If you're engaged, is it still fornicating?

[katautumn]

Clinical studies (secular) support the idea that sex before marriage, reduces success in marriage.

I have never seen these alleged secular studies that somehow prove that sex before marriage causes divorce. I've seen these studies posted on Christian-based abstinence websites, but never from a non-biased, secular source.

Not to mention, correlation does not equal causation. Think of it this way - the majority of first marriages will end in divorce. The majority of people in America will engage in pre-marital sex. My mom was pregnant with me when she and my father got married and they are still married twenty-eight years later. I've only known one couple who were virgins when they married and they ended up divorced.

Marriage is based on "commitment"; and that's what the "paper", is. For those who say "We don't need the paper; we're married already before God" (I'm thinking of a specific colleague); but if that is TRUE, then there is no reason to AVOID the "paper". True to what I just said, that colleague is now permanently separated from his unfiance.

But a couple can have a commitment without being married. My husband and I lived together for several months prior to getting married. Why didn't we just go ahead and go through with the marriage? Because it took us several months to get a day off from work so that we could go to the courthouse to get married. I'm not advocating promiscuous sex, but I don't see anything wrong or shameful about having sex before marriage.

What is "love"? The best definition is 1Cor13. If a relationship is based on real love, then each person is selfless; and intensely desires for their mate to receive all the honor, respect, and fulfillment he or she deserves ("deserves", reflecting the desire to honor the other, which true love instills.)

Having sex out of wedlock does not automatically mean someone is selfish and disrespects their partner.

This is one of the saddest things I've heard; and I've heard it many times, not just here. Physically --- 100% of Humans are compatible.

Sorry, but that is untrue. I'll give two examples:

1. My husband's friend had a debilitating car accident which paralyzed him from the waist down. He is now impotent and cannot have sexual relations with his wife. They are not "physically compatible".

2. I once was in a relationship with a man who was obese. It was nearly physically impossible for the two of us to have sex. We were not physically compatible.

Not to mention, being physically compatible and being sexually compatible are two separate issues. Sexual compatibility is incredibly important. Just because the man has a functioning penis and the woman has a vagina does not mean that they are automatically sexually compatible.

The very use of the word "compatibility", reveals "past history". A person who has learned a certain path, looks for another person who has a similar "learning".

Here again, not true. I was, unfortunately, very sexually promiscuous after my first marriage ended (I was physically abused). I had sex with men who slapped me around, called me vile names and were unbearably, physically rough with me. Because of some bad experiences I had during my "wild period", I was very fearful of becoming sexually active with my present husband. I didn't want sex to be like that with him, so I did not seek out that same sort of sexual "performance". Fortunately my husband is nothing like that.

Two people who are virgins when they marry --- have NO path, no history (and no "ghosts" haunting their thoughts). They learn the path, TOGETHER, nothing they do is "wrong".

If someone has ghosts from their pasts haunting their thoughts then they have issues. I've never thought about my ex's sexual abilities and mentally compared them to my husband's, nor has he done that with me.

Sex is the physical expression of emotional intimacy. The purpose of "courting", is to build the emotional; on which the physical is based. If it's built on "physical", then the foundation is rotten. Sexual compatibility is EMOTIONAL; when two people connect on emotional and spiritual levels, then the physical will "work".

I agree with your first point, which is why I believe a couple should have a deep emotional connection before having the intense physical connection. I don't believe a relationship should build off of a sexual connection. I believe the sexual connection should become an extension of the emotional one. With that said, I disagree that "everything will work". Sometimes it doesn't.

Virginity is a rare gift nowadays;

It's not a gift. It is a physical condition. I have so many other wonderful gifts and talents to offer my husband.

a virgin can offer complete commitment

As could I with my husband, even with a sexually promiscuous past.

the receiver KNOWS that he or she is the only one. There is no "past fantasy" or "memory", or "comparison"; she/he will know that their mate belongs to them, completely.

If a person truly loves their partner, then they will never mentally compare or fantasize about past partners. When you have met your soul mate it will be the total package and the sexual union will reflect that.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

but I don't see anything wrong or shameful about having sex before marriage.

Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage / premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes abstinence before marriage. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations that God approves of (Hebrews 13:4).

