Sex Before Marriage

[s2a]

Hello dan,

You said (to another member):

"It's too bad you don't understand the sanctity or the importance of the act of love."

I've been married to the same (and one and only) woman for sixteen years. I am an atheist, she is an agnostic (both of us so before, and after exchange of our wedding vows).

"'sanctify' - verb
1: render holy by means of religious rites
2: make pure or free from sin or guilt"
Source: WordNet

When my wife and I make hot monkey love together, I assure you that we practice no religious rites, nor do we seek purification from sin or guilt (mutual gratification still being - after all these years - the primary goal). How does the "sanctity" of the "act of love" factor into a (sexually) happy and committed marriage amongst irreligious unbelievers?

The "act of love" serves our species in singular primary function (and intended effect); to generate more replacements of/for ourselves, a known mortal (and short-lived) species. Is there a greater "importance" for "the act of love" than that? Does Scripture suggest any greater "reason" for the "act of love" than reproduction itself (if so, please cite C&V as example)?

[Note: I was fully informed before our weeding that my wife would be biologiocally incapable of bearing children. I loved her more than any personal desire to be a father/parent.]

God "commands" both Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28), and eventually Noah (and his sons - Genesis 9:1) to be "fruitful and increase in number". What other scripturally referenced passage alludes to another "importance" in "the act of love"?

To be sure, God constrains who "may enter the assembly of the LORD"...

Deuteronomy 23:1-2

1) "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD."

Kinda harsh exclusion of certain wounded veterans, and victims of accident, don'tcha think? Secondarily, "the act of love" (if we're talking about sexual intercourse) is pretty much out of the question for those so afflicted - kinda rendering any "importance" of any prospective "act of love" rather moot (at least as far as procreation is concerned, never mind the prospects of just having fun).

2) "No one born of a forbidden (ie., one of illegitimate birth) marriage (children born of ******* child parent) nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation."

Kinda tough to have a sanctified marriage if you can't even go to church for some two hundred years, eh?

Let us not forget/exclude couples that choose to marry (again, or "first-timers") well into their eighties and nineties. What "importance" are they likely to embrace/find regarding an "act of love"? Procreation is certainly out of the question, and sexual intercourse is, well...possible, but kinda ugly to contemplate (and perhaps even contraindicated for health reasons).

I'll grant that "making love" can most assuredly promote and solidify intimacy and trust amongst married couples (which could be the most "important" aspect of all - but as such, certainly not confined/reserved merely for those of religious beliefs)...but makin' (really great) hot monkey love with your spouse rarely entails thoughts of any god (spontaneous exhortations of his generically named personage notwithstanding), religious ritual, sanctification, or (instilled/imposed) guilt/remorse. Only when sex is used as a means of manipulation/control/submission/subjugation is there an unseemly underbelly of attributable "sin", guilt, or remorse.

So please explain to me as one male spouse of an atheistically, monogamously, heterosexually happy couple enjoying an active sex-life of sixteen years and still going...just what is the correct perspective in lending proper reverence regarding both the "sanctity" and "importance" of/for "the act of love"? Can you present these arguments in a compelling fashion to non-believers?

[Second note: Statistics* reveal that the highest incidences of marital divorce are amongst couples that identify themselves as "Evangelical Christians" (as/in either pre or post-marriage), and that the lowest incidences are amongst those that identify themselves as "non-religious/atheist".
*Relevant credible sources producible upon request]

 

[Bishka]

Sex before marriage, eh? That's been flogged to death, by every and any religion, faith or belief.

1) We all have our own opinons on this subject, one is not better then the other. Yours will be better to you, because perhaps you can see something that no one else can see.

2) I don't believe in sex before marriage, now isn't that amazing a teenager who hasn't had sex. Golly gee wiz. Family units have been around as long as men and women have. They would have had to come from somewhere, some belief. I have read a lot of different scriptures and different things on this and I believe that an ultimate Creator made sex for marriage.

3) Just because it isn't written in your 'bible' or book of scripture does not mean it wasn't their in the beginning. Especially the Christian bible. There have been so many errors and mistranslations and omissions and additions to it, whose to know what it was originally.

4) I've seen marriages were the couples have had several partners beforehand and 90% of them aren't happy. Why, because both of them have other sexual partners and because the current spouse doesn't raise up to those so-called standards, they aren't happy. By having multiple sexual partners you are setting yourself up for dissapointment anyways.

