WHY is pre marital sex a sin?

[Rhamiel]

Just for the sake of discussion, let's imagine a scenario similar to the TV show Lost. If I were stranded on an island and a woman and I got to know each other and then fell in love but there was no pastor/priest to perform a marriage ceremony, yet we expressed every commitment to each other that essentially summed up to a marriage, would we be married?

I'm just kind of curious how that would apply for people who don't have access to the sacrament in a literal, tangible sense.

well I am not an expert in sacramental theology
I do know that it is the married couple who preform the Sacrament, the Church is there as a witness of sorts

as far as I know, yes, that would be a sacramental marriage if both parties go into it desiring a marriage and both are Christian

I remember in the novel The Power And The Glory by Greene had a Priest who was on the run for his life, he goes to a poor little village that had not had a priest come by in 5 years, he baptized and blessed marriages that had happened in the last five years.

but, if their is a minister available, then we have no excuse to submit to the norms of the church

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Is it a sin in and of it self? In both times of old and in modern custom, the sex seals a marriage. So when you flip around with anyone besides that first one, you are committing adultery as you married by that action the first one you had sex with.
Sex for the sake of sex alone is called fornication. It is sinful because it makes something beautiful into something cheap and frivolous. It is using a gift of God for wickedness. Not to mention that it is done with another causing them to sin as well.

The old saying, "If it fells good do it" is not a Bible verse.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

For a very long time, basically until the Reformation and the rise of the middle class, sacramental marriage was largely a privilege of the social elite, the aristocracy. The majority of people of the lower classes (and, before the rise of the middle class thanks to capitalism, this was most people) arranged civil marriages simply by mutual consent of the heads of household and without much ceremony. The extension of the sacrament to the masses is quite a late development in Catholicism, and the development of the ceremonial wedding is an even later development in Protestantism. Weddings and their complex of mental associations- whether the Catholic sacrament or the Protestant ceremony- are probably best thought of in terms of Carnegie's dictum that "capitalism is about turning luxuries into necessities" than in terms of the church's historic stance on marriage.

That being said, even when the church hasn't been the dominant force in defining the processes of marriage (whether- surprisingly- in the Middle Ages or- less surprisingly- today), it has nevertheless been fairly clear about what both civil/contractual and sacramental marriage consists of, and has made that a goal for its congregants regardless of which form of permanent, exclusive companionship they are engaged in.

 

[Sayre]

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?

For a very long time, basically until the Reformation and the rise of the middle class, sacramental marriage was largely a privilege of the social elite, the aristocracy. The majority of people of the lower classes (and, before the rise of the middle class thanks to capitalism, this was most people) arranged civil marriages simply by mutual consent of the heads of household and without much ceremony. The extension of the sacrament to the masses is quite a late development in Catholicism, and the development of the ceremonial wedding is an even later development in Protestantism. Weddings and their complex of mental associations- whether the Catholic sacrament or the Protestant ceremony- are probably best thought of in terms of Carnegie's dictum that "capitalism is about turning luxuries into necessities" than in terms of the church's historic stance on marriage.

That being said, even when the church hasn't been the dominant force in defining the processes of marriage (whether- surprisingly- in the Middle Ages or- less surprisingly- today), it has nevertheless been fairly clear about what both civil/contractual and sacramental marriage consists of, and has made that a goal for its congregants regardless of which form of permanent, exclusive companionship they are engaged in.

Thank you both. Yes it does seem that marriage, at least outwardly, has evolved. While initially it did seem to be about property and lineage, it now seems to be about romantic love. But surely they are just the intents by which people entered the marriage and not the marriage itself?

 

[Sayre]

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.

The analogy of Christ and His bride is quite a strong one. I've tried (maybe awkwardly, and with some uncertainty) to build a sexual ethic using it. So if you cannot enjoy the benefits of the union with Christ without first becoming (part of) His bride the Church, what does that tell us about sex. And without making the OP go off tangent too much - can you extend it beyond premarital sex and apply the same concepts to homosexual acts, divorce or masturbaton? Christ is the groom, the church is the bride... any deviation away from this is sin.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thank you both. Yes it does seem that marriage, at least outwardly, has evolved. While initially it did seem to be about property and lineage, it now seems to be about romantic love. But surely they are just the intents by which people entered the marriage and not the marriage itself?

Yes, I agree (if I understanding you correct): marriage transcends the reasons for marriage. Marriage transcends love, or social advancement, or lust, or convenience, or assurance of continued placement of land in the family, or any other of the various matrix of reasons good and bad why people get married.

 

[Chrispol]

Check out "What Is Sex? | John Mark Comer" on YouTube. I sadly can't give you a link since I don't have enough posts yet, but I think you should be able to find it easily. That video does a good job at explaining what sex actually is and why it is a sin to do it before marriage.

 

[sculleywr]

Sex isn't just a physical union. It is a psychological, emotional, spiritual, and even divine union. I do not say divine in that God has sex. But God created sex and gave it to mankind. He gave us a beautiful gift that we have the responsibility of respecting.

The evidence that sex is not just physical is all around us.

1. A child is molested for years before puberty. When he enters puberty, and his own sexual identity is formed, he sexualizes the abusive relationship with his molester, and later struggles with homosexuality. The homosexuality is a sin, but it is a result of a psychological trauma that must be treated before he can hope to overcome the sin of homosexuality. The psychological stress of sexual actions of another person is directly harmful to the child later in life.

