What is the Christian stance on sex before marriage? (anyone in favour?) What does the Bible have to say?

Sex is a wonderful thing. It is a truly great shame the way in which it is denegrated, seemingly more so in this day and age than any other. Whist much of the direction of this thread may well go down the "terrible sins of promiscuity" road i would like to just add a word of caution in regard to the "the only place for sex is in marriage" faction.

If we take as a given that promiscuity is not a good thing, it being extreme and damaging, we also need to consider other practices that are alos extreme and damaging. to this list i would add the idea of sex in marriage only. I do so firstly because it never works. in all the societies that have tried this people are still adulterous or have sex before marriage.

Secondly it seems to me to be always the women who suffer the wrath of an indigant society (usually patriachal).

thirdly many marriages suffer from sexual dysfunction, many couples stay together whilst being very unhappy and unfulfilled because of the pressures to do so.

fourthly in times gone by the rate of re-marriage ( NOT divorece) was just as great then as it was today due to gretaer mortality rates among both men and women.

lastly, as i have said already what we need is a pragmatic and sensible appproach, the sex only on marriage faction has no evidence to suggest that what they espouse works or is less damaging than some other approaches.

I am in favour of teaching about respect for ones self and ones partners, about the sanctity (and this does not preclude fun) of sex, and eventual marriage and monogamy. But it worries me because the "moral majority" are often given to talking consevative nonsense which is pie in the sky, un-practicle and has hidden agendas.

However I would hope that Christians will continue to uphold the primary importance of monogamous and lifelong faithfulness within a relationship. In this, formal "marriage" does have an important role in our less-than-perfect human race, by providing a definable framework within which such faithfulness can be practised on a level which can be seen and acknowledged. Remember, for Christians, the loving relationship which "marriage" signifies is to be seen, as Paul points out, as reflecting the relationship of loving fidelity which God has established between Christ and His Church (ie., us) To paraphrase Paul's words without, I hope, distorting their true meaning: "We love and are faithful (in "marriage") because God in Christ first loved and continues to be faithful to us."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elijah on Horeb:
If faithful love is a hallmark of God's people, reflecting the nature of God Himself, then so is forgiveness, redemption and the opportunity of the second chance. That, sadly, has been largely conspicuous by its absence in the history of Christian attitudes to sex and sexual relations.

---

Well said, Elijah. That is the source of a lot of bitterness among people with a so-called Christian background. I say "so-called" because true Christians know how to love and to forgive.

That said, I think we need to acknowledge that pre-marital sexual relations are a source of emotional pain in our culture. I don't believe that this is due simply to artificial guilt feelings imposed by an insensitive society.

I believe that once a couple is involved sexually their relationship changes dramatically, and the less permanent the relationship the worse the experience will be. Even if the relationship is permanent for several years, the break-up will surely be one of the most traumatic events of the person's life. The less permanent the relationship, and the more frequently it is repeated, the cheaper you feel. It's just not fun in the long run.

Everyone understands that people do foolish things when they are young, and they need not have permanent ill effects. Nevertheless, the fewer these experiences are, and the more permanent the eventual relationship, the happier will be the final experience. That is what I observe, anyway, and I think this is the clear message of the Bible.

Permanent, loving, stable, monogamous marriage correlates strongly with good health, long life, financial well-being, happiness, and just about every other measurement of well-being. I would think that any individual interested in having a happy life would want to look into this.

Marriage is an instituiton which suffers not only outside teh church but inside. It is about time the church woke up and dealt with this.

The teaching we got was leave, cleave and belong ( Genesis and 2 Cor ).

Pretty straight forward... hmm maybe!!

I still believe marriage is God's best for 2 people who want to commit to each other etc.
However if we mess up then that is ok with God as lets face it the Bible is full of people who did mess up and yet God used them.
It isn't the end of the world if we fall short.

I am not sure if this is helpful but I have a phrase "God honours those who honour him".

My advise is this if you are with someone and sex is an issue talk about it and find someone you can talk to other than your partner.

For me the issue was that sex is a taboo subject in church and it shouldn't be and if couples can't talk about this or have the subject covered in "marriage prep" it will make the relationship so much harder.

Before the 14th century (in England) type 1 existed but the only type 2 was what we know now as a common-law marriage.

As I understand things got comfused as regrds inhertiance etc. so the church was asked to keep a register of marriages which eventually became a legal document.

In some continental European countries citizens still pay a church tax which is amoung other things a payment to the church for performing the civil duty of keeping records of marriages.

