POLL: Premarital Sex

Remove all ads!

Yes, Letharon, but that's because you, like I, are a Christian. For those with no religious beliefs, marriage is only a piece of paper issued by the government and probably some vows exchanged in a cerimony. It may not be totally meaningless, but it doesn't have anywhere's near the value it does for Christians.

BTW, on the Christianity note, the first marriage was between Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden. No liscences, no government, probably not even vows, only a commitment to a relationship held as holy by God.

" 'I hate divorce,' says the Lord God of Israel." Mal. 2:16 NIV
I think someone asked about that.

 

NOG, I am not religious, though I am highly spiritual. I do not belong to any organized gathering of religious followers, I do not adhere to any doctrine set down in a holy book or told to me by any learned religious scholars or priests. But does that mean I do not hold marriage to be only a legal document on paper? No. Like I elaborated in an earlier post on this thread, I hold marriage to be a very sacred thing. It is the confirmation of two people's commitment to one another, a ritual that affirms their love and desire to be with one another. However, I do not hold sex as sacred as marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I believe sex should be conducted in a loving relationship that has plans (even if these plans never come to fruition) to last, but I do not think that sex need be reserved until after marriage. why? Because to wait until after marriage does a disservice to someone you love if a moment arrises in which sex would be able to strengthen the relationship. I mean, sex is not just about physical pleasure and reproduction. It can be a loving act that hardens the bonds between two people who are in love. And if you believe that this is not the case, then the question of sex before marriage doesn't really matter, because you would only be having sex as a swinger or to reproduce. But if you believe that sex can be a loving act that strengthens the bond between two people in love, and you wait until marriage, you would pass up many opportunities to have those loving, beautiful moments between you and another person that make life worth living, moments like your first kiss or when you first realise you love your significant other.

Now for those whose religion forbids sex outside of marriage, that is a matter of adhering to your religion, not a matter of whether sex before marriage is right or wrong.

 

As has been said before, why should it matter whether you are married or not? If you love someone, and they love you, do you need a ceremony to confirm it? And for those who believe in God, wont He know that you are in love? Does He need to see you perform a ceremony to confirm it?

 

I agree with the general sentiments of Carcaroth, deepfae, and Saber. If you believe in remaining a virgin until you are married, that's fine by me. What I don't like is the impression that people who do not wait are somehow inferior or that their relationships don't mean as much. It suggests that if you have sex before you are married, then the relationship was ONLY about sex. Of course, that doesn't explain then why you bothered to get married.

While I think it is fair to use "the relationship was only about sex" arguement when you're having sex with someone you never intend to marry, I think extending that arguement to all pre-marital sexual activities is unfair. The difference between someone who waits until they are married, and one who has sex with someone and then gets married to that person is only a temporal one. I have yet to see a logical arguement as to how having sex with someone before you get married somehow lessens your marriage with that person.

Obviously, no one person can experience both sides of the issue. If we are only talking about first marriages, then one either will or will not have sex beforehand, and once you make that decision, there's no way to go back and see how things would be different if you had made the other choice. Therefore, I am not in a position to tell anyone from direct experience about waiting until after you're married to have sex. However, I can in no way conceive how I could love my wife more than I do now, or be more committed to my wife than I am now. And even if such a thing is possible, I don't think waiting until after we were married to have sex would have been a means to that end. In fact, it can be argued that the level of love and committment we have for each other is a product of dozens of decisions we both have made over the years, and having sex before we were married is just one of them.

 

I agree. You're so sensible sometimes, Aldeth.

 

@Deepfae:
Ok, splitting hairs here. Maybe I should have said atheists, but I still doubt you see marriage as sacred as I do.
How different do you see sex and a meanigful kiss? If one serves the purpose as well as the other, but doesn't have risks of getting pregnant, etc., then why take the risks.
As for those in a religion, if the religion dictates it, then it is an issue of right and wrong. If God tells you not to do something, it is wrong to do it. If you don't believe in God, you don't have to worry about it, but for those that do, it is an issue of right and wrong.

