I knew sex was worth waiting for. I waited till I was 27. She was well worth the
wait. And now it's been over 30 years with both of us faithful. I
don't understand why some people feel judged when I affirm that this has
been great for me. I am not even thinking about others, just that it has not
only been possible for me, but really great. I like being a straight guy. And I
like being faithful to my girl. All I know is that chastity before marriage and
total fidelity after marriage has been most possible and great for me and her. I
have heaps of friends who also have lived lives like this. If you are not,
don't feel judged. Just saying, I did it. It works. I'm still real
happy. And its the sexuality reserved for her that is the glue that really binds
us in love far beyond my dreams of how strong love can be. I have no regrets.
Don't tell an old Grandad like me that what Finlayson-Fife says
doesn't work. I've lived my life like this.
To "waikiki_dave" in other words, you got nothing.Right now
most states already have laws stating that it is illegal to sell a gun to a
person that cannot legally own a gun. What that means is that legally you
currently are obligated to have some sort of knowledge about the person you are
selling to. The "gun show loophole" is just a talking point used by
liberals to scare people. In fact, the NRA has a history of supporting better
background checks, they just don't support forbidding people to exercise
their 2nd amendment rights without due process like what Obama wants to do.SO, now that I just showed you that your argument is invalid, tell us,
how limiting marriage to a man and woman is discrimination. I have yet to see
somebody explain that without opening up marriage to ANYTHING that you want it
to be with as many people as you want it to be.
To Redshirt: I am not going to debate with you my friend; it would be like
trying to convince the NRA that having background checks at gun shows is not
discriminating against peoples 2nd amendment rights.
To "waikiki_dave" then explain how limiting marriage to a man and woman
is discrimination. I have yet to see somebody explain that without opening up
marriage to ANYTHING that you want it to be with as many people as you want it
@Redshirt "Limiting marriage to man and woman is not discrimination".Lol.
To "waikiki_dave" the Proclamation on the Family also states that people
do not choose to be gay. It also states that gender is a God given trait, and
that it is crucial for our eternal lives to learn what your gender is supposed
to do. No where does it say that you should discriminate, and FYI, limiting
marriage to man and woman is not discrimination.
The main purpose for having a family is to raise children according to David O
McKay. That should be the main focus of marriage. If it is, everything else
will fall into place for well adjusted people. Behaviorally, relationships can
be improved by understanding and living gospel principles. Most married people
have their challenges so singles should not get too worried about their own
issues. Sexuality shouldn't be a major emphasis for anybody. It happens
but it should be a source of loyalty among spouses and that's it.
@waikiki_dave --"Why does the Church differentiate against gay
people by prohibiting them to marry?"Now, now. Of course
they're allowed to marry -- someone of the opposite sex. The church
doesn't seem to care that most of those fake marriages will be unhappy and
extremely likely to end in divorce, thus damaging the lives of husband, wife,
AND children."What are they suppose to do? Be celibate and
single for their entire lives?"Yup. Again, the church
doesn't seem to care much about their happiness -- only about their
obedience.And the LDS church doesn't even have an institution
like the Catholic priesthood that might make their voluntary celibacy mean
something. There's a reason why so many Catholic priests are gay.
@Windsor said all unmarried LDS and SSA are required to be morally chaste. Too
bad you didn't answer my question Windsor: Why does the Church
differentiate against gay people by prohibiting them to marry? What are they
suppose to do? Be celibate and single for their entire lives? @RedShirtHarvard suggests I read "A Proclamation to the World" to get
an answer as to why the Church discriminates against gay people concerning
marriage equality. I read it and I still don't get it. Gay people
don't 'choose to be gay'.
waikiki_dave said "Explain to me why gay people are any different."OK Dave, I'll explain.Gay people aren't different
at all. They all--unmarried LDS and SSA--are required to be morally
Marxist said "Marriage doesn't happen without it."ah
Or, they can embrace sexuality and be sexually active. It's up to them.
@RedShirtHarvardThe terms "looks" and "attractive"
aren't synonymous. There are guys who are physically ugly but are still
attractive because they are either jocks or have that "bad boy" edge.