Sex before marriage has become so common for many reasons. Far too often we focus on the “recreation” aspect of sex without recognizing the “re-creation” aspect. Yes, sex is pleasurable. God designed it that way. He wants men and women to enjoy sexual activity (within the confines of marriage). However, the primary purpose of sex is not pleasure, but rather reproduction. God does not outlaw sex before marriage to rob us of pleasure, but to protect us from unwanted pregnancies and children born to parents who do not want them or are not prepared for them. Imagine how much better our world would be if God’s pattern for sex was followed: fewer sexually transmitted diseases, fewer un-wed mothers, fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, etc. Abstinence is God’s only policy when it comes to sex before marriage. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and most importantly honors God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html

That's about the only thing I disagreed with you on. Of course I don't know if you're Christian or not, so this may not even matter to you at all.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

double posted, sorry ><

 

[rppearso]

Oh please... You've said far worse to us in the course of this debate, with far less provocation. I find it interesting that you can heap it out, but not withstand a little sent back. I think this is not about your suddenly delicate sensibilities, but the fact that you're upset that you're the only one who agrees with what you're saying, and everybody else finds it repugnant.

What is the point of continuing to engage in a circular argument. I already showed you my logic which you refused to accnolage and/or disagree with. I guess the 3rd option would be for the husband to make himself a enuch, then he wont have that burden of dealing with his refusing wife and can just do his own thing. If you had came at this from at least a partially logical point of view rather than a purely emotion one we would have a reasonable debate but you chose not to do that. If you would have said regarding mathew XXX and 1cor XXX I disagree for the following reasons. Because when it all boils down the bible does not say you have a right to divorce if your husband beats you thats just your opinion, at least I have shown logicly how sexual refusal is grounds for divorce. Also my logic applies to physical abuse as well, but if you disacnolage my logic for sexual refusal then you cant use it for physical abuse either. Also it is counter intuitive to how God wired men that they should be expected to live life burning with passion, you cant really do anything efficently including serving God when you are constantly horny.

I really dont care to hear any more of your emotionally charge attacks, or condesending remarks because it really is not useful.

 

[katautumn]

Also it is counter intuitive to how God wired men that they should be expected to live life burning with passion, you cant really do anything efficently including serving God when you are constantly horny.

Please cite the passage of Scripture that says God "wired" men to be horndogs with uncontrollable urges. If you're constantly horny, that's your problem. It's not a woman's job to quell your "urges".

 

[rppearso]

Hmmm... Perhaps I need to try harder, because I'd think that I made pretty clear I disagree quite passionately with just about everything you've said on this subject. The fact that you don't get that... I don't know what to sya.



How's about the 4th, more realistic option, where a husband doesn't use sex as a weapon against his wife, or a means to blackmail her into doing what he wants on threat of divorce? Where he goes without some nights to respect her and her space, and he realizes that his penis doesn't rule the marriage? Where if his wife says no, he moves on with his life as if the world didn't come to a crashing halt because he's not having sex, and if the refusal is prolonged, he works to seek the root of the issue WITH his wife, instead of stomping his fists and crying like a child, threatening to have sex with somebody else (and risk disease that could infect not only himself but his wife) or divorce because he's not getting his way at the second he wants to have what he wants?

You know, otherwise act like a rational human being, who's needs make up exactly one half of the needs of the marriage?

It's just crazy enough, it may work...



Have you actually read anything I wrote? Or are you choosing to pretend I wrote nothing because you just didn't like I have to say?

FYI... I explained myself, and my views, pretty darn clearly. If you are blanking out on it, then short of driving over to your house and reading what I wrote to you, there's no other way to make you pay attention to what I'm saying.



You have yet shown to any of us how if your wife refuses to give you a rim job, you're justified in divorcing her.

And the fact that you can condemn oral sex with a condom as a divorcable offense, but state that a woman who is abused must remain married... Sick, sick, sick.

BESIDES which, my dear, you kind of shot yourself in the foot on this one. You've been saying through the whole thread that a man not getting any is the exact same thing as physical abuse, and because of this abuse, a man has a right to divorce his wife. Which doesn't mesh at all with your declaration that women cannot leave abusive husbands... If sexual refusal is really the same as abuse, then and abuse isn't a valid grounds for divorce, then a husband not having sex isn't grounds for a divorce.

Whoopsy. How does it feel to walk around with a foot in your mouth?



