What makes pre-marital sex legitimate?

[Sunstone]

According to one study, 90% of couples have sex before marriage. Of course, this high figure does not correspond to how many people recommend abstinence before marriage. That is to say, people are saying one thing (abstain) but are themselves doing another (having pre-marital sex). So, what set of circumstances makes it OK to have pre-marital sex?

 

[Linus]

In my opnion, it is never ok. But i realize that since many members on this forum are not christians, they will disagree. But I still remain firm in my stance on pre-marital sex and say that it is wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

But why do you say it's wrong, Linus. I'm not interested in debating with you why you think it's wrong, so much as I'm interested in knowing your reasons for thinking it's wrong.

 

[Linus]

I am only firm in saying that it is wrong because the Bible says that it is wrong. But if it weren't for the Bible... I would probably let society decide for me, as so many often do.

 

[Jaymes]

It's not pre-marital sex that's bad, it's irresponsibility, which usually goes hand-in-hand with pre-marital sex.

 

[Sunstone]

If you knew for sure that you were going to marry someone, would you feel that pre-marital sex with that person was OK?

 

[Michelle]

Mankind was having babies long before we invented marriages and weddings. And I can make a good debate that marriages were invented by men for the purpose of controlling there wife. WE become a piece of property just like cattle. Men bought the right to marry us from our father for a few camels and a goat. Then we slept in a tent and we were married. I am elated we have evolved into beautiful church weddings that allow US to marry who we wish. And I think we should protect our loved ones when we pass by having legal rights through a marriage. But I do not see any reason to think that the early weddings were holy and besides, how can making love be evil? That's almost an oxymoron. I do agree that sex can be dirty and is many times. I guess what I am saying , is it is all about motive and what you feel way down inside.

 

[linwood]

So, what set of circumstances makes it OK to have pre-marital sex?

I can`t think of too many circumstances that would show it to be morally wrong.

There is no support for responsible pre-marital sex being illegitimate other than religion.

Thats not really support.

Mankind was having babies long before we invented marriages and weddings. And I can make a good debate that marriages were invented by men for the purpose of controlling there wife. WE become a piece of property just like cattle. Men bought the right to marry us from our father for a few camels and a goat.

The few matriarchal societies I know of hold no concept of marriage.
That would lead me to believe your statement.

 

[Druidus]

I believe that it is fine, although you need to be responsible and careful.

 

[Sunstone]

Would you consider having sex with someone you did not love to be wrong?

 

[Linus]

If you knew for sure that you were going to marry someone, would you feel that pre-marital sex with that person was OK?

I don't know if this question was directed toward me or not, but I'll answer it anyway.

My answer is no. Sex outside of marriage (in all cases) is something that God considers immoral. It is something that God has set aside for married couples to engage in to unite them into one flesh.

 

[painted wolf]

Marrage is a piece of paper... who needs the governments permission to show how much they love another person?

wa:do

 

[Bastet]

My answer is no. Sex outside of marriage (in all cases) is something that God considers immoral. It is something that God has set aside for married couples to engage in to unite them into one flesh.

If this were the case, then sex would be physically impossible outside of marriage. That is patently not the case. Quite apart from anything else, cavemen were having sex and procreating, long before your Christian concept of marriage was even invented.

 

[Pah]

There seems to be a "crossing over" from legitimacy to morality. Legitimate in my eyes has to do with law. And in this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that sex between non-married persons is lawful.

From GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT

In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 , we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626 , 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 ; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 ; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 ; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 ; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 . These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

While the focus of this case was on married people ..

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

... there was another case that specifically address the unmarried - EISENSTADT v. BAIRD. From that case it was affirmed that:

2. By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 446-455

We agree that the goals of deterring premarital sex and regulating the distribution of potentially harmful articles cannot reasonably be regarded as legislative aims of 21 and 21A. And we hold that the statute, viewed as a prohibition on contraception per se, violates the rights of single persons under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If there is need to have a physician prescribe (and a pharmacist dispense) contraceptives, that need is as great for unmarried persons as for married persons[/QUOTE

]If the prohibition [on distribution to unmarried persons] . . . is to be taken to mean that the same physician who can prescribe for married patients does not have sufficient skill to protect the health of patients who lack a marriage certificate, or who may be currently divorced, it is illogical to the point of irrationality

It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child

-pah-

 

[anders]

I would rather think that compulsory cohabitation, including sex, before marriage would decrease the number of divorces.

Having said that, I agree with for example

Marriage is a piece of paper... who needs the governments permission to show how much they love another person?

Regarding

Would you consider having sex with someone you did not love to be wrong?

I would say that it can't be wrong between consenting, responsible persons, but to me, it would be unsatisfactory even from a short time perspective.

 

[Linus]

If this were the case, then sex would be physically impossible outside of marriage.

Im curious as to why you say this. God also considers murder immoral, yet we are able to do this as well. What is your point?