2. A rape victim is probably the most poignant, and the saddest evidence of the non-physical component of sex. Were sex only physical, a rape victim would easily be able to overcome the shock and report it, because it would be the same as if she were physically assaulted without rape. But a woman knows that something precious is missing. If she is not married, she can no longer fully give everything to her husband, because that was stolen from her. If she is married, then the gift she had given her husband has been ripped out of her hands, and stomped on the ground.

Both of these examples shows the seriousness of sex. It is something to be approached with reverence, and protected. It is not some tool to gain power, or some toy to be played with. It is a sacred gift of God, and we should treat it as such.

My son, hold fast to wisdom
And incline your ear to my words,
2 That you may guard good thinking;
And I command you with the perception of my lips.
3 Do not join yourself to a base woman,
For honey drips from the lips of a prostitute,
Or for a season she is pleasing to your taste;
4 Afterward, however, you will find her more bitter than gall
And sharper than a two- edged sword.
5 For feet lacking discernment lead those using her down into Hades with death;
Her footsteps are not planted,
6 For she does not travel the ways of life;
And her paths are slippery and not easy to discern.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Sex isn't just a physical union. It is a psychological, emotional, spiritual, and even divine union. I do not say divine in that God has sex. But God created sex and gave it to mankind. He gave us a beautiful gift that we have the responsibility of respecting.

The evidence that sex is not just physical is all around us.

1. A child is molested for years before puberty. When he enters puberty, and his own sexual identity is formed, he sexualizes the abusive relationship with his molester, and later struggles with homosexuality. The homosexuality is a sin, but it is a result of a psychological trauma that must be treated before he can hope to overcome the sin of homosexuality. The psychological stress of sexual actions of another person is directly harmful to the child later in life.

So homosexuality is the product of molestation? The thing is, is that not all people who are molested are gay, and not all homosexuals have had psychological trauma in their past.

 

[seeingeyes]

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.

No, you didn't.

 

[seeingeyes]

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.

My own thought on this is that while there may be some pie in the sky "ideal" of marriage, I don't actually think that the "ideal" is ideal. Your wife's faithful and generous cooperation is marriage. And it's beautiful.

Marriage is always about two broken people coming together and sorting through their baggage and bitterness and expectations enough to show love for each other and build something together.

Maybe two virgins who plopped out of the sky five minutes ago could have this "ideal" baggageless marriage, but I honestly wouldn't pay two cents for their advice.

None of this is to say that our decisions before marriage are unimportant, of course, but don't discount what you have when it looks so much like the grace of our Lord.

 

[tturt]

posted: Maybe two virgins who plopped out of the sky five minutes ago could have this "ideal" baggageless marriage, but I honestly wouldn't pay two cents for their advice.

Interesting statement considering that many in previous generations weren't experienced and the divorce rate was very low compared to today.

 

[seeingeyes]

Interesting statement considering that many in previous generations weren't experienced and the divorce rate was very low compared to today.

Virgins have baggage.

And the divorce rate would have been higher if it had been legal, I have no doubt.

 

[Nickybobby]

Virgins have baggage.

And the divorce rate would have been higher if it had been legal, I have no doubt.

Indeed! The graphic below shows the increase in divorce rates when "no fault" divorce became the norm in the US. The recent downward trend would likely be attributed to declining marriage rates.

 

[seeingeyes]

Indeed! The graphic below shows the increase in divorce rates when "no fault" divorce became the norm in the US. The recent downward trend would likely be attributed to declining marriage rates.

There are no "good old days" for the human heart.

I wouldn't say that a marriage was a success just because it lasted a long time, or because it ended in death. Plenty of folks hate each other till death do us part, and I can't imagine that that was any different when marriages were held together tighter by economic inequalities and legal force.

 

[Nickybobby]

There are no "good old days" for the human heart.

I wouldn't say that a marriage was a success just because it lasted a long time, or because it ended in death. Plenty of folks hate each other till death do us part, and I can't imagine that that was any different when marriages were held together tighter by economic inequalities and legal force.

I don't disagree with you on this. I do, however, think that many marriages which end in divorce under the modern method might have been salvaged if they couple were not given the "easy out" option. By salvaged, I mean restored and perhaps made stronger. Obviously this wouldn't be the case for all, but for some.

 

[seeingeyes]

I don't disagree with you on this. I do, however, think that many marriages which end in divorce under the modern method might have been salvaged if they couple were not given the "easy out" option. By salvaged, I mean restored and perhaps made stronger. Obviously this wouldn't be the case for all, but for some.

I've never heard anyone say that their divorce was easy.

 

[Nickybobby]

I've never heard anyone say that their divorce was easy.

It's all anecdotal anyway, but I have known several.

 

[Sayre]

There are no "good old days" for the human heart.

I wouldn't say that a marriage was a success just because it lasted a long time, or because it ended in death. Plenty of folks hate each other till death do us part, and I can't imagine that that was any different when marriages were held together tighter by economic inequalities and legal force.

I agree with the sentiment. Not getting divorced in the eyes of the law is not necessarily a success.

There are so many people I believe have broken their marriage - and yet remained in legal marriage of the government. God is not fooled.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'd be really curious to see a study of a social group with an environment conditioned by

1. a state with no-fault divorce
and
2. a church that strongly discourages divorce for any reason other than abuse or infidelity

with the study aiming at finding any correlation between premarital sex (or not) and divorce (or not).

Essentially, the question would be: Is there any correlation between rates of premarital sex and rates of divorce, and for what reasons, among churchgoing persons who largely do not believe in no-fault divorce but may practice it?

Someone contact the Harvard Sociology Department.