[dr2005]

I'll tackle them one at a time, as a Catholic with liberal leanings and the occasional lapse:

First, That means that [love's] adult expression is not sex but the binding promises of marriage

I'd say it's a matter of opinion whether marriage promises are "binding" or not, but in any event I wouldn't say marriage is an expression of love so much as commitment. Affection, compassion and intimacy are expressions of love. Marriage isn't a source of love so much as an affirmation of it.

Second, sex outside of marriage doesn't help you understand sex... it makes your understanding of sex worse.

Depending on how "sex outside marriage" is meant, I think there may be some merit to this (unlike the last one). If your experience of love and intimacy via sex is purely through a string of one-night-stands or a variety of hookups, with or without the influence of mind-altering substances, then I think it's fair to say your understanding of sex, love and intimacy is going to be pretty distorted. If, on the other hand, your experience of love and intimacy via sex is within a committed relationship or a series of such relationships, then that is comparable with such experiences within marriage. And to complete the set, if it means adultery then that's definitely a bad move...

Third, having sex with another person tells you nothing about whether the two are compatible, and living together tells you nothing about whether a marriage between you would work.

First one yes (compatibility is down to much more than the erogenous zones...), second one not so much. It's not critical - my parents did not live together before marriage and they've lasted over 30 years and counting - but it can give a good guide as to how well people mesh together (and whether they can stand each other in close proximity for much of the time). My brother and his wife lived together for a few years before getting married, and for them it was a very useful experience. It all comes down to the individual.

Fourth, sex outside of marriage isn't romantic... it's the opposite.

Again, it depends on context. If we're talking about going at it like rabbits in bathroom stalls, alleyways or on the backseat of cars (to name but a few) then quite. If, however, it's done in a romantic manner in the right mindset then it could easily be classed as romantic.

Fifth, sex outside of marriage doesn't hold relationship together; it contributes to their decay.

50-50 on this one - it's down to the individuals involved.

Sixth, sex outside of marriage isn't a sign of commitment.

This I agree with - in the sense that sex generally isn't a sign of commitment outside of more than however long the act of coitus takes. It's a sign of intimacy, yes, but nothing more.

Seventh, the desire of sex is not a need but a want.

This I also agree with. Sex isn't vital to our continued existence as individual lifeforms - it might have a negative effect on some of our emotions, but it isn't going to kill us in the same way that lack of food, water or oxygen will. When people talk about "needing" sex, it does come across somewhat as being in the same manner as a drug addiction.

Eighth, ... sex outside of marriage doesn't bring lasting pleasure-- rather it murders pleasure.

I suppose it depends how you go about it really...

Ninth, it isn't marriage that's boring-- it's promiscuity[that is boring].

I think there may be some mileage in this, insofar as having a sex life consisting purely of frequent meaningless sexual encounters with people you have no intention of, or capacity for, being in anything more lasting with would get boring as much as anything else. I would suspect the novelty value wears off after a while, and once that's gone all you're left with is the sense of being devoid of lasting intimacy.

So, agree with some things, disagree with more, and generally feel the author would have a greater effect on his target audience with a little less condescension and a little more understanding.