5) I think it is a pretty neat and wonderful idea to save something so special for that one person. Think of it, there are many thing you can give this spouse, but you can also give those to other people, you can only give your virginity, your chasitity, your pure self to ONE person, that's it, after that it's gone, shouldn't this be the person you want to spent the rest of your life with.

6) Why should it be in marriage? I think marriage, as I have said, was ordained or put together by some ultimate creator, that creator made marriage and instituted the rules for it.

Interesting post. Do you have a name? I see that you are new? Washington, that's interesting.

 

[Bishka]

Hello dan,

You said (to another member):


I've been married to the same (and one and only) woman for sixteen years. I am an atheist, she is an agnostic (both of us so before, and after exchange of our wedding vows).

"'sanctify' - verb
1: render holy by means of religious rites
2: make pure or free from sin or guilt"
Source: WordNet

When my wife and I make hot monkey love together, I assure you that we practice no religious rites, nor do we seek purification from sin or guilt (mutual gratification still being - after all these years - the primary goal). How does the "sanctity" of the "act of love" factor into a (sexually) happy and committed marriage amongst irreligious unbelievers?

The "act of love" serves our species in singular primary function (and intended effect); to generate more replacements of/for ourselves, a known mortal (and short-lived) species. Is there a greater "importance" for "the act of love" than that? Does Scripture suggest any greater "reason" for the "act of love" than reproduction itself (if so, please cite C&V as example)?

[Note: I was fully informed before our weeding that my wife would be biologiocally incapable of bearing children. I loved her more than any personal desire to be a father/parent.]

God "commands" both Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28), and eventually Noah (and his sons - Genesis 9:1) to be "fruitful and increase in number". What other scripturally referenced passage alludes to another "importance" in "the act of love"?

To be sure, God constrains who "may enter the assembly of the LORD"...

Deuteronomy 23:1-2

1) "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD."

Kinda harsh exclusion of certain wounded veterans, and victims of accident, don'tcha think? Secondarily, "the act of love" (if we're talking about sexual intercourse) is pretty much out of the question for those so afflicted - kinda rendering any "importance" of any prospective "act of love" rather moot (at least as far as procreation is concerned, never mind the prospects of just having fun).

2) "No one born of a forbidden (ie., one of illegitimate birth) marriage (children born of ******* child parent) nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation."

Kinda tough to have a sanctified marriage if you can't even go to church for some two hundred years, eh?

Let us not forget/exclude couples that choose to marry (again, or "first-timers") well into their eighties and nineties. What "importance" are they likely to embrace/find regarding an "act of love"? Procreation is certainly out of the question, and sexual intercourse is, well...possible, but kinda ugly to contemplate (and perhaps even contraindicated for health reasons).

I'll grant that "making love" can most assuredly promote and solidify intimacy and trust amongst married couples (which could be the most "important" aspect of all - but as such, certainly not confined/reserved merely for those of religious beliefs)...but makin' (really great) hot monkey love with your spouse rarely entails thoughts of any god (spontaneous exhortations of his generically named personage notwithstanding), religious ritual, sanctification, or (instilled/imposed) guilt/remorse. Only when sex is used as a means of manipulation/control/submission/subjugation is there an unseemly underbelly of attributable "sin", guilt, or remorse.

So please explain to me as one male spouse of an atheistically, monogamously, heterosexually happy couple enjoying an active sex-life of sixteen years and still going...just what is the correct perspective in lending proper reverence regarding both the "sanctity" and "importance" of/for "the act of love"? Can you present these arguments in a compelling fashion to non-believers?

[Second note: Statistics* reveal that the highest incidences of marital divorce are amongst couples that identify themselves as "Evangelical Christians" (as/in either pre or post-marriage), and that the lowest incidences are amongst those that identify themselves as "non-religious/atheist".
*Relevant credible sources producible upon request]

You wouldn't understand because you have no clue how we view the process of procreation as sacred, even if we did tell, which I believe I have stated, you would just tear it apart, so I am not even going to try.

All I'll say is that God gave us these powers of procreation to create physical bodies for His spirit children. This is part of His divine plan, so procreation is sacred and a religious thing in my eyes. I must go to bed though, I'm tired and have church tomorrow.

 

[Draka]

s2a...:bow: :jam: :biglaugh:

Okay...goodnight now...just had to finish reading that post!

 

[s2a]

Well, that explains where you're coming from. Since we're all animals, if I ever have a chance to meet you I'll kill your kids and then rape you, hoping to impregnate you so my own genes may continue.

Hope that doesn't offend, but afterall, we're just animals.

Humans are animals that are self-aware, and as such, retain the capacity to employ reason and self-control in deference to the notion of equality in basic rights of existence. Your set course is available to you, but humanity has chosen to hold sccountable those who choose to operate outside of defined societal boundaries of acceptable behavior as it may adversly affect others. Be advised that humans are not the only self-aware animal species on the planet.

There are plenty of scriptures outlining sex as being saved for marriage.

Since there are "plenty", you are hereby invited to provide only five as support (subject to critical review, of course).

Adam was ordained directly by God and was married to Eve by God Himse

Neato. Please cite the exact C&V that records their marriage.

 

[Bishka]

Neato. Please cite the exact C&V that records their marriage.

We would love to, in the LDS temples in explains it, That's why we believe the way we believe. Please take our word for it, I can't say much more than that.

 

[s2a]

You wouldn't understand because you have no clue how we view the process of procreation as sacred, even if we did tell, which I believe I have stated, you would just tear it apart, so I am not even going to try.

Self-serving evasion. I readily outlined a non-religious perspective, of which you had no apparent incapacity to understand. Yours is nothing more than special pleading. Besides, you have no clue as to what my "understanding" of LDS tenants may be. My "understanding" may well surpass your own. Faith is about acceptance, not interpretational "understanding".

All I'll say is that God gave us these powers of procreation to create physical bodies for His spirit children. This is part of His divine plan, so procreation is sacred and a religious thing in my eyes. I must go to bed though, I'm tired and have church tomorrow.

Your pious adherence is noted, yet remains lacking in perspicuous enlightenment. The act of procreation is hardly limited (nor unique) to our species (in fact, most species are more successfully prolific than our own).

Just the same, thanks for attempting to answer for dan. I hope that he will provide a reply of greater substance than your own.

 

[s2a]

We would love to, in the LDS temples in explains it, That's why we believe the way we believe. Please take our word for it, I can't say much more than that.

I'm right.
You're wrong.
My personal understanding explains it.
You'll just have to take my word for it.

Not very illuminating, compelling, or persuasive, is it?

 

[dan]

No one is "defining" their "whole self" as a sexual being. However, as I have stated before, we are mammals, mammals have sex drives, it is nature. So to deny that sex drives exist is nonsense. Every animal has criteria for mating partners. Mating calls, dances, battles...there is a reason for this. The strongest buck gets the doe, the most colorful bird with the best song gets the female, and so on and so forth. Sex IS a driving force in our lives and to put on religious blinders does not change this fact.

I never said anything about religion in my post. Nor did I ever say that sex drives do not exist. All I'm saying is that if you feel your animal urges are the criteria that drive you in choosing a mate then your romantic relationships will be at the same level as an animal's. There will be no compatibility outside of your sex drive. Your paragraph right there tells me that you do define yourself as a purely sexual being.

You do NOT want to be in the same place at the same time sexually most of the time. You talk about growth together, well, by each having different experiences or tastes in sexual behaviour and likes each gets to experience different things and learn new things they might like better that may improve their intimacy and enjoyment of each other. The thing is...by "test driving" you not only get to find out sexually what is what between two people, but the constant closeness allows you to perhaps see things about the other that you would otherwise not find out until after marriage. Things that may be too difficult to overcome. Better to find out before you lock yourself into something that may be all to difficult to reconcile

.

If there is a quality that exists in your mate that is only manifested in the act of love and that quality would break up your relationship then your relationships are pretty freaking weak to begin with.

And what about those who are getting married and have sex before the ceremony? Why is the legallity of marriage so important to have between two loving partners? Why is it so hard to believe that a couple could remain together happily for many years or their whole lives and never get that peice of paper that says they are husband and wife? What about homosexuals who are currently denied the right to marry? What if they spend their entire lives together, faithful and loving? Should they never experience physically loving each other simply for the lack of a peice of paper? As for intimacy growing...refer to above response

.

Yeah, your above response shows me your idea of intimacy is pretty warped. I don't believe homosexuality really has a place in a discussion about the morality of pre-marital sex. Homosexuals violate the laws of nature and morals by practicing homosexuality. They also, too often, define themselves by their sexuality. Everyone has unnatural urges every now and then, but just because some chemicals mix in your body and make you want a certain thing does not mean that thing is right. To say a homosexual has the urge and is therefore justified is to justify every pedophile and incestual relationship ever engaged in. Certainly your anything-goes morals draw a line somewhere.

Marriage is a legal contract that two people enter into. If you're going to enter into that contract then you must respect the legality of it. I don't go taking stuff from a business or demanding services before I sign a contract. The same is true of marriage. If you don't respect the legality of marriage then why get married at all? I'm not offended by people doing what they want to do, so go have fun, but this thread is about whether or not you feel it's right. I'm letting you know how I feel, but I could care less what people do with their own time and their own bodies.

Someone will of course say that they know someone who got married as a virgin and their spouse was as well and that they were completely happy. Vice versa, you can find all varieties of relationships whether they have had pre-marital sex or not that have turned out all different ways. Doesn't make any circumstance a "ridiculous excuse" and for you to classify statements you don't agree with as that just shows your naivety about life in and of itself. Sex can be pivotal to a person and that doesn't make them defined by sex or sexually selfish. If sex is painful, unenjoyable, unfullfilling, and so on then that person will be unhappy in a part of their relationship. To be unhappy in a part of a relationship provides a strain on a relationship itself. Have a serious relationship and you will undoubtedly see this for yourself. Why in the world do you think there are so many marriage counselors and sex counselors everywhere if it weren't important?

There are so many counselors because many people have legitimate problems caused by forces outside their own control. I have a good friend that was sexually abused by a close friend from 12 to 14 years old. She spent a lot of time with a counselor and made a lot of progress, and she got married last year. She never slept with this guy before they got married and she is as happy as I have ever seen her. You mentioned that you could pick out someone who got married as a virgin and is happy. The statistics show that people who have sex before marriage are much more likely to divorce. I shall demonstrate on my next post.

 

[dan]

Here's a tidbit or two:

"Equally significant is the evidence that couples who live together before marriage are much more likely to get divorced than couples who do not. This has been found for couples in Sweden (Bennett, et al. 1987), in the U.S. (Booth and Johnson, 1988; Bumpass and Sweet, 1989) and Canada (Balakrishnan, et al., 1987; Watson and DeMeo, 1987; Hall. 1996; Wu and Penning. 1997). There is also evidence that cohabiting couples are less committed to marriage, more accepting of divorce, and more often from divorced families. (Southworth and Schwarz, 1987; Hobart and Grigel, 1992; Axinn and Thornton, 1992.) One study by Forste and Tanfer (1996) found that women who cohabited before getting married were more likely to “cheat” on their husband (that is, have a secondary sex partner) after marriage. In addition, Stets (1993) has found that previous cohabitation is linked with a lower quality in a current relationship; and that, in general, cohabiting couples have a lower-quality relationship than married couples. For example, “cohabiting women are almost five times as likely to suffer `severe violence' as married women” (Christensen, 1989b. p. 5). Huffman, et al. (1994) also report good evidence based on college students that “cohabiting women are at risk of physical violence,” in part because the male cohabiting student has a more accepting attitude toward rape. Because of the more than 3 million cohabiting couples, this evidence on vulnerability to violence needs to be much more widely known."

Here's more:

"Most couples who live together never end up getting married, but those who do tie the knot are almost twice as likely to divorce as couples who don't live together before marriage. Overall, the divorce rate of cohabiting couples is about eighty percent, and non-virgin brides are sixty percent more likely to end up divorced than women who enter marriage as virgins. Couples who cohabited prior to marriage have greater marital conflict and poorer communication, and they made more frequent visits to marriage counselors. Women who cohabited before marriage are more than three times as likely to cheat on their husbands within marriage. The US Justice Department found that women who cohabit are sixty-two times more likely to be assaulted by a live-in boyfriend than by a husband. They were also more than three times as likely to be depressed as married women, and the couples were less sexually satisfied than those who waited for marriage."

How about more (From a book called The Beauty of Marriage):

Wives with premarital sex experience- 68% are satisfied
Wives who hadn't- 73% are satisfied


How about more:

"The prevailing theory is that couples can strengthen their relationships by living together before getting married. Instead of strengthening marriages, however, living together damages future marriages dramatically.


For example, if a woman lives with a man before marriage, she is more likely to cheat on him after marriage. In a recent study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family researchers analyzed reported sexual relationships of 1,235 women, ages 20 to 37, and found that it was 3.3 times more likely that a woman who had cohabited before marriage would have a secondary sex partner after marriage. The study also found that married women were "five times less likely to have a secondary sex partner than cohabiting women" and that "cohabiting relationships appear to be more similar to dating relationships than to marriage." A recent study at Johns Hopkins University found that when couples choose to live together outside of wedlock, their relationship is something quite different from and significantly weaker than marriage. Researchers found specifically that most cohabitations end within two years and that "cohabitations are not informal marriages, but relationships formed by a looser bond. " The Johns Hopkins' study went on to show that men and women looking for someone with whom to cohabit look for "characteristics such as education which can reflect a short-term ability to contribute to the relationship ." In contrast, men and women looking for a spouse pay more attention to "ascribed characteristics (such as age and religion) that reflect long-term considerations." The researchers concluded, "While cohabitors anticipate time together, married persons anticipate a lifetime."

The world that exists inside your head may make sense to you, but it has remarkably little to do with reality. Try to get outside of that tiny little box you think in.

 

[Hope]

If I may be so bold as to point something out......it's actually quite obvious: marriage is really about one thing, and it's not a wedding ceremony, it's not having a priest marry you, it's not even---gasp!---entirely about sex. It's about commitment. Making a promise to someone, to love and care for them for the rest of one's life. That's why I think so many marriages these days should never have been marriages in the first place. With divorce so common, it's plain to see a lot of people don't take their marriage vows seriously. The marriage ceremony itself is really just a man-made ritual to outwardly show the covenant that is being sealed between two people.

So what does this have to do with pre-marital sex? Sex, I believe, is cheapened when it is not confined to marriage. These days that is an unpopular view, but I stick to it. Without a promise, and committment, established between two people beforehand, sex is on very shaky ground. The truest intimacy between a couple, expressed physically through sex, can really only be experienced if both people are secure in the knowledge that the other person is committed to them.

Let me use friendship as an example of what I am talking about in regards to intimacy and security. The closest friends, the ones we are vulnerable to, and can truly be ourselves around, are the ones we know we can trust----the ones who have proven the depth of their love and committment to us through their actions. They are faithful to us. Marriage works the same way. It is meant to be the most intimate of friendships, and the only way that intimacy can occur is if both people are faithful to each other, and feel secure with each other. I'm actually stating the obvious here. By having sex before marriage, or outside of marriage, one is devaluing oneself, and the other person. It becomes a cheapened, more selfish act, and less about intimacy.

Having said all that.........we are all flawed and mess up. God forgives. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least strive for the ideal that was meant for us.

 

[dan]

So please explain to me as one male spouse of an atheistically, monogamously, heterosexually happy couple enjoying an active sex-life of sixteen years and still going...just what is the correct perspective in lending proper reverence regarding both the "sanctity" and "importance" of/for "the act of love"? Can you present these arguments in a compelling fashion to non-believers?

[Second note: Statistics* reveal that the highest incidences of marital divorce are amongst couples that identify themselves as "Evangelical Christians" (as/in either pre or post-marriage), and that the lowest incidences are amongst those that identify themselves as "non-religious/atheist".
*Relevant credible sources producible upon request]

Why on earth would an atheist demand scripture references to back up an argument? I think my prior post (with all the stats) should explain what I'm trying to say in this thread. If you'd like to look at sex animalistically that's your prerogative. I prefer to think of it differently, but I'm not here to try to define the purpose of sex, I'm here to defend my position that it is healthier to leave it until after a marriage. i'm not evangelical, and the stats for my group are pretty good:

"And if you're a religious person, things don't get better. In fact, for born-again Christians, the divorce rate is higher (27% of all adults) than it is for non-Christians (24%), according to a recent survey by the Barna Research Group.</FONT>
The picture isn't rosier for other Christians or Jews. The survey showed their divorce rates about the same as the national average.</FONT>

There is a ray of marital hope, however. And that comes from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--specifically, from those Mormons who marry in a temple. While other Mormons divorce at the usual rate, only 6% of those who undergo the demanding temple marriage break up."

Yeah, that's right.

