A preference for virginity

[DaddysLittleGirl]

Well I am not the person you replied to (I think he used adultery to show that some arguments you presented are faulty) but if I may:
They are both sins, in fact they are hardly distinguishable from each other as sins, one merging into the other. They both indicate absence of faith; they are both expressions of hatred of God and of others.

Um... considering that you could only find ONE verse that SORT OF expressed the possibility that God MIGHT want us to get married first, I can only assume you have very little evidence in the first place that this whole never-have-sex-until-you-are-state-sanctioned-as-a-couple thing is God's will.... I HIGHLY doubt that sex itself shows hatred for God, as he says clearly many times "Love one another", "GO forth and multiply" and other things he's directly quoted with... and not one time in the "red words" have I seen him mention SEX without a tax exemption is SINFUL. You come up with something, let me know.

Your demonizing of such a loving act is quite fascinating, however. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.

Thanks for playing, come up with something more substantial.


Jamie

 

[caitlincares]

In the courting couple forum as of late, the preference to marry or date only a virgin has been a hot topic of discussion. It seems that some believe that it is un-Christian to discriminate in this regard when seeking a mate.

What do you think? Is is un-Christian to prefer to only marry a virgin? Does the preference reveal a lack of forgiveness for those who have fallen in the past but are now chaste?

I am a virgin. That is my personal decision.
It would not be appropriate for me to only consider men who have also waited.
I am interested in Christian men who love the Lord and currently believes in monogamous married relationships.

Although it may be nice to marry a virgin I am realistic.
I think it is wrong to demand a spouse be a virgin.
Maybe they were not Christian until recently or maybe they were raped
or maybe they simply did not care about remaining pure when they were younger.

If God forgives folks for what they have done in the past I have no right not too.

 

[CSMR]

Um... considering that you could only find ONE verse that SORT OF expressed the possibility that God MIGHT want us to get married first, I can only assume you have very little evidence in the first place that this whole never-have-sex-until-you-are-state-sanctioned-as-a-couple thing is God's will.... I HIGHLY doubt that sex itself shows hatred for God, as he says clearly many times "Love one another", "GO forth and multiply" and other things he's directly quoted with... and not one time in the "red words" have I seen him mention SEX without a tax exemption is SINFUL. You come up with something, let me know.
Your demonizing of such a loving act is quite fascinating, however. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.
Thanks for playing, come up with something more substantial.
Jamie

You ask for one verse, and then criticise me for coming up with only one - when in fact I came up with three, two more than you asked for?
Secondly I never referred to state sanctioning.
If by "teenage experience" you are referring to two people that have the understanding of marriage but just not the state or any external sanction, then indeed the verses I gave do not apply directly to this situation.
Without an understanding of a marital commitment God is ignored and his command "what God has joined let not man separate". If there is no understanding of marriage the two are leading each other into sin and that is why their actions are not only hatred of God but of each other. I will address this issue further tomorrow.

For now here is another relevant piece of scripture:

But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Evidently no way is seen in which she could have aquired "teenage experience" in a way which is not immoral.

I don't claim to make Jesus proud. I hope as far as possible to be consistent in my words with his preaching about the love that is required of us its superiority to all human loves, and certainly to the most debauched ones. But I don't claim to make him proud.

 

[gracefaith]

You will notice in my original post that I offered virginity as a preference, not a standard. In other words, if offered both chocolate and vanilla, I may prefer the chocolate but I don't demand it. If there is only one flavor available, there is no choice, but if there's two, I shouldn't be faulted for prefering one over the other. This does not mean I'm demonizing vanilla as an inferior flavor. Nor does this give the vanilla bean growers of America the right tell me I'm being a jerk for exercising my freedom to choose. After all, they exercised their freedom and choose to grow vanilla.

There are plenty of good Biblical and common sense reasons to hold chastity up as an intelligent and consciencious choice. Since we seem to be disputing interpretation of Scripture, I'll stick to the common sense facts.

First, no one has ever died from not having enough sex with enough people. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the opposite. Sexually transmitted diseases are often incurable and deadly. Condoms can protect you, but not with 100% certainty. Being in an honest, monogamous relationship may also limit you statistical chances but only if your partner's former partners were disease free and honest, as were all of their former partners and their former partners and so on. Two virgins who remain monogamous are free from these worries.

