Originally Posted by Spiritsong
In most cases, wouldn't virgin marriages show faithfulness in the couple?
Circumcision was considered a blood covenant, the blood not coming from slain animals. Likewise, the marriage entered into by both virgins, would be considered a blood covenant, would it not?
Actually, circumcision was a sign of the covenant, the covenant of Abraham. Women were under the covenant as much a men were, and yet they were not circumcized.
Concerning virginity, such could speak of a person's faithfulness. It could also be a result of the person's age, attractiveness, or other factors not related to them being a faithful person. Frankly, some are virgins because they are not very attractive. Others are virgins because they are so afraid of rejection that they don't date or risk relationships. And yet others are virgins because of being afraid of ... Only a few, relatively speaking, are virgins because of choosing to be so or because of their comitment to the Lord, because of faithfulness. Furthermore, widows and widowers who were faithful throughout their marriages but lost a spouse, are they not faithful though they are not virgins.
Please don't misunderstand me, virginity for young men and women is to be prized, keeping one's self for their future spouse! I strongly encourage my children to remain virgins until marriage. Such will help them avoid much brokeness and help them to found a lasting marriage. But marriage is not a blood covenant, even for virgins. And the marriage of two non-virgins is just as valid as the marriage of virgins.
Marriage is a relational covenant that establishes a social and legal family bond of husband and wife; and of course, sexual intimacy is best reserved for that relationship.