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