These days a lot of people who do not get married still go in for a legal document.
Esppecially if they own their house together they may have what I have heard called a "Mortgage Marriage", like they are legally joined together to pay this mortgage until it is all payed off or deathe does them part.

So where is this ramble going well taking marraige type 1 "before God". He has designed us to have one partner to share everything with, including sexual pleasure and the shared upbringing of children as a result of sex. So really the "best" way is to wait until you find your life partner and then stay with him/her. However we have a God of Grace and he knows that we fall short of the ideal.

I think God can see into the heart and truth of a relationship - particularly thinking about the question of 'when does marriage begin' concerning common law marriages and committed reltionships in general. The difficulty is to know whether he is/would be happy with sex in a relationship just because we would be! I think it's really important to talk to or pray with others about this if possible, just for some distance.

The other thing I would add is that there seems to me to be no recognition of the emotional suffering that is felt by people sincerely trying to stick to the 'no sex before marriage' rule - when you are really deeply committed and involved in every other way this leaves a huge emotional gap in the relationship. People need to be supported through this, but this is hardly ever acknowledged.

I think you are right about the "suffering" couples go through.

However this is just one of many things that our emmotions run riot in our lives where we live to how we feel and that isn't what God wants from us.

Sometimes we have to say no to how we feel in order to honour God and at times this is extremely hard.

When I got engaged I didn't realise how much harder it was being engaged and still trying to honour God.

I suppose the question it comes down to for me is, in what way is waiting for marriage honouring God? I mean that in the strict sense of sex in a long term committed relationship - and in fact for myself "long term" would have to mean a lifelong commitment, rather than a "for the foreseeable future" commitment. Is that different from civil/legal marriage with a certificate? If so, how does it dishonour God?

I can see the argument for an official, public marriage as a kind of safety net for the conscience - ie, if you're not sure just don't do it and go for the safest option - but then I don't think I would have even become a Christian if I took that approach to life.

quote:

---

I have come to the conclusion that marriage is a very overrated concept nowadays, it basically appears very fake to me.

---

Well, it can be if it is approached that way. The marriage is what you make of it. My own marriage is good and very real (knock on wood), and we take the marriage (as a separate unit from the two of us as individuals) very seriously.

My own thoughts.

I come from a home where my parents divorced when I was 7. It was bitter. Most of my friends had parents who were divorced. And yet, I hope one day soon, that I will be married to someone I love very much.

But it's made me think carefully about what is real, and what isn't. And what are my expectations of marriage. I always said that I would never sleep with someone, unless I was prepared to walk down that aisle with them, because in having sex with them, you have made a commitment between you, them and God. And it made me think what the sacrifices are that are involved, and what I wanted from someone.
I didn't jump into bed with anyone thinking "this is the man I'll marry", but neither did I do it without reference to God.

Jesus' words were a gentle rebuke to those of us who get holier than thou on the subject. "If you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery in your heart" - not to be taken at face value, but as a non too gentle reminder that, unless we have God in our hearts, we can't possibly be holy, because as humans we are imperfect.

So often we wind up rushing into things though. Not that it can't work out right in the end, but it makes it far harder. And sometimes God has this amazing way of stepping in, and sorting it out in the way you least expect it. (to those of you who've chatted to me recently, this last bit will make sense, otherwise it makes absolutely none )

There is a lot to be said for waiting. But at the same time, there are also people who just want "legitimized" sex, although they veil it as something else.

At the end of the day, marriage is a promise to yourself, to your community, and to God, as much as to someone else. When you go up and say your vows it's saying "I can't do this on my own, but with your help, I can."

Sex before marriage is, in a way, oxymoronic. Because in some sense, sexual intercourse is a form of marriage. It is the deepest intimacy. Just as those who go to church multiple times to get married can wind up cheapening the whole thing, so can sleeping around cheapen the person doing it, both male and female.

So what I'm saying is, sex should be precious, but it shouldn't be plonked in a glass case with "in case of marriage, break here" on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
In some continental European countries citizens still pay a church tax which is amoung other things a payment to the church for performing the civil duty of keeping records of marriages.

---

You pay a church tax to either the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church or the Jewish... er, Synagogue? Or you can elect to pay no Church Tax at all.

However, this has nothing to do with performing marriages and everything to do with how the Churches get their money from the State. In fact, in Germany, if you want to have a church marriage ceremony, you have to get married twice: once in church, and again at the registry office. And the registry office charges an absolute fortune for the service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
The mistake is to think that marriage will confer seriousness or real-ness where there is none.