Secondly, like it or not, sex is a commodity in this world. How much someone values themselves, their body and their heart is directly proportional to how much they require of someone who wants to be intimate from them. Some require dinner and a good time. Some require the words, "I love you" and commitment. Some insist that you pledge your life-long faithfulness in the presence of friends and in the eyes of the Law and of God. Likewise, there are many out there who are unwilling to meet these requirements just to have sex and if you have such standards, they will likely pass you over for someone else who is willing to put out for much less. Frankly, I want someone who is willing to go the distance to be with me, not just try to get as much as they can for as little as possible.

Finally, sex is not the center of the universe. Yes, it is a normal, healthy, animal thing to do. However, we as humans cannot divorce sex from intimacy. It is the intimacy, not the sex, that is the center, grounding element of a relationship. The cultivation of trust, love and honesty brings us closer together, regardless of the status of our sex life. It is a commitment to these things that sustain love for a lifetime. People are not cars. When I married my husband, I didn't need to test drive him. Why? Because I was going to marry him and stay with him regardless of whether or not he was good in the sack. Anyone who insists that it is only wise to "try out" someone before marriage is saying that their partner's performance during physical act of sex is a deciding factor over love, trust, commitment and friendship. And frankly, sexual prowess is subjective, inconsistent, waning and, next to true intimacy, just not that important.

 

[DaddysLittleGirl]

You ask for one verse, and then criticise me for coming up with only one - when in fact I came up with three, two more than you asked for?

verses which weren't relevant LOL

Without an understanding of a marital commitment God is ignored and his command "what God has joined let not man separate". If there is no understanding of marriage the two are leading each other into sin and that is why their actions are not only hatred of God but of each other. I will address this issue further tomorrow.

For now here is another relevant piece of scripture:

But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

What God has joined do not let man separate? Indicative of God's dislike for divorce. On the other hand, what was never JOINED by God is what we're discussing. Keep looking, guy.

But, hey, I LOVE the idea of stoning every girl who's had sex before marriage!! What a GREAT VERSE!!

Buh-bye,
Hope you have better material next time!

Love,
Jamie

 

[DaddysLittleGirl]

I am a virgin. That is my personal decision.
It would not be appropriate for me to only consider men who have also waited.
I am interested in Christian men who love the Lord and currently believes in monogamous married relationships.

Although it may be nice to marry a virgin I am realistic.


If God forgives folks for what they have done in the past I have no right not too.

Wow. VERY well said.
Wow.

CSMR ---->

 

[DaddysLittleGirl]

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The question of whether becoming "one flesh" means that the other is already his wife is not totally clear. To a large extent it is a question of semantics. Certainly there is the obligation to marry, if there is not already a marriage. (Deuteronomy 22:23-34)
For more detailed study I recommend Instone Brewer's work. For instance:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/PPages/DRB/Book/index.htm

PS
Both your verses mentioned "God's desire" for us to MARRY, but mentioned nothing of the propriety of sexual intercourse before marriage. But thanks for playing, "many verse man".

Keep trying.

Jamie

 

[wild01]

What God has joined do not let man separate? Indicative of God's dislike for divorce. On the other hand, what was never JOINED by God is what we're discussing. Keep looking, guy.

But, hey, I LOVE the idea of stoning every girl who's had sex before marriage!! What a GREAT VERSE!!

Buh-bye,
Hope you have better material next time!

Love,
Jamie

hmm, Geee I WOULD THINK THAT THE VERSE IN DUET. MORE THAN DEMONSTRATES GOD'S DISLIKE AND CONDEMNATION OF PREMARITAL SEX. That is why forgiveness is so neccesary today. Noone is perfect, but to say that sin is not sin is quite frankly, sheer stupidity. Please realize that while noone here is advocating stoning someone for having sex outside of marriage,if we still lived under the law, THAT WAS THE PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT! Also, please realize that anywhere that the bible brings up sexual immorality, it is talking about sexual immorality as described by the old testament. Just because the author doesn't go into detail about the act, doesn't mean that you can twist his words so as not to include your behavior. look at it this way, duet is one of the first books to describe exactly what sexual immorality is. every book after that does not need to describe exactly what sexual immorality consists of because it was already defined in an earlier book. contextually every time an author refers to sexual immorality in the bible, you can define what he means by that by reviewing what everyone before him listed as sexually immoral.

 

[waterbear]

I would prefer a verse that is more specific, such as: Thou must be maritally entwined before knowing one another, LOL. JK. Um, the "sexual immorality" could mean having many partners, prostitution, incest, or adultery. That's not "having sex.... with someone you like". Thanks, though!


Let's keep looking.

Jamie

"Sexual morality" in and of itself doesn't mean much, my intention was that fornication - as used in the New Testament - equates to sexual immorality as used in the Old Testament and the Old Testament has passages - which someone else has provided - that indicate sex ~ marriage. If sex = marriage then having sex with someone other than the first person you had sex with would be adultry, which is obviously sexual immorality (passages abound) and obviously sin.