Then men really are the weaker sex. Men can't function without sex is just a feeble excuse, a last ditch effort, to justify why you should be allowed to emotionally blackmail your wife to doing sex acts she's not wild about, or having sex when she doesn't want to, because you don't want to exercise self-control, moderation, and self-sacrafice if it means that you're in any way inconvienenced.

There are men who live chaste lives, and manage to be productive members of society... There are men who don't have frequent sex who manage to not have affairs or browbeat their wives into "putting out" without having any breakdowns...

You, I'm sure, expect unmarried men and women to abstain from sex until marriage, something which could go on for years and years... So are you telling me unmarried folks should refrain from sex and suck it up, but once you get that ring on your finger, lack of sex literally strikes people stupid? Self-control and respect for your partner goes out the window when vows are exchanged, and it's their job to satisfy you at all turns regardless of what they want to do or if they feel like it?

Such hypocracy.

[quote\I really dont care to hear any more of your emotionally charge attacks, or condesending remarks because it really is not useful.

Like I said, pretty much every word out of your mouth is condesending, and this whole discussion is based off of your emotionally charged attacks related to the idea that you have to go without sex. You think it's not useful? Well you can stop doing what you accuse me of anytime...[/quote]

So why not just agree to disagree?

 

[katautumn]

Rppearso, the reason you are getting these types of responses is because you're spreading misinformation and posting some pretty offensive, personal and graphic details of your sex life with your wife for all of us to read. I feel so sorry for her. I would be heartbroken if I found out my dear husband was online telling strangers that I don't satisfy him and he was thinking about divorcing me because of it.

I know one of the reasons I find your posts so offensive is because I was sexually abused by my first husband, so when I read stuff that involves a husband trying to force his wife into performing a sex act she feels uncomfortable with and then threatens to divorce her, it brings up painful past memories.

 

[K9_Trainer]

Not that I really have any grounds to join this argument.....But doesn't anybody realize how judgmental some of their posts are?

I mean, how would somebody who HAS gone through a painful divorce because they were being physically or sexually abused by their spouse (like KatAutumn who has said herself she finds them offensive) feel if they saw some of these posts?

You have NO idea what it's like to go through that (and being a man, you probably never will), yet your sitting there judging those women and basically telling them that they had no good reason to divorce, that they are nothing but an object, a sex toy for a man, and that even God supports their husband abusing them because it's not specifically in the Bible or in your interpretation of the Bible. Sorry, that's ridiculous, inconsiderate, and highly unchristian.

Situations aren't always clear cut, they aren't black and white. Each person is an individual. What you may view as grounds for divorce, somebody else may not. It's not fair to lump all reasons for divorce as either legitimate or illegitimate and then comfort and support those who had what you identified as legitimate grounds for divorce while chastising those who, according to you, didn't have legitimate grounds. A divorce is between the couple and God, not the couple, God and you. Let God do the judging and instead, support and love the people suffering as your sisters and brothers in Christ.

 

[rppearso]

Not that I really have any grounds to join this argument.....But doesn't anybody realize how judgmental some of their posts are?

I mean, how would somebody who HAS gone through a painful divorce because they were being physically or sexually abused by their spouse (like KatAutumn who has said herself she finds them offensive) feel if they saw some of these posts?

You have NO idea what it's like to go through that (and being a man, you probably never will), yet your sitting there judging those women and basically telling them that they had no good reason to divorce, that they are nothing but an object, a sex toy for a man, and that even God supports their husband abusing them because it's not specifically in the Bible or in your interpretation of the Bible. Sorry, that's ridiculous, inconsiderate, and highly unchristian.

Situations aren't always clear cut, they aren't black and white. Each person is an individual. What you may view as grounds for divorce, somebody else may not. It's not fair to lump all reasons for divorce as either legitimate or illegitimate and then comfort and support those who had what you identified as legitimate grounds for divorce while chastising those who, according to you, didn't have legitimate grounds. A divorce is between the couple and God, not the couple, God and you. Let God do the judging and instead, support and love the people suffering as your sisters and brothers in Christ.