 

[Buttons*]

IMO, there is nothing wrong with sex when both adults have consented. There are various diseases and viruses one can catch by reckless intercourse, and pregnancy on the female side, but those are the chances people take. In the bible (without the LDS scriptures) it does not state what a marriage ceremony should consist of, so how can the way we do it now be sacred, ESPECAILLY with the divorce rate that it is? Marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper in all actuallity. And, yes, despite what you may think, marriage is based off sex. You have to be attracted to a person before wanting to date them don't you? The attraction is sexual, gives you endorphins... all that happy stuff. Marriage is because of physical, mental, and sometimes spiritual attractions.

In the end, people within the marriage learn that they must give and recieve, or they will lose what they have. Marriage is not a sacred act any more. When the sex is gone, they only have their conversation and friendship to go on. If marriage is based off frienship and compatability instead of passion and love for one another, it will most likely last longer. (unfortunatley)

IMO, marriage doesnt have to be a slip of paper. It can be when both realize that in they eyes of their deity they are one being. When one has become like the other, the inner like the outer, and outer like the inner, when the female has become male, then they will understand...

 

[Franklin]

Can anyone give me a logical reason not to have sex with someone you love? If two people are in love with each other what is so "evil" about sharing intemacy with each other. Marriage is just a man made ritual. Love is eternal. I can't find anywhere in the Bible where having sex with someone you love is labled as adultery and/or sexual immorality. In the book Song of Songs, two lovers are talking sexually about each other and NOT ONCE does the phrase husband or wife appear in that book. Yet it's apart of the Bible. I have yet to see anyone provide a specific command from the Bible or a decent argument to back up the church's argument that this is wrong. The only rebuttals I've heard are "it just is" and "it is implied" (which even if it was, it is done very poorley) Your thoughts.

Of course not it is a purely physical. Sex is sex, and should be enjoyed.

 

[s2a]

Hi dan,

You asked me:

Why on earth would an atheist demand scripture references to back up an argument?

Recall that you previously said (to another member):

"It's too bad you don't understand the sanctity or the importance of the act of love."

This statement directly implies an attached "sanctity" to "the act of love". I provided you a definition of what it means to "sanctify" something. This meaning has nothing but (adherent) religious significance attached. As you are a self-professed LDS, it only follows that your special "understanding" (which you infer that others may lack to their disadvantage) has a specified and readily referenced authoritative source of origin than can be cited in support of your implication of superior understanding of "the act of love" as it may apply to it's "sanctity" and "importance".

I may not practice religious sanctification rituals, but I can identify sanctimonious proclamations of moral superiority in a heartbeat.

Besides, I often use scriptural references in support of my arguments. It should present no greater burden upon believers to do the same. It's simple failure to elucidate to protest that "I'd explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand anyway, so I won't". Odd that atheists almost never employ such a defense of position.

I think my prior post (with all the stats) should explain what I'm trying to say in this thread.

The stats you provided certainly suggest that cohabitation prior to marriage is prospectively more deleterious to long-term marriage prospects, but these stats do not directly speak to the simpler aspects (or consequences) of just having good ole' sex before marriage. My wife and I had plenty of sex before we were married, but we did not "live together" until after we were married (in deference to her parent's sensibilities).

If you'd like to look at sex animalistically that's your prerogative. I prefer to think of it differently, but I'm not here to try to define the purpose of sex, I'm here to defend my position that it is healthier to leave it until after a marriage.

Oh yeah. Hot monkey love is good, especially with a hot momma. We exercise that "prerogative" whenever mood, time, and opportunity permit.

Anyway...I simply asked you to explain how your implied (superior) understanding of the "sanctity or the importance of the act of love" is relevant or of applicable value to an atheist or non-adherent of your particular faith. If you can't think of any salient reasons...then just say so. If you won't bother to reference any compelling faith-based examples of the "sanctity" and "importance" upon which you predicate your understanding...then you should retain little hope of persuading others to attach any significance to your "enlightened" position. One man's meat...

As you say, you're "here to defend my position that it is healthier to leave it [sex] until after a marriage". I'm down with that. I, like yourself, would counsel others against cohabitation prior to marriage (based on numerous studies alone - some of which you graciously cited). But if you choose to introduce faith-based rationale as part of your position regarding pre-marital sex (or more generally, "the act of love"), it should present you no especial challenge to illustrate the foundational aspects of that position, regardless of the "beliefs" of your audience. No "demands" necessary.

