Sex and marriage? Evangelicals conflicted

[NAB]

Sooo....evangelicals have realized that people still have sex and no amount of bible banging makes it go away...and the solution is to get married earlier to avoid the urges. What a surprise. Don't use condoms though, sex is for procreation purposes ONLY!

Is that really relevant to the spirit of the topic soulra? Or are you going to go 'round the same old repetitive circle of religion/bible bashing once more instead of contributing anything new or meaningful to the discussion in a broader non-religious sense? Sure Evangelical leaders are conflicted, but obviously on the marry sooner or later, have sex before or wait issue, and nothing to do with the use of condoms or what the purpose of sex is (that should be totally obvious to anyone who is reasonably mature, .....religious, non-religious, or evolutionist alike), ...but that is not really the main issue IMO. You appear to have missed the real point for discussion here. This is about sex related to marriage, not related to recreation or for sale.

Nab

[hellomynameis]

Yabut... is it only Christian youth who face such conflict Hello...? Any more or less for example than anyone else?

Nab

I was responding to the article that you wanted feedback on which seemed to deal solely with the Christian perspective.

I'd say my group of close friends could be divided roughly into 50/50 Secular/Christian and in the conversations both my wife and I have had with our friends the Christian ones are far more vexed by the premarital sex issue. I'd even say it is practically a non-issue within in the secular group, however, surely there are a great many folk of all ages and religions (or lack of) that wrestle with this issue.

Any more or less? I'd say by default any religion that has tenants and/or a purported living God that disapproves of premarital sex can make it more... stressful? on its believers as it will always have a few more devices of discouragement on top of whatever ones a secular environment offers.

Anyway, the article you posted seems to focus on the problem of abstinence driving the issue of when to get married and since the 'abstinence until married' part of the equation isn't up for grabs:

Since 1 Corinthians 7:2 clearly includes sex before marriage in the definition of sexual immorality, all of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality as being sinful also condemn sex before marriage as sinful. Sex before marriage is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality. There are numerous Scriptures that declare sex before marriage to be a sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes complete abstinence before marriage. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God approves (Hebrews 13:4).

Then the whole bloody article is just a big hum and haw about when a young couple should get married. How about when you both want to? If that makes it extremely difficult in the hormone department then pray to God for some strength? And since you're a Christian (I'm suddenly ranting at the ppl in the article) and you know God will deliver than obviously you have nothing to worry about, unless he's testing you (AKA giving you what you need) again.

Sorry if that comes across as a poke at religion but the more I read that damned article the more I wonder what the point of it is or if it even has a point.

[steven lloyd]

Sex (of age and consensual) before marriage = good.

Sex (of age and consensual) after marriage = good.

Sex after second marriage = hopefully still good.

God ? If you're happy, He's happy.

Questions ?

[Queen K]

Sex (of age and consensual) before marriage = good.

Sex (of age and consensual) after marriage = good.

Sex after second marriage = hopefully still good.

Questions ?

Why only "hopefully"?

[steven lloyd]

Why only "hopefully"?

There's always gotta be a heckler in the crowd.

[hellomynameis]

Sex (of age and consensual) before marriage = good.

Sex (of age and consensual) after marriage = good.

Sex after second marriage = hopefully still good.

God ? If you're happy, He's happy.

Questions ?

Well that works great for the rest of us but those evangelicals are really stymied, apparently.

[subversionist]

I'm an evangelical and I'm not conflicted. I certainly believe there are many reasons to waiting for marriage to have sex.

Personally I made the decision to save myself for my wife and she for me and in our case I know our marriage is much better because of it.

As a result I have no worries she's comparing me to past partners, I believe we have a deeper level of trust than would have otherwise been, we had the joy of learning together , and I don't carry any guilt, regrets or second guesses about past relationships/girlfriends.

If you choose otherwise that is your right. Mock me all you want but I have no regrets about my decision. I wouldn't trade my happy marriage for some cheap thrills when I was young and foolish and had no clue what love really was.

PS: I would never encourage some to get married so they could have sex. Selfish motivation is always the wrong reason for marriage.

Anyways perhaps this post will stoke the discussion. Flame away!

[subversionist]

Sooo....evangelicals have realized that people still have sex and no amount of bible banging makes it go away...and the solution is to get married earlier to avoid the urges. What a surprise. Don't use condoms though, sex is for procreation purposes ONLY!

Soulra, your posts reveal a very narrowminded view of evangelicals and/or Christians.

Anyhow, in many areas of life it is better if we learn to control our urges. For instance, I have have regular cravings to indulge my appetite with Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Wendy's, etc. I'm glad I have devoped the restraint to not cave in to that urge whenever it comes up (I admit I do indulge in that crap occasionally). Just because we have certain cravings doesn't mean it's in our best interest to satisfy them.

[Nom_de_Plume]

Here's some advice my Granny gave me when I was 16. (she was born in 1915 just to give you an idea of what era she grew up in) Although our family isn't christian, so maybe that could be the reason for her views on sex before marriage.
She told me, don't buy a horse until you've checked his teeth and taken him for a ride.

