Sex outside of marriage?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

As suggested by brucegdc on the Christianity board, I would like to pose the direct question:

Is sex outside of marriage wrong, and why? I know christianity frowns heavily on fornication but I am unaware of any biblical reasoning behind this. What are the points of view of the various religions?


As a buddhist I know of no spiritual reason why sex in marriage is any more acceptable than sex outside of marriage as it is a samsaric pleasure either way.

[path_of_one]

From an historical and cross-cultural anthropological perspective, I would wager that sex outside marriage has been frowned upon by religions such as Judaism and Christianity because of inheritance and support issues. I realize that isn't a religious answer, nor is it how most Christians would answer. But looking at the cross-cultural data, it is very apparent that the more a population is concerned with property inheritance, especially through the male line, the more it is concerned with ensuring all women only bear children to the men to whom they are married. Another chief concern is, in the old days (Biblical times), it would have been really rough for an unmarried woman to support children. So there was a societal need, in the absence of reliable birth control, to keep unmarried women from getting pregnant.

Personally, I have not worked through how I feel about Christianity's views on sexuality. Traditionally, there has been a double standard in Western culture for women vs. men on this issue, and I disagree very much with this. I also have problems with thinking that sex is only for procreation. It seems like it is much more for intimacy between partners, for bonding, than it is just for procreation. It seems repressive and depressing to me to think of sexual intimacy as merely for producing kids.

Because I am not a Biblical literalist, I am aware that much of the rules about sexuality relate to societal needs, and quite frankly, society has changed a lot. I know quite a few very happy and stable couples who never got married- some of them have been together ten or fifteen years at this point. I do believe there are benefits to having sex within a committed, intimate, trustworthy, and loving relationship. However, I am well aware that a relationship like that does not necessitate marriage, and marriages are frequently performed for much less lofty reasons. I never could understand why having the U.S. government give you a piece of paper made things right in God's eyes, so I'm not the best person to comment on the religious aspect of this.

I'm sure someone else will chime in here from the more traditional religious/spiritual aspect of the question.

[arthra]

What are the points of view of the various religions?

In the Baha'i faith the issue of sexual relations outside marriage is very clear:

"Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage; according to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse. The Bahá'í youth should, on the one hand, be taught the lesson of self- control which, when exercised, undoubtedly has a salutary effect on the development of character and of personality in general, and on the other should be advised, nay even encouraged, to contract marriage while still young and in full possession of their physical vigour. Economic factors, no doubt, are often a serious hindrance to early marriage, but in most cases are only an excuse, and as such should not be overstressed."

(From a letter dated 13 December 1940 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)

Shoghi Effendi (1896-1957) was the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith and his interpretations of the Baha'i Writings are still in effect and accepted as athoritative and binding.

The above excerpt is from a larger compilation on "A Chaste and Holy Life" found at:

http://bahai-library.com/compilations/chaste.life.html

You'll also notice two areas of the above quote that I think are important:

(1) "The Bahá'í youth should, on the one hand, be taught the lesson of self- control which, when exercised, undoubtedly has a salutary effect on the development of character and of personality in general..."

There is no monastic life in the Baha'i Faith as in some earlier dispensations but nonetheless Baha'is are expected to live chaste lives and behave according to moral standards.... The emphasis on controlling the sexual impulse is explained as character building and important to the developemnet of the personality.

(2) "...on the other should be advised, nay even encouraged, to contract marriage while still young and in full possession of their physical vigour. Economic factors, no doubt, are often a serious hindrance to early marriage, but in most cases are only an excuse, and as such should not be overstressed."

A problem that is apparent in many modern societies is that young people cannot contract marriages due say to economics or career choices so marriage is delayed... Many will not marry until completion of higher education.

In a prospective future Baha'i society whenever this will be..we're unsure, but earlier marriages will be encouraged as well as greater self-sufficiency at a younger age. The Baha'i age of maturity is fifteen years.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

From an historical and cross-cultural anthropological perspective, I would wager that sex outside marriage has been frowned upon by religions such as Judaism and Christianity because of inheritance and support issues.

I absolutely agree - it's imporant to remember that there was absolutely no application of "social security" of any form until modern times, and that many of the responsibilities now taken on board by "the State" - not least protect of the rights and care of individuals - used to be the sole responsibility of the head of household.

Sex - and consequent procreation - outside of marriage in such societies created people outside of social protection, and no doubt would have been a factor in proscriptions against such involvements.

[KnightoftheRose]

Christianity is pretty clear that extra-marital relations are forbidden. Paul, in particular, spends some time discussing marriage. You'll notice in particular, that he says, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." It doesn't take much logic to deduce from there that extra-marital relations equate to "sexual immorality". On top of all that, "fornication" is sex outside of marriage, and you'll find that is always referred to as sinful.

The reason for this seems pretty obvious to me; if two totally undevoted people come together, the guy knocks up the girl - who's going to take care of the child? The woman, obviously, and perhaps her family, if they are kind. That's something of a "double-standard", wouldn't you say? The man gets all the gratification and the woman ends up with all the consequences. That's why marriage is necessary - it forces responsibility on both adults (and, I believe that's why divorce is so frowned upon by Jesus - so that the husband can't cop out after he impregnates his wife) - and why sex outside of marriage is wrong.

'Course, the reasoning behind fornication's sinfulness could be much simpler - God says not to, so we don't. *shrugs*

[KnightoftheRose]

I know quite a few very happy and stable couples who never got married- some of them have been together ten or fifteen years at this point. I do believe there are benefits to having sex within a committed, intimate, trustworthy, and loving relationship. However, I am well aware that a relationship like that does not necessitate marriage, and marriages are frequently performed for much less lofty reasons. I never could understand why having the U.S. government give you a piece of paper made things right in God's eyes, so I'm not the best person to comment on the religious aspect of this.

Jesus himself makes it pretty clear that when two people come together and "know" each other in the Biblical sense, they become as one, and are therefore married. Remember the woman of Samaria? Jesus said, "Go, call your husband and come here." Then she says, "I have no husband." Then Jesus says, "You are right in saying, I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true." This woman was either a prostitute or rather loose, and she had relations with five men before her current one. Each man was her husband, including her current one, though they hadn't married her in the formal sense.

The point being, the moment you have sex with someone, you are, in God's eyes, married.

[bananabrain]

it's important to remember that there was absolutely no application of "social security" of any form until modern times, and that many of the responsibilities now taken on board by "the State" - not least protect of the rights and care of individuals - used to be the sole responsibility of the head of household.

actually, brian, that's where you're wrong, certainly in the case of judaism and probably elsewhere too.

for a start, let's go right back to leviticus 19:9-10:

"Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am HaShem your G!D."

i believe this is more or less self-explanatory. similarly, verse 34:

"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am HaShem your G!D."

and, in terms of the "socially excluded", exodus 22:22:

"You shall not afflict any widow or orphan"

not to mention deuteronomy 10:18, 14:29. 24:17, 24:19-21. and if the pshat isn't sufficiently clear, the oral Law makes it abundantly clear that these rights for the socially vulnerable are enforceable in court. likewise, the obligations to give to charity, be hospitable and so on, are explicitly outlined and discussed:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mishnah_Peah_1:1

in fact, if you go into the detail and study the extra obligations imposed by the Gemara and the later authorities, this reveals that the sages were anxious - some might even say overly so - to provide social care for the marginalised: not from some "head of the household", but from the community in general and at large, specifically to prevent it becoming patronage-based.

now - sex outside marriage. actually, this is seen as a slightly different issue. firstly, jewish law does not discriminate against children born outside marriage as long as the union of the parents had they wanted to get married, would have been allowed. however, it was - and remains - decidedly frowned upon for people to go from one relationship to another and engage in casual sex. nonetheless, it is clear from a study of the texts involved that this sort of thing was happening even 2000 years ago precisely because rabbinic prohibitions are generally for things which aren't explicitly forbidden; in other words, they don't bother forbidding things that people don't normally do. even nowadays, some form of sex before marriage, if not tacitly condoned, is certainly acknowledged to be common, even amongst the fairly observant - so much so, that there is a phenomenon in new york known as the "tefillin date" - in other words, you take your tefillin on the date because you know you're going to need them in the morning and you won't have woken up in your own bed!

like brian points out, the vast majority of the prohibitions are aimed at preventing children being born to parents who are not permitted to marry, because this status has very unpleasant consequences. for the same reason, it is important that divorces are correctly carried out.

it is also important, by the way, to recognise that because a woman did not belong to a man, that did not prevent her from operating as a household in her own right. women could inherit - as established by the daughters of zelophechad - and could own and operate businesses. they were not chattels.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

Some in the Jewish Renewal community support polyamory but in general liberal Judaism (and I realize now that since this is very much a British site I should make clear that by liberal I simply mean "not Orthodox") is similar to what BB said.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

like brian points out, the vast majority of the prohibitions are aimed at preventing children being born to parents who are not permitted to marry, because this status has very unpleasant consequences. for the same reason, it is important that divorces are correctly carried out.

it is also important, by the way, to recognise that because a woman did not belong to a man, that did not prevent her from operating as a household in her own right. women could inherit - as established by the daughters of zelophechad - and could own and operate businesses. they were not chattels.

So- the big question... If the injunctions against sex outside marriage in Judaism and Christianity primarily arose to avoid undesired pregnancy and/or to ensure, as Knight describes, that men lived up to their responsibilities with children, is the injunction still relevant in an age of birth control and legal rights?

It's an interesting question to me, because after studying anthropology I've learned there is a huge diversity in family structures, marriage, and sexual relationships in the world, and this diversity is currently increasing in our own society. One big problem in our own society, if you're preaching abstinence, is that it is just a whole different ball game from 100 years ago. It used to be that people were frequently married off right after puberty, which used to be about 17 years of age. Now puberty is often as young as 10 years of age, but age at first marriage is (on average) 26. No wonder abstinence isn't working for a lot of people.

I suppose if you are a Biblical literalist, you've still got Paul arguing for celebacy, but quite frankly, I never really understood Paul's argument there. Sex, at least within marriage, is a wonderful gift of bonding from God, in my opinion. I never understood why Paul had such a problem with it. Well... I have some ideas, but they are not Biblical and are a bit inflammatory, so I'll keep them to myself.

[truthseeker]

Though the times are different, the same principles still hold. Sexual activity resulting in illegitimate children is still unpleasant - even if the government has figured out ways to care for these single parent families. The laws here in the states allow unmarried parents to go wherever they want to but divorced parents must petition the court. A court can make a dead-beat parent pay to save the government money, but the court can not make the parent love or spend time with the child.

Self control is key. Self control will teach us to, even if we are having sex outside of marriage, make the best decisions about who we are sleeping with and the consequences there of. Pregnancy can result, so self control will allow us time to ask ourselves if this person we are about to roll around with would be someone you may want to have a family with. If not, then you might strongly consider keeping your britches on.

I think what Christianity attempts to do is grant some form of control (where there is little to none) for this matter by insisting that one is committing a distance from God by not controlling that urge and acting responsibly with it. After all, sex not only produces children. It can also dust up emotions and a sense of devotion that the partner may, or may not, share.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Pregnancy can result, so self control will allow us time to ask ourselves if this person we are about to roll around with would be someone you may want to have a family with. If not, then you might strongly consider keeping your britches on.

You've got me laughing, but yes, this was my standard. Of course, I married very young and so got around the problem as it were. One must admit though that the chance of becoming pregnant in these days of multiple methods of contraception are quite low.

This is still somewhat of a cultural thing though, specific to the US and some other cultures but not all. Iceland, for example, has a very high rate of sex outside marriage and single parents, and they accept it as normal and do fine financially, emotionally, etc. It is perfectly acceptable in Iceland to be a single parent, and families often have unmarried partners with kids from several different relationships. The capacity for diversity in human sexuality and marriage versus how one "should" behave is a fascinating question.

After all, sex not only produces children. It can also dust up emotions and a sense of devotion that the partner may, or may not, share.

I completely agree, and I think this is more of an issue today than having kids out of wedlock. There are, after all, ways to avoid having kids. But it can be a lot harder to avoid feelings that can occur with physical intimacy. I've seen them sneak up on people, and watched it really hurt some people.

[I, Brian]

Indeed, bb - there are specific proscriptions in Islam towards protecting the vulnerable in society, too, and it probably won't be too hard to find something within Christianity, too.

