Sex, Virginity and Marriage

[Keithstone23]

A few days ago I was talking to a friend, and we came up with the three strongest arguments we could think of for allowing premarital sex. The argument goes as follows:

In today's society, the meaning of marriage is completely different than it was many years ago. According to statistics, the average age most people get married today is 27 years old. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html) Back in Biblical times the average age was 14. (http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/20 ... page20.htm) I'm not going to deny the fact that a major contributing factor of premarital sex is the media, but I am going to lay the blame on hormones. These hormones which fuel our sexual desires were never meant to be kept pent up until the age of 28, but were supposed to be released during the teenage years when most of the population would have been married. God never intended for the majority of the population to remain abstinent through the peak of their hormones, as that would be defying nature, the way God never intended it to happen.

And what really is marriage? Does love truly need a priest or pastor to combine the two souls for all of eternity and deem them as married or can it be done in private and seen by God's eyes? I'm, going to argue that it can be done solely in God's eyes, because he is the judge and the modern institution of marriage doesn't validate the intertwining of souls, that is for God to decide. I derived this argument, because in the creation story in Genesis 2:20-25, the High Priest (God) was the only one around to validate Adam and Eve's companionship/marriage. "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.� 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked" You see, it doesn't take a clergy member to confirm a marriage. It only takes God. God was the only priest (being the High Priest) around and they became husband and wife as seen by the word choice in the final sentence of the Bible excerpt, and there was no service or exchange of vows.

The increasingly high rate of divorce in today's society is another sign that marriage is no longer a time-honored commitment. The most famous part of wedding vows is, "for better or worse," and it seems that society today disrespects the meaning those four words contain by divorcing without persevering through hardship. To make matters worse, people become married today for the most selfish and trivial of reasons. An example of a frivolous reason for marriage would be that a couple achieves better tax breaks than a single person. Finally another reason for marriage is the need for sex. Christians abstain from the "magical experience" of sexual intercourse, which can in turn make them have a heightened desire sex, to the point of marrying just to experience sex. Now that I have presented a few basic arguments (I can easily list many, many more reasons) is it beginning to make sense why marriage today is not what God intended? God intended marriage to be for one reason alone: love. It was never meant for the monetary gain or selfish desires that corrupt the institution today. I believe that the term premarital sex should apply only to people who have sex without love for each other. If a couple has a passionate love for each other and combine themselves in the eyes of the Lord they should be considered married, regardless if they have a legal document. There should be no papers, no transaction of money, no crowd, and no clergy that deems someone as married, because the High Priest is the only one who can truly validate a marriage.

Thank you very much for your time. I would love to hear a response as it is important to understand both sides of the argument.

[bluethread]

Well, it appears that you believe that monogaist mmarrage is just an agreement between two people. If that is the case, why should it be acknowledged by anyone else? If it doesn't effect me, why not keep it your private little secret? However, if you wish me to acknowledge the agreement, then it is not just a two party agreement anymore is it? You now expect something from me. I am supposed to treat you differently than I did before. Is it really right for you to expect me to go along with whatever it is you have decided to do without my being permitted to have some say with regard to that decision? Yes, monogamist marrage is an agreement between two people, but it effects the entire community. Therefore, it will be acknowledged by the community whether you like it or not. It will be clearly defined in a public manner or ill defined in many private conversations. It's your choice. Just don't blame others when the rumors start to fly.

[connermt]

A few days ago I was talking to a friend, and we came up with the three strongest arguments we could think of for allowing premarital sex. The argument goes as follows:

In today's society, the meaning of marriage is completely different than it was many years ago. According to statistics, the average age most people get married today is 27 years old. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html) Back in Biblical times the average age was 14. (http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/20 ... page20.htm) I'm not going to deny the fact that a major contributing factor of premarital sex is the media, but I am going to lay the blame on hormones. These hormones which fuel our sexual desires were never meant to be kept pent up until the age of 28, but were supposed to be released during the teenage years when most of the population would have been married. God never intended for the majority of the population to remain abstinent through the peak of their hormones, as that would be defying nature, the way God never intended it to happen.

And what really is marriage? Does love truly need a priest or pastor to combine the two souls for all of eternity and deem them as married or can it be done in private and seen by God's eyes? I'm, going to argue that it can be done solely in God's eyes, because he is the judge and the modern institution of marriage doesn't validate the intertwining of souls, that is for God to decide. I derived this argument, because in the creation story in Genesis 2:20-25, the High Priest (God) was the only one around to validate Adam and Eve's companionship/marriage. "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.� 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked" You see, it doesn't take a clergy member to confirm a marriage. It only takes God. God was the only priest (being the High Priest) around and they became husband and wife as seen by the word choice in the final sentence of the Bible excerpt, and there was no service or exchange of vows.

The increasingly high rate of divorce in today's society is another sign that marriage is no longer a time-honored commitment. The most famous part of wedding vows is, "for better or worse," and it seems that society today disrespects the meaning those four words contain by divorcing without persevering through hardship. To make matters worse, people become married today for the most selfish and trivial of reasons. An example of a frivolous reason for marriage would be that a couple achieves better tax breaks than a single person. Finally another reason for marriage is the need for sex. Christians abstain from the "magical experience" of sexual intercourse, which can in turn make them have a heightened desire sex, to the point of marrying just to experience sex. Now that I have presented a few basic arguments (I can easily list many, many more reasons) is it beginning to make sense why marriage today is not what God intended? God intended marriage to be for one reason alone: love. It was never meant for the monetary gain or selfish desires that corrupt the institution today. I believe that the term premarital sex should apply only to people who have sex without love for each other. If a couple has a passionate love for each other and combine themselves in the eyes of the Lord they should be considered married, regardless if they have a legal document. There should be no papers, no transaction of money, no crowd, and no clergy that deems someone as married, because the High Priest is the only one who can truly validate a marriage.

Thank you very much for your time. I would love to hear a response as it is important to understand both sides of the argument.

Claiming to know what god (any god) wants seems to be arrogant IMO. The best we could do here is an educated guess either for or against. Therefore, the god argument should be thrown out (IMO) altogether outside an individual setting.

Marriage seems to have two basic levels: indivdual, non-legal commitment and legal commitment. Either may include a religious ceremony/belief, but neither require it. Likewise, these two levels can operate dependent or independent of each other. That said, again, it's up to the individuals involved, as we're all responsible for our own actions.

When speaking of "hormones", to me, that tends towards the 'natural' argument which can be interperted as reproduction only. But again, this is up to the individuals involved.

So to me, as responsible and honest citizens within society, we should look at all the options/reasons on both sides of the issues, and make our decisions accordingly, not allowing those that chastize the decision to influenece or individuality nor ourselves.

[Keithstone23]

@ bluethread

You have a good point with the ackowledgement of an agreement, however I am trying to argue the premise that it is moral to have premarital sex not why one might blame the Christian community for starting a rumor. Thus I feel as if the acknowledgement of the community can be ruled out, because they aren't God who is deciding the morality of the act.

@ connermt

Sorry for the percieved arrogance. I was never trying to claim I know what God wanted, I was simply interpreting the passages in a creative way that best suited my portion of the argument. I dare to say that the interpretation I came to was a logical conclusion, because I took into account the context of story of Adam and Eve. The Bible uses the term "wife" showing a marriage occured yet we never were told about a ceremony, nor (to our knowledge) a priest or clergy to marry them. I believe the God argument should not be thrown out as there is contextual proof for marriage between God's eyes, without the need for a ceremony; as one would have today. Thus this is why the institution has changed today.

You brought up an excellent point with the two basic levels of marriage: "individual, non-legal commitment and legal commitment." That is very true, they both can become dependent and independent of each other. However, later on you state various reasons about marriage being a personal decision. I feel the need to ask, are you agreeing with my point on that marriage for Christians can occur without the need of a clergy or legal document validating the partnership?

[connermt]

@ connermt

Sorry for the percieved arrogance. I was never trying to claim I know what God wanted, I was simply interpreting the passages in a creative way that best suited my portion of the argument. I dare to say that the interpretation I came to was a logical conclusion, because I took into account the context of story of Adam and Eve. The Bible uses the term "wife" showing a marriage occured yet we never were told about a ceremony, nor (to our knowledge) a priest or clergy to marry them. I believe the God argument should not be thrown out as there is contextual proof for marriage between God's eyes, without the need for a ceremony; as one would have today. Thus this is why the institution has changed today.

You brought up an excellent point with the two basic levels of marriage: "individual, non-legal commitment and legal commitment." That is very true, they both can become dependent and independent of each other. However, later on you state various reasons about marriage being a personal decision. I feel the need to ask, are you agreeing with my point on that marriage for Christians can occur without the need of a clergy or legal document validating the partnership?

Apologies if the post came across at directed at you, as it wasn't. It was a general statement along the same lines of the topic.
In regards to your bolded question: I would say that depends on how you are defining marriage.

[bluethread]

You have a good point with the ackowledgement of an agreement, however I am trying to argue the premise that it is moral to have premarital sex not why one might blame the Christian community for starting a rumor. Thus I feel as if the acknowledgement of the community can be ruled out, because they aren't God who is deciding the morality of the act.

If you are asking whether Adonai needs human sacroments, my answer is no. I find no record of a wedding ceremony in the Scriptures until Yakov(Jacob) and that is to show how he was deceived. A wedding ceremony is for social order. It is public acknowledgement of a private commitment. My point is what makes fornication a sin is not the lack of a ceremony, but the lack of consideration for the communities interest in the private contract. No one is an island. That is why we have public contracts, whether they be for marrage or the rental of an apartment. If one expects others to recognize the agreement, one has to at least make those others aware of that agreement. If there is no agreement, the community has the right to protect itself from the reprocussions of the actions of an indicidual by establishing community standards.

[Slopeshoulder]

You have a good point with the ackowledgement of an agreement, however I am trying to argue the premise that it is moral to have premarital sex not why one might blame the Christian community for starting a rumor. Thus I feel as if the acknowledgement of the community can be ruled out, because they aren't God who is deciding the morality of the act.

If you are asking whether Adonai needs human sacroments, my answer is no. I find no record of a wedding ceremony in the Scriptures until Yakov(Jacob) and that is to show how he was deceived. A wedding ceremony is for social order. It is public acknowledgement of a private commitment. My point is what makes fornication a sin is not the lack of a ceremony, but the lack of consideration for the communities interest in the private contract. No one is an island. That is why we have public contracts, whether they be for marrage or the rental of an apartment. If one expects others to recognize the agreement, one has to at least make those others aware of that agreement. If there is no agreement, the community has the right to protect itself from the reprocussions of the actions of an indicidual by establishing community standards.

If one were to have a bunch of sexual encounters and short term relationships that last anywhere from an hour to a month, just for the fun of it, with no plans to commit on the part of either party, in 2012, what would the community's legitimate interest possibly be?

[Keithstone23]

@bluethread

You brought up that marriages, specifically weddings, take place because of the need for social order. Could lack of consideration for the community's interest in the ceremony really be considered a sin?

@Slopeshoulder

While I agree with your statement in regards to the community's lack on interest; what were to happen if the two people acknowledged their commitment between themselves and in the eyes of the Lord? Would that still be considered immoral?

[dusk]

I think generally speaking the best arguments are that both sex is more flavorful if there is some experience. I really don't get what the muslims want with their 72 virgins. Virgins suck in bed. It is just some misguided notion of getting a women in mint condition so it is truly mine.

Most of the rules surrounding marriage is for raising children. Stay together, don't spawn bastards, ...
No bastards are no problem with contraception anymore. Everybody can train all they want.
Knowing each other sexually also means knowing each other better especially with the publicly more up tight or shy people, who are sometimes privately very different.
If you figure that part out later on it might just lead to a sour unhappy marriage.

Thus I would say your #3 is okay but it is less that they marry for the wrong reasons but that the wrong people end up married. That leads to unhappy marriage and/or divorce.

The ceremony, the rings, the papers all are there so people treat the married differently. You don't flirt with someone who wears a ring. They inherit what you own. They are considered family in all legal matters.
The whole priest business is just the spiritual way to go about it. The church says only they can do it, but off course they say. Legally pretty much anybody can do it from any religion or non religion, the requirements to perform a ceremony are very low. The couple must like it. An Elvis wedding chapel in Vegas is not for everybody.

[-Revelation-]

True, some of these things you say about how people react to marriage is correct. It's not taken nearly as seriously as it was many years ago. Society throughout time has slowly pushed further and further the line of tollerance because people are always craving more, it's something which we original sin has put in us.

Now, just because society has pushed marriage into a corner so it can do what it wants, does that mean we should follow suit and not respect it either? Just because of the high divorce rate and late marriage times doesn't mean that marriage is less important than it was before. Originally, divorce wasn't an option to marriage, and so marriage was a complete confirmation of a stable relationship between the two. Without the dedication in a marriage, what's to stop the other person walking out on you?

As for your point on the marriage ritual, I think it's more than just a state confirmation. I think that marriage is when you invite God into the relationship. You might say, "one can just invite Him in a non-married relationship". But then you have to ask yourself why you're not getting married if you want God in the relationship.