If people actually read what I said instead of firing from the hip they might understand, just because someone was sexually abused or raped in a previous relationship is not an excuse to refuse your currant husband, if your going to be a crappy wife to your new husband you should deal with your past ghosts first instead of giving your future husband new ghosts. I realize situtions are not always clear cut and I explained that in one of my many other posts, the reasoning for divorce is situational which I also explained. If your wife is having a bad day and you just had sex 3 days straight prior obviously you should not get a divorce. If certain sexual activities are really important to one of the spouses and they flat out refuse that is going to cause some problems, thats just reality, if your wife really like to get oral sex and the husband says nope I wont do it anymore, get ready for a stormy season in your life (I thought I would switch it up because it seems women on here think its ok to refuse the guy but if they were refused thats not acceptable, which is a total hypocrite, but oh well)

 

[BrotherAtArms]

If people actually read what I said instead of firing from the hip they might understand, just because someone was sexually abused or raped in a previous relationship is not an excuse to refuse your currant husband, if your going to be a crappy wife to your new husband you should deal with your past ghosts first instead of giving your future husband new ghosts. I realize situtions are not always clear cut and I explained that in one of my many other posts, the reasoning for divorce is situational which I also explained. If your wife is having a bad day and you just had sex 3 days straight prior obviously you should not get a divorce. If certain sexual activities are really important to one of the spouses and they flat out refuse that is going to cause some problems, thats just reality, if your wife really like to get oral sex and the husband says nope I wont do it anymore, get ready for a stormy season in your life (I thought I would switch it up because it seems women on here think its ok to refuse the guy but if they were refused thats not acceptable, which is a total hypocrite, but oh well)

The problem is that we all have read your posts, you don't get that we find your responses sickening and very wrong. We don't understand how you've come to your conclusion if you're taking it from scripture, and we certainly don't get how the scriptures you've shown us have anything to do with supporting your look on things... so far, unless I've counted wrong, 100% of us disagree with you. If there's anyone else then they've remained neutral.

 

[rppearso]

The problem is that we all have read your posts, you don't get that we find your responses sickening and very wrong. We don't understand how you've come to your conclusion if you're taking it from scripture, and we certainly don't get how the scriptures you've shown us have anything to do with supporting your look on things... so far, unless I've counted wrong, 100% of us disagree with you. If there's anyone else then they've remained neutral.

Edit you are not worth replying to, I feel stupid for even starting to post something.

 

[rppearso]

Coming from the guy who just called rape victims who later marry and have sexual issues "crappy wives," and accuse women who don't have sex with their husbands of being unChristian and abusers, I think you've got no ground to stand on here.



Frankly, because I find what you say so disgusting and repugnant. I'd find saying "well, I agree to disagree" to all of this on par to "agreeing to disagree" with somebody who advocates beating their spouses and chalking up our disagreement in to a difference of philosophy.



This is the most disgusting thing I've ever read.

If a woman has later sexual issues stemming from a rape to a point where she has issues with sex, she's not a crappy wife... She's a normal human being who's trying to get over a traumatic event. And anybody is a jerk turn you'd turn around her traumatic event, her actual traumatic event, into something that's about you because you're not having sex...

Would you think that a person who was shot in the face and survived, who later had issues seeing people holding guns is a crappy person?

I find it amazing that a problem is only a problem to you if it means you don't get to have sex, and even then, if there is a problem that impacts your ability to have sex, that problem is second only to your problem of not having regular sex. To listen to you, you'd think that marriage is based around the activities of the penis.



If my husband said to me that he wasn't going to perform a sex act that I found enjoyable anymore, I wouldn't serve him with divorce papers, I'd sit down with him and figure out why. If he found it painful or degrading or didn't enjoy it to the point to where he'd ask to never do it again, then you'd better believe I'd respect his wishes. Sex isn't only about me and what I get and how to make me happy... It's about him too. If it was something that I could do nothing about to help him with, then I'd support him in how he needed to be supported. Because that's what people who're married do for eachother.

But if you can honestly say that I would tell the future father of my children, the man who's loved and supported me for almost 7 years, who's first goal in life is my happiness and wellbeing, who shows me in 100 other ways outside of the bedroom how much he loves me, that I'd divorce him for not performing oral sex on me, then you're a fool.

And in all honesty, if I would dump him over something like that, he'd be better off without me, because to dump him for that would make me the vainest, most vapid, selfish person on the planet.

You are probably going to have to agree to disagree becasue you have taken everything I have said way out of context.

