absolutely no right to do. It should not be a shock to you that some members of said group do not respond well to that.

You went from the idea of a non-romantic sexual relationship directly to differentiating monogamous human relationships from non-romantic animal relationships. There must be a reason for this, and the only reason I can think of is that you associate love with having a single partner and non-love with having multiple partners.

And of course that has nothing to do with who you are as a person, it has everything to do with gender and a stereotype that only exists as a way to discount female sexuality as unimportant or even nonexistent. I like pancakes. I know other women who like pancakes. But I would never make the mistake of saying that all women like pancakes or that women are more likely to like pancakes than men or that I and the women I know like pancakes because they are women and not because of other factors.

I'm happy for you. I was not questioning your personal preferences. If that's what you like, then hey, more power to you. But pretending it is the norm or applying it to everyone who identifies as the same gender as you goes beyond acknowledging your preferences.

Which is in itself somewhat funny, as most of the replies in this thread (not yours) have included some sort of "I think PEOPLE SHOULD do such-and-such", yet I'm griped at if what I say can be at all misconstrued as such. This likely has a lot to do with the whore/chaste dichotomy and the idea that, since women are forced to choose one or the other to identify as, it's better to be the latter than the former. Thus, it's okay to tell people it's not okay to have sex based entirely on sexual need or with someone whom you don't love, but suggestions that you shouldn't wait until marriage or you shouldn't only have sex with the person whom you believe is your "soulmate" are met with reactions similar to your own.

I really don't think that's the case, though. Females and males are, in most species, easily identifiable by other members of their species, generally through chemical signatures. They undoubtedly know they are not reproducing -- if they didn't know how reproduction works on some basic level, they wouldn't exist because they'd be humping their mates' heads and other species and inanimate objects and wouldn't ever get any actual reproduction done. They know what they need to do in order to reproduce, some just choose to go a different route.

I don't think monogamy sucks. I'm sure it works for some people. I used the term "worship monogamy" because some seem to believe it is the only way and it is completely sacred. Everything associated with relationships, be it fidelity, love, trust, they immediately associate it with monogamy and cannot fathom it being included in polyamory.

A minor note, though. As much as I support same sex marriage (despite not really supporting marriage as a legal institution in general), the idea that because it occurs in nature means that it's okay or good is a fallacy, one opponents of same sex marriage are quick to point out (and entirely focus on, since they have no other ground to stand on). So, I'd really suggest not using it in arguments.

Syraanabelle: I'm not sure what you mean by "scratching an itch". If you're referring to having sex because you want sex, yes, that was my point :P They have sex because they want sex. In most of those cases, reproduction cannot occur, and in one case, while it can, it is not the goal. And I'm not sure who calls love "blind devotion", but I'd really worry about that person's relationships. 'Blind devotion' suggests exactly that, blindness, an inability to see the horrible things that one's partner may do. It certainly applies to some examples of love, but it seems really unhealthy to me. Dangerous, even, if what the partner is doing is harmful to others.

By any other definition of love, however, I see no reason to think that animals don't experience it. They have relationships, they get heartbroken, they get lonely, they get excited when a new relationship begins, they are willing to sacrifice food, comfort, or even their very lives for their partners. There are several species who, when separated from their mates, will begin to will themselves to die. This sort of reminds me of the argument about the definition of language -- to see it as not existing in non-humans, we must define it down to the point where it is dependent on species to be considered such, which seems a rather arbitrary detail to me.

I would assert quite strongly that it is a learned behaviour. The entire female, and male, identity is a cultural construction. Heck even our very understandings of reality are a cultural construction. As such it is of little surprise to me that females in certain cultures more commonly preferring romance over sex would be a cultural construction as well.

While in our cultures this might seem very much like a no nonsense assertion, when we perform cross cultural analysis we discover that societies practicing monogamy are typically in the minority. Some anthropologists estimate that for only 33% of cultures monogamy is the standard.

Research into the social organization of animals leads anthropologists to conclude that animals most closely related to humans tend to deviate from the behaviour of conducting sex simply for the purposes of recreation. This is not altogether surprising as it has been observed that these same species are very socially orientated. One classic example which is often cited by anthropologists, and was also provided quite nicely by God is the Bonobos.

This does not actually support homosexual rights. But rather reinforces heteronormative myths. Through establishing reproduction as the primary meaning of human sex, we effectively define any non hetero sexuality as being a deviation from what is 'normal'. This effectively transforms them into the 'other'. Much in the same way research has historically marginalized females and small scale peoples.