Turn on thread page Beta

Sex before marriage is always wrong. watch

  • View Poll Results: Sex before Marriage is always wrong. Do you agree or disagree?
    Agree
    89
    17.69%
    Disagree
    414
    82.31%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    I think we're actually very close to agreeing
    Goody :p:

    I see what you mean. Although your position would be more truthfully expressed as "sex outside of a secure, respectful environment may be harmful to some parties" wouldn't it?

    Which is rather toned down on what you originally seemed to be saying.

    I think we pretty much stand at the same point and this is just pedantics now
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Goody :p:

    I see what you mean. Although your position would be more truthfully expressed as "sex outside of a secure, respectful environment may be harmful to some parties" wouldn't it?

    Which is rather toned down on what you originally seemed to be saying.

    I think we pretty much stand at the same point and this is just pedantics now
    Perhaps I think my understanding, though, is that a lot of sexual relationships which seem secure and respectful are actually not so, and that an enormous amount, whether the majority or not, of sexual relationships outside of marriage are unlikely to be massively secure and respectful - though that's not to say that most inside marriage are!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daisydaffodil)
    Ooh, I don't know.

    I'm torn between my Church - which says fornication is wrong. But I'm not sure if fornication could mean sleeping around recklessly, or just all extra-marital sex.

    To be honest I think sex is something primarily for a loving relationship - it's not something that you just do with anyone and everyone.
    (Original post by becciboo)
    This. Even after being brought up by christian parents I don't understand how fornication can have the same meaning today. I do believe it is better when it's just between two people but society's views on marriage has changed so much in the last 2,000 years. People won't get married for much longer than they did then and relationships are just different. If I was in the same situation with my boyfriend back then I think we would be married now but that's just not how things work any more (yes we are having sex, waited 6 months though ).
    I don't think there's really any argument that the Bible only condemns sleeping around recklessly - Hebrews 13:4 explicitly links 'not keeping the marriage bed pure' with sexual immorality; 1 Corinthians 7 gives marriage as the only alternative to sexually immoral conduct, and a parallel with Matthew 19:9 would clearly suggest that breaking up and having another partner would be committing adultery. At most, it seems to me, you could try to claim that sex is permissible with one person, with whom you intend to be forever, even if you're not yet married.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You need to have sex with someone before you decide whether or not to marry them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    Perhaps I think my understanding, though, is that a lot of sexual relationships which seem secure and respectful are actually not so, and that an enormous amount, whether the majority or not, of sexual relationships outside of marriage are unlikely to be massively secure and respectful - though that's not to say that most inside marriage are!
    Aha! Contention!

    See I don't think there is much relationship between marriage and respect in societies where virginity is something you have to or ought to still have when you marry. Because everyone ends up marrying hastily! And it becomes about being the virginal wife instead of being decent/intelligent/interesting/compatible, because you just don't have time to find out all that unless you want to wait many years to have sex, which people as a rule don't. (And if they did, wouldn't that be a waste, because sex is fun and you only have so long until the meno/andropause).

    Marriage is, after all, something we've basically just made up. I mean, if I invented smarriage, which involved a marmite themed love festival and insisted that everyone go through that before they have sex or else they're doing wrong, you'd have something to say about it, right?

    Married couples are only more secure/loving/respectuful nowadays (as comparing a randomnly selected married couple to a randomnly selected unmarried couple) because marriages occur later in life, and for reasons of love/respect/compatibility rather than reasons revolving around sex (basically they involve couples which would probably be just fine anyway, even if they didn't marry, another point!) - a direct result of more liberal attitudes toward sex outside of marriage. (What I was saying earlier).

    Which places your argument in a conundrum

    Secondly - if sex occurs outside of a secure/loving relationship sometimes, and that is harmful, is it arguably as harmful as all of the hang-ups and disadvantages that accompany the whole virgin-marriage business? I would say not. Especially as you can choose to still be sensible about who you sleep with, it isn't all or nothing.

    Lastly - even if sex outside of marriage or otherwise were harmful to you personally, that isn't to say that it is morally wrong. I mean, sleeping with my contacts in makes my eyes uncomfortable but I'm not going to hell for it.

    Eagerly await your reply x
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "Wrong" according to whom? Do I sense an attempt at an objective morality...? :pierre:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd be interested in hearing from those who do believe sex before marriage is wrong - how do you define sex? Is it only penetrative sex that you consider wrong?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage can be so different from one couple to the next, that even if I thought that sex was wrong unless in a committed relationship, being married is certainly no indicator that the relationship was committed and good and happy etc..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    if both sides agree and are the right age to do it...plus they use the necessary protection then its alllllll fine for me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RosieLucenstiel)
    I'd be interested in hearing from those who do believe sex before marriage is wrong - how do you define sex? Is it only penetrative sex that you consider wrong?
    I would define sex as penetration, but that doesn't mean that I think everything else goes. To be honest, for religious people (certainly for Christians, and I suspect for the other Abrahamic religions too), I think the whole 'no sex before marriage' thing is a bit of a misnomer. It's not about a negative prohibition of an act, it's about treating one's partner with the utmost respect and 'purity'. In Baroness Hale's words "[a penis] is capable of being, not only an instrument of great pleasure, but also a weapon of great danger." Keeping sex within marriage is an attempt to ensure that the gift of sex is fully actualised within a stable, committed and loving relationship, and avoiding the deep harms that it can cause.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Aha! Contention!
    Good! I was worrying I might be becoming a conformist

    See I don't think there is much relationship between marriage and respect in societies where virginity is something you have to or ought to still have when you marry. Because everyone ends up marrying hastily! And it becomes about being the virginal wife instead of being decent/intelligent/interesting/compatible, because you just don't have time to find out all that unless you want to wait many years to have sex, which people as a rule don't. (And if they did, wouldn't that be a waste, because sex is fun and you only have so long until the meno/andropause).
    Tell me about it! Lots of evangelical friends who have married young and ended up with marriages that just don't work at all I agree again there - bear in mind my argument isn't that marriage intrinsically makes relationships better, or makes sex more valid, or anything like that, simply in virtue of its being marriage (cf footnote – really important here!).

    Marriage is, after all, something we've basically just made up. I mean, if I invented smarriage, which involved a marmite themed love festival and insisted that everyone go through that before they have sex or else they're doing wrong, you'd have something to say about it, right?
    As a universal, sure. But that’s not to say I’d object to it personally but this is where the footnote stuff becomes important – I would never encourage someone to get married just so their sex was legitimate, or anything like that. I don’t see marriage and the relationship between sex and marriage that way. Because marriage, in my tradition, is a confirmatory symbol of that loving relationship, I think that marriage first, for me, will be the best way to ensure that neither me nor my spouse are manipulated, hurt, or degraded in any way.
    It’s also worth noting, though, that the debate isn’t so much about the relationship between sex and marriage, but the legitimacy of sex outside marriage. My contention was only that a lot of sex outside marriage is wrong, and this is not because marriage automatically legitimates sex, but for other reasons entirely (hence my concession that sex inside marriage is often wrong as well).

    Married couples are only more secure/loving/respectuful nowadays (as comparing a randomnly selected married couple to a randomnly selected unmarried couple) because marriages occur later in life, and for reasons of love/respect/compatibility rather than reasons revolving around sex (basically they involve couples which would probably be just fine anyway, even if they didn't marry, another point!) - a direct result of more liberal attitudes toward sex outside of marriage. (What I was saying earlier).
    Again, I don’t sense too much disagreement here – the only way in which marriage would legitimate sex is when marriage is properly correlated with loving, respectful, compatible relationships. That’s not to say, however, that a higher proportion of marriages being of that nature as a result of more liberal attitudes necessarily legitimates those liberal attitudes

    Which places your argument in a conundrum

    Secondly - if sex occurs outside of a secure/loving relationship sometimes, and that is harmful, is it arguably as harmful as all of the hang-ups and disadvantages that accompany the whole virgin-marriage business? I would say not. Especially as you can choose to still be sensible about who you sleep with, it isn't all or nothing.
    I’m not in a position to judge which is more harmful, but I would insist that I haven’t made any claims on this issue so I hope I’m not being contradicted here (and hopefully this post has clarified my position)!

    Lastly - even if sex outside of marriage or otherwise were harmful to you personally, that isn't to say that it is morally wrong. I mean, sleeping with my contacts in makes my eyes uncomfortable but I'm not going to hell for it.

    Eagerly await your reply x
    On this, you may want to read the rest of the post you originally replied to – I addressed just this issue (and I think we end with some consensus) ! x

    Footnote: probably best if I explain my position on marriage and sex in general. Personally, I think that marriage should be because two people want to commit themselves to each other (and to God, but I understand that religious stuff is not necessarily welcome in a secular arena, so bear in mind my struggle in espousing my position without reference to a key presupposition! ), because they love each other and want to treasure, respect, honour, dignify and support each other. It should not be to legitimate sex or anything else - and I agree that that is a key problem in becoming too legalistic about it (neither legalism or antinomianism work here, and I subscribe to neither). I think that sex is a gift which should be saved for the kind of relationship which marriage is an appropriate expression, reflection and solidification of. And so I do not think that sex outside of marriage is intrinsically wrong, but I would like to wait personally because I think that, for me, because of my views on marriage (and so this does not apply to all marriages, by any means), marriage will serve as a symbol (rather than a hurdle or gateway) that that kind of loving, respectful relationship is present. Hope that clears it up!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it's not wrong. A marriage is a social construct, or to be more specific, a religious construct. Why the Hell should a non-religious person abide by the rules of some ancient religion which they don't follow?

