Why wait for sex?

skills101 · Apr 15, 2005

According to the Bible, one should save intercourse for marriage. My question, however, is for more of those "free-thinkers" out there. Should the rule still be kept intact, and still followed?

Thousands of years ago, I don't exactly think one could go down to the grocery story and purchase a box of condoms, like you can nowadays. Therefore, having sex would mean virtually certain pregnancy. I think God commanded it to be this way because, if one has a baby out of wedlock, the baby would grow up without a binded mother and father, which is not what I think He intended.

However, because we can have sex without getting pregnant, does that mean it is okay to? Can anyone provide a reason to now other than "well, God just says so?"

standing_on_one_foot · Apr 15, 2005

Isn't adultery more cheating on your spouse than sex before marriage?

But, regardless, I think sex before marriage is a choice people have the right to make. Do I think it should be between adult individuals in a commited relationship? Yes. If that means marriage fine, if not, that's fine too (especially as some people can't marry). And I think people can have sex outside of that. I don't approve, but then, it's not my decision, is it?

ayani · Apr 15, 2005

my view tends to be "if you're in a commited relationship and are willing to take (and share) responsibility should a pregnancy occur, it's alright to have sex. if you can't handle the idea of dealing with a pregnancy, you should probably wait until your sense of maturity and responsibility kicks in."

Dinogrrl · Apr 16, 2005

I'm one of those who believes that just because you /can/ do something doesn't mean you /should/. And that applies to everything in life, not just sex.

Sunstone · Apr 16, 2005

I think the choice is up to the individuals involved, so long as both of them exercise responsibility.

Pilgrim of this Reality · Apr 16, 2005

The problem behind not waiting to have sex degrades the meaning of it. Sex is as close to being "one" with a person we can get in this life. To flagrantly have sex with many people with demeans this idea. Marriage is a promise that two people will share everything - the joys, the pains, etc of life until death parts them (or the 2 biblical stipulations in my eyes. Although if people were careful and patient when choosing a mate fewer divorces would arise) Sex is the physical representation of this vow. Again, it is a very high degree of sharing. As such it should not be shared with just anyone; just as personal finances shouldnt be shared or even "inner demons."

Fluffy · Apr 17, 2005

According to the Bible, one should save intercourse for marriage. My question, however, is for more of those "free-thinkers" out there. Should the rule still be kept intact, and still followed?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the Bible was even more strict than that. That all sex is immoral, even within marriage, unless that sex is for the purpose of reproduction.

If we lived in a society where all sex outside of marriage was illegal and enforced rigidly, abortions would be reduced significantly as well as child abuse and STIs. If it were restricted even further to the conditions I set out above then I think these issues would be almost totally unheard of. Does this make it the right thing to do however?

Thousands of years ago, I don't exactly think one could go down to the grocery story and purchase a box of condoms, like you can nowadays. Therefore, having sex would mean virtually certain pregnancy. I think God commanded it to be this way because, if one has a baby out of wedlock, the baby would grow up without a binded mother and father, which is not what I think He intended.

If this were God's reasoning then it would mean he would view getting married, impregnating your wife and then divorcing her as immoral because it would mean the baby would grow up "without a mother and father". In other words I think this argument only applies if you are willing to accept that divorce is also something that should never happen.

michel · Apr 17, 2005

I'm with Sunstone on this one; evolution (Urgh that dreaded non-existant phenomenon that questions ID) has created a whole new sociological morality - therefore what might or might not have been seen as a 'no-no' four or five generations back has little validity now.

I really cannot imagine how my grandfather would have reacted to the idea of two men marrying each other!!!

standing_on_one_foot · Apr 17, 2005

Fluffy said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the Bible was even more strict than that. That all sex is immoral, even within marriage, unless that sex is for the purpose of reproduction.

That's more the NT than the OT, actually.

michel · Apr 17, 2005

Don't you get tired, standing on one foot ?

standing_on_one_foot · Apr 17, 2005

Maybe a little

...

Runt · Apr 17, 2005

I think it really depends on how the individual views sex. If you think of it as a very special, almost spiritual act, then you may want to wait until marriage to have it. If you consider it to be more about physical pleasure, then I think you only need to wait until you are emotionally (and perhaps economically) prepared to deal with some of the consequences of sex. I personally am somewhere between the two; if I ever choose to have sex, I want it to be a special event, with someone I care about. But I do not think it needs to be something shared only between married people.

Sunstone · Apr 17, 2005

Will waiting until marriage for sex improve sex?

Dinogrrl · Apr 17, 2005

That's hard to talk about...because either you do or you don't have sex before marriage :}. You can't compare both sides XD.

streetsmarts · Jun 13, 2005

Ever thought of STDs? Codoms or other controseptives can't prevent you from getting them. The HIV virus can easily slip through a condom and condoms. Why ask something like that? I mean, animal skin condoms have holes in them. Because people slept around, STDs were created. Sex is to be shared between two people who are "joined as one" in Christs name. When you have sex, a piece of yourself sticks to that person and they stick to you. It is both emotionally and physically stressful. Ask any scientist, both atheist or christain and they will tell you that abstinence is the only safe sex

Jaymes · Jun 13, 2005

streetsmarts said:
Ever thought of STDs? Codoms or other controseptives can't prevent you from getting them. The HIV virus can easily slip through a condom and condoms. Why ask something like that? I mean, animal skin condoms have holes in them.

Uh... you do know we've progressed to double-dipped latex, right? :areyoucra

Shadow Wolf · Jun 13, 2005

If two people who are in a loving relationship have sex, it really doesn't matter if they wait until after marriage. I do think that today's "grab a whore" idea is extremely degrading. Sex, I feel, is intended to be done with two people (heterosexual or homosexual) who are connected on more than just on a physical level.

Malus 12:9 · Jun 14, 2005

Sunstone said:
Will waiting until marriage for sex improve sex?

I don't see how it can. If it does, it is only an emotional thing between the two sepcific individuals.

ThisShouldMakeSense · Jun 14, 2005

Fluffy said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the Bible was even more strict than that. That all sex is immoral, even within marriage, unless that sex is for the purpose of reproduction.

I like this verse in Proverbs 5:18, 19 '...take pleasure in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful fawn let her breasts always satisfy you; be lost in her love forever.

So here we see that Sex is something to be enjoyed within marriage. I think some people are putting their thoughts or ideas ahead of God', choosing to do what they like and justifying themselves. I don't want to sound condemning, but if people want to put their own slant on what they think God meant, then why not do that for the rest of the scriptures? We have to remember that God doesn't change in his standards. Malachi 3:6
"I am the LORD, and I do not change...'

I don't think it's right to pick and choose what you will obey or not cos it suits you better. If one claims to be a Christian, one should be that wholesouled. Jesus warned us not to be lukewarm.

michel · Jun 14, 2005

Luke Wolf said:
If two people who are in a loving relationship have sex, it really doesn't matter if they wait until after marriage. I do think that today's "grab a whore" idea is extremely degrading. Sex, I feel, is intended to be done with two people (heterosexual or homosexual) who are connected on more than just on a physical level.

I would go along with that, as would -I imagine- most forum members.

However, is there not a possible argument 'in favour of' for repressed (emotionally, sexually) men who might otherwise resort to rape ?

Why wait for sex?

Vicar of Christ

Well-Known Member

member

peeb!

De Diablo Del Fora

Member

A fool

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

De Diablo Del Fora

peeb!

Member

The cake is a lie

Certified People sTabber

Temporarily Deactive.

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus