Why Is Pre- and Extra-Marital Sex Wrong?

I don't view marriage as redundant even for a commited couple. I view it as another level of commitment. To me there are many levels of commitment and marriage is the highest one. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me (Except the person I marry. And the men I date damn well better respect my wishes to wait.)

And while I am firmly commited to waiting until marriage for sex, I have no interest in telling anyone else when to start having sex, unless they asked me.

 

Let me say my views once again. Marriage is redundant if the couple is already committed to each other, or a lie if the couple is not. Marriage is not what brings commitment, it is a decision made by the couple some time during their relationship. If marriage to you is more than reaffirming your commitment and love, then I truly fear for your marriage in the years to come. What does marriage change? You have a new name and a rock on your finger. You get a nice vacation and time to be alone with your husband/wife. Society now finds it acceptable for you to have sex. Whoopee do. How does it change the relationship outside of semantics?

For Christians at least, marriage involves one more individual: God. Marriage may not only be a commitment between two people, but it may also be between three: God, the husband, and the wife.

The husband and the wife vow to each other -- and before God -- to be faithful to each other. As a couple, they commit to follow God's will and ask His blessing. God being all-loving, He will bless their committments.

Redundant? Hardly.

 

Bubba

For Christians at least, marriage involves one more individual: God. Marriage may not only be a commitment between two people, but it may also be between three: God, the husband, and the wife.

The husband and the wife vow to each other -- and before God -- to be faithful to each other. As a couple, they commit to follow God's will and ask His blessing. God being all-loving, He will bless their committments.

Redundant? Hardly.

Are you saying that people who are not religious cannot be faithful to each other? The fact is that yes, they can. So why do you need God to be faithful? And I feel that I am stronger because I have to stay faithful for all my own reasons, nothing out of a book and not because it is expected of me from anyone aside from the woman that I love. Are religious people strong enough to be faithful if there was no God?

Actually I think it balances out. For every person who is religious who would still be faithful without God, there would be someone who is not religious who would gladly sleep around.

(hehe, reread the first post, and Jedi Merkurian said that he did not want religion to be debated here, sorry to go along with the debate )

If God will always give His blessing, then why is that not redundant? And what if He does not give His blessing? Then what? If you deeply and honestly loved a person, but God said no (and lets say you know He said no) would you stop loving that person?

And why is it God's business? Yeah, He may have (indirectly) made us, but that does not mean He has to stick His nose into everyone?s personal life.

Also, what if a religious couple does pronounce their commitment and pray to God for a blessing? It is not the actual ceremony of marriage, but to you, would that be good enough?

And what if the people committing to each other are not honestly committed to each other? It sort of invalidates the whole point of marriage.

Redundant? Very.

Rebecca191 Why is marriage the highest form of commitment and what happens if the couple is not at the level below marriage?

Actually, you are quite nice that you are not saying anyone but yourself should think the way you do. You are not saying "for Christians" or "this is absolutely right." Only you probably know what is best for you, and thank you (but it is not as fun to argue ) for not making your belief out to be the right one for everyone (like I guess I did ).

 

Why is marriage the highest form of commitment and what happens if the couple is not at the level below marriage?

I'm not quite sure how to explain it. It's just well, right for me. It feels right to me. It feels right for me own life. It feels like what's best for me. It may be a product of being raised in a very strong marriage by parents who waited until sex for marriage; I'm just not sure. I myself am an agnostic, so it's obviously not religious. But it definitley feels right for me.

Actually, you are quite nice that you are not saying anyone but yourself should think the way you do.

Well, I'd like my husband to.

Only you probably know what is best for you, and thank you (but it is not as fun to argue ) for not making your belief out to be the right one for everyone (like I guess I did ).

Well, it's all okay.

 

Enforcer

Are you saying that people who are not religious cannot be faithful to each other?

I don't *think* I was.


The fact is that yes, they can.

Great: I wasn't arguing that they couldn't.


So why do you need God to be faithful?

In one sense, God provides everything -- freedom, intelligence, the ability to be faithful -- but I don't need to acknowledge God, per se, to be faithful. But there are a few compelling reasons to take a vow of faithfulness before God:

1) I believe doing so is part of God's will, and that He will bless you for deferring to His will.

2) It emphasizes the seriousness of the vow: by acknowledging God as a witness, I accept in advance all responsibility for breaking that vow.

Beyond that, I see no problem asking God for help in being faithful, because He is both willing and able to provide that help to those who ask (and are willing to seek His will). Do I personally think faithfulness will be an issue when I'm married? No, but does it hurt to be extra careful? Again, no: it is my experience that the moment you think you can jump every hurdle of your own power, you encounter one three times higher than you've ever imagined.


And I feel that I am stronger because I have to stay faithful for all my own reasons, nothing out of a book and not because it is expected of me from anyone aside from the woman that I love. Are religious people strong enough to be faithful if there was no God?

Maybe, maybe not, but does it matter? Let's say that you're a really good swimmer and I'm not -- but that my friend has given me a rowboat. With that rowboat, I can cross wider rivers than you can and face colder and swifter waters.

But what is the goal? Being the best swimmer or crossing the river?

Likewise, what is the goal in marriage? Being the most faithful spouse you can be on your own, or being faithful your entire life? If you can do both, great. If you must rely on God -- or you choose to do so to be safe -- what's the big deal? Am I lesser person if I acknowledge my human fallibility and consequently humble myself to rely on a power greater than myself?

I don't think so: there is strength in such humility -- infinite strength.


If God will always give His blessing, then why is that not redundant? And what if He does not give His blessing? Then what? If you deeply and honestly loved a person, but God said no (and lets say you know He said no) would you stop loving that person?

God does not always give His blessing: He blesses those who are willing to receive His blessing and the willing actively seek His will.

In short, God has commanded us to love all, so He would not say "You cannot love her." You can always love her.

But God could command, "You cannot marry her."

In such a case, the two of you should not get married -- no matter how hard it may seem at the moment. Your loved one's relationship with God is more important than her relationship with you. And, ultimately, God has the best interests of both of you in mind, and you must trust His judgment.

And if you don't? You should not expect Him to pour out His blessings on your efforts.


And why is it God's business? Yeah, He may have (indirectly) made us, but that does not mean He has to stick His nose into everyone?s personal life.

Let me re-emphasize:

- He loves us infinitely.
- He has perfect knowledge.
- He has absolute power.

Ergo, He wants what's in our best interests, He knows what's in our best interests, and He's able to bring that about if we're willing.

The question is, why would you want God out of your life -- other than spiteful arrogance?


Also, what if a religious couple does pronounce their commitment and pray to God for a blessing? It is not the actual ceremony of marriage, but to you, would that be good enough?

In my book, they'd be married: see also the film Braveheart. But if they're serious and the culture permits, I see no reason not to involve a religiou

 

Bubba[/n]

Are you saying that people who are not religious cannot be faithful to each other?

I don't *think* I was/

You said that when people get married, they vow in front of God that they will be faithful. Those without religion would not do that, hence the question, can those who are not religious be faithful?

In one sense, God provides everything -- freedom, intelligence, the ability to be faithful -- but I don't need to acknowledge God, per se, to be faithful. But there are a few compelling reasons to take a vow of faithfulness before God:

God also provided for all women to be hookers, yet not all women are. Also prove it that God did, and tell me why you need (not just why it may be nice) God in marriage?

1) I believe doing so is part of God's will, and that He will bless you for deferring to His will.

Love is a personal matter, and except for each other, you should never defer to someone else?s will, and even then you should be careful.

If you love a person because you feel God wants you to love them, then I believe you are loving them for the wrong reason. You should love a person because you want to. Because you feel you want to. Not because you feel it is expected of you in any way. If you were giving to a charity, wouldn't the best reason because you know it is right, and not because it is expected of you?

2) It emphasizes the seriousness of the vow: by acknowledging God as a witness, I accept in advance all responsibility for breaking that vow.

Wouldn't God know if you will be faithful even without marriage? Also, isn't that basing faithfulness (at least to a point) on fear of punishment? Is that really a good reason to be loyal to a partner?

Beyond that, I see no problem asking God for help in being faithful, because He is both willing and able to provide that help to those who ask (and are willing to seek His will). Do I personally think faithfulness will be an issue when I'm married? No, but does it hurt to be extra careful? Again, no: it is my experience that the moment you think you can jump every hurdle of your own power, you encounter one three times higher than you've ever imagined.

But you get over those situations that are higher than you have ever gotten over, and do you know for a fact that God helped you get over them? Or were you able get past it through your own skills and ability?