---

Well said Laura.

I think that many people (both Christians and non-Christians) approach marriage as a magic wand that will fill their lives with happiness, light and flowers with little or no effort on their part. When they find that, surprise surprise, this is not necessarily the case that is when the "perfect relationship" starts to come apart.

In this, as with many other things the media has a lot to answer for. "I must look like this, I must dress like this, I must own this, I must have a marriage like this, I must have a relationship like this."

Not only the media, but our frends, our experiences, they all give us examples of what can happen, what might happen. But just because something has happened to someone else, doesn't mean that it will inevitably happen to you.

The Truth issues from one place and one place only.

I had the good fortune to not only be born into a home where my parents had a strong commitment to and love for one another, but into an extended family where this was true of nearly ever married couple. I saw how that commitment saw people through "for better or for worse..." For me, a physical act that proclaims that a couple are "one" is inappropriate, in fact a lie, if one is not ready to take on the other 95% of what is involved in the responsibilities of marriage.

This does not mean that I think God is unforgiving of any sin, nor that I find it appropriate for us to condemn others. Yet I believe that having seen witness to commitment in marriage, and having an honour for that blessed state, will be more likely to keep people from pre-marital (or extra-marital) relations than any threat of being ostracised.

Anyway, I was struck by how much the wedding itself had receded in my mind into irrelevance. It was a nice day, with great music, and was, of course, important as a beginning. But the point is so much the marriage and not the wedding. And it's so hard to explain this to people. It's as if you re-commit regularly -- every time you get over a difficulty, you rededicate yourself to the marriage. And if that makes it sound too much like work, yet it's such enjoyable work that its difficulty makes it worthwhile.

Not very clear, I know. Maybe someone else will get what I'm trying to say badly.

But to the matter at hand, to which my musings are a tangent, sex is an entirely different thing from marriage, imho. It, like any intimate, risky activity, (like close harmony singing) deserves due deliberation before undertaking. And people should go at their comfort level -- if you don't want it before marriage, then don't do it before marriage. But though sex really enriches the marriage bond, I do think of it as a different matter entirely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo:
The other thing I would add is that there seems to me to be no recognition of the emotional suffering that is felt by people sincerely trying to stick to the 'no sex before marriage'

---

I think the reason is that this is a suffering that is familiar to a lot of people, and they recognize that it is really no suffering at all by comparison to the alternatives.

One thing that young people, in my experience, simply do not realize, is how exquisitely painful real pain is.

The pain of being repeatedly unable to maintain a stable relationship, of being left behind, of unending quarrels, of growing old with no security, of addiction, of mental illness, of loneliness and isolation.

These things are suffering. You want to try to avoid these things. One way is to do things that are consistent with long term stable and loving relationships, and avoid things that are not.

"Two people may be formally married and fail to live a life which can seriously be regarded as marriage. And it may happen that two people are not married and yet, in their precarious way live under the law of marriage."

Stated rather conservatively, as he was writing 70 years ago, but still a good point, I think.

Also interesting to note that the Bible seems to have no interest whatsoever in wedding ceremonies or legal marriage. What it does seem to have is a downer on casual sex and a concern that a sexual relationship should be considered a lifelong commitment.

First, I believe that society in general, and the Church in particular, tends to place too much importance on sex.

In society at large, there seems to be a general attitude that sex is the only valid expression of a loving relationship; sexual crimes are generally regarded as the worst sort; and one's sex life seems to be regarded as the chief indicator of happiness (or otherwise).

In the Church, there seems likewise to be an overemphasis on sexual morality above other morality. The issue of homosexuality is a particularly strong example, but sex before marriage, and what the Church preaches about it, is another. I get the impression that most church people would be happy to accept and help rehabilitate people who have lapsed in other ways, but seldom offer such help to those who have lapsed sexually.

This generates unnecessary problems - I am sure that many people are put off the Church because they see it as preaching outdated morality.

Well, so much for the Church. Let's move on to the next main source of doctrine for Christians - the Bible.

I'm not going to look up the verse, but somewhere in (?) the synoptic Gospels it says that Christians shouldn't swear oaths, but we should let our Yes be Yes and our No be No. My interpretation of this is that we shouldn't need to take an oath - our word should be absolutely reliable without it. I will be the first to admit that I don't live up to that, and therefore I will not (as some Christian friends do) refuse to take the Oath in court, for example.

But a more literal interpretation of this verse suggests that in a Christian context, there should be no need to exchange marriage vows; indeed, those whom I generally describe as "informally married" are arguably closer to the Christian ideal than those who have a Church wedding!

Next has to come the third source of doctrine: reason. Here is my line of reasoning, anyway.

The theme I see running through the whole New Testament (and spreading out into the OT as well) is that Christianity is about principles, not rules, and about attitudes more than actions.

On the subject of sex, the verse already quoted about looking at a woman lustfully, can be interpreted in terms of attitude: It is not being promiscuous that is important, so much as one's attitude to sex. Ogling the women is evidence of the wrong attitude to women and sex, and is therefore just as sinful as adultery, which puts into practice that wrong attitude.

On the subject of marriage, I shan't quote a verse, but I think that the general message from Scripture is that marriage is about commitment, not sex. Yes, sex is part of it, but that is not what marriage is about.

There is plenty of evidence to say that the biggest step change in an evolving relationship between two people is when it becomes a sexual relationship. The Christian message is that this should only be undertaken with commitment; and our love of turning principles into rules has put in the requirement of marriage as formal evidence of commitment.

My own view is that the Church is still putting too much importance on sex, and a bit more give and take would be a very good thing. I do not consider the issue so important that I will defy the Church's teaching; but this is a decision we must each make for ourselves.

Finally, I hope you will forgive a slightly personal comment. I think Freddy's rant in response to Jo's comment was uncalled-for.

Jo mentioned the suffering of people who are honestly trying to live up to the Christian ideal. Freddy interpreted this as

quote:

---

The sweet desire felt in an as-yet unconsumated relationship is not suffering. It is something that most people would give their eyeteeth for.

---

He also cited "alternatives":

quote:

---

The pain of being repeatedly unable to maintain a stable relationship, of being left behind, of unending quarrels, of growing old with no security, of addiction, of mental illness, of loneliness and isolation.

---

Well, I am no conoisseur of broken marriages, but I'm pretty sure most of these happen in marriage, too. Addiction and mental illness? I don't really see the connection. They certainly happen as a result of broken relationships, but they happen for lots of other reasons too.

Loneliness, on the other hand, seems to be the lot of many people (myself included) who are sincerely trying to stick to 'no sex before marriage', and who find themselves unable to enter into the culture of casual relationships with the built-in anticipation of sex.

I am not saying that the rule should be relaxed, but I agree with Jo that those of us who choose to keep it do suffer, and not just for the dubious reason that Freddy understandably disagrees with; and this should be recognised by those who preach sexual morality so heavily in our churches.

First, my reason for trying to live like this is that I believe that the ideal for Christians is for sex to be within the context of a lifelong committed relationship. This seems to be assumed in the bible rather than explicitly stated. Women, prior to marriage, are several times described as virgins for example.

I'm not sure whether the current convention of how weddings are done is entirely meaningful, but they do provide a space to say to one another, before God, that the couple intends to remain together. Letting one's yes be yes, means sticking to that statement, I guess. The fancy words don't mean much. The reason then, that I'm trying to stick to a no-sex outside marriage rule - despite being engaged to a lovely man, who I fully expect to marry in less than a year - is that I don't want to fall short of God's standards for what is best, if I can avoid it.

Having said that - it isn't easy. And it's not a "sweet longing" - it's a cause of tears, stress and occaisional arguments.

Lastly, I would like to second everything that has been said about the church putting too much emphasis on this. In a church with a lot of students it comes up time after time in sermons etc. As someone struggling to keep within what I see as God's way of doing things, I always feel obscurely guilty and slightly dirty when I hear thius being preached on at any great length. I rather feel as if my struggles are being condemned. There are so many other things that should set Christians apart. However, in our society, this is seen as one of the obvious differences - and is therefore blown out of all proportion.

I hate to think what visitors to churches must think when they hear the preacher going on and on about sex outside marriage. I recall one particularly hellish example..... but that may not be appropriate to purgatory. I don't want to get this interesting thread consigned to hell.

All the best,

quote:

---

First, I believe that society in general, and the Church in particular, tends to place too much importance on sex.

---

Amen to that, Brother Philip! (hope I quoted you accurately - I was working from memory!)

I have been saying for some time, sex (=physical copulation and the activities associated with before and after - foreplay, etc) is a very much over-rated commodity.

Society in general, lacking, or rather rejecting any spiritual guidepost for the meaning of life, has seized on "sex" (definition above) and its gratification as the be-all and end-all of life, the hallmark of happiness, the signal of success. "I bonk, therefore I am" (was going to put another four-letter word there, but thought I'd beter not in a serious debate in Purgatory!) Therefore it ultimately doesn't matter how when, where and with whom or what your have it, so long as you are
are having it. (That of course is "the bottom of the pit", so to speak - I know not everybody goes as far as that, but you get my drift?)