@Saber:
As has been said before, marriage is both more than and less than a ceremony. It is a covenant with God. This doesn't need a priest, or a piece of paper, or a cake, or anything. All Adam and Eve had was God saying, "You two are made for each other." The ceremony is just how modern society has set it up.

@Aldeth:
I don't neccessarily believe that your relationship is any less serious than my own (I'm not married), but rather that you made a mistake in having sex at that point. It isn't the value of the relationship I'm questioning. It is the valie of sex.
As for why to wait when sex is a great relationship building tool, well, what about kids? What about a guarantee that you will stick with each other and help each other out? How's that for good reasons to wait?

 

FYI, that sounds really pompous.

What is gauranteeing that a couple will stick around and help eachother out even after they are married?

 

Huge difference. Kissing is nowhere near as good or as intimate as sex. You can also share a meaningful kiss during sex, so the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

But what if God has not told you anything, as is the case with many people?

 

But there are so called "immoral" events from a societal standpoint (the only standpoint we can have with certainty) that are pleasing to both sides that are unethical acts, pleasing to one side and the absense of a response on the other or pleasing to the only party involved. For example (and this needn't even encompass sex) a romantic relationship between a psychiatrist and his patient may feel good or be pleasing, but like any other interaction passed on the ineqaulity of power, it is an immoral action, because one party is being unfairly taken advantage of regardless of how the person with the power rationalizes it (under the theory that the relationship is a creation of the power imbalance, that the powerless member "gives" themselves to the powerful member for security).

Morality (social at least) has a tendency to be based on the long term effects of an action. This allows for certain sexual activity to be moral (one with a productive long term result, such as increased emotional intimacy) and other forms of sex to be completely immoral (such as sex that ends up with poor long term results, such as regreted sex).

God, I never should have read "Beyond Good and Evil"... I'll never be a moral irrationalist, but I seem to be drifting into moral relativism.

I suppose that's why I believe that sex itself isn't immoral or moral, but the circumstances it happens in and the results it produces determine whether sex is moral or immoral. Unfortunately within my moral view of sexuality it's quite possible for the person completely ready to have sex to have immoral sex, while the puritan cam have completely moral sex under circumstances he/she would have normally believed to be immoral. On the same sort of level, it's perfectly possible to have perfectly moral pre-marital sex, and perfectly immoral marital sex. My view point can't provide the stability to rational morality, it's too empirical, you learn from the results, so any moral alignment is attatched after the fact, which basically makes the system worthless regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

[ March 14, 2006, 05:37: Message edited by: Ilmater's Suffering ]

 

Okay, regarding not wanting exclusivity or permanency.

You say you dated your wives for a couple of years before marriage. It happened to be exclusive and happened to stay. At some point it had to. But what if you had changed your mind along the way? It would have been the same as with previous girlfriends.

I'm not saying a person who refuses to marry has no plans of ever being in a permanent, exclusive relationship. But he or she certainly seems to have a problem with irrevocable, sealed exclusivity or permanence at that point in his or her relationship. He or she doesn't want to give guarantees. And no, religious marriage isn't the only way one can marry if he isn't religious. In fact, it would be hard for a non-religious person to marry in a religious ceremony.

People say they want an exclusive and permanent relationship. But then they split up and get a new girlfriend or boyfriend to sleep with and there goes that relationship. That's the standard with not believing in marriage. The idea that at any point you can leave if you don't like it. You people knew what you were doing when switching from a casual relationship to marriage, didn't you?

And I agree with Chandos that it's the level of bond which should determine intimacy. And no, a certificate doesn't guarantee that. Vows, however, taken in good faith, are a different matter. When someone is afraid of sealing the bond, then the bond isn't really so strong or deep as one would like to think. The kind of bond which is only developing, or in a trial period, or not yet decided, isn't the kind of bond which merits having sex.