As for will faithfulness be an issue? If you think it will be as hard as swimming a lake that you should row across, then maybe. Especially if God does not directly help you or if He does not exist.

Maybe, maybe not, but does it matter? Let's say that you're a really good swimmer and I'm not -- but that my friend has given me a rowboat. With that rowboat, I can cross wider rivers than you can and face colder and swifter waters.

But what is the goal? Being the best swimmer or crossing the river?

Likewise, what is the goal in marriage? Being the most faithful spouse you can be on your own, or being faithful your entire life? If you can do both, great. If you must rely on God -- or you choose to do so to be safe -- what's the big deal? Am I lesser person if I acknowledge my human fallibility and consequently humble myself to rely on a power greater than myself?

I don't think so: there is strength in such humility -- infinite strength.

Is being faithful really that hard? You make it sound like staying loyal is as hard as pulling a book of a shelf. I don't need someone else to give me a retractable hand.

And what if God does not approve of your marriage? Would He show His disdain and remove our precious free will? If not, then for you to stay faithful, hope your arms are up for a big swim.

And that all relies on that there is a literal God, which is a debate for another thread. For the sake of argument, and in keeping with the wishes of the first poster, if there is no literal God, does marriage have any value aside from what it may means to a single person?

God does not always give His

 

the humpty dance is your chance to do the hump!

don't you hate how wildlife dosn't listen to what the bible says? i do! damn animals having sex without commitment....sinners!

 

You said that when people get married, they vow in front of God that they will be faithful. Those without religion would not do that, hence the question, can those who are not religious be faithful?

No, they can make a similar vow. Here's what I believe to be the difference:

In both cases -- religious and non-religious -- the couple makes a vow to be faithful, and I believe the omniscient God is aware of this vow.

In the case of the religious, the couple acknowledges God's awareness. In the latter, they do not.


Love is a personal matter, and except for each other, you should never defer to someone else?s will, and even then you should be careful.

(A bit confusing: one should "never" defer, but one should be careful if you do defer? Or even if you never defer?)

At any rate, I think I get the gist of what you're saying, and I disagree: the moment any earthly love becomes a god, it immediately becomes a devil. Let's say you fall in love with a woman who's already married. In that case you should defer to the likely wishes of her husband and back off.

You may continue to have romantic feelings for that woman -- feelings that you may not be able to help -- but you cannot embrace those feelings in all circumstances.


If you love a person because you feel God wants you to love them, then I believe you are loving them for the wrong reason. You should love a person because you want to. Because you feel you want to. Not because you feel it is expected of you in any way. If you were giving to a charity, wouldn't the best reason because you know it is right, and not because it is expected of you?

Certainly, but if you don't have charitable feelings for a person, you should still be charitable to them: a natural wellspring of compassion is best, but a devotion to duty can and should make up for those times when you're not feeling charitable.

When told to love everyone, we're not called to have good feelings for everyone (a task that's likely impossible): we are to show everyone charity, even those who do not create in us good feelings.


"2) It emphasizes the seriousness of the vow: by acknowledging God as a witness, I accept in advance all responsibility for breaking that vow."

Wouldn't God know if you will be faithful even without marriage? Also, isn't that basing faithfulness (at least to a point) on fear of punishment? Is that really a good reason to be loyal to a partner?

No, I don't believe it's basing faithfulness on fear: it's expressing a faithfulness so deep that there is no fear. In other words, I would be so serious in my vow that I'm willing to tell all of creation and the Creator Himself about that vow.


But you get over those situations that are higher than you have ever gotten over, and do you know for a fact that God helped you get over them? Or were you able get past it through your own skills and ability?

I know for a fact that my greatest triumphs are the result of God working through me and around me.

Who provided me my skills and abilities? God.

There are a thousand circumstances out of my control and the control of all other humans; who controls them? God.

Even if a given event was attributable to my own efforts (using the abilities God gave me), I know this: I cannot do everything on my own. There are some obstacles that are simply too high for me to jump.

But I can do all things with God's help.


As for will faithfulness be an issue? If you think it will be as hard as swimming a lake that you should row across, then maybe. Especially if God does not directly help you or if He does not exist.

I honestly don't know what you're saying here.


