Would you marry your partner if...

[Jedi]

It somewhat concerns me that so many young ladies here see sex as an expendable part of marriage. Their desire for sex must be incredibly low or they're just not thinking this through. No sex, girls. Are you really understanding this? It's such a critical part of marriage, even if it's not the all-in-all of the relationship. Most of the reasons here given by such people as to why they'd still marry this person is because they would love him, but this confusses the matter. You can still love the guy and not marry him.

The only justification I can see where a person would want to still marry someone with aids is if they loved this person so incredibly much that they are willing to die with them than live apart from them (like how Arwin loved Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, willing to forsake the immoratlity of the elves and die with her love than live apart from him). This being the case, I would have to be in this sort of love before I decided to forfeit my life to be with that special girl.

As for the first two situations, the first one is a no-brainer: I'd still marry her. The second situation is a bit more touchy, but as long as she had only bisexual urges from time to time and restisted them, not accepting them as a part of who she is, I could get over it.

 

[waterbear]

It somewhat concerns me that so many young ladies here see sex as an expendable part of marriage. Their desire for sex must be incredibly low or they're just not thinking this through. No sex, girls. Are you really understanding this? It's such a critical part of marriage, even if it's not the all-in-all of the relationship. Most of the reasons here given by such people as to why they'd still marry this person is because they would love him, but this confusses the matter. You can still love the guy and not marry him.

The only justification I can see where a person would want to still marry someone with aids is if they loved this person so incredibly much that they are willing to die with them than live apart from them (like how Arwin loved Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, willing to forsake the immoratlity of the elves and die with her love than live apart from him). This being the case, I would have to be in this sort of love before I decided to forfeit my life to be with that special girl.

As for the first two situations, the first one is a no-brainer: I'd still marry her. The second situation is a bit more touchy, but as long as she had only bisexual urges from time to time and restisted them, not accepting them as a part of who she is, I could get over it.

Not a lady, but I also said marriage without sex is acceptable. The scenario: you meet the perfect woman, you enjoy being around her, best friends, etc. You are both very attracted to each other. However, she has made a commitment to herself and/or God to remain a virgin, but otherwise agrees to be a competely devote spouse. I would not have a problem accepting this relationship, which means to me at least that sex isn't necessary for marriage.

Think of it as dating, only you're committed.

 

[Jedi]

Not a lady, but I also said marriage without sex is acceptable. The scenario: you meet the perfect woman, you enjoy being around her, best friends, etc. You are both very attracted to each other. However, she has made a commitment to herself and/or God to remain a virgin, but otherwise agrees to be a competely devote spouse. I would not have a problem accepting this relationship, which means to me at least that sex isn't necessary for marriage.

Think of it as dating, only you're committed.

Simply astounding - a guy who takes this position. Is sexual intimacy nothing to so many people here? Perhaps ignorance is bliss and you don't know what you're missing out on, even so, the desire for such intimacy should possess a significant amount of potency within you.

Realistically, I could not marry someone without the sexual intimacy being a part of it. This was God's plan for marriage, so there's no way I could possibly be labeled as "shallow" (how is desiring God's plan "shallow?"). If I loved someone that much, I would want to be as close to them as possible, and the refusal of sex would be essentially "pushing away" the other partner, not allowing the relationship to grow as intimate as it could. The potential for intimacy in mere snuggling and talking is great, yet the potential for intimacy in sex is so much greater.

 

[Godsgirl481]

I don't think it was really meant as an insult but more what he wants out of his life.. for himself, he wants biological children, and he did disclaimer himself by saying maybe this sounds selfish.

I do know some people who want biological children and won't have it any other way. Its not meant in any mean sense but simply what they want personally out of their lives. I don't think its meant to descriminate against anyone who can't have children..

Its just like people who don't *want* children.. they wouldn't probably marry someone who wants children, that wouldn't be fair to *them* in what they want from life. Soemone who wants *biological* children probably wouldn't marry someone who *can't* have children because it wouldn't be fair to him (or her, there are men who cant father children either) in what he wants from life.

But I can empathize with how you feel, and I'm terribly sorry for what happened to you =\ I am sure you will have a beautiful family of God's creations someday

I understand. Maybe if I knew a guy wanted biological kids before I got into a relationship with him...then maybe it would be different. But I would be soooo very crushed if my boyfriend that I had already been dating and planned on marrying...decided not to marry me because I can't give him kids. I would LOVE to have kids of my own and to know what it is like to be preg. But I can't.

 

[waterbear]

Simply astounding - a guy who takes this position. Is sexual intimacy nothing to so many people here? Perhaps ignorance is bliss and you don't know what you're missing out on, even so, the desire for such intimacy should possess a significant amount of potency within you.

Realistically, I could not marry someone without the sexual intimacy being a part of it. This was God's plan for marriage, so there's no way I could possibly be labeled as "shallow" (how is desiring God's plan "shallow?"). If I loved someone that much, I would want to be as close to them as possible, and the refusal of sex would be essentially "pushing away" the other partner, not allowing the relationship to grow as intimate as it could. The potential for intimacy in mere snuggling and talking is great, yet the potential for intimacy in sex is so much greater.

We have different notions of commitment perhaps. I don't view strong personal commitments as something that you can back out of as reality changes, or in this case as someone else enters your life. They are a part of who you are IMO. So I wouldn't see refusal in this sense as being pushed away, rather both of us accepting reality as one of us has defined it.

I think the real initmacy in a relationship is more the exclusiveness of the relationship, the trust/openness and above all the devotion. It's because of devotion reasons that I only date virgins, yet don't require sex in a marriage - a virgin has shown lifelong devotion to his/her partner at some level, and I think it's enough for my spouse to say if she were to have sex with anyone that it would be me than to actually have sex with me, it's intimate either way

 

[evesummernight]

1.) You found out he/she was sterile?

2.) You found out he/she was bisexual?

3.) You found out he/she had AIDS?

1) sure... adoption is absolutely beautiful... minus the fact it's friggan expensive... if i can't bring another kid into the world... i'll take care of those kids that young moms bring into existance...

2) yeah... i mean, you can be bisexual, wouldn't bother me all that much... and chose only to date the opposite sex... i've been attracted to guys and girls... but i've always, always decided that i want a girl, that even if she was, could only imagine herself in the arms of a man for the rest of her life... sin, yes, we all do, so, being bisexual is just the past of youthful, ignorant living, sometimes... but regardles... love them for them...

3) aids? maybe... that's a really weird question if you don't mind me saying... that's like saying terminal cancer... i guess the point of this question for me... is... could i marry not for sex... and the answer is yes... obviously... it's so not as important as i'd wish it would be in alot of people today...

waiiiiit...

 

[fishstix]

Not a lady, but I also said marriage without sex is acceptable. The scenario: you meet the perfect woman, you enjoy being around her, best friends, etc. You are both very attracted to each other. However, she has made a commitment to herself and/or God to remain a virgin, but otherwise agrees to be a competely devote spouse. I would not have a problem accepting this relationship, which means to me at least that sex isn't necessary for marriage.

Think of it as dating, only you're committed.

I really don't think that a marriage without sex would be healthy for the couple. The Bible specifically says that it is important for married people to have sex with each other often, and if they both agree not to it should just be for a short time. If one of the two decides to remain a virgin then there isn't a marriage. A devoted friendship - yes, but a marriage - no. Sex isn't all there is to marriage, but it is an important part of marriage. The Bible says so.

 

[waterbear]

I really don't think that a marriage without sex would be healthy for the couple. The Bible specifically says that it is important for married people to have sex with each other often, and if they both agree not to it should just be for a short time. If one of the two decides to remain a virgin then there isn't a marriage. A devoted friendship - yes, but a marriage - no. Sex isn't all there is to marriage, but it is an important part of marriage. The Bible says so.

You can change what it's called if you like. What I'm describing would be a committed life-long relationship in which neither partner would have sex with anyone else, possibly adopt children together, and otherwise devotionally love each other (romantic love at that). I think it's more marriage-like than friendship-like in definition, but if that's not what the Bible considers marriage then my calling it such is indeed a misnomer

 

[horuhe00]

It somewhat concerns me that so many young ladies here see sex as an expendable part of marriage.

