Why Is Pre- and Extra-Marital Sex Wrong?

Extramarital sex is a violation of a contract. When you marry, you agree to be faithful to your spouse. If you violate that commitment, or if you knowingly participate in that violation (i.e. having sex with someone you know is married), it is wrong.

 

Is extra-marital sex harmful to your health? [face_shocked]

Extra-marital sex is immoral for the reasons womberty said. I can't think of any particular reasons why pre-marital sex would be, but that's not to say I'd do it.

 

So, if your marital agreement or contract made it clear that extramarital sex was permissible, then it wouldn't be wrong.

Something like that. Most marriages (at least in the vows at the ceremony) mention that each partner agrees to be faithful to the other.

If the marital agreement said nothing like that, well, both partners would be agreeing that extramarital sex is permissible. And as long as the extramarital partner (the "other woman" or "other man") knows that it is permissible, none of them is violating any agreement.

In most cases, however, I think that extramarital sex violates the marriage agreement.


Edit:
So by your definition, extramarital sex isn't immoral, merely a breach of contract.

A breach of contract is immoral as well as illegal.

 

Some couples actually dont mind if the partner has affairs so long as they know about it. This is whats called an open marriage. While you or I might not agree with it, some people actually enjoy and prosper in these sort of relationships.


Oh and premarital sex is not bad in everyones eyes either. I would say the majority of people are not virgins when they get married.

 

I can understand and even agree with the points stated about extra-marital sex, however I see no reason for pre-marital sex to be considered wrong. If anything, people need to experiment and know what it's like to have sex before they make any "permanent" vows to each other.

 

A note though, in an age with increasingly harmful STD's multiple sexual partners has found a enw reason to be frowned upon.

Ignoring the purely psychological insecurities some people ahve with being compared to past partners, since no method is 100% effective of preventing the transmission of diseases during intercourse the more sexual partners you have the more you increase your likliness for getting a possibly life threatening disease.

Edit// I would disagree that sex is a required prerequisate for being married Twilight. Marriage is about much more then sex.

 

I'm not sure if "religious dogma" can be utterly removed from any discussion about morality. After all, you can't derive any moral truth from a mere presentation of the fact of the matter: how things are cannot indicate how things should be. Every moral argument assumes some set of presumptions, a set of moral maxims.

Further, I think the topic of extramarital sex may require religious dogma since marriage is typically defined in religious terms - defined as the union of two humans, bounded by an oath before God.

(Actually, I prefer to see marriage as a relationship of three: the husband, the wife, and the Almighty.)

So, from a Biblical perspective, this is why I think sex outside of marriage is morally reprehensible: God made sex for marriage alone. Any sexual act outside the framework of marriage violates what He intended sex to be; it is an act against the will of God and, therefore, a sin.

In a less dogmatic explanation, sex is the most intimate act between humans. The only other voluntary act that compares to it is perhaps the confessional: telling someone (a wife, a friend, a priest) your deepest, darkest secret - a secret that requires lifelong confidentiality.

Let's say, for example, that you and a friend share your darkest secrets. That's fine, ONLY AS LONG as the confidence isn't broken. If you go and tell someone else the same secret, you've broken that trust, and you've done wrong. It's wrong even if you intended to keep the secret at the time.

What if you never meant to keep the secret? If the other person told you in confidence, then you're merely manipulating your friend for your own kicks, and that too is wrong.

What if neither of you meant to keep each other's secret? What if it's a "one-night stand"? Well, at that point, your trivializing the whole act of the confession: you're using each other, but that doesn't make either of your actions right.

 

Now, to apply what I just wrote to some of the other comments...

If a marriage agreement permitted extramarital sex, then the couple isn't taking sex seriously enough. I believe sex is intended as the consummation of the most intimate relationship, and that relationship must be exclusive. And IF marriage is an agreement between the man, the woman, and God, then the question must be asked: would God approve of this "open" arrangement?

Also, premarital sex is not justified by the idea that people must experiment. A moral person is expected to "do without" some experiences of this world, notably the experience of murdering another human being. The gained experience of premarital sex is not worth the lost intimacy of an exclusive sexual relationship. (And if you do think your partner is "the one," marry him or her.)

