WHY is pre marital sex a sin?

[Kristos]

For those who believe that pre marital sex is a sin - can you please explain why?

I don't need verses claiming it is sinful - I want to know why it is sin. For example - is it sin because it harms someone in a very specific way? How is it inethical? Specifics required.

I think this question becomes confused because our conception of marriage today is very different than in the past and from historical Christianity. Marriage has become more of a civil contract that gives certain rights and privileges, and in most modern, even Christian, incarnations this includes the privilege of sex - some might even say right, but I won't go there. I honestly don't think this was ever the intent. It twists the anthropology of Genesis and the witness of the bridegroom in the gospel by making the fulfillment of the union the sex rather than the other way around. As Paul says, thru sex we become one flesh and as God says in the beginning, it was not good for man to be alone, so he created woman - them both He created in His image because only together (as one flesh) could they be "very good". So really the sin is becoming one flesh with someone without any intent to actually become one flesh as it was meant to be, to become that image of Christ and the Church that Paul describes, to become "very good" in the eyes of God, to become what we were created to be. Does any of this require a piece of paper from city hall? Absolutely not - I would say that civil authority has destroyed the sacramental understanding of marriage in many ways, but it does offer protection to the vulnerable, and so has merit of it's own. But in a nutshell, sex and marriage are ultimately related very directly to our own salvation - our own freedom to become what we were created to be, a working out of our salvation as one flesh with a partner who completes us in a way that sheds light on the very salvation of mankind, as an icon of the Christ the Bridegroom and us, His bride. With this understanding it's impossible to imagine a situation where sex without marriage could be acceptable to God.

 

[seeingeyes]

Sounds like your wanting the benefits without the real commitment that marriage brings.

Once married one can not just up and leave without the consequences.

She's married. "Pre-marital sex" is not an option for her no matter what she believes.

Now it was quite clear to me why an 18 year old might think that the only reason to ask questions is to get laid, as they say, but I can't for the life of me imagine why you would think that.

Any particular reason for thinking that the OP is applying for a "license"?

 

[Sayre]

Sounds like your wanting the benefits without the real commitment that marriage brings.

Once married one can not just up and leave without the consequences.

I am married - and not looking to leave my husband.

 

[Optimax]

I am married - and not looking to leave my husband.

Why ask the question?

 

[Sayre]

Why ask the question?

Do you seek to know why homosexuality is a sin even if you aren't gay? It is because I want to know why - not just know the conclusion, but know the heart of the matter.

 

[Optimax]

Do you seek to know why homosexuality is a sin even if you aren't gay? It is because I want to know why - not just know the conclusion, but know the heart of the matter.

Good reason!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

She's married. "Pre-marital sex" is not an option for her no matter what she believes.

Now it was quite clear to me why an 18 year old might think that the only reason to ask questions is to get laid, as they say, but I can't for the life of me imagine why you would think that.

Any particular reason for thinking that the OP is applying for a "license"?

That's fair, but that being said, for those of us who see pre-marital sex as a species of a broader category of extra-marital sex, the parallel is fair.

Take, for instance, a couple who consensually agrees to an open marriage. Fidelity is not part of their marriage contract. What is the actual difference between sexual activity outside marriage for a person in an open marriage verses sexual activity outside marriage for a person not yet married? In the end, it's all sex with a person to whom you aren't married.

 

[Sayre]

That's fair, but that being said, for those of us who see pre-marital sex as a species of a broader category of extra-marital sex, the parallel is fair.

Take, for instance, a couple who consensually agrees to an open marriage. Fidelity is not part of their marriage contract. What is the actual difference between sexual activity outside marriage for a person in an open marriage verses sexual activity outside marriage for a person not yet married? In the end, it's all sex with a person to whom you aren't married.

So... is this fair?

The marital bond has value, and it's value is conditioned upon exclusivity and commitment to permenance.

Anything that reduces the value of this bond is sin.

Am I closer?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So... is this fair?

The marital bond has value, and it's value is conditioned upon exclusivity and commitment to permenance.

Anything that reduces the value of this bond is sin.

Am I closer?

I think so, but I also think that the trouble with sex before marriage goes deeper than marriage, for it would be troublesome even if the person never were to get marriage. It degrades humanity of both parties by rending sexuality from the totality of the human person. Did you get a chance to look at my previous post (75)?

 

[Sayre]

It is a sin because God designed sexuality for the purposes of union between two people leading to procreation. And, moreover, we can only fully give ourselves to one person; human sexuality cannot be parceled up and distributed like a product on the market or a piece of meat. Marriage liberates us to fully give and fully receive another human being in the most intimate way possible, and to do that outside of marriage not only trivializes that great gift, but can turn form a habit of objectification of the sexual "other" that one cannot simply turn off once they are married. Serial sexuality makes sex about our pleasure, and reduces our own total humanity- which includes wonderful, fantastic, pleasurable sex- as well as the humanity of our partners.

I think so, but I also think that the trouble with sex before marriage goes deeper than marriage, for it would be troublesome even if the person never were to get marriage. It degrades humanity of both parties by rending sexuality from the totality of the human person. Did you get a chance to look at my previous post (75)?

Hi - sorry I did read it but failed to comment.

I have fully given myself to more than one person, though not at the same time. Getting married didn't make me more liberated - at least it didn't seem that way to me at the time, though I wasn't a believer.

I can never relive these experiences to do them again, for the first time, as a believer, so I can't comment on how I "should have" felt.

 

[cerette]

These two verses from 1 Corinthians 6 play a role here, I think:

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

 

[cerette]

And I'd like to add a third verse:

1 Cor 6:20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

[seeingeyes]

That's fair, but that being said, for those of us who see pre-marital sex as a species of a broader category of extra-marital sex, the parallel is fair.

Take, for instance, a couple who consensually agrees to an open marriage. Fidelity is not part of their marriage contract. What is the actual difference between sexual activity outside marriage for a person in an open marriage verses sexual activity outside marriage for a person not yet married? In the end, it's all sex with a person to whom you aren't married.

The parallel?

I'm just wondering why it's automatically assumed that one is looking for a reason to sin when one asks "why" about God.

 

[seeingeyes]

I can never relive these experiences to do them again, for the first time, as a believer, so I can't comment on how I "should have" felt.

No one can make that comparison. We all only live the one life...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hi - sorry I did read it but failed to comment.

I have fully given myself to more than one person, though not at the same time. Getting married didn't make me more liberated - at least it didn't seem that way to me at the time, though I wasn't a believer.

I can never relive these experiences to do them again, for the first time, as a believer, so I can't comment on how I "should have" felt.

Well neither can I. I had sexual partners before marriage at a variety of intimacy levels, both emotional and physical, and some at the same time (sometimes literally). My wife knows all this, and we've had to start pretty frankly from the beginning.

The result is that I've pretty much had to reconstruct myself psychologically and mentally in order to have a happy and healthy sex life in marriage, and it has been difficult. It has been difficult precisely because of just that trouble- that I have previously given intimate, inner access to my own being, which felt extraordinary at the time by now I realize has left fractures in my sexual self that can only be put back together with hard work and my wife's faithful, generous cooperation. It's that cooperation that has given me some inkling of how things "should have" felt had I actually followed the church's teachings on human sexuality from the beginning.

All of that probably sounds pretty melodramatic. I don't mean it to be. I'm not psychologically scarred or anything. I certainly enjoyed it at the time, and my wife has been wonderful in being first forgiving and then affirming. I just believe that sex outside of marriage- including but not limited to sex before marriage- is outside the bounds of God's design for human life, and that when we circumvent God's designs we distance ourselves from the firmest ground of existence. And that makes things shaky, as I know they have been for me.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The parallel?

I'm just wondering why it's automatically assumed that one is looking for a reason to sin when one asks "why" about God.

I mean the parallel between the sinfulness of sex before marriage (which doesn't involve "cheating" on a spouse through lying) and the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage by common consent of husband and wife (which for an "open" couple would not be "cheating" and therefore no sinful because there is no lying involved).

And I'm certainly not automatically assuming that a person looking for answers is looking for a loophole or something. In the case of the OP, it seems the question concerns her premarital past, not her married present. And even if that wasn't the case, I really hope I'm not assuming that; I'm just trying to make the best case I can for my position, which naturally assumes the other is in opposition for the sake of argument, but I don't mean to impute that on her.

 

[stevenfrancis]

For those who believe that pre marital sex is a sin - can you please explain why?

I don't need verses claiming it is sinful - I want to know why it is sin. For example - is it sin because it harms someone in a very specific way? How is it inethical? Specifics required.

Best explanation I can find takes a little reading, along with scripture to understand. It is largely because of the importance of the integrity of the human person, (that we are not objects to enjoy, but rather persons, and temples of God. Coupled with the importance of marriage, and the importance of the role of the married in being open to the generation of life. If this question isn't simple rhetoric or bating, then please take the time to read the article at this link for a true explanation. This doesn't mean it will satisfy. But it is true none the less.