@Fabius:

Oh, basically, I agree that religious and social inclinations are strong. But they don't hold too much if there's no logic behind them. At least not for reasonable people. I don't think I would always have been able to stick to the Catholic sexual morality if it worked like a religious dogma (aka you don't have to understand but you have to follow). On the other hand, at some points, sheer logic and sense might not have been sufficient without the religious impulse.

@Aldeth: Yes, adultery is way, way worse than premarital sex. And non-consensual is worse than any kind of consensual. If you find someone believing that non-consensual in marriage is better than consensual outside, you can invite him to the Alley for some pwnage.

Did someone want contraception effectiveness statistics? Here you go:

http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-birth-control-02.xml

And you can't say Planned Parenthood is pro-Catholic because Catholics tend to be excommunicated upon joining.

"Fertility Awareness" translates as NFP.

And my birth date is in my profile.

Hmm... maybe a little bit about acts being pleasurable but not necessarily good? Even if both sides of it experience pleasure. You don't even have to consider people with disorders. Suppose you have a vasectomy and you change your mind about children later. Reverting it is so dangerous that it's not required as restitution of Catholic who come to confession after having one.

[ March 14, 2006, 13:06: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

And marriage offers that guarantee how exactly? Sure it is a little more difficult to get a divorce than to just split up, but over 150,000 do it every year in the UK - hardly a "guarantee" is it! I read somewhere (but can't find it now)that people are more likely to stay together for financial commitments (i.e. a mortgage) than because of a marriage certificate.

As I've said, you don't need a marriage certificate to have "irrevocable, sealed exclusivity or permanence" in a relationship. Mine has lasted a great deal longer than a number of marriages I can think of, including my neighbours.
Actually, to think you need a certificate to "prove" your love, kind of cheapens it to my way of thinking.

 

Correct. But that's not what marriage is about. Divorce isn't exactly the natural or even optional end of marriage. Even by people who don't like the idea of being unable to get out, divorce was initially intended as a way to deal with the most extreme cases, not just switch partners for better ones.

Okay, but how long will it? What will happen if you meet someone better or if you stop liking something?

 

Maybe the problem is with our actual definitions then. I don't attach as much value to sex as I do to marriage, and it appears that you do.

It is easily possible to have sex, but not have kids. In fact, if you're careful about it, even frequently having sex with your wife will not result in having kids. Now, if you aren't being careful, well, you're playing reproductive Russian roulette.

There is no guarantee, whether you're married or not. It all comes down to having faith and trust in your partner. As has been pointed out by others, while marriage makes it more difficult to split, it doesn't prevent it. If anyone is unhappy with their relationship, they can end it if they wish.

Hmmm... This is an odd way to phrase this statement. Especially the "believing in marriage" part. What do you mean precisely by that? If you mean that marriage is a societal tool with a lot of benefits for the two people entering into it, then, yes, I suppose I believe in marriage, but somehow, I doubt that's what you mean.

How can anyone give a definitive answer on such a hypothetical and vague set of circumstances? There seems to actually be two questions - 1. What happens if you meet someone better; and 2. What happens if you stop liking something. As best as I can answer them:

1. I'm not even sure what you mean by better. Do you mean more attractive? Is younger? Has more money? Regardless, you WILL meet someone better eventually. I do not believe that my wife is the most beautiful or wealthy woman on the planet. She also is only a year younger than me, so it's certainly possible I could have married someone younger. So I have met people who were "better", and I even met some of them while I was dating my wife. Believe it or not, most guys I know don't run after every potential mate that's out there just because "I'm only dating, I'm not married yet." Even when my wife and I first started dating, and we weren't in a committed relationship yet, it wasn't like I stopped dating her as soon as I saw a woman who was "better". Heck, you usually will learn more about a person after going on a single date than you can ever know about someone you just happen to meet. I can't speak for everyone, but for me, if I was in a relationship with someone, I wasn't really considering my chances with other women I knew.