"There is a ray of marital hope, however. And that comes from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--specifically, from those Mormons who marry in a temple. While other Mormons divorce at the usual rate, only 6% of those who undergo the demanding temple marriage break up."

Yeah, that's right."

Wow. Only 6%. That's an interesting and impressive claim of success. Is there any credible source outside of the LDS Church or it's affiliated groups that confirms that claim, or is that just an "in-house" statistic? Is there any data as to how many of those married in such a fashion did/did not have pre-marital sex? If a prospectively married member were to confess beforehand such a flagrante delicto peccadillo, how would that impact upon their opportunity to be wed in such a "demanding" fashion?

 

[dan]

I provided you a definition of what it means to "sanctify" something. This meaning has nothing but (adherent) religious significance attached. As you are a self-professed LDS, it only follows that your special "understanding" (which you infer that others may lack to their disadvantage) has a specified and readily referenced authoritative source of origin than can be cited in support of your implication of superior understanding of "the act of love" as it may apply to it's "sanctity" and "importance".

You provided half of the definition of sanctity. Here's the rest:

3 a : to impart or impute sacredness, inviolability, or respect to
b : to give moral or social sanction to

The etymology of the word sacrifice is the same, but I bet you have used that word in a non-religious way before. Now, I do often use the word in a religious sense, but for you to demand scriptural references implies that you'll respect them, which you will not. My understanding does have an authoritative source of origin, and it's called revelation, but since you will refuse to accept that I will provide a text:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20november%201995.htm/the%20family%20a%20proclamation%20to%20the%20world.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0

I may not practice religious sanctification rituals, but I can identify sanctimonious proclamations of moral superiority in a heartbeat.

So can I, but at least what I argue can be called morality and not just justification.

The stats you provided certainly suggest that cohabitation prior to marriage is prospectively more deleterious to long-term marriage prospects, but these stats do not directly speak to the simpler aspects (or consequences) of just having good ole' sex before marriage.

My apologies. I guess splitting hairs is ok for atheists. That means people who just have casual pre-marital monkey love are more commited to a marriage than those who move in together before they get married. Here's more info:


"Those who are sexually active before marriage are much more likely to divorce.
A study of 2,746 women in the National Survey of Family Growth performed by Dr. Kahn of the University of Maryland and Dr. London of the National Center for Health Statistics found that nonvirgin brides increase their odds of divorce by about 60%. Some would argue that cohabitation does not automatically mean that sex is taking place. However, cohabitation and sexual relations are related or that there is a strong correlation between them. Sex usually does accompany cohabitation (de Neui n.d.); Webster's Dictionary, in fact, defines cohabitation as "living together as or as if husband and wife." If cohabitants live together like "husband and wife," having sex is a very reasonable expectation. Therefore, the assumption is made throughout this writing (granting some occasional exceptions) that cohabitants do have sexual relations.
Those who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well.
Premarital sexual attitudes and behavior do not change after one marries; if a woman lives with a man before marriage, she is more likely to cheat on him after marriage. Research indicates that if one is willing to experience sex before marriage, a higher level of probability exists that one will do the same afterwards. This is especially true for women; those who engaged in sex before marriage are more than twice as likely to have extramarital affairs as those who did not have premarital sex. When it comes to staying faithful, married partners have higher rates of loyalty every time. One study, done over a 5-year period, reported in Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles indicates 90% of married women were monogamous, compared to 60% of cohabiting women. Statistics were even more dramatic with male faithfulness: 90% of married men remained true to their brides, while only 43% of cohabiting men stayed true to their partner (Ciavola 1997). In another study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family researchers analyzed the relationships of 1,235 women, ages 20 to 37, and found that women that had cohabited before marriage were 3.3 times more likely to have a secondary sex partner after marriage (Forste and Tanfer 1996:33-47). It was also found that married women were "5 times less likely to have a secondary sex partner than cohabiting women" and that "cohabiting relationships appeared to be more similar to dating relationships than to marriage."

"Those having premarital sex may be fooled into marrying a person who is not right for them.
Sex can emotionally blind. Real love can stand the test of time without the support of physical intimacy. "If you establish a mutually satisfying sexual relationship, you lose objectivity and actually cheat on the test of time. The only way to rationally decide whether your love is for keeps is to remove any preoccupation with eros, sexual love. Otherwise you may marry a mirage, not a person you really know."

That is what I called fragmentation.