I think someone else may have clarified this

 

[waterbear]

A virgin-only dater would presumably get her virginity status prior to dating, or as soon as possible when dating. A week long relationship gone, oh well.

LOLOL, You've GOT to be kidding. You believe everyone tells the truth about everything???

I don't believe that, but I don't see why someone would be more inclined to lie about her virginity status rather than anything else. Why would anyone want to get in a romantic relationship where if the other person ever found out the truth the relationship would end?

Okie dokie, hey man, it's your world. Let's move on to the very first thing you responded to in this post: staying with an adulterer. Hmmm... didn't say that. I DID say to stay with the person who's --- awww shucks --- had a sexual experience before you came along, but now wants to commit to you, who perhaps likes you so much that she's willing to lie about her past, or perhaps compulsively lies about her past because of the direct virginity question aimed at her with little empathy.

I don't ask a question, I state my opinion and her response gives away her status. I don't see a difference between adultry and fornication.

(P.S. What ENDS exactly am I going for? I already have a husband, so who cares if any of you other Christians get married, or do it happily? These are just thoughts I'm sharing, there's no agenda. It's not like I have a product to sell or a date to catch.)

That was already the assumption.

Anyway, a past of adultery would 1. indicate that this person is untrustworthy in a relationship and willing to sacrifice trust with another person and betray them in order to satisfy sexual interests. Of course this isn't a good quality for a date. 2. show that you can't trust them in the future to keep their genitals to themselves. Probably best to leave this fish in the water. But what does ADULTERY (betrayal of your spouse) have to do with sexual experience (teenage experimentation)?

Simple - the reason I think adultry is wrong is that it violates marital intimacy. How it violates marital intimacy is by sharing something which should be exclusive to the marital relationship with someone else. But fornication shares the same thing! Thus I don't see any reason to make a distinction.

Recent studies show childhood sex isn't that common - 50% of girls at 18 claimed to be virgins.

I can't disagree with your statistic; I know nothing about them. But, here's the thing... we're not talking about the huge percentage of girls who ARE virgins, we're talking about the MINUTE percentage of those who are NOT.
Whoo, glad we got that cleared up.

A minute percentage are not virgins? I only brought that stat up to counter your claim that virgins were virtually non-existant. 18+ virgins are definately the minority, but they are there.

Why would be more inclined to lie about this variety of adultry and not the more conventional variety? There'd seem to be more incentive to lie to someone you've been with many years rather than lie to someone you've known a couple weeks. I don't see trust this scenario happening that much.

The "scenario of lying" happens because people LIE. End of story. "Happening that much"? Ever watch TV?? No, I mean, EVER???? And... psst... chicks lie. Might want to rethink that whole virgin statistic, too. You know statistics aren't accumulated through osmosis or telepathy, right? It's a survey. They answered the questions. You have apparently NEVER heard of "the halo effect"? I'll let you look that one up, too.

And my point was earlier that she could just as easily lie about adultry in marriage - have to start trusting someone sometime.

People are interested in sex, virgins don't have sex, thus virgins aren't media darlings. I don't disagree that stats can mislead, however why lie to a pollster? Is a significant portion of the population compulsive liars? The usual problem I've seen with stats is that the questions are phrased questionably.

As sure as I am that a virgin virgin relationship is the place to be... I am telling you NOW that, whether you like it or not, sex is a big part of a relationship. People try to refute it, but sex is one of the primitive urges we have as humans, equivalent to hunger, thirst, urinary necessity; if you have no sex, you don't die or have physical ailments; you do, however, shrink mentally AND physically into a recessive (receding type of recessive) state which is unhealthy. That is why, once you have intercourse after a long period of time, your... hallelujahs happen rather quickly/immediately.
At any rate, (please look these things up before you refute them. thank you. --- nothing more embarrassing than uneducated minds spouting "truths" they "know" when they haven't done research.) we look to our partners to fulfill this primitive, innate urge for us; therefore, if they are horrible lovers, or don't like to do the stuff that gets us singing, or whatever, they WILL BE RESENTED. RESENTMENT, regardless of what you may think, is NOT conducive to a healthy, flourishing relationship.

Ok, that's all I had to say.

Shoot 'em back on me, kid!!
(Just don't repeat yourself!)