 

[robtex]

In my opnion, it is never ok. But i realize that since many members on this forum are not christians, they will disagree. But I still remain firm in my stance on pre-marital sex and say that it is wrong.

Michelle has some great points and I want to add other points to it. Birth control was not at the level last century or before that it is today. Today having a child out of wedlock is almost a choice in many industrialized countires in as far as many birth control devices included condoms and the pill are over 85 % effective (with the pill being at least 92 % effective alone) (http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill.html) and can be used in conjunction with one another making pregnancy almost impossible. The lack of birth control that the last generation possessed could well have created a moral argument for pre-martial sex but it different today.

Linus in regards to your position I want to point out something about Christian marraiges One out of 5 to 1 out to one out of three of three married Christians divorce.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm


Various estimates in america put the divorce rate between 40-50 % with most hovering around 40. That means roughly 2 out of 5 marriages will divorce. These stats do not factor in people in unhappy marriages that do not divorce or marriages where one partner wanders and the other never realized it although I would imagine that those are infrequent by comparision.

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030124.html
http://missourifamilies.org/features/divorcearticles/divorcefeature17.htm
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

If you marry with the intend of divorcing I guess that is fine but if you don't and few do, there is a problem with our marriage paradign. A lot of people get into a relationship, marry and than realize that their preception of that marriage was different than the reality of it. The best thing to test a marriage I believe is to simulate it for at least one year (maybe two or three depends on couple) before going to a ceremony. To test it you have to pretend to be married. What that means is live together in the same household, possibly babysitting from time to time (to test how you two interact with children as a group), cooking together, in the same place doing laundry together, and everything else that could be included in the marriage including having sex together.

Linus if you feel sex is important enough that you abstain from it until you find the right person isn't it important enough to know how you will two will match sexually as a couple BEFORE you make a permenant commitment like marriage? Most people are going to put sex in their top 10 and maybe top 5 list of importances of a marriage. Why would you want to explore that part before getting married if it is so important? Is it a greater wrong in your eyes to have sex with a potential marriage partner and decide she that you two are not a good fit and leave or to marry and not having explored that option and because you two are not compatable sexually it helps contribute to an unhappy marriage or divorce?

 

[Sunstone]

Marrage is a piece of paper... who needs the governments permission to show how much they love another person?

Considered in the most general sense, "marriage" is something that anthropologists, biologists, and others believe originated so far back in time that it pre-dates our species. Religions and governments can claim that they invented it, they can claim to hold a monopoly on it, but none of that changes the apparent fact that "marriage", in one form or another, is almost as old as the hills themselves. We are a species that "marries" -- or to use the anthropological term -- we are a species that forms "pair-bonds". It's part of our inherent nature.

 

[Linus]

Linus if you feel sex is important enough that you abstain from it until you find the right person isn't it important enough to know how you will two will match sexually as a couple BEFORE you make a permenant commitment like marriage? Most people are going to put sex in their top 10 and maybe top 5 list of importances of a marriage. Why would you want to explore that part before getting married if it is so important?

I understand your point. But If I marry a person who abstains from sex like I do, (which I plan on doing) what expectations can either of us have? There are none to live up to. How can we match up sexually if neither of us has had sex? If neither of us has ever had sex before, we can learn together and work things out afterwards.

 

[robtex]

I understand your point. But If I marry a person who abstains from sex like I do, (which I plan on doing) what expectations can either of us have? There are none to live up to. How can we match up sexually if neither of us has had sex? If neither of us has ever had sex before, we can learn together and work things out afterwards.

Expectations none. Experierence none...sexually compatablity unknown. That simple. Big gamble going into a marriage. How will you even know your sexual-self if you are a virgin? Without being explict what I know today at age 36 about my sexuality is light years from what I knew at age 20. The problem with your last statement is it based on faith and not fact. You may or may not be able to work things out because really neither (both being virgins) will have a strong grasp on what motivates you sexually. It's a roll of the dice with the stakes being an unhappy marriage.

Second problem. Finding a virgin to marry. I don't know the exact stats but very few woman you will meet will be virgins. That is reality. I don't know how old you are but that stat really drops as you age and by 25 if you are not married and dating someone close to your age like sunstone brought-up it is very likley to be over 90 %. You in addition to ignoring the sexual aspects of marriage will have cut the field of eligablity down dramatically and I further surmise that they will have to be a Christian for you to consider marrying them which will trim it a tad bit (but not much ) more. Brother, that is a formula that baits disaster.

If you conceed to marry a non-virgin (which will become more probable every year you wait to be married), than you will be the one of no-experience and I am guessing will feel frusterated that she is not a virgin and that you are. You already enter the marriage with a bad mark. And sadly a bad mark that was completely avoidable. If you say no way only virgins than you will choose that as a determining factor over everything else and marry someone less compatable to you because of her virginal status. You see where I am going with this? It is a lose-lose senerio. But it is also your reality at this point in time.