Question....

[Kai]

proving just what Ive said...that without that COMMITMENT its just too easy to walk out unhindered.

This mantra about "commitment" is entirely man made. Paul says nothing about "commitment," just that a man marry simply because of lust. In reality, that kind of marriage is anything but commitment.

Meanwhile the woman is the one getting stuck with the 5 kids in most cases. Convenient for the man, no doubt, he just moves on to the next unsuspecting victim.

More misandry and false victimisation. Men who have children regardless of marital status are required by law to support them, and women who indulge their lust in premarital sex are just as guilty as the man, especially if both ignore having safe sex. There are tons of married people who don't want to have children: and they've been known to do some nasty things when children appeared. So don't drag children into this. They can be victims of either relationship.

 

[HuntingMan]

One also has to wonder about the intregrity of a woman who does not want to truly settled down and be married but is willing to be "committed" and give the goods to a man. It's not all about men being pigs. There are women out there who are aggressive and pursue the physical side of the relationship when sometimes the man wants to chill. Frankly I'm not even willing to kiss a man till he proves he's truly interested in only me and not playing the field or just wanting to get the goods.

Women are just as easily blamed as men where they are at fault.
My own personal experience has been that its more often the man who doesnt want to commit (marriage) but wants to keep the field open...even if hes not actually saying it.

 

[MissLady]

It's just bad advice. The right thing Paul should have said would be, "Resist lust and fight it off," not slake it through marriage and have a marriage based entirely on lust, lust being always a vice, not a virtue. "Then, once lust is subdued, if you want to marry, begin to seek out a mate who is compatible with you in many, many more areas than just sex." It is highly doubtful any woman would want to marry a man only because he wants to have sex and needs to have an outlet for his lust. Wanting to assuage lust through marriage is just as bad as wanting to assuage lust through unmarried sex.[/quote]

Ya got all that right. It reminds me of the episode of "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" when Will was dating that chick who wanted to wait for marriage and the idiot believed Will when he said "let's get married" and ran off to a quicky wedding joint and Jazz was posing as the preacher. Thankfully Will manned up and told her the truth before anything happened. Which is why I say "honey if you really wanna marry me we are doing it in church and going through all the pre-marriage councilling and I get to see the marriage license" lol.

 

[HuntingMan]

....hasn't been able to come up with a defination that works for all marraiges.

Easy enough.
Have the two promised themselves as being husband and wife with the intent that it is for life ?
GODs definition of marriage is the only one that matters and that is a HUSBAND and WIFE for LIFE.

I've also talked with 3 couples that "did marriage right." But two of them knew they had made a mistake on their honeymoon and one found serious sexual issues as their marraige went along. So I don't see that anyone one way garentees that a marriage will work.

Thats a very nice try, but there is a little thing called 'divorce' that one can declare (Im not talking about Ceasars paperwork and legal fees but instead what Moses has presented in a case where they are tired of each other and like children refuse to work it out).

Its simply convenience to remain in UNmarital sexual sin 'just in case'.

As to sex and marriage, I'd not marry a lady who wanted to wait till marriage.

Wow. Thats a pretty bold statement.
If she doesnt put out, then you wouldnt marry her ?
One of the ONLY reasons I felt comfortable marrying again was because my wife Laura DID insist on waiting until she had given herself in marriage.
of course, to my ex's casual sex was still ok, apparently, even after marriage.

I did that the 1st time around, not interested in walking that path again.

So one mistake was made in the past so lets compound it by finding someone who doesnt care to commit fornication at all then ?

I remember that I was taught that if one had sex before marriage that one wouldn't develope a good relationship when I was young.

Id agree that in most cases this is exactly what will happen. One of the reasons second marriages are failing more than first ones. Even if we saved ourselves for the first one, casual, unmarried sex is much easier to do when we've already been married before and divorced.
Folks jump into having sex, get married for the second time and then some time down the road it all falls apart yet again.
Keep it in your pants folks...get to know that person inside and out mentally and emotionally BEFORE having sex or marrying.

That can happen and will most likely happen if the couple is taught that sex makes them evil people till they are marriaged.