Is being faithful really that hard? You make it sound like staying loyal is as hard as pulling a book of a shelf. I don't need someone else to give me a retractable hand.

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here.


And what if God does not approve of your marriage? Would He show His disdain and remove our precious free will? If

 

In the case of the religious, the couple acknowledges God's awareness. In the latter, they do not.

And

You're right about Braveheart, but the fact remains that it was a secret wedding, but a wedding nonetheless.

Is that still marriage to you? I was not defining marriage as such (I was thinking more of the ceremony), but I may very well agree with you.

Declaring your commitment to each other is very important. It is a very good thing to know, helps you be more open to your partner, etc. My opinion has changes slightly that you can declare that commitment in the marriage ceremony (however, if you truly do love each other then I don't see why you should wait, that is just personal prefrence and not to really be pushed on anyone). But if you define simply making that commitment as marriage, then marriage is not redundant.

If you say that God is needed for that commitment, then I disagree. And you have seemed to give at least an "intellectual concession" that deep commitment does not need God (although may be easier/better). If you define marriage as declaring your commitment with or without God being involved, then marriage is important.

If you define marriage as the actual ceremony /wedding, it itself to me is redundant if the couple is honestly committed to each other (and a lie if they are not).

I probably should have stated something along those lines in my first post. If I did, and if these last 8 or so posts would have been redundant if I had, forgive me.

However, if you define marriage as the wedding / ceremony, then I am not sorry, and I will post specific replies to your last post. Also if you say that marriage does need to be done in front of God (that phrase makes no sense, if there is a literal God, then God is everywhere, so how can you be 'in front of?'), then I disagree again, but I don't know how much of what I typed in response to your entire post would be relevant to that point.

 

The ceremony is indeed more-or-less redundant while the committment itself is what is so important.

I say "more-or-less" because I value tradition as the "gunk" that holds society together:

Friedrich Hayek was a brilliant advocate of the insight that law is only one of many cultural institutions which create either a thriving and healthy civilization or a declining and dysfunctional civilization. Language, religion, economics, literature, and (perhaps most of all) the diffuse and largely invisible habits and instincts of a given society ? which we cumulatively call "tradition" ? are more important and powerful than mere legislation. Hayek noted that "more 'intelligence' is incorporated in the system of rules of conduct than in man's thoughts and surroundings." He meant that we may not even know why we do some things ? but that doesn't mean we don't do them for a good reason.

Tradition builds up around healthy institutions. Sometimes it calcifies and makes them like hardened arteries, unable to keep up with the fast pace of modern life. But, just as often, tradition keeps institutions going. It keeps rules necessary for civilization alive long past the lifespan of the individual rule-makers who crafted them. "Tradition," wrote Chesterton, paraphrasing Burke, "is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

The tradition of the marriage ceremony should not be overly codified -- to the absurd degree that unmarried couples cannot live together. But, likewise, we shouldn't do away with it just because it appears to be unnecessary.

Doctors generally remove one's appendix only when it becomes inflamed, and only because one can survive without it. By comparison, at this point, the wedding ceremony causes few (if any) real societal problems, and there's no telling how much it matters in keeping the sancitity of the family from further decay.

At the very least, the costs -- economic and temporal -- of gathering a large group of your friends and family, decorating a church, and wearing the finest clothes you may ever wear may all help insure that you're actually, truly, really serious about the lifelong committment.

(Ultimately, the ceremony *is* secondary to the committment.)


One final word about making such vows before God:

Also if you say that marriage does need to be done in front of God (that phrase makes no sense, if there is a literal God, then God is everywhere, so how can you be 'in front of?'), then I disagree again, but I don't know how much of what I typed in response to your entire post would be relevant to that point.

God, being omniscient, is present at every wedding. The question is, was He invited? *That* is the difference: not whether He is there (He is), but whether the couple acknowledges He is there.

If they do -- if they acknowledge His presence, submit to His will, and ask His blessing -- then they will be forming a union of three: the husband and wife joined together in submission to God.

And I think that family -- the family with God at the center -- is qualitatively different than couples who do not put Him first, married or otherwise.