And farraday is exactly right: marriage is about more than just sex. (As I've read before, getting married for the sex is like buying a 747 for the little bag of peanuts.) I believe that marriage involves much, much more - but that small part of the relationship called sex should be exclusively applied to marriage.

 

Further, I think the topic of extramarital sex may require religious dogma since marriage is typically defined in religious terms - defined as the union of two humans, bounded by an oath before God.

(Actually, I prefer to see marriage as a relationship of three: the husband, the wife, and the Almighty.)

A flaw there is that not all married persons believe in a deity of any kind, and therefore religion cannot be used to regulate extra-marital sex. Personal morals and the agreements made during marriage outside of religion should be considered first, and religious codes (if present) should be considered second.

So, from a Biblical perspective, this is why I think sex outside of marriage is morally reprehensible: God made sex for marriage alone. Any sexual act outside the framework of marriage violates what He intended sex to be; it is an act against the will of God and, therefore, a sin.

If "God made sex for marriage alone", then why is it that sex requires two people?

Let's say, for example, that you and a friend share your darkest secrets. That's fine, ONLY AS LONG as the confidence isn't broken. If you go and tell someone else the same secret, you've broken that trust, and you've done wrong. It's wrong even if you intended to keep the secret at the time.

One does not have to be married to share his or her own secrets.

 

Nicely said, Bubba. I agree that marriage is best understood as a union of a couple and God, and that the morality of extramarital or premarital sex is hard to separate from any discussion of religion.


If "God made sex for marriage alone", then why is it that sex requires two people?

Um, marriage involves two people, the husband and wife. I don't really understand the question.

 

Some people dont consider sex as seriously as you bubba. you should know this. I certainly do not. Sex sometimes is just sex, nothing more nothing less. Some people consider sex to be to serious in my opinion. I enjoy sex, I am not married and i have no qualms admitting it. I dont feel ashamed or dirty if i have a one night stand.
These couples in open relationships know and love their mates but can still understand the need for some people to have multiple partners. There are alot more "swingers" out there then you realize. It is something that is not openly discussed. If this bothers or offends you I am sorry. People have different views on sex.
As to whther or not god approves of it, frankly i don't believe in a god that cares one way or the other regarding the sexual tendencies of any creature, man included.

 

God also did not create the union of marriage, human society did.

 

Um, marriage involves two people, the husband and wife. I don't really understand the question.

I was intentionally misinterpreting one of Bubba_the_Genius's comments, focusing on the word "alone". A shameless joke that seems to be lost.

 

Without religion I dont think there is any morality to sex. I think it shows great character to not be a pimp/slut going around sleeping with everything that moves.

 

Just a note: Sex-related thread ideas need to be approved before posting. Just to remember for the future .

 

Newsweek just published a [terrible] editorial on this very subject in their magazine this week. It's a real shame they went the cliche route of emphasizing the religion practiced by the teens they interviewed ("Cassie the Irish Catholic's father says...") and, above all, abstinence programs, which very likely effectively alienated just about everyone reading. There was only one story of any real merit in the article. What a waste of a good news item.

Extraneous pre-marital sex can be like swimming in shark-infested waters. Tread carefully, or you might find yourself pissing blood.

 

I think it depends a lot on your view of sex and marraige...for me, sex is something only one person will be able to share with me...it's something sacred and special. our society has lost a lot of sacred, special things, and thats where the damage is. and this is besides all the dangers that come from sex outside of marraige. i will never have to wory about an std, that takes a lot of stress that i don't need out of my life. there are a lot of reasons for waiting for marraige to have sex...

EDIT: took out useless fact

 

I wouldn't say you never have to worry about getting an STD. What if your partner goes outside of your union and you end up with one that way? There is no absolute outside of no sex at all.

 

Gotterdammerung:

A flaw there is that not all married persons believe in a deity of any kind, and therefore religion cannot be used to regulate extra-marital sex. Personal morals and the agreements made during marriage outside of religion should be considered first, and religious codes (if present) should be considered second.

I'm not suggesting regulating extra-marital sex (i.e., making the act illegal), but the morality or immorality of the act does depend on whether God exists and what He thinks of the act: in other words, it doesn't ultimately matter whether the individual believes in God or not.