Who is teaching anyone that sex makes them evil people ?
Lacking horribly in self control and self indulgence, for sure, but Paul and Christ BOTH show that for the most part men will be compelled to want and have sex.

But relationships is a fuction of communication and doing things together and including God in that relationship.

dayhiker

Its very unlikely that God is going to be present in fornication.
Communication is something two people work on BEFORE getting married and having sex....not just after.
We spent a year and a half just getting to know each other...no sex, and guess what ? It didnt kill either of us.

We used that time to learn everything about each other that we could learn and because we didnt allow our relationship to turn into a sex fest, we were actually able to remain clear minded enough to determine if this person was actually the type of person we'd want to marry....rather than saying 'hey, the sex is great, surely it will work"....which was the direct cause of the death of two previous marriages on my own part.
Had I NOT had sex with either of those two and kept my mind on what was actually important in a relationship, Id never have married either of them.

 

[MissLady]

Women are just as easily blamed as men where they are at fault.
My own personal experience has been that its more often the man who doesnt want to commit (marriage) but wants to keep the field open...even if hes not actually saying it.

Tha may be true and if it is then the woman is a moron for hanging on. I don't feel sorry for her.

 

[HuntingMan]

Tha may be true and if it is then the woman is a moron for hanging on. I don't feel sorry for her.

I cant say either way until I see the details.
Abused women can be so sympathetic with their abusers that Ive seen a few actually attack men who were trying to save her to get them off her abuser.
Theres a bit more to the scenario than a woman just deciding to be a moron in most abuse cases (either mental or physical).

Things happen in all sorts of ways, and not just to women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

 

[MissLady]

I'm not talking about abuse. I'm talking about the woman is independent has her own life, does her own thing. Says she wants to marry but is perfectly fine with her dude either not asking or waiting forever to set a date after proposing. It's honesty a more mutual "we don't have to get married to be committed" decision than you might think. At least in my experience it is. I've seen more than one couple where both just drag their feet.

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm not talking about abuse.

I realize that...it wasnt entirely the point.
People can be convinced that something dead wrong is 'right' if they are around it enough. Just ended up tossing that out there because Ive seen first hand how a man was able to 'coerce' more than one woman into making very ignorant choices. The man spent enough time beating her down, making her believe her views werent significant enough to matter.
Youd think a woman would always be able to just walk out while theyre in the dating stage....but many dont seem to be.

The point is that a woman, or even a man, can be manipulated emotionally to a very great extent. To an extreme where they literally stay in a relationship that you and I would be looking at scratching our heads...even if its only premarital sex.

I have an example, but I dont want the dear young woman to cross this thread and see it, but needless to say she started out with very good morals, wanted to wait for marriage, wanted to be with 'mr right' and ended up with some wimp who very subtly started causing her to doubt herself and her own sense of morality.
This guy was so bad and so convincing that she went into a depression and nearly had to be hospitalized because she had become anorexic.

These predators are out there and I can see how a trusting young woman can end up doing things, such as having sex or staying, even tho common sense would tell one to leave.

I'm talking about the woman is independent has her own life, does her own thing. Says she wants to marry but is perfectly fine with her dude either not asking or waiting forever to set a date after proposing. It's honesty a more mutual "we don't have to get married to be committed" decision than you might think. At least in my experience it is. I've seen more than one couple where both just drag their feet.

I agree entirely where this is the case.

I am just very careful anymore about not feeling sorry for a woman who seems to be one thing on the surface because Ive known enough who were a complete wreck under the facade.

 

[MissLady]

I guess I've just seen too many situations where the MAN was the one treated like crap by the woman, sometimes even physically abused (though mental abuse is worse I think) to automatically assume that the woman is some kind of victim in the situation.

I just don't jump on the men are pigs bandwagon cause I've seen too many women who were *censored*. To clarify though I don't automatically assume the woman is horrible either in the situation, so please don't get me wrong.

 

[HuntingMan]

I guess I've just seen too many situations where the MAN was the one treated like crap by the woman,

No disagreement there at all.

sometimes even physically abused (though mental abuse is worse I think) to automatically assume that the woman is some kind of victim in the situation.

Agreed.
Assuming is probably the problem in any given situation.

I just don't jump on the men are pigs bandwagon cause I've seen too many women who were *censored*.

Agreed.

To clarify though I don't automatically assume the woman is horrible either in the situation, so please don't get me wrong.

I see
for the most part Ive just been tossing out a few thoughts myself

 

[theQuestionist]

Im sorry, where did that post say anything about representing scripture with that particular query ?
*I* asked you the question.

YOU gave the example of the Bible's claim that you should marry someone if you are filled with lust. YOU are the one who stated (through a satirical comment) that it would be a GOOD idea to follow that advice.

I was responding to you, and to the terrible advice presented in that passage.

I find it absurd that a person would claim to be 'committed' yet be unwilling to put it in writing (or even a verbal promise to be husband and wife), yet expect pleasures that God intended FOR marriage.

Why should two people committed to a relationship also bind themselves legally together? In your perfect world committed couples should be forced to marry?

proving just what Ive said...that without that COMMITMENT its just too easy to walk out unhindered.
Meanwhile the woman is the one getting stuck with the 5 kids in most cases.
Convenient for the man, no doubt, he just moves on to the next unsuspecting victim.

I'm sorry you loathe men to the extent that you feel that a man who is not interested in marriage is only interested in promiscuity.

 

[Armistead]

I see people still don't understand what lust actually was...biblically.
Sexually desiring somone is not lust..It's a response to puberty.

 

[HuntingMan]

YOU gave the example of the Bible's claim that you should marry someone if you are filled with lust. YOU are the one who stated (through a satirical comment) that it would be a GOOD idea to follow that advice.

I was responding to you, and to the terrible advice presented in that passage.

You were connecting dots that, at that particular point, Im not sure I was asking to be connected.
And it isnt advice. Pauls instruction is to avoid the sin of UNmarried sex.

Why should two people committed to a relationship also bind themselves legally together?

Define 'legally'.
I think Ive already made my position clear about Ceasars licensing.
Why ? Because God said so.

In your perfect world committed couples should be forced to marry?

Yes, I know how hard it is for man to not behave like a mindless animal driven about by every whim of his genitalia.

I'm sorry you loathe men to the extent that you feel that a man who is not interested in marriage is only interested in promiscuity.

Firstly, chap, I am a man.
Secondly, when a man wont make a solid commitment, ie 'marriage' there has to be some reason for his being too much of a wimp to give that to a woman (or vice versa) hes having casual, uncomitted sex with.

Its fairly humorous to hear people here talking so much like they ARE committed....but not enough to actually MAKE a commitment....sorry, not 'humorous'...more like an all out comedy club joke.

 

[Kai]

You were connecting dots that, at that particular point, Im not sure I was asking to be connected.
And it isnt advice. Pauls instruction is to avoid the sin of UNmarried sex.

There's no hint in the passage that premarital sex is sin--the last specific sin of porneia near that passage occurs at the end of chapter 6 and is temple prostitution. The only commands Paul gives are those relating to married couples as is clear from verse 10 (and v. 25: "Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion..." NRSV). The rest is certainly advice, and bad advice at that.

Yes, I know how hard it is for man to not behave like a mindless animal driven about by every whim of his genitalia.

This is just a mindless insult. Speak for yourself and your mistakes only.

Firstly, chap, I am a man.

So what? Men can say misandrist things, women can be misogynists. Your accusation that men not interested in marriage are promiscuous is merely another fallacious ad hominem and another cheap, senseless insult. Men want to be married because marriage is the goal. It's just that they don't think to ask for their girlfriends' hand in marriage the first few times they go out simply because they have lustful feelings

Secondly, when a man wont make a solid commitment, ie 'marriage' there has to be some reason for his being too much of a wimp to give that to a woman (or vice versa) hes having casual, uncomitted sex with.

No one is saying men shouldn't make commitments. Your equating commitment with marriage is bogus, and your yet another ad hominem attack ("wimp") rears again its ugly head. It doesn't take a fool to wonder why sexually active unmarried couples may not marry immediately: they haven't dated long enough, may not be financially stable, may not know enough about each other, may not have gone through school yet, etc. The list goes on and on. You want people to marry too early and unpreparedly and hence make a foolish mistake. You want people to marry merely because they have feelings of lust. If that kind of marriage doesn't deserve to be insulted, none does.

Its fairly humorous to hear people here talking so much like they ARE committed....but not enough to actually MAKE a commitment...

Just what in the world do you call a sexually abstinent couple who have been dating for months? Not committed? Insane. They may not be married yet, but they have been going out with one another (hint: commitment to each other) for quite some time, not with anyone else.

 

[HuntingMan]

I see people still don't understand what lust actually was...biblically.
Sexually desiring somone is not lust..It's a response to puberty.

I agree there is a difference between the two.

 

[Armistead]

There's no hint in the passage that premarital sex is sin--the last specific sin of porneia near that passage occurs at the end of chapter 6 and is temple prostitution. The only commands Paul gives are those relating to married couples as is clear from verse 10 (and v. 25: "Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion..." NRSV). The rest is certainly advice, and bad advice at that.

This is just a mindless insult. Speak for yourself and your mistakes only.

So what? Men can say misandrist things, women can be misogynists. Your accusation that men not interested in marriage are promiscuous is merely another fallacious ad hominem and another cheap, senseless insult. Men want to be married because marriage is the goal. It's just that they don't think to ask for their girlfriends' hand in marriage the first few times they go out simply because they have lustful feelings

No one is saying men shouldn't make commitments. Your equating commitment with marriage is bogus, and your yet another ad hominem attack ("wimp") rears again its ugly head. It doesn't take a fool to wonder why sexually active unmarried couples may not marry immediately: they haven't dated long enough, may not be financially stable, may not know enough about each other, may not have gone through school yet, etc. The list goes on and on. You want people to marry too early and unpreparedly and hence make a foolish mistake. You want people to marry merely because they have feelings of lust. If that kind of marriage doesn't deserve to be insulted, none does.

Just what in the world do you call a sexually abstinent couple who have been dating for months? Not committed? Insane. They may not be married yet, but they have been going out with one another (hint: commitment to each other) for quite some time, not with anyone else.

Overall, I agree with your post. 80-90% of people have premarital sex before marriage, including Christians. However, there are many people that are relationships and even marry because they are sexually compatable, but never took the time to emotionally bond.

You are correct. Much of what Paul stated, he clearly stated as his opinion, but people repeat it as command. The fact is pre-marital sex wasn't much of an issue back then. People married young, due to lack of birth control. I've studied the issue for years from every possible perspective and cannot just state premarital sex in itself is sin.

I wonder if Paul were alive today, how would he address our sexual culture. Millions of abortions and unwanted children, STD's, broken and used lives.

I do think it's best if people take a long time to build emotional loving commitments before they become sexual. Why, because premarital sex is dangerous without truly knowing the person. You cannot know and trust a person in a matter of months. How many men fall to pieces when they get that call.."I'm pregnant." Most pray for an abortion or get very bitter over child support, ect. But that is what happens with sex, why should they expect different.

In my case, many of the girls that "dropped drawers" fast assumed that a relationship was coming. In some cases I did have some short relationships, but the goal was to say whatever it took to get them to give it up. In my mind, if they were that dumb to believe all the charm and give it up in the first date or two, they shouldn't fall to pieces when I moved on and I didn't feel sorry for them. Then the girl would state they felt used, ect. I wonder how many times they got used by guys before me and if women are that dumb to repeat over and over the same mistake, then they become insecure, jealous, ect. This baggage of many sexual partners often causes problems in relationships later.

One of my best friend died of Aids about 8 years ago. A great guy, married for 12 years and always faithful until he had an affair with his secretary. She was HIV and said she didn't know. Sadly, he gave it to his wife before he found out. She left him and his life came apart. In a few years, she died before he did. I can hear him saying "all this for 10 minutes of pleasure." He almost went insane before he later died. What's sad, he was a wonderful father and now two kids had no parents.

I'm just glad I got through it and have been happily married for 16 years.
I would hate to be in the dating game again.

 

[HuntingMan]

I've studied the issue for years from every possible perspective and cannot just state premarital sex in itself is sin.

Sure we can.
Some here just change definitions of words to suit their needs.
1 corinthians 7:1-2 says quite plainly that it is good for a man NOT to touch a woman, ie not have sex, but in order to AVOID sexual SIN, let him have his own wife....he needs to marry.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 KJV)
​

Some can make any claims they wish to make, but the FACT is that the word HAS a meaning and it isnt restricted to 'temple prostitutions' not even in the letters to the Corinthians.....and without that distortion of the facts, that verse shows quite conclusively that UNmarried sex IS 'whoredom/harlotry/illicit sex".

The passage above applies to the UNmarried virgin or widow(er) whether the few can accept it or not.

I do think it's best if people take a long time to build emotional loving commitments before they become sexual. Why, because premarital sex is dangerous without truly knowing the person.

Exactly.
And just one more reason why they need to take the time to get to know each other before marrying and starting a sexual relationship.
The argument that a couple needs to have sex to give the relationship a test drive is just bogus nonsense to excuse having UNmarried sex , ie 'sin'.

One of my best friend died of Aids about 8 years ago. A great guy, married for 12 years and always faithful until he had an affair with his secretary. She was HIV and said she didn't know. Sadly, he gave it to his wife before he found out. She left him and his life came apart. In a few years, she died before he did. I can hear him saying "all this for 10 minutes of pleasure." He almost went insane before he later died. What's sad, he was a wonderful father and now two kids had no parents.

Quite interesting that I brought this issue up of STDs and unmarried sex before and basically was told that it was wrong.
Had this man kept his clothes on, and the secretary as well, the damage would have been contained.
Instead UNmarried sex cost at least those three lives.

 

[theQuestionist]

You were connecting dots that, at that particular point, Im not sure I was asking to be connected.
And it isnt advice. Pauls instruction is to avoid the sin of UNmarried sex.

Oh please. This was your original response:

Interesting.
So its a terrible idea to COMMIT if one is having casual sex.

And when a child is born and the womans life is forever changed ? What do you say then ?
Is it terrible for the man to marry her then ?

You were obviously comparing the decision to get married after a child is conceived, to a decision to get married after sex is initiated. Or was your statement just a meaningless non-sequiter? Because it makes no sense in any other context.

Define 'legally'.

Is it not clear that we are discussing marriage in this thread? Is it not clear that marriage is a binding legal contract between two people, recognized by the state?

I think Ive already made my position clear about Ceasars licensing.
Why ? Because God said so.

Actually, it's because you believe what people said, who also claimed to be getting their instructions from god. Of course...this sounds all the more silly when you realize how poor the advice is.

Yes, I know how hard it is for man to not behave like a mindless animal driven about by every whim of his genitalia.

In other words, yes? This basically has no relevance to my comment, because it assumes that all men are promiscuous (at least, the ones who aren't interested in marriage).

This seems to be your own distorted view of humanity, and you've yet to back it up.

Firstly, chap, I am a man.

I am aware of that, and you were obviously included in my statement about your loathing of men.

Secondly, when a man wont make a solid commitment, ie 'marriage' there has to be some reason for his being too much of a wimp to give that to a woman (or vice versa) hes having casual, uncommitted sex with.

A commitment is NOT THE SAME as marriage. Marriage is a subset of "commitment". One can be committed and not be married. I see marriage as a silly concept originally invented by religionists, that doesn't have any practical value other than the tax and state benefits it allows you to receive.

Adding in contextually weightless statements like "a man is a wimp if he won't get married" doesn't make your position any less irrational.

Its fairly humorous to hear people here talking so much like they ARE committed....but not enough to actually MAKE a commitment....sorry, not 'humorous'...more like an all out comedy club joke.

The only thing that's funny is your bastardization of the word "commitment" to be equivocal to "marriage".

 

[HuntingMan]

You were obviously comparing the decision to get married after a child is conceived, to a decision to get married after sex is initiated. Or was your statement just a meaningless non-sequiter? Because it makes no sense in any other context.

Im not going to bicker this point with you. I know what I was thinking when I wrote out the question.