Lots of women, even LDS ones, have indeed married unemployed deadbeats as you
say, because they weren't the "nice guys" who finish last.@VermonterBe careful to note that when they talk about big gender
imbalances, often times they are talking about "eligible" men, meaning:
men those women are *attracted* to. I believe you when you say that you
can't see how at least a couple of women wouldn't be interested in a
guy who fits your list, because that's your list, not theirs. Men who do
manage to get married on conventional qualifications alone usually do so because
they come from a well-connected family, and the marriage is more or less
@McCarthyist.I can agree that we are just disagreeing on semantics. Many
words exist to describe having the desire to marry and being unable to. Bottom
line, it’s not easy.As for the single LDS man in Utah, we are
talking about areas where single women outnumber single men by 150 to 100.
While I don’t think any woman should “settle” for any man, if
a single LDS man in Utah has a good job, is active in the church, has learned to
how to socialize well with women, has good hygiene, is well-groomed and has at
least some sense of style, I can’t see how there would not be at least one
or two single LDS women interested in finding out if they might be compatible
enough to build a life together. By the same token, some single LDS men and
women in Utah are looking for “perfection” to such a degree that
they are going to be disappointed for a long time if they keep their
expectations that high.
To "waikiki_dave" go and read the LDS document called the "The
Family: A Proclamation to the World" on the LDS web site.It
explains the view of gender and gender roles within the LDS church. A gay
couple is contrary to the gender roles that the Prophets have declared to us.To "McCarthyist" the problem isn't looks. I know some men
that I would say are not very handsome get married to attractive women. The
problem is the "failure to launch" that so many young men bring on
themselves. What woman would marry a guy who spends hours a day playing video
games and working at a dead end job (assuming they are even working)?
Some people have sex, and that's OK. Some people choose not to have sex,
and that is also OK. What is not OK is putting ketchup on your mac and cheese.
That is just wrong.
@VermonterI think the term "curse" is probably better
fitting than "punishment" as well, but you get the idea.As
for your last paragraph, it makes me glad that I'm not LDS and don't
live under an impossible marriage mandate. Those who comfortably sit back and
throw rocks at Utah's single LDS men do not understand what many of those
men are faced with. First of all, finding a marriage partner - especially in
early life - has little to nothing to do with having one's life in order;
it has to do with being attractive. Yes, believe it or not, a man's
marriageability hinges more on attractiveness than utility, at least in younger
life. Too many of those from older generations - the ones for whom the average
age of marriage was 22 or younger - don't seem to understand how *women*
have changed (yes, feminism seeped into Mormon culture), and how rampant and
imbalanced divorce has become since their day. You can't look at the
situation through the lens of the 1960s anymore. Getting married isn't as
easy as registering a car down at the DMV like it may have been in the past.
@waikiki_dave - this article seemed concerned with LDS sexuality and attitudes
where the leadership handbook for the Church is specific on homosexual
relationships. This article thus is not addressing those views/practices and
instead focuses on traditional LDS relationships.More teaching from
parents is needed to help children and unmarried young adults understand what
sexuality is and how to manage these feelings. Arousal is not a bad thing and
we need to teach it as such. I agree with @vermonter that violation of the
Lord's boundaries is the key here. I'm blessed to have a wonderfully
open wife and have smiled as I've listened to her conversations with our 10
year old son. It really rings true to hear her ask him if he ever is aroused
and to hear explanation that it's a good thing and that to touch for
continued arousal would violate those boundaries. Teaching that arousal is a
good thing and teaching how to deal with those feelings is a better course of
action. Teaching that those feelings are bad only leads to trouble, either
before or after marriage.
@McCarthyist.I agree with your sentiment. Just not the terminology.
Being a faithful Mormon and not being able to marry until later in life (or at
all for that matter) can feel like a punishment. But, I believe the church
terminology would be something like…”a trial to be endured.”