(And if morality is strictly personal and not absolute, then it is also meaningless.)


One does not have to be married to share his or her own secrets.

True, but I was using the idea of secrets as an analogy: like all other analogies, not every aspect applies.


sleazo:

Some people dont consider sex as seriously as you bubba. you should know this. I certainly do not. Sex sometimes is just sex, nothing more nothing less. Some people consider sex to be to serious in my opinion. I enjoy sex, I am not married and i have no qualms admitting it. I dont feel ashamed or dirty if i have a one night stand.
These couples in open relationships know and love their mates but can still understand the need for some people to have multiple partners. There are alot more "swingers" out there then you realize. It is something that is not openly discussed. If this bothers or offends you I am sorry. People have different views on sex.

I agree that some people think sex is "just sex," just a physical act. I don't think my ideas on this matter should be imposed on others, but that doesn't make those other people right. I think that sex is serious, even if other people disagree - that it is spiritual, even if others ignore that aspect.

The idea of swingers doesn't bother me on some viceral level, just as the idea of polygamy doesn't "offend" me. I simply believe in the authority of Scripture, and I believe Scripture is pretty clear on this subject: God intended sex to be practice in a marriage, defined as an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. Sex outside this plan, being outside God's will, is immoral.

As to whther or not god approves of it, frankly i don't believe in a god that cares one way or the other regarding the sexual tendencies of any creature, man included.

That's fine: particularly because no one else's rights are being violated through extramarital sex (unlike, say, theft, murder, and rape), I'm not going to attempt to impose my beliefs on ya. I'm just expressing what I believe: I believe God DOES care about those He created in His own image, and what He says on the matter is more important than whether either of us agree with Him.

God also did not create the union of marriage, human society did.

And this is a belief and cannot be proven. One cannot say with any confidence that God DIDN'T move "society" to institute marriage. "God made marriage" and "God didn't make marriage" are on equal ground as beliefs.


I will say this: the Church has probably gone too far in emphasizing the immorality of extramarital sex while ignoring the inherent beauty of sex between a husband and wife. This may have created the unhealthy in kids that all sex is bad: thank God for the Song of Solomon.

 

I have said this many times and I will say it again:

There is no act that is ALWAYS right or wrong. There is no such thing as morality.

The closest thing I can base off of "morality" is everyone's obligation to not hurt others. But even this is based on practicality, demands of order, and everyone's desire to be protected from harm - not morality.

In my opinion there is nothing universally wrong with premarital or extramarital sex. I personally would never engage in the latter, but I would never think of imposing my personal and highly opinionated beliefs on others.

I should really resurrect that moral absolutes thread...

 

Bubba, though i am an agnostic i fully agree with you as far as if it doesnt hurt others like rape, theft or murder it is fine by me. One does not need to have religion to be a moral person, though there are obviously differences in the way the different groups think. I am sure you agree with this.

"I think it shows great character to not be a pimp/slut going around sleeping with everything that moves"

While i certainly dont sleep with anything that moves, I really dont think that this does show much character. Some would say that these people are both liberated and sure of themselves so much that they can do this without negative psychological reprecussions. It really is not up to you to judge who might be a slut(i am refering to both males and females here). Once again you may not agree with it, but different strokes for different folks.

 

Lying, which is usually wrong, seemed to be the right thing for Oskar Schindler to do to save the lives of thousands of Jews. Killing, which is usually wrong, may be the right thing to do to prevent someone from continuing a murderous rampage of a school.

But that proves nothing: it doesn't disprove the existence of morality; it just proves that morality, if it exists, isn't a simplistic list of what acts are absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

(Though I would say morality boils down to very simple rules: Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. Naturally, I'm ripping off a Higher Authority.)


At any rate, Kuna, if you ever use the word "should" in any meaningful sense, you're back to relying on some of morality.

You say that morality exists for the sakes of "practicality, demands of order, and everyone's desire to be protected from harm." Well, the moral law says, "you should not murder."

Your response is, apparently, murder violates someone's desire to be protected from harm.

To that I say, why should I care about someone else's desires? Or order? Or practicality?