Love,
Jamie

Okay, I've never had sex but I completed college with top grades and am in excellent physical condition... research complete? Are you going to cite some "misleading" stats to back up the claim that sex is somehow essential? People claim emotional expression is healthy, but I've found the opposite is true - following through with the response simply validates it, but with a bit of thought that may not be the response I would like - and there is no real reason for me to respond differently than I would like.

I could handle a relationship without sex: if sex is the only reason for a marital relationship then there is no real reason to seek a marital relationship. I like the notion of sharing a life and commitment, whether that includes sex isn't a valid deciding factor to me.

Appended: Perhaps you meant socially recessive? I've never been very socially-inclined (I get more accomplished alone), so I'd hardly blame my virginity for that

 

[waterbear]

If God forgives folks for what they have done in the past I have no right not too.

The concept of Godly forgiveness isn't related to making someone eligible to be your mate. God doesn't pick individuals to be His best friend, or His bride. Humans have these exclusive relationships, and there really isn't a Biblical criterion by which a Christian guy or girl rejects all but one Christian girl or guy with whom to have a marital relationship with. All these rejected people are saved, embrace Christ, etc. but they are nonetheless rejected because you can only have one spouse. Even picking a spouse because of alleged personality compability is questionable - God doesn't mind their personality, why do you?

 

[Jsun]

I have been studying ethics through psychology of late and feel that marrying a virgin is one of the most ethical practices of humankind. Studies show that two people who mary before having sex have a longer healthier marriage and life. The guy on the first page whom stated he has been married happily even though his wife had multiple sex partners is what you call illusory correlation. That is a rare case and does not correlate the facts.
In america people do have a better marriage if they are virgins. Are laws prevent us from marrying virgins which could be a cause for mainstream immorality. The law is suppose to prevent people from having sex but it does'nt.
Also marrying when your a virgin is the most basic law of the bible and christianity. I do not think underage people having sex is moral by any means unless they are married. Studies do show that teens have sex at alarming rates but they cannot marry thier partners before sex or even after sex, therefore they have to hide their partner and/or move on to the next. That is a very immoral practice and could be the cause of most immoral practices you see in society, movies, and TV.
Also another thing gracefaith when you are talking about choosing and being a free american you throw the word around free like it is candy. You have to remember that america puts more people behind bars and judges more people they any other industrilzed country. The word freedom comes with a hard price for 2.1 million americans and rising everyday. Expensive is also the opposite of free.

 

[Jennifer615]

I can understand a young single Christian preferring a virgin, but requiring a virgin is wrong. Many young people become Christians AFTER their first sex encounter. What about them? Aren't they a new creation in Christ. What about a girl who was raped? She has not sinned at all!

I am teaching my daughter the value of saving herself till marriage. When she is 12, we will get her a promise ring. Although she is only 9, she has an understanding of the importance of saving herself for her future husband. However, I would not want her to marry a young man who only wants her because she is a virgin, and wouldn't marry her if she was not. He must love her unconditionally!

 

[waterbear]

I can understand a young single Christian preferring a virgin, but requiring a virgin is wrong. Many young people become Christians AFTER their first sex encounter. What about them? Aren't they a new creation in Christ. What about a girl who was raped? She has not sinned at all!

I am teaching my daughter the value of saving herself till marriage. When she is 12, we will get her a promise ring. Although she is only 9, she has an understanding of the importance of saving herself for her future husband. However, I would not want her to marry a young man who only wants her because she is a virgin, and wouldn't marry her if she was not. He must love her unconditionally!

As for new Christians - I was atheist for awhile and refrained from sex. The concept of life-long marriage isn't specific to a faith and not the average paradigm among Christians - which is probably why most Christians fornicate. Requiring virginity may be completely independent of faith (it's obviously independent of the Christian faith, some religions place greater importance on virginity)

Unless you're willing to stay married to someone who commits regular adultry, its' not unconditional. Where people draw the line varies.

Appended: I don't consider rape loss of virginity, the psychological and moral processes are different with consent. For example, it'd hardly be proper to divorce someone because she got raped, but it's quite justifiable to divorce someone who commits adultry, the only difference is consent.

 

[artybloke]

When she is 12, we will get her a promise ring.

As long as you ALSO tell her about contraception, when the time comes, and that if she chooses to act other than the way you approve, she will still be loved and accepted. I did read that the incidence of unwanted pregnancy among "promise-keepers" was no lower than, or possibly even higher, than that in the general population. Something to do with the fact that young people don't always tell the truth... It worries me that a negative attitude toward sex (don't do it or the monsters will get you) can actually be harmful to young people...

 

[CSMR]

Disapprove but accept. Maybe if you can explain the distinction to us, we can grasp that, but a 12 year old?