On the other hand, the Church has always tended to regarded sex as "sin" - some seem to think, the only sin, and therefore to either be avoided all together or be used with deep regret for the necessity, for procreation purposes only, if possible without any enjoyment or pleasure! (OK!OK!,I know, that's another overexaggeration to make a point! Bad habit of mine!) One therefore end with some interesting contradictions, such as (no offence intended to my Roman Catholic friends) the simultaneous veneration of celibacy and of motherhood. It's good to have children, but not engage in conceiving them!?

When will Christians realize that sex is God's gift to humanity, for procreation certainly, and for enhancement of joy and love in a committed relationship. But like all gifts it comes with directions for proper use, and if we ignore them we cannot complain if we get into trouble.

[UBB fixed]

I got married just over a year ago, and from past experience and the present I think the best place for sex is in marriage.

The vicar who married us (a good friend of my wifes) said the only reason you get a certificate is so you can break it. Which is true. The Bible has no marriage ceromony to follow, just he took her to his tent and loved her and made her his wife. But I think that the vows we made were significant. They acted to my un-churched mates as a way of showing what the values in our relationship are. Hopefully one day they will be all the stuff that St Paul says love should be. But in the mean time I geuss there is forgiveness.

Sex does form a lasting bond, and it takes the blood of Christ and sometimes a bit of councilling to bring freedom, why form that bond with somebody when there isnt a life long commitment? The Bible sort of shows that sex is the marriage (not to say an intimate relationship in which there is little or no sex for any reason is inferior) so why marry more than one person when the bible isnt too keen on that, even though a lot of OT people were into polyigamy big time.

Sorry that these thoughts are not too coherent.

Sex is a very complex energy in our lives as humans. Can it be mis-used? Most definitely. Can it only be used for good by remaining a virgin until you are married? Many churches teach this, but I disagree.

One of the things that bothers me about the emphasis on "saving it for marriage" is that it creates an all or nothing atmosphere where if you once cross some invisible line (and it can be *any* line, not just virginity), you are a failure and you might as well just go along with anything. On the other hand, you can hold out, but this can lead to an increasing feeling that you *have* to get married because that is the only outlet for this sexual energy, and you end up marrying young and foolish.

While I'm not proud of my promiscuous single years in some ways, I also learned a lot. And the core of what I learned is that sex is just a physical manifestation of our feelings toward a fellow human being. I have had the tawdry one-night-stands and cheap affairs that are preached from the pulpit as a way of striking fear of sex into the horny young people. But I have also had so-called casual sex which *didn't* resonate with ill-will and ugly feelings.
One incident in particular has always stayed with me. It was a single act of sex while I was on a ski vacation with a group of people, a few of whom I knew, and we were sleeping in co-ed dorm rooms, and this fellow was in the bunk above mine. There was no flirtation going on, but one night we had sex. As I look back at it, it seems like what the pagan sexual ritual of joining mother earth with the stag king must have been. It wasn't passionate sex, it wasn't deep personal relationship sex, but it felt so right that it resonates with me to this day. I did not know him, but I loved him at that moment and I still love him. Some time later, from this same connection of people I hardly knew, I got an off-hand remark that "X has been dealing with something personal and that night meant a lot to him".
As I have become more steeped in Christianity, I also think of this as the action of the Holy Spirit "...when I was hungry, you fed me..." I realize the scriptures don't mention sex, but I genuinely believe that the love of Christ manifested itself through me to that man on that night.
On the other hand, I have lots more tales of the losers and users and my own problems.

I think the more important point is the idea of sex within marriage, once one is adult enough to enter into a meaningful marriage. While I understand only too well human failings, and indulged them while I was single, I took my marriage vows with utmost seriousness. They are for monogamy until death.

"...the idea of sex within marriage is a sacred thing, once one is adult..."