Definately. Let's put it this way... Marrage was made for sex. If you are not having sex with your partner, then you are not married. You are simply in the boyfriend/girlfriend thing. I'm no expert in the Bible but I'm sure it speaks of not having sex in a marage as something bad.

 

[JillLars]

Definately. Let's put it this way... Marrage was made for sex. If you are not having sex with your partner, then you are not married. You are simply in the boyfriend/girlfriend thing. I'm no expert in the Bible but I'm sure it speaks of not having sex in a marage as something bad.

Ok, so lets look at this argument. Mr. Smith (generic name) has erectile disfunction preventing him from performing his *marital duties* so to speak. So then he's not married and sinning against God?

Seriously people, keep in mind that there is an array of reasons that people can't have sex within marriage. What happens when you both turn 80 and one of you risks breaking a hip if you have sex, are you no longer married? What happens if your wife or husband experiences some other medical problem that prevents them from having sex, do you divorce them? I certainly hope not.

 

[fishstix]

Ok, so lets look at this argument. Mr. Smith (generic name) has erectile disfunction preventing him from performing his *marital duties* so to speak. So then he's not married and sinning against God?

If that condition existed right from the start of the marriage so that he never ever had sex with his wife then he would indeed be not married. In fact, at least one mainstream Christian church that I know of will not perform wedding ceremonies for couples who will never be able to consummate the marriage and will grant annulments (different from divorce) if it turns out that the couple never had sex. There are likely many churches that do that but 1 that I know for sure.

Seriously people, keep in mind that there is an array of reasons that people can't have sex within marriage. What happens when you both turn 80 and one of you risks breaking a hip if you have sex, are you no longer married? What happens if your wife or husband experiences some other medical problem that prevents them from having sex, do you divorce them? I certainly hope not.

If something happens after the couple is married then they have to live with it - part of the "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" thing. But this thread isn't about something happening during the marriage; it's about a pre-existing condition that comes to light before the wedding ceremony even happens.

 

[Jedi]

Seriously people, keep in mind that there is an array of reasons that people can't have sex within marriage.

These are extremely rare cases, save for the exception of old age, and by that time, the desire for sex has faded considerably.

What happens if your wife or husband experiences some other medical problem that prevents them from having sex, do you divorce them? I certainly hope not.

The marriage, however, will be significantly crippled. Simply because a marriage might hobble along on one leg with the absence of sex does not mean everything’s just fine.

 

[Godsgirl481]

These are extremely rare cases, save for the exception of old age, and by that time, the desire for sex has faded considerably.



The marriage, however, will be significantly crippled. Simply because a marriage might hobble along on one leg with the absence of sex does not mean everything’s just fine.

Who said that when men get old they loose their sex drive a lot? I know that it is not true to most men....please don't ask me how i know that though

 

[Jedi]

Who said that when men get old they loose their sex drive a lot? I know that it is not true to most men....please don't ask me how i know that though

Perhaps it's just a presupposition on my part - I just don't think of older couples going at it like rabbits like they did when they were young (a deteriorated sex drive). I sure don't hear older couples talking about sex near as often as younger couples, thus the appearance of a decreased drive with the increase of age.

 

[Godsgirl481]

actually...a man's sex drive goes on a graduial decrease until he reaches 60...then it is like he is a teenager again. The only problem with that is that women never regain their old sex drives...thanks to "the change"

 

[fishstix]

actually...a man's sex drive goes on a graduial decrease until he reaches 60...then it is like he is a teenager again. The only problem with that is that women never regain their old sex drives...thanks to "the change"

Some scientific studies indicate that as men age they also have hormone level changes somewhat analagous to menopause known as andropause. And one of the results can be a reduced sex drive. So both men and women have a change to deal with as they get older.

 

[Godsgirl481]

the old guys I know are abnormal then LOL.

 

[horuhe00]

the old guys I know are abnormal then LOL.

Yeah, and the old guys that are always sitting next to the escalaters in the malls.

 

[Godsgirl481]

haha...favorite past time of theirs

 

[horuhe00]

haha...favorite past time of theirs

Ive got to admit... Ive done that a couple of times before...