Oh yeah. Hot monkey love is good, especially with a hot momma. We exercise that "prerogative" whenever mood, time, and opportunity permit.

Congratulations.

Anyway

...I simply asked you to explain how your implied (superior) understanding of the "sanctity or the importance of the act of love" is relevant or of applicable value to an atheist or non-adherent of your particular faith.

I think the research points it out well enoguh.

As you say, you're "here to defend my position that it is healthier to leave it [sex] until after a marriage". I'm down with that. I, like yourself, would counsel others against cohabitation prior to marriage (based on numerous studies alone - some of which you graciously cited). But if you choose to introduce faith-based rationale as part of your position regarding pre-marital sex (or more generally, "the act of love"), it should present you no especial challenge to illustrate the foundational aspects of that position, regardless of the "beliefs" of your audience. No "demands" necessary.

Nothing of what I said is faith based. Sanctity does not have to mean religious. You're just putting words in my mouth.

Wow. Only 6%. That's an interesting and impressive claim of success. Is there any credible source outside of the LDS Church or it's affiliated groups that confirms that claim, or is that just an "in-house" statistic? Is there any data as to how many of those married in such a fashion did/did not have pre-marital sex?

You cannot enter into the Temple if you've had pre-marital sex within a certain amount of time. It's a case by case scenario, so it's different. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and double our divorce rates it's still twice as good as you monkey lovers.

Here's an ex-Mormon's spiteful rant on Temple divorce:

"Temple marriages were statisically a disaster for the "early Saints" who suffered under the idiotic celestial marriage rhetoric of Mormonism. No suprise that by 1965 the temple divorce rate was 1 in 19."

That's 5.2%. This next group is not just Temple marriages, but any LDS marriages:

"Data from a 1981 Church membership survey in the United States show that 16 percent of members (as compared to 23 percent of U.S. whites, statistically the most comparable group) had been divorced (Goodman and Heaton, p. 93)."

Still a lot better than the monkey lovers. Anyway. I'm sure you have a lot of rhetoric to spout, so I'll give you the floor now.

 

[Bishka]

I'm right.
You're wrong.
My personal understanding explains it.
You'll just have to take my word for it.

Not very illuminating, compelling, or persuasive, is it?

I'm not trying to persuade you am I? No, I'm just telling you how I feel and I wish you'd be a little more respectful. Besides you keep asking for proof and I've given you all the damn proof I can. Back off.

 

[Ðanisty]

The stats you provided certainly suggest that cohabitation prior to marriage is prospectively more deleterious to long-term marriage prospects, but these stats do not directly speak to the simpler aspects (or consequences) of just having good ole' sex before marriage. My wife and I had plenty of sex before we were married, but we did not "live together" until after we were married (in deference to her parent's sensibilities).

You may have mentioned before, but this thread is on page 34...what do you have against pre-marital cohabitation? I think it has even more benefits than pre-marital sex. My husband and I were living together for a about a year before we got married and I learned a lot about him in that time. I knew exactly what I was getting into...what his habits were, etc. I would say it gave us a much more realistic expectation of what our marriage would be like.

 

[PrisioneroDeDios]

I don't believe it is living together that is the problem. I believe the problem is the way they think the people q=that live together. One who decides to live together before he is married decides that marriage is something to do if if are completely the same. He tests the marriage before he is married. One who does not live with his woman before he is married thinks differently. He believes that marriage is something more than living with someone you are exactly like. This shows that he is willing to change because he did not test it first. He is not so lazy that he must make sure everything is the same.

 

[mingmty]

Why should it be in marriage? I think marriage, as I have said, was ordained or put together by some ultimate creator, that creator made marriage and instituted the rules for it.

Or maybe all started many years ago when old mankind discovered the power of relating to another tribe by their child, united tribes where more likely to survive than a tribe that only had sex with the nearest opposite sex person. You must recall how king's child where only allowed to marriage to other king's child, in christian territory, is quite obvious the purpose was to unite kingdoms. Can you imagine what would happen if one king's son never married or did it with a commoner?, less allies and more enemies.

Marriage was the begging of society and there's quite a lot of documentation about it, interesting but I'm not going to behave as an ancient social practice dictate when I can enjoy my short life feeling alive. Not having sex before marriage is a social human conduct, nothing more, outside the human world its meaningless, sometimes it amazes me how easily people put themselves in god's chair.

Don't you love anthropology?