Sorry for not posting before; I have been too busy to log on for any time these last few days.
I agree with those who tell Trixibelle to hang in there. (BTW Trix, glad to see you are back in good health.) But please don't knock marriage. I am never sure about "marriage as an institution." It is more of a Creation Ordnance, part of God's creation, and part of our nature. Saying "I don't believe in marriage," strikes me as daft as saying, "I don't believe in sunsets/Ben Nevis/lions," or some other part of Creation.
Of course marriages break down. We are all part of a fallen world, which is subject to futility (Romans 8:20ff), and we are all imperfect. We can all find it difficult to communicate, difficult to understand each other (particularly the opposite sex), we cannot cope with arguments, and (if you read books like Why men don't listen and women can't read maps by Pease and Pease), we now find it harder to identify separate roles for husband and wife.
Also people tend to go at marriage with a defeated (as well as defeatist attitude), believing that a lifelong commitment will never work anyway. In which case it is hardly surprising the divorce rate has increased so.
It is possible however. I can claim 4 years' more marriage than anybody else on this thread has claimed; Ruth and I have had misunderstandings and arguments in our time. Somebody recently was very surprised that we have sstuck it out for 21 years.

I take people's points about "what is marriage?" If two people live in the same house, drive the same car, eat from the same saucepan, pay the same phone/gas/electricity/mortgage bill, this used to be called "common law marriage." I agree about that, as did our previous vicar, Ian (who has since died) who pointed out that many couples who had never married* showed just as much commitment as those who had.

I shall continue the post shortly.

CR

The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity." Angel says the same thing implying that sex and marriage are one and the same thing*.
I am not sure about the eternity bit; I am quite sure Jesus' death will enable Him to break and obliterate any bad relationships, and to enable us to forget, when we stand before Him in His Kingdom. but we have to deal with life on earth. I am probably nearer my grave than my cradle, but most people posting on this thread are much younger. It is difficult for us to share our experience with you youngsters. I certainly could never share publicly an experience like jlg's (that is what comes from logging on with my real name), but I think jlg shows that Lewis was right, saying there remains a bond of love with that man so many years later. That is the real problem with sex before marriage.

I know why Ruth and I were engaged for over a year; we weren't in the same town. We weren't even in the same country some of the time. But why does it take so long to get married nowadays? I know somebody who can't arrange a wedding in the Church** where she comes from until next Summer and is at present in the later stages of pregnancy.
Why has this fashion grown up for long engagements? Why does the famous Rachel from Oxford have to wait so long to marry a "lovely man?" If a couple really intend to marry, and have known each other for a reasonable time, why not marry? Why all these delays?

CR

It's late. Good night. I shall look and see whether I have stirred anything, maybe tomorrow.

quote:

---

The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
Yes, it's me again.

The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity."

---

throughout eternity? i thought there was no marriage in heaven? c.f. Jesus' teaching about the woman with seven husbands

[UBB fixed]

quote:

---

Why has this fashion grown up for long engagements? Why does the famous Rachel from Oxford have to wait so long to marry a "lovely man?" If a couple really intend to marry, and have known each other for a reasonable time, why not marry? Why all these delays?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
Yes, it's me again.

The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity." Angel says the same thing implying that sex and marriage are one and the same thing*.
I am not sure about the eternity bit; I am quite sure Jesus' death will enable Him to break and obliterate any bad relationships, and to enable us to forget, when we stand before Him in His Kingdom. but we have to deal with life on earth. I am probably nearer my grave than my cradle, but most people posting on this thread are much younger. It is difficult for us to share our experience with you youngsters. I certainly could never share publicly an experience like jlg's (that is what comes from logging on with my real name), but I think jlg shows that Lewis was right, saying there remains a bond of love with that man so many years later. That is the real problem with sex before marriage.

I know why Ruth and I were engaged for over a year; we weren't in the same town. We weren't even in the same country some of the time. But why does it take so long to get married nowadays? I know somebody who can't arrange a wedding in the Church** where she comes from until next Summer and is at present in the later stages of pregnancy.
Why has this fashion grown up for long engagements? Why does the famous Rachel from Oxford have to wait so long to marry a "lovely man?" If a couple really intend to marry, and have known each other for a reasonable time, why not marry? Why all these delays?

---

The famous Rachel had to delay getting married for two reasons. The first was that the famous Rachel's mother went into nova when she heard the news of the famous Rachel's engagement, and took several months to calm down. After those several months had elapsed, the mother announced that she needed a minimum of 18 months to organise a wedding and see that "everything was done properly". The famous Rachel is trying hrad to honour her mother nad father, and would like to get married with their blessing.

Also, circumstances have meant that the famous Rachel's fiance has been living in London, while the famous Rachel is still in Oxford. The famous Rachel and the future Mr famous Rachel decided that they should be able to live in the same city before they got married.

With two careers to consider, this is often what life is like in the modern world.