 

My point was that the ceremony is redundant. Not that it is harmful, not that we should get rid of it. It may have personal value to those getting married. But in the context of this thread, a sexual relationship is not immoral in a committed relationship even if the couple is not married in the sense of walking down the isle (I am not implying that sex outside of a committed relationship is immoral. To me, it would be immoral if and only if one or both [all?] of the people involved thought it was wrong. At that point, they need to reason one way or another to see why they think it was wrong, and what they can do about it. Other than that, it is no one else?s business to force their moral judgments on anyone when it does not affect them.).

I am still not sure if you are saying we need to want God involved in the commitment. Yes, a family that puts God above everyone else is different from a family that puts its members first, but can people be 'married' in the terms of declaring your commitment for another person be done without God, or without accepting God's blessing if it even exists?

 

My point was that the ceremony is redundant. Not that it is harmful, not that we should get rid of it. It may have personal value to those getting married. But in the context of this thread, a sexual relationship is not immoral in a committed relationship even if the couple is not married in the sense of walking down the isle (I am not implying that sex outside of a committed relationship is immoral. To me, it would be immoral if and only if one or both [all?] of the people involved thought it was wrong. At that point, they need to reason one way or another to see why they think it was wrong, and what they can do about it. Other than that, it is no one else?s business to force their moral judgments on anyone when it does not affect them.).

Ultimately, I'm inclined to agree that a lifetime relationship that is as committed as marriage but does not involve a public ceremony may indeed be as moral: if two people verbally and honestly commit to be faithful to each other for their entire lives, then I don't see that the lack of a ceremony is a problem, per se.

I will say this, though: it strikes me that many people who commit to a lifetime relationship but do not actually get married aren't quite as serious as many who do get married. There are times when exceptions become more easily made: again, refer to Braveheart in which the nobles claimed "prima nocte" rights. In such circumstances, the disincentive to marry is very large indeed, but there doesn't seem to be any substantial disincentives now. All you pretty much have to do is go to the courthouse and fill out some paperwork to become legally married. I simply question the motivation for not making the committment a legally binding marriage.

So, in theory, a serious committment to a lifetime relationship without the ceremony of marriage is moral. In practice, I suspect that many who go this route avoid marriage out of some reluctance to really, truly commit, and that would make the arrangement immoral.


I am still not sure if you are saying we need to want God involved in the commitment. Yes, a family that puts God above everyone else is different from a family that puts its members first, but can people be 'married' in the terms of declaring your commitment for another person be done without God, or without accepting God's blessing if it even exists?

They would still be married.

I believe God's plan for humanity involves two different horizontal (person-to-person) arrangements and one vertical (person-to-God) arrangement. Horizontally, our moral options are either lifelong heterosexual monogamy or abstenance. Vertically, we must submit to God as sovereign, either as a married family or as a single individual.

A married couple who turns away from God has a moral horizontal arrangement but an immoral vertical arrangement.

 

Speaking as a recently divorced person, marriage and commitment don't always go hand in hand. For some people the reluctance to get married lies here...When my wife decided to go be a cheating whore she took $27,000 of mine with her and cost me another $10,000 in lawyer bills. Since one person can't keep a marriage together by themselves, no matter how hard they try, it doesn't seem reasonable for me to get married again. Nor does it seem reasonable for me to go through my life celebate from this point forth. Nor does it seem reasonale for me to feel like I'm cheating on her when she's out sleeping around without a concern in the world. As for God, I hope he understands my perspective.

Marriage isn't all that. It almost irritates me how so many women make such a big deal out of the ceremony but take the commitment so lightly. The ceremony is worthless unless the conviction and commitment are strong.

 

I agree that marriage requires, in the words of Yoda, the the deepest commitment and the most serious mind.

For that reason, I think it's good that people are free to have less serious sexual relationships. These relationships may not be moral, but nor is taking the wedding vows insincerely -- and I think the insincere vow does far more damage to the institution of marriage, not to mention the spouse who does take the vow seriously.

And, as an aside, I'm sorry to hear about your marriage.

 

Nope!

 

Jedi Merkurian, I answer your question...with another question:


Why are loaded questions wrong?


If you really want answers (I have my doubts), I suggest you try phrasing your question something like:

"Is pre- or extra-marital sex wrong? And why?"

It's got a much more diplomatic feel, don't you think? By asking it this way, you would actually be allowing someone to believe that it might not be wrong, got me? Or do you not wish to allow this?

 

I don't know if I'd call pre-marital sex "wrong."
But extra-marital sex - why get married if you're still gonna have sex with other people?