Is it not clear that we are discussing marriage in this thread?
Is it not clear that marriage is a binding legal contract between two people, recognized by the state?

And that answers the question.
No, its not clear that it had to be recognized by the state, which is why I asked.
I dont recognize Ceasars authority to 'permit' man to marry which is a God given right that no man has authority to deny.
Again, that is why I asked.

Actually, it's because you believe what people said, who also claimed to be getting their instructions from god. Of course...this sounds all the more silly when you realize how poor the advice is.

Yes, I think we've understood entirely how ignorant you seem to believe christians and their bibles are.

This seems to be your own distorted view of humanity, and you've yet to back it up.

Distorted ?
Ever actually read any statistics on HIV in places such as Africa?
How do you think that is spread? Donut and a cup of coffee ?
Of course mankind in general is led about by his sexual organs. Adultery and UNmarried sex are everywhere.

Back it up ?
Open your eyes and accept the facts.

-irrelevance snipped-

A commitment is NOT THE SAME as marriage.

Biblically a commitment is a vow or oath. In this particular case the oath or vow called 'marriage'.

Marriage is a subset of "commitment".

You can repeat this as much as you want but Im sorry the bible does not agree where a relationship between a man and woman are concerned.
marriage IS the commitment in Gods word.
That men pervert that intent is irrelevant.

One can be committed and not be married.

Claims of commitment that wont actually commit is meaningless.
"I will take care of you forever.....but I wont put it in writing"
Sounds a bit fishy to me.

The only thing that's funny is your bastardization of the word "commitment" to be equivocal to "marriage".

Scripture shows that the 'commitment' is called 'marriage'. No marriage=no commitment=sexual sin

 

[theQuestionist]

Im not going to bicker this point with you. I know what I was thinking when I wrote out the question.

Yes, and that's why I responded showing how silly the comparison was.

Yes, I think we've understood entirely how ignorant you seem to believe christians and their bibles are.

I've substantiated my claim that the advice to marry if you lust is poor, and asserted that the Bible was written by people (which I can only assume you agree with--although I'm sure you'll probably throw in some 'well they were inspired by god' qualification)

You are ignorant if you think marriage is a solution to STDs (as you've stated) and that committed couples should be forced to marry (or be called 'wimps' by the likes of you).

Distorted ?
Ever actually read any statistics on HIV in places such as Africa?
How do you think that is spread? Donut and a cup of coffee ?
Of course mankind in general is led about by his sexual organs. Adultery and UNmarried sex are everywhere.

PROMISCUITY is the problem. You've failed to understand this countless times.

Back it up ?
Open your eyes and accept the facts.

Nice cop out. Now, before making yourself appear to be intellectually dishonest again, provide your statistics that unmarried people are promiscuous.

Biblically a commitment is a vow or oath. In this particular case the oath or vow called 'marriage'.

You can repeat this as much as you want but Im sorry the bible does not agree where a relationship between a man and woman are concerned.
marriage IS the commitment in Gods word.
That men pervert that intent is irrelevant.

Do you not know what a set is? Do you not know what a subset is?

A marriage, as I stated, is a type of commitment. Marriage and commitment however, and not mutually inclusive terms. There can be commitments that are not marriages.

If you would like to play the semantics game and say that 'commitment' can be defined as 'marriage', then you are effectively conceding every point I've made in this thread--since my argument has been (from the beginning) that unmarried (in the legal sense) sex is fine (as long as it is in a committed relationship, as I have denied the value of promiscuous sex countless times). (In other words, using your re-definition of the word, I have been saying from the beginning that a "married" [committed] couple having sex is fine, even if their "marriage" [commitment] is not recognized by the state [marriage]).

Claims of commitment that wont actually commit is meaningless.
"I will take care of you forever.....but I wont put it in writing"
Sounds a bit fishy to me.

Good for you, I guess.

In reality, things don't always work out...and there may be previously-unseen conflicts of interest that split the relationship. In that sense, I'm sure most people would rather break up with someone, than have to divorce them.

Scripture shows that the 'commitment' is called 'marriage'. No marriage=no commitment=sexual sin

Once again, this is purely semantic, based on your descriptions above.