Best wishes,

The famous Rachel

I've been putting off hitting the scene until I'd worked out a Christian ethic for doing things, but it appears to be beyond the capacity of my little brain. Help!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
We only need to look at the current generation of rootless youths who respect nothing and no-one to realise that they are the offspring of that sixties/eventies culture.

---

Assuming you mean people aged 21 and below, the current generation of rootless youths were born and brought up in the eighties, and are more a product of Thatcherism than free love. Whilst there are some mention of the effect of sexual sin on society in the OT, the is much more that rails against injustice and oppression of the weak, and the glorification of the self above the other.

A quick glance at the general registry office for Scotland shows that adultery is a minority reason for divorce and getting less, whereas the most common reasons are due to failure to live together, which would indicate that our society is being shaped more by selfishness and lack of community than by sex.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackbird:
I hope that as early as middle school, it will someday become acceptable for gay children to court respectably.

---

I would expect that gay children would be shooting for the same ideal that straight ones should be - no sexual experiences until marriage (or some equivalent thereto).

I know many young people who carry on heterosexual relationships for years without sex, usually leading to marriage. I don't know the percentage, but large numbers of people are virgins when they get married. I have known many people like this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
....

The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity." Angel says the same thing implying that sex and marriage are one and the same thing*.
....I am probably nearer my grave than my cradle, but most people posting on this thread are much younger. It is difficult for us to share our experience with you youngsters. I certainly could never share publicly an experience like jlg's (that is what comes from logging on with my real name), but I think jlg shows that Lewis was right, saying there remains a bond of love with that man so many years later. That is the real problem with sex before marriage.

---

Well, yes, I have some "...bonds for all eternity..." with that man, but also with other men (with or without a sexual history), and also with women (no sexual histories there at all, although at one point for a short while I was open to the idea). I guess I didn't finish making my point, which is that it isn't as simple as whether a relationship includes sexual activity or not, and whether that sexual activity takes place inside or outside of marriage, or even whether it is heterosexual or homosexual sex and/or relationship. There can be relationships which look superficially "toxic" (one-night stand, etc.) which actually are good. There can also be relationships which are superficially "good" (a totally mis-matched early marriage based on nothing but lust and guilt) which turn out to be toxic. And everything else in between and on both sides of these examples. And I decided to expose my personal life because while I don't recommend it as a role model, it taught me a lot. And one of the biggest lessons was the difference between genuine caring and respect and those people who use fake caring and respect to cover up their need to use others. And there is no way to distill this lesson down to something as simple as "all sex before marriage is bad".

quote:

---

I know why Ruth and I were engaged for over a year; we weren't in the same town. We weren't even in the same country some of the time. But why does it take so long to get married nowadays?....

---

Karl and I were living roughly 200 miles apart when we decided to get married. Once we decided, we were married about 9 weeks later, in church (Unitarian-Universalist, his), with the immediate families (and a few aunts, uncles, and cousins, too). We both returned to our respective jobs the following Monday and continued our commuting for another eleven months, by which time we had bought a house in a third location (close to his), I was five months pregnant, had quit work and sold my house.
I admit this was a bit extreme, but I guess the point I'm trying to make (which was made earlier) is that the WEDDING shouldn't be confused with the Marriage Ceremony. And to return to the OP, neither should sex.

You like big, elaborate parties? Great! Throw one. (Assuming you have the time and money.)
You like going to luxurious vacations? Wonderful! Take one. (Assuming you have the time and money.)
You're madly in love with the sexiest person you have ever known and want to get married but can't because you don't have the time and the money? Ummm/Erm....perhaps someone needs to do a little soul-searching?

Ummm/erm.... I seem to lapsed into preaching. There's a trap out there for every one of us!

[UBB fixed]

I had some further thoughts on the way to church this morning... basically, what's repelled me about what I've seen of the scene (admittedly from secondary sources - magazines & internet primarily) is what I hated about the het scene when I was younger: the idea that you pull or are pulled, then jump into bed and use that to try and see if you like someone. The process that may lead to love is seen as coming after sex. The mere idea of doing this makes me want to run a mile, it's all inside out. From thence, cometh my idea for a working ethic: where there is love and emotional intimacy, there is the place for sex. Love first, then sex.

I always have thought that the 'no sex b4 marriage' thing was oversimplified (this is IMHO, I'm not denigrating those who try and live by it). I didn't abide by it in my dealings with men. However it feels more urgent now to sort out an alternative ethic because I now understand and have felt the incredible power of sexual emotions, and realise just how easy it is to hurt someone through them.

jlg, I am sure many of us (and I won't say whether that includes me or not) Christians have similar memories. I was using your post as an example, because you actually have the "bottle" to post that sort of thing (I haven't, see a couple of lines back), and I wanted to show that memories like that can come back and haunt one, when one would rather they didn't.

Famous Rachel, Ruth and I were never nearer than Leicester and Sahf Lunnon, about 106 miles via St Pancras Station, which is nearly double London to Oxford, but that's quite far enough. If your mother has delayed the wedding, there is one thing I can recommend to change her mind. It's in the latest caption competition.

I think the ideal is that wedding, marriage (I have already said that I consider living and sleeping together to me more-or-less tantamount to marriage), sex and a big party (jlg note) all occur at the same time, 'though I agree with jlg about badd marriages.
It is particularly galling when I hear it is the Church delaying weddings; I have mentioned somebody I know (acquaintance) who is in the late stages of pregnancy (or was last Tuesday, maybe no longer pregnant ), but the Church in her home village say they will only carry out two weddings daily and won't fit her in before next August. I hope they never preach about "living in sin," or I shall have to use a icon.

i have to say that in my 20 years of marriage, i know i have endured periods of fake caring for my husband...i'm sure i've disliked, used and been indifferent to him at times...i assume, actually hope, he has felt the same way...but these do pass much like the weather...i have come to think of the changes in our marriage landscape as one of the things that makes marriage interesting for the long haul...that being said, i know as i was experiencing those times, i questioned whether i should stay committed, and we didn't have any big issues like alcoholism, abuse or debts...it's a very difficult thing to know, and everyone's situation is different...some should definitely get out for their own survival...and there are many dreadful things that will only become apparent (sexually) after it's too late, if sex is to wait until after marriage.

i don't know what the right answer is, but telling someone to risk something like impotency or whatever, for the next 40 or so years seems cruel to me. by the same token, getting married because of sex will soon lose its value. with AID's so deadly, it scares me to death to think of what people have to risk today. i definitely think letting the relationship develop a while before rushing into sex is worth considering...some of those old fashioned tidbits of advice have some truth to them. but i remember what it was like to be young. i'll end this post with the words i always end the e-mails to my niece.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I know many young people who carry on heterosexual relationships for years without sex, usually leading to marriage. I don't know the percentage, but large numbers of people are virgins when they get married. I have known many people like this.

---

What are you (and the rest of this thread)talking about when using the word "sex"? Are we talking about penetrative sexual intercourse (for want of a non-offensive way of putting it that doesn't sound like it belongs on the front page of the Sun)? If so then I am quite prepared to believe that there are many couples, Christian or otherwise that wait until marriage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Septimus:
If, however, we are talking about any form of sexual behaviour from kissing to bonking (damn it! I had to use it) then I'm sorry Freddy but I just don't believe in "large percentages".

---

I'm with you. Of course kissing is a form of sexual behavior, as is leaning against one another at football games. I was thinking of intercourse. Obviously the lines are hard to draw.

I'm actually curious about the percentages. They often come out with statistics that say things like "40% of American 16-year-olds are not virgins" (though I don't know what the real numbers are.) But I don't recall hearing statistics about how many are virgins when they marry. I'm sure some would say that the percentage is virtually zero, but I would guess that it is higher.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
jlg and Famour Rachel, Thank you. When I saw so much of what I had written in bold type, I was very worried, obviously having forgotten the advice on the cards, Please make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth. I had no intention to cause offence, I hope I haven't caused offence, and I am very sorry to have done so it I have. Please accept my apology if I have offended anybody.

---

Don't worry I was not offended, just wanted to explain that there are pressures in life that mame these things difficult.

Having been engaged for nearly two years, and with a wedding date set, a church, a reception, a vicar, and a photographer booked, the problem my fiance and I face is that all the reasons for not having sex that we had when we were first together no longer seemed to make sense.

The bible seems pretty silent on marriage as a formal ceremonial event - as has been discussed here before. Old testament marriage seems to be more pragmatic - sort of along the lines of move out from parents house, move in with spouse - OK, now you're married.

My fiance and I share almost everything - we don't keep track of whose money is whose, we own books and many other things in common, we tell each other everything etc etc. Having sex strikes us both as nothing more than a natural extension of our love for each other, and as something which presents no dangers - physical or moral. STDs aren't an issue, nor is promiscuity since we are utterly commited to each other. So are we preserving false boundaries and unnecessary formatliites and worrying oursleves for no reason? Or are we doing something noble and worthwhile?

Answers on a postcard please. .

Seriously, what do you all think?