Increasingly, in our sex-charged society, it is not an easy trial. But, going
through trials can make us much better, and even happier people than we would
have been if we had not had to endure the trial.That said, most LDS
men, especially in Utah, have little excuse for not getting their lives in order
and finding a good marriage partner relatively early in life
Although these people deserve credit for pointing out some of the obvious
double-standards, like how married people have "needs" that singles
somehow magically don't, it fails to spell out anything practical. Usually
those who are supposed to be chaste are told to channel that energy towards
doing good. So, I guess that means you're supposed to take your urge to
copulate with someone attractive and apply it to working in a soup kitchen,
right? Doesn't seem like it can be reapplied in that way.Let's be honest about it: simply having physical drives toward that which
is forbidden isn't a crime itself, but it is a punishment. All you can do
with it is endure it. You shouldn't have to pretend that it has any use but
to punish you until someone deems you "worthy" not to suffer anymore.
Sexual compatibility is essential to a healthy marriage. A person who isn't
comfortable with their own sexuality, or their partner's, won't last
long in a marriage. Telling people to not learn about their spouse's or
their own sexuality and explore whether or not they're sexually compatible
until after they're married is a recipe for either divorce or a lifetime of
living with anguish.
This article begs the question concerning its affect on gay people. The Church
has come down with its handbook policy that gays couples are apostates and their
children are excluded from baptism. The article limits its focus on how only
hetrosexual young adults will benefit from preserving their chastity until
marriage. Explain to me why gay people are any different and try not to use the
words 'perverts' or 'sodomites' or say gay people are free
to marry as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
@marxist.You may have a point about people in the church not getting
married because they don’t understand what it really involves. But, both
inside and outside the church, I believe the main problem with most young people
not getting married is that they are scared that their marriage will end up like
their parents who are divorced, or had or have a dysfunctional marriage.
Ok. It is not taught explicitly. But, many church members and leaders have the
idea that any arousal at all before marriage is sinful. This could and probably
should be clarified specifically by church leaders that is not a sin merely to
be aroused. Church leaders should also emphasize that there are specific
boundaries set both before and after marriage by a loving Heavenly Father to
help us have a healthy married and family life. Each person should be taught to
avoid anything that would lead them to violate those boundaries. These things
to avoid are somewhat different for each person. Intimacy up to a certain
point, before marriage, has to happen to confirm desires and a high probability
for a healthy marriage. I had a church member friend who got engaged before he
had ever kissed the girl. He was appropriately told to make sure his
fiancé was a good kisser before they were actually married.
Glad that I was raised by parents who were not only open about these matters but
who treated them with humor (without being disrespectful about it). I married a
man whose family was rather buttoned-up on the topic of intimacy. We both read
"Between Husband and Wife", and while I thought it was meh, not a lot to
add to my well of knowledge, it freaked him out to the point he was afraid
I'd want to leave him after we were married.There definitely
needs to be more balance in the way this topic is handled, in both church and
school. Something between "abstinence only!!" and "anything goes, so
do what feels good!" Maybe then we'd see a lot less dysfunction in
I think there's negative stigmatism to those that choose to be sexual
active before marriage, where it really shouldn't be anyone's business
but their own.
But what about the hook-up culture in the LDS church? It must be happening
somewhere, because more LDS millennial young men are getting in touch with their
sexuality leaving hundreds of single LDS women complaining about the lack of
marriage partners in the form of worthy priesthood holders. Either you move in
together or suffer the consequences of LDS purgatory, aka, a mid-singles ward.
What's an LDS woman with high standards to do? This article never came
close to answering those questions.
Easy; don't be sexually active.It's that simple.It's
a decision and choice you make.Everything is a choice, just like choosing
to be happy is a choice.It's not what happens to you, it's how
you choose to respond.
This is a lot of nonsense. People will simply not get married, accepting its
many responsibilities, without a high degree of sexual intimacy. It's sort
of like two molecules coming together. In chemistry we know that a chemical
reaction will not occur unless the molecules come together - hard. But we are taught (at least I was in church and in seminary) that any degree
of intimacy was inappropriate before marriage, that those dating shouldn't
kiss or hug, just hold hands until they made a commitment to marry. For this
reason a lot of people are not marrying, because they have not been told what is
really involved.By coming together hard I am not talking about
intercourse, but I am talking about getting pretty darned physical. Marriage
doesn't happen without it.