[NAB]

Divorce Rates in Canada

Interesting graph Glacier. I wonder what the extension of those lines looks like if extended closer to the present and further back in time also. Still, it does make one wonder what the effect on social mores is related to age at which people get married (if that is the life route a couple choose of course).

Religious context aside, there is some real food for thought generated by that article IMO if one reads it in a more general way (excluding the religious connundrums) including, as you pointed out quoting the article...""Statistics show that few Americans wait (ie: avoid premarital sex). More than 93 percent of adults 18 to 23 who are in romantic relationships are having sex, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. For conservative Protestants in relationships and active in their faith, it's almost 80 percent.""

....I suspect it is not substantially different in Canada although we might be surprised. Also this quote seems telling as to modern trends in addition to the marriages rates declining while at the same time the divorce rates are increasing.. .....""The median age for first marriages in the U.S. is about 26 for women and 28 for men, the highest figures since the Census Bureau began counting."" I agree somewhat with those who define a "romantic relationship" as a form of test ground, although it seems to me there are far more important aspects than simply the sexual part that people have to have in common before a successful life long commitment can be expected. But there does seem to be some good arguments for getting married sooner (younger) and potentially reversing that trend.

Also, it makes me wonder about the trend related to attitudes toward marriage itself (and related old fashioned "commitment"), and whether it may be declining in importance as a lifetime goal for more and more folk. If so, that may explain why its relationship to the sexual aspect of relationships is seemingly becoming "conflicted", even seen as "recreational". After all, it seems that even having children, particularly large families, is losing its luster too? (raising kids is expensive, as well as interfering with our most "fun" years!) ...As well, what are folks thoughts as to which partner is more likely to drive the bus related to whether to wait until marriage or not, compared to which partner is more likely to see marriage (with or without producing children) as the objective?

Edit to add: It was very common "back in the day" of our parents or grandparents for a woman to get very nervous about her prospects for becoming an "old maid" if she didn't find someone to marry her by the time she was 21. While back then males seemed to "grow up" sooner than many seem to today

Edit further to add: Noted also on that graph that the divorce act of 1968 didn't seem to change the trends and ratios very much, perhaps even gave the concept of marriage a boost briefly (was that when it became easier to "gamble" that things could work out?), while the one of 1985 seemingly had the opposite effect. (That was when difficult economics took on an increased major roll in creating family/relationship problems). Trudeau of course was the primary architect of both situations.

Nab

[Glacier]

eta: my mistake on gender.

[Mr Danksworth]

Gramma was referring to a 'him'.

[Nom_de_Plume]

Um I don't think so, I'm female, this is advice she gave to "me"
which I took to mean, don't marry any bloke before trying him out
we actually did the handfast year and a day thing (ya know that ceremony that happens on mayday?)
first
Then actually got married

[Piecemaker]

Divorce Rates in Canada

Edit further to add: Noted also on that graph that the divorce act of 1968 didn't seem to change the trends and ratios very much, perhaps even gave the concept of marriage a boost briefly (was that when it became easier to "gamble" that things could work out?), while the one of 1985 seemingly had the opposite effect. (That was when difficult economics took on an increased major roll in creating family/relationship problems). Trudeau of course was the primary architect of both situations.

Nab

Actually there was an immediate increase in divorce after 1968 and within about 5 years the rate reached the level it hovers at today. There was no "boost to the concept of marriage", the baby-boomers were merely coming of age to marry. That may also account for the spike in divorces in the mid 80s.
The increased marriages you mention, would also include those now able to divorce due to the Act changes in 1968 and free them to re-marry. That would cause a bit of a burp in the graph. As well, the Divorce Act of 1985 made divorce easier to obtain and no doubt many of the divorces during that time were of couples already "divorced" except for the legalities. The difficulty with such a graph is that it does not differentiate between first marriages and subsequent ones and really give any answers with regard to the OP.
Whether or not a marriage lasts has more to do with the couple's commitment to each other and to the marriage than when they started their sexual relationship with each other. It is somewhat typical of religions to get hung up on "behaviour" rather than focus on spirituality.

[NAB]

Perhaps. ....I suspect there were many factors that in combination resulted in brief "blips" in both marriage and divorce when the divorce act was amended. Still, the graphs clearly show that the divorce rate has increased in Canada over the period, and the marriage rate has declined, while up to the early seventies the relationship between the two was fairly constant. That is interesting when related to reports that, at least in the US, the average age at which folk marry (26 for females, 28 for males?) is currently the highest it has been since they started gathering the data. Of course, US data does not necessarily mean Canadian results were similar.

Presumably that (marrying for the first time much later in life) could lead to increased incidence of premarital sex as a general "phenomena" among the under 30 demographic? Of course I can only speculate as to any correlation that may exist between those factors and resulting life long "commitment" between partners, or whether sex or marriage even plays a major role in it, ....particularly because of the presence of so many other factors that may be causing people to delay getting married, even deciding whether to or not, or even to have children (or take a chance on having them), whether before or after marriage. Or for that matter not bothering with the marriage part of it at all if marriage itself is seen by a substantial and growing majority (both religious or non-religious) to carry no significant personal benefits for either partner any more? And of course the older we get ( say related to second or more marriages) it is often questioned whether marrying again is even wise, even with a pre-nuptial agreement.

Nab