 

[Lisa0315]

It wouldn't be IF the commitment was as binding as the marriage. Engagements once were, and nothing short of death or dishonor could separate an engaged couple. This is why it was so important that Joseph continued on with Mary. Without saying a word, Joseph was implying that the child was his and there was no shame on Mary from it.

Lisa

 

[rppearso]

I think the problem is the exact opposite... I grasp the full meaning of what you say.

I think you're just upset that in your given scenario, I didn't say "oh, you're right, I'd have totally divorced my husband." I think you're looking for people to just agree with you, that the worst crime in a marriage is to not have sex.

I have no problem with disagreement I just have a problem with the nastieness and having everything I say taken way out of context.

 

[Lisa0315]

How the heck did this get so far off topic? Gosh, I actually agree with TW. The world is coming to an end! (She is actually a very intelligent woman whom I disagree with on one topic...See how that works? I can disagree with her and still have respect towards her)

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

LOL! I was going to say... Is there any topic other than the one where we've disagreed?

Can you imagine, we're passionate polar opposites on that topic, yet you're on my friends list, and we've talked frequently over PM... The world is coming to an end, two people who've debated with eachother on a topic on opposite ends of the spectrum can still be friends... The humanity!!

This completely rocks my notion that all people who disagree with me are nasty jerks.

Or maybe it confirms that I, like you, have a fondness for intelligent debate with passionate, thoughtful people who've given the same amount of thought to a topic I have, even if we arrive at different conclusions?

Hmmm... There's a noodle scratcher...

I feel like Bush just hugged a Clinton. Oh, wait! I don't want to be Bush and you may not want to be a Clinton. Uhm, Reagan hugged a Kennedy?

Lisa

 

[BrotherAtArms]

Edit you are not worth replying to, I feel stupid for even starting to post something.

And you call yourself a Christian? How in the world are you showing love? Warning, you've stepped in the title of hypocrisy. All I'm trying to do is point out that your theology is wrong and help you back on a path of being right, but all you do is... what was it... consider everyone who disagrees with you (everyone here) high schoolers? I'm apparently worth replying to because guess what... you did.
You're already branded as a heretic, you have so much correction to go through that no one but God can help you now. As an idolater would, you've taken the scriptures so far out of context it's not even funny, and we all should, as you suggested, treat you as a pagan.
Open your eyes, no one agrees with you, whether your posts have been read in or out of context, and you've gone into the mode of not talking with anyone who you don't like because they don't agree with you. You've gotten into a tuck-tail and run mode.
I let my wife read your posts and her jaw dropped and the only thing she could say is, "Oh my gosh..."

You really need to look back into the scriptures and step back and look at yourself. Everyone here who says that you're views are twisted and disgusting and appalling, it's all true. If anything you've said has been taken out of context, it's because you worded something wrong. It scares me that you think you're right.

As you wish, I won't reply to you anymore. You have made it clear, you can't reply to what I say because I use scriptures and you use personal 'logic'. I know I have a lot to learn, as any Christian does, but I do know enough of scriptures and life to see that you're clearly wrong in this topic.

 

[Lisa0315]

Hmmm... I was thinking more along the lines of John Stewart and Steve Colbert.

Let's be running mates!

Why do you get to be the cute one?

Lisa

 

[BrotherAtArms]

Ephesians 4:30-32

30Don't grieve God. Don't break his heart. His Holy Spirit, moving and breathing in you, is the most intimate part of your life, making you fit for himself. Don't take such a gift for granted. 31-32Make a clean break with all cutting, backbiting, profane talk. Be gentle with one another, sensitive. Forgive one another as quickly and thoroughly as God in Christ forgave you.

Though it was both of us doing some name calling and acting immature, I'll at least apologize for that. The last thing I want to do is upset God, and though I disagree with you wholly on this topic, I do apologize for any immaturity I've shown, and I also forgive you for yours. (This message is for Rppearso... in case someone gets confused o0)

 

[Lisa0315]

Hey, you chose Bush and Regan for yourself... Colbert is a huge step up! At least he's funny (well, INTENTIONALLY funny... ).

Oh Gar!!!!

You know, Obama is so serious all the time. What in the world are we going to make fun of him about?

Also, again, handsome Obama vs ugly McCain...Why do all Republicans look like that?

Lisa