2. You WILL stop liking something eventually - the question isn't IF, it's WHEN. When I stop liking something, I will handle it the same way I handled it with previous girlfriends - I'd talk about it. Here's a news flash - getting married to someone doesn't guarantee that you'll never disagree with that person, or that you won't like something they do. In fact, the longer you stay with someone, regardless of whether you're married or not, the better the chance you find something you disagree on, or find something you don't like. Once you get to the point that you're ready to commit to marrying someone, it is virtually guaranteed that you have already gone through several instances where you didn't like something or disagreed. In fact, it was your ability to resolve those issues that placed you in a position that you were willing to get married. Rational people work through issues, they don't run away and find someone else without even TRYING to resolve them.

[ March 14, 2006, 15:02: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I'm not talking about your wife at the moment, but what about a girlfriend one is sleeping with? Better wife candidate means break-up. And there goes the "we are permanent and exclusive, we just don't believe in papers" thing, making it painfully obvious it differs from marriage in something else than just the paper. De facto fulfilling the obligations of marriage but without a guarantee is not the same as undertaking them and delivering.

[ March 14, 2006, 15:35: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

And I wasn't talking about when I was married either. I even said:

I never picked someone up at a bar and had sex with them. (As in aside, I always thought that it was a rather dubious idea to pick up someone when there's a good chance at least one of you, if not both of you are under the infulence of alcohol.)

I've never broke up with someone or been dumped by someone with the sole reason of there was a better potential mate lined up. In fact, if I felt someone was unsuitable as a possible future wife, I wouldn't even be with them - much less having sex with them.

 

My problem is why not marry if one claims his relationship is different from marriage in name only. It isn't. You can't say your relationship with your wife was as deep and permanent and all when you first slept with your future wife as it was when you married her later on, can you?

 

Of course it wasn't, but it wasn't because we got married that changed that. When you're in a long term relationship, the bond grows stronger the longer you're together. So no, it wasn't as permanent the first time I slept with her as it is now, and it isn't as permanent now as it will be 10 years from now.

And there's many reasons for being together and not being married. Maybe you're both in college, and you think it would be a good idea for at least one of you to have a job before you tie the knot. Being married without a source of income would suck I imagine.

Here's another one that's actually happened with someone I know. He was Jewish, and she was Catholic, and the family would not approve the marriage unless she converted - which she did. Then, they approved, but they actually put off their engagement until she converted.

 

My sister in law's parents have been common law married for 30 years. They don't believe in government marriage and they are atheists, so they never married. On the other hand, they obviously love each other and don't show any signs of splitting up, and after 30 years and 4 kids, I'd say it won't be happening up any time soon. Anyone who would accuse them of having a less commited relationship than a "married" couple either doesn't know them or is blinded by his own convictions. Probably both.

 

A lifetime. Aldeth said it better than I could - the relationship is stronger now than it ever was, and gets better and stronger each day. As I said previously, unless you've experienced it you can't understand. As non-religious types, marriage doesn't mean anything to either of us so it couldn't possibly have the all encompassing "hold us together no matter what" effect that you ascribe to it. That is achieved through communication, love, tenderness and not taking each other for granted (not such "hard work" as some people make out.)

I agree wholeheartedly that divorce is not exactly an ideal occurance, but having experienced it between my parents I can honestly say that their lives and mine and my brothers lives are better for it. To see the difference in each of them after the breakup, and realise that they endured years of tension and pain in order to "stay together for the kids" is extremely humbling.

But Why Marry? What reason is there to marry if you don't have a religious one? To stake "ownership" by making her change her name? - Hardly loving is it! I'm not attacking people who want to marry - a number of close friends have and I'm more than happy to celebrate with them, but it's not something that means anything to either of us so we can't see the point.

I will admit to a remote possibility we'll get married for purely financial reasons (To avoid the 40% inhertitance tax on estates worth over £400,000 maybe - an awfully long way off!) but other than that there isn't any incentive to do so.

[ March 14, 2006, 20:57: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]