From the catechism of the Catholic Church. Exegesis of the sixth commandment:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment

Also from a Q&A in "This Rock" magazine, I found this (It may or may not apply to your situation):A priest told my girlfriend that it is okay for us to touch one another intimately before we are married. Is this correct?

No. Jesus stated in Matthew 5:28 that a person can commit sins of sexual impurity even in his thoughts. He stated, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The same thing is true of fornication (premarital sex).

Looking at a woman to whom you are not married and indulging in lustful thoughts counts as committing fornication in your heart. If indulging yourself in mental lust for a woman to whom you are not married counts, how much more will intimate touching, in which you partially act out the sexual desire you have for another.

Though some preist may not like to say so, fornication is a grave (mortal) sin. The apostle Paul states, "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness . . . and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21). This is a severe teaching. It is one many unmarried people find hard to accept, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we must hold to it.

Sometimes people rationalize extramarital sexual practices on the grounds that by committing a lesser sin one may avoid a greater one, such as fornication, but there are two problems with this.

First, as the Holy Father has made clear in his recent encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, one may never do something intrinsically wrong in order to avoid a problem. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.

Second, this strategy simply doesn't work. If you find it difficult to restrain yourself sexually, following that priest's advice will not make it easier to control yourself--quite the opposite.
-------------------------------------------------------------

May God bless and guide you through the very difficult times between puberty and marriage when we are so vulnerable to sexual sin.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

It seems like you're more likely asking what marriage is really in the eyes of God. is it that piece of paper the government gives me? Does that make it legit towards God? Does it have to be a priest who marries me to make it official? The Bible doesn't define marriage exactly does it? just implications from passages involving couples.

I have a theory of marriage, and I think the idea of romantically loving marriage as modern Christians see it today isn't what it always was. More of a contract for control of property in case somebody dies. We do have a few exceptions like Jacob and Rebecca, but I think they were the exception rather than the norm.

Rebecca was Jacobs SECOND wife as well. So which relationship is more important in the eyes of God. jacob and Rebecca or Jacob and Leah?

 

[mickey30981]

Its the same thing as why adultery is a sin. It threatens the family. Outside of marriage, a potential child is not guaranteed a committed mother and father. Even married couples do not always guarantee stable family. But, sex is designed by God to take place within marriage for the sake of children. Sex only in marriage also helps to ensure that both a man and a woman are truly committed to one another because sex is so powerful. It creates such a powerful connection that if one of parties is not committed to the another in marriage and one wants to walk away after sex, the other person can be severely hurt. Marriage reminds us that sex is for family and union so that children are protected and our emotions are protected. This is not specifically in the bible in particular passage, but it can be pieced together by various passages and it is what the Catholic Church teaches. And if you are a bible only person, then perhaps you will want to ignore it. But it still has truth.

 

[Erose]

I think this question becomes confused because our conception of marriage today is very different than in the past and from historical Christianity. Marriage has become more of a civil contract that gives certain rights and privileges, and in most modern, even Christian, incarnations this includes the privilege of sex - some might even say right, but I won't go there. I honestly don't think this was ever the intent. It twists the anthropology of Genesis and the witness of the bridegroom in the gospel by making the fulfillment of the union the sex rather than the other way around. As Paul says, thru sex we become one flesh and as God says in the beginning, it was not good for man to be alone, so he created woman - them both He created in His image because only together (as one flesh) could they be "very good". So really the sin is becoming one flesh with someone without any intent to actually become one flesh as it was meant to be, to become that image of Christ and the Church that Paul describes, to become "very good" in the eyes of God, to become what we were created to be. Does any of this require a piece of paper from city hall? Absolutely not - I would say that civil authority has destroyed the sacramental understanding of marriage in many ways, but it does offer protection to the vulnerable, and so has merit of it's own. But in a nutshell, sex and marriage are ultimately related very directly to our own salvation - our own freedom to become what we were created to be, a working out of our salvation as one flesh with a partner who completes us in a way that sheds light on the very salvation of mankind, as an icon of the Christ the Bridegroom and us, His bride. With this understanding it's impossible to imagine a situation where sex without marriage could be acceptable to God.

I'm bumping this post because Kristos makes a very good post here that needs to be evaluated by the OP. Kristos well written.