    Sex is a perfectly normal and natural human activity. To consider it to be 'wrong' or 'sinful' is extremely deranged and twisted.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighestKungFu)
    Lol good luck with that hypocrite.
    Thanks **** head, but I don't need luck, I've found, and know loads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You can blame too little, too late sex education in schools and the catholic church for that.



    So you can either use contraception, abort the baby, or choose to keep it.
    What is the problem?
    But abstinence programs have proven far more successful at preventing teenage pregnancies, STDs, and abortions, than programs where the children have contraception drummed into their head. Adults can barely not bugger up contraception, men put on condoms wrong despite knowing how to do it, and women forget to take the pill or whatever, so how can we expect teenagers especially to be able to do this well?

    Most unplanned pregnancies occur in people who think they are safe, rather than people who simply don't bother to use anything and hope for the best.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    But abstinence programs have proven far more successful at preventing teenage pregnancies, STDs, and abortions, than programs where the children have contraception drummed into their head.
    :facepalm:

    Please tell me this is a joke. Abstinence programs do not, and have never worked.

    Teenagers are going to have sex, whether you tell them not to or not. It is pretty common knowledge that the abstinence program in America has completely failed.

    Simply telling them not to do it and keeping them ignorant about contraception is possibly the most stupidest idea ever conceived of, how is this going to help them stop making each other pregnant accidentally and spreading STIs?

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Adults can barely not bugger up contraception, men put on condoms wrong despite knowing how to do it, and women forget to take the pill or whatever, so how can we expect teenagers especially to be able to do this well?
    So to combat this we should repress our sexuality and defy human nature? How do you figure that one is going to work.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Most unplanned pregnancies occur in people who think they are safe, rather than people who simply don't bother to use anything and hope for the best.
    Got any evidence to support this?

    Or do you really expect non-mentally retarded people to believe that MOST unplanned pregnancies occur with people actually USING contraception and not to people who don't use it.

    How is that even logically probably? How exactly does using contraception makes you more likely to fall pregnant, do you even think before you write?





    :lolwut:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    I don't think there's really any argument that the Bible only condemns sleeping around recklessly - Hebrews 13:4 explicitly links 'not keeping the marriage bed pure' with sexual immorality; 1 Corinthians 7 gives marriage as the only alternative to sexually immoral conduct, and a parallel with Matthew 19:9 would clearly suggest that breaking up and having another partner would be committing adultery. At most, it seems to me, you could try to claim that sex is permissible with one person, with whom you intend to be forever, even if you're not yet married.
    I suppose. I've never really thought about it a lot. I do know though that you can receive divorce counselling from a priest and go on to re-marry, as both my devout grandparents have done. I would intend to keep my virginity up until marriage just because it seems the right thing to do - it's something really special and not something I want to throw around, if that makes sense.

    I suppose it depends how literally you take the Bible - I mean, there are so so many laws in there that various churches just disregard, and then there are other things sort of added into churches that never existed in the Bible, I think. If you followed it down to the last word, there's rules relating to women and their period, none of us really follow that. I've never fully understood how we can disregard one thing but really try to follow another.

    My gran's a very devout Catholic though (I'm Catholic) - and believes that sex is purely for the reproduction of children and nothing else - i.e. you only have sex in marriage, and only when you want a baby out of it. Orgasm apparently is an added bonus... Which I don't agree with - I think sex and sexuality is a gift from God.

    It's sooo confusing though - I was sitting once with my Gran talking about stuff like this and she said Mary isn't literally a virgin (i.e. the Virgin Mary) - now how confusing is that? She tried to explain why but her explanation baffled me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely agree. Women these days are disgusting. Sleeping around with as many as 30 guys before they settle down with the inexperienced beta male on £40k a year. Bunch of ****ing wenches they're vile.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    It is never made wrong by the fact it is outside of marriage.

    /
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    Me neither, unless it's a person I might marry, then I want her to be a virgin.

    Everyone else though, couldn't care less about. They can do whatever the hell they like, I'm indifferent.
    Just to clarify, will you be a virgin when you enter marriage. If not, well you know what I'm going to say.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I really don't think it is. Marriage is merely a social construct, and if a couple have been together for years anyway but aren't legally married, I can't see how a piece of paper makes any difference whatsoever.

    I can certainly see the value in no sex before a committed relationship, which personally I think makes sense, but no sex before marriage just seems illogical to me.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,757

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.