I guess my disctinction is that state-controlled social security is by its nature applied state-wide, and without prejudice towards social and cultural identity - whilst within religious proscriptions can represent something of an idealism not always realised in any particular local group, and where actually practiced to any significant degree, may perhaps have been more inclined to work within social groups on an exclusive basis, rather than inclusive.

Of course, there are generalisations here and perhaps there's a good discussion in its own right on social responsibilities across different faiths. I guess at least we agree on key factors of motivation, which is probably all I have time to contend at this moment in time.

[Chela]

When a man and woman unite, they become one in flesh. A very strong kamic bond forms.

Two people are Married when the "Mary" between them becomes one. Mary, or Mara, the Virgin of the Sea, are the Genesic waters of creation. Mary represents the sexual-regenerative aspect of ourselves, and when two people use "Mary" they become married, regardless of any profane or terristral law.

In reality, sex is marriage.

[bananabrain]

So- the big question... If the injunctions against sex outside marriage in Judaism and Christianity primarily arose to avoid undesired pregnancy and/or to ensure, as Knight describes, that men lived up to their responsibilities with children, is the injunction still relevant in an age of birth control and legal rights?

don't forget that the rationalisation of such laws is just that - the question is not whether they are relevant or not. the reason they are still in force is that we were *commanded* by G!D to observe them. even laws that we can no longer observe, such as eliminating amalek, are still in force, even if they are no longer operative. or, to explain this another way, you can eat pork and seafood as part of a healthy, balanced diet. we're still not allowed to. therefore, the reason we're not allowed to is not because of the rational arguments often adduced.

after studying anthropology I've learned there is a huge diversity in family structures, marriage, and sexual relationships in the world, and this diversity is currently increasing in our own society.

yes, but this diversity is far less evident within jewish society - albeit some concessions are made to the fact that most people no longer get married in their teens. rather than expect indefinite abstinence, judaism prefers that people get married and thus find a suitable environment in which this most holy of interactions can take place.

Self control is key. Self control will teach us to, even if we are having sex outside of marriage, make the best decisions about who we are sleeping with and the consequences there of.

exactly. and therefore, if a child is born outside of wedlock, the best solution to this is for the parents to rectify this situation by dam' well getting married and taking responsibility for their actions.

But it can be a lot harder to avoid feelings that can occur with physical intimacy. I've seen them sneak up on people, and watched it really hurt some people.

exactly! the sages also knew this and took it into account.

I guess my disctinction is that state-controlled social security is by its nature applied state-wide, and without prejudice towards social and cultural identity - whilst within religious proscriptions can represent something of an idealism not always realised in any particular local group, and where actually practiced to any significant degree, may perhaps have been more inclined to work within social groups on an exclusive basis, rather than inclusive.

on the contrary, leviticus 19:34. the "aliens among you" are just as entitled. it's just idolaters that are excluded and you'd be hard put to define anyone as that today without really being stringent and ignoring some of the authorities.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

don't forget that the rationalisation of such laws is just that - the question is not whether they are relevant or not. the reason they are still in force is that we were *commanded* by G!D to observe them. even laws that we can no longer observe, such as eliminating amalek, are still in force, even if they are no longer operative. or, to explain this another way, you can eat pork and seafood as part of a healthy, balanced diet. we're still not allowed to. therefore, the reason we're not allowed to is not because of the rational arguments often adduced.

This works well for the Jews, but what about all us Gentiles? That's what I'm getting at. It is apparent that the Jews were given the law, and so should abide by it. Christianity is another issue, because the vast majority of Christians are Gentiles with varying cultural backgrounds that often do not have much to do with the Jewish law.

yes, but this diversity is far less evident within jewish society - albeit some concessions are made to the fact that most people no longer get married in their teens. rather than expect indefinite abstinence, judaism prefers that people get married and thus find a suitable environment in which this most holy of interactions can take place.

My point is, though, as a Christian, what do we do with all these different cultures? As Judaism is a religion and a cultural heritage, it has more consistency between the two. Christianity, as a worldwide religion that arose from Judaism, has expanded into many diverse cultures that do not share the same characteristics. Furthermore, now Christianity is more wrapped up culturally with Western culture than Jewish culture. So should people change their cultural standards about things like marriage to fit with the Jewish cultural ideals laid out in the Bible, or the current Western cultural ideals, or ???

Maybe I just think about this stuff too much as an anthropologist.