Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then I posit that pre-marital sex is NOT a sin because times have changed. Here's my logic.
Christians love to claim that polygamy, though "allowed" by God, was never part of his plan. So He allowed it because in times of war and male dominated societies, women needed places to live and so sometimes being part of sister wives was a "necessary evil". However, this is faulty logic and can be applied to de-criminalize pre-marital sex for the same reasons.
We no longer live in times where women have no rights. Women are independent, and do not rely on men to take care of them (the way they used to have that survival need back in OT times). So, with this being the case, polygamy is no longer a necessary evil. Ok, so we are on the same page. But, if times have changed, then that also means that because of women's independence, they no longer are property of their family to become property of their husband. Women are not bought and sold anymore. No more dowries.
Because of the above, a woman cannot bring shame to her father's house for not being a ready virgin when he gives her up to the prospective husband. In those days, women's rights were that of being property, so virginity was expected or else shame would be brought upon the family. But this is no longer the case. Few father are *ashamed* of their daughters not being virgins. Sure, one could say as a father that they expect their daughter to be pure or at the very least not promiscuous, but there aren't many fathers these days that will publicly shame their daughter for not holding up the virginity standard.
Also, because of women's rights and societal developments, arranged marriages are no longer necessary. So this again takes the whole "women who are virgins are more valuable" stigma away, since arranged marriages are not practiced in Western society, kind of how polygamy isn't. So, a woman's value is not determined by her virginity, so her prospective husband would probably not care if the father of his bride didn't give him a virgin.
With this being the case, wouldn't it make sense to stop calling pre-marital sex a sin since society has no need for virginity, being that we have adopted new standards and have discarded old norms like dowries and polygamy?
I see this logic used to call polygamy a sin. I use it to stop calling pre-marital sex a sin. If one can argue that polygamy was a necessary evil because of how difficult it was to be a single woman back then, couldn't we argue that pre-marital sex could be necessary in today's environment considering how high the divorce rate is and how fast horny Christians rush into marriage without truly taking the time to see if they are compatible on ALL levels?
I just find this moral relativism used by certain Christians to be horribly hypocritical, so I want to give some of them a taste of their own medicine. Because after all, how much sense does it make to say that God allowed something back then because the times were different and then to turn around and say that He can't allow something NOW for the same reason?
Interesting argument that does kinda turn the tables a bit....Probably not bible based enough for most of the traditionalists here though....(awaits Traditionalists posting a flock of premarital sex studies related to divorce or verses that ultimately have little or nothing to do with premarital sex)....This will be fun...
Interesting argument that does kinda turn the tables a bit....Probably not bible based enough for most of the traditionalists here though....(awaits Traditionalists posting a flock of premarital sex studies related to divorce or verses that ultimately have little or nothing to do with premarital sex)....This will be fun...
I don't use the argument because it's Bible based. Kind of how traditionalists don't use the Bible for their anti-polygamy argument, either.
Then I posit that pre-marital sex is NOT a sin because times have changed. Here's my logic.
Christians love to claim that polygamy, though "allowed" by God, was never part of his plan. So He allowed it because in times of war and male dominated societies, women needed places to live and so sometimes being part of sister wives was a "necessary evil". However, this is faulty logic and can be applied to de-criminalize pre-marital sex for the same reasons.
We no longer live in times where women have no rights. Women are independent, and do not rely on men to take care of them (the way they used to have that survival need back in OT times). So, with this being the case, polygamy is no longer a necessary evil. Ok, so we are on the same page. But, if times have changed, then that also means that because of women's independence, they no longer are property of their family to become property of their husband. Women are not bought and sold anymore. No more dowries.
Because of the above, a woman cannot bring shame to her father's house for not being a ready virgin when he gives her up to the prospective husband. In those days, women's rights were that of being property, so virginity was expected or else shame would be brought upon the family. But this is no longer the case. Few father are *ashamed* of their daughters not being virgins. Sure, one could say as a father that they expect their daughter to be pure or at the very least not promiscuous, but there aren't many fathers these days that will publicly shame their daughter for not holding up the virginity standard.
Also, because of women's rights and societal developments, arranged marriages are no longer necessary. So this again takes the whole "women who are virgins are more valuable" stigma away, since arranged marriages are not practiced in Western society, kind of how polygamy isn't. So, a woman's value is not determined by her virginity, so her prospective husband would probably not care if the father of his bride didn't give him a virgin.
With this being the case, wouldn't it make sense to stop calling pre-marital sex a sin since society has no need for virginity, being that we have adopted new standards and have discarded old norms like dowries and polygamy?
I see this logic used to call polygamy a sin. I use it to stop calling pre-marital sex a sin. If one can argue that polygamy was a necessary evil because of how difficult it was to be a single woman back then, couldn't we argue that pre-marital sex could be necessary in today's environment considering how high the divorce rate is and how fast horny Christians rush into marriage without truly taking the time to see if they are compatible on ALL levels?
I just find this moral relativism used by certain Christians to be horribly hypocritical, so I want to give some of them a taste of their own medicine. Because after all, how much sense does it make to say that God allowed something back then because the times were different and then to turn around and say that He can't allow something NOW for the same reason?
No. Premarital sex was immoral then, and it is immoral now.
I see this logic used to call polygamy a sin. I use it to stop calling pre-marital sex a sin. If one can argue that polygamy was a necessary evil because of how difficult it was to be a single woman back then, couldn't we argue that pre-marital sex could be necessary in today's environment considering how high the divorce rate is and how fast horny Christians rush into marriage without truly taking the time to see if they are compatible on ALL levels?
I just find this moral relativism used by certain Christians to be horribly hypocritical, so I want to give some of them a taste of their own medicine. Because after all, how much sense does it make to say that God allowed something back then because the times were different and then to turn around and say that He can't allow something NOW for the same reason?
Fun facts: If neither partner in a marriage ever engaged in premarital sex, the chances of either of them contracting AIDS or any other STD are so close to zero that it's barely worth mentioning. (There still might be a blood transfusion from a source that was poorly screened and that sort of thing.) Women who do not voluntarily engage in premarital sex are vastly less likely to become an unwed (and statistically speaking, never to be wed) mother.
People who engaged in premarital sex tend to be far less satisfied with the sexual relationships with their marriage partners. Those who do not engage in premarital sex have greater sexual and overall marital satisfaction and are less likely to divorce. This flies in the face of the myth that "You can't know if you are sexually compatible unless you have had sex with other people." And that myth logically leads to, "The more sexual partners the better." which creates an atmosphere where STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortion and child neglect flourishes. Those who have engaged in premarital sex are far more likely to cheat on their spouse. Children born to unmarried parents, even those who choose to cohabitate indefinitely, experience significantly lower levels of personal wellness and significantly higher levels of instability issues.
Ultimately, I think the onus is on the OP to demonstrate that premarital sex does not have any negative consequences. It is up to the OP and those advocating for premarital sex to prove that there is in fact some benefit in engaging in it.
You are welcome to call me old fashioned. On this issue, the stakes are too high. Damage done to children and to the health of future marriages is a very very big deal.
Fun facts: If neither partner in a marriage ever engaged in premarital sex, the chances of either of them contracting AIDS or any other STD are so close to zero that it's barely worth mentioning. (There still might be a blood transfusion from a source that was poorly screened and that sort of thing.) Women who do not voluntarily engage in premarital sex are vastly less likely to become an unwed (and statistically speaking, never to be wed) mother.
People who engaged in premarital sex tend to be far less satisfied with the sexual relationships with their marriage partners. Those who do not engage in premarital sex have greater sexual and overall marital satisfaction and are less likely to divorce. This flies in the face of the myth that "You can't know if you are sexually compatible unless you have had sex with other people." And that myth logically leads to, "The more sexual partners the better." which creates an atmosphere where STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortion and child neglect flourishes. Those who have engaged in premarital sex are far more likely to cheat on their spouse. Children born to unmarried parents, even those who choose to cohabitate indefinitely, experience significantly lower levels of personal wellness and significantly higher levels of instability issues.
Ultimately, I think the onus is on the OP to demonstrate that premarital sex does not have any negative consequences. It is up to the OP and those advocating for premarital sex to prove that there is in fact some benefit in engaging in it.
You are welcome to call me old fashioned. On this issue, the stakes are too high. Damage done to children and to the health of future marriages is a very very big deal.
Did you forget to post the links to the sources that back up those claims?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
