rob@denelcor.UUCP (09/26/83)
I have responded to Mr. Sargent's note on Christianity and homosexuality in net.singles (for those who are interested). He affirms that the Bible is right, but what he thinks it says and what it really says are not entirely consistent. In particular, Christ's remarks on sexuality pertain almost entirely to the subject of adultery, i.e., a married person having sex with someone other than his/her spouse. This does not cover extramarital sex. Can we see some quotes directly condemning extramarital sex? (The sanctity of marriage is insufficient evidence.) He also holds up his near brush with homosexuality as living proof that homosexuality is wrong. Actually, all he proves is that homosexuality is wrong for him; the whole point of Romans 1:26-27 quotes, is missed if the people which Paul discusses are not, by their individual natures, heterosexual. The position of homosexuals is not discussed (it is, after all, an analogy, not a prescription for behavior), but then Mr. Sargent would have us believe that homosexuals are only perverted heterosexuals. My experience would indicate that heterosexuality is wrong (for me), and is supported by implication of Paul's use, here and elsewhere, of the phrase "against (beyond) nature". Also, if a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage, doesn't this imply that marital sex is an act of masturbation? :-) Robert Wahl
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/13/84)
I would like to have the net's response to the subject of premarital sex -- how everyone feels about it in relation to their religious/spiritual beliefs. A friend of mine (non-Christian) was speaking with another friend (Christian) who was telling him that the Bible gives a law banning sexual intercourse between Christians until they are married. My friend did not believe him, so he gave him these verses: "Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. You know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body* in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him." --1 Thessalonians 4:1-6, NIV At the *, there is a footnote stating, "or learn to live with his own wife or learn to acquire a wife". I'd like to hear from as many people as possible, by direct reply or followup. I hope it doesn't generate a lot of flaming ... I'm just basically looking to see what other people's opinions are. -- --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) Gds@XX (arpa)
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (01/14/84)
----
Pre-MARITAL sex? The very word contains the explicit suggestion
that you're making love now, but you're going to get married real
soon. I'd suggest "extra-marital", but that sounds like cheating.
I guess I don't engage in pre-marital sex, since my partner and I
don't plan to get married, nor have we for the past five years.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 13 Jan 84 [24 Nivose An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***smb@alice.UUCP (Steven M. Bellovin) (01/15/84)
Just saw on the AP wire that a new Anglican Church pamphlet mentions, without particular disapproval, that many couples today don't wait until they're married. It *has* stirred up some controversy... Incidentally, I much prefer the phrase "non-marital sex". --Steve Bellovin (normally known as ulysses!smb)
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (01/16/84)
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have selfcontrol, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) I don't have a concordiance to look any other verses up. This is the one covered a few weeks ago in Bible study.
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (06/11/85)
This article is intended primarily for net.nlang.india (because
most readers of that group will probably not consider my rambling
as if emanating from Mars), but I thought this may be of interest
to some other groups too.
The question is prompted by some of the questions raised by some
folks about "arranged marriage" vs. "love marriage" etc.
Some opponents of "arranged marriage" (opponent is the key word here)
have questioned the "educatedness" of some of us poor blokes who are
dumb enough to allow our parents a say in our life after we have
reached puberty (read that as enlightenment).
Wonder how people feel about premarital sex. Someone compared arranged
marriages to "shopping" as in shopping for a car. Am I allowed to
extend the analogy to say that premarital sex feel like "test driving"
the car?
Cheers...........
--
Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058
(Usual Disclaimer Here)pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/13/85)
>... >The question is prompted by some of the questions raised by some >folks about "arranged marriage" vs. "love marriage" etc. >Some opponents of "arranged marriage" (opponent is the key word here) >have questioned the "educatedness" of some of us poor blokes who are >dumb enough to allow our parents a say in our life after we have >reached puberty (read that as enlightenment). Allowing parents to have a *say* isn't dumb. Their experience can help you from making some big mistakes. When someone talks about "arranged marriage", however, I think of it as parents telling you who you *will* marry. Parents who don't allow their offspring more of a say in their own lives as they mature are selling their kids short. >Wonder how people feel about premarital sex. Someone compared arranged >marriages to "shopping" as in shopping for a car. Am I allowed to >extend the analogy to say that premarital sex feel like "test driving" >the car? >Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 I'm not sure how arranged marriage compares to shopping. Who's doing the shopping? But premarital sex defintely isn't analogous to "test driving". There's a little more to marriage than sex, I think. Good sex doesn't make good marriage. It's more like the other way around. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (06/13/85)
> > Wonder how people feel about premarital sex. Someone compared arranged > marriages to "shopping" as in shopping for a car. Am I allowed to > extend the analogy to say that premarital sex feel like "test driving" > the car? > Why, sure. I just do not see the reason to single out premarital sex. Premarital talking would qualify for analogy just as well. Me, I feel very good about it... Mike Cherepov
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (06/16/85)
First off, I'm going to suggest we distinguish between premarital sex (sex between two people who intend to get married) and nonmarital sex (sex between two people are not married and don't currently intend to). And that we state age and background, since it's very likely views will differ influenced by background. I'm 42, Jewish, born in Los Angeles as were my parents. My first marriage was preceded by premarital cuddling, but not sex. And annulled because there wan't