Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.women,net.religion Subject: Re: Premarital Sex Message-ID: <504@rtech.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 03:29:42 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.504 Posted: Fri Jun 21 03:29:42 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 23:56:35 EDT References: <1648@amdahl.UUCP> <296@ihlpm.UUCP> <5256@ukc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 18 Xref: watmath net.women:6154 net.religion:7189 > > Let us have consideration for other people and not ourselves when we come > to judgements about morals which will effect future generations. What we > decide here will either de-restrict pre-marital sex or control it. > A new generation of children will be, in increased measure, of single parent > families, and if the concept of marriage cheapens further, the family unit > will dissolve. These are facets of the permission of pre-marital sex which we > should not ignore. How can we argue with respect only to our own benefit? > This is 1985. We have birth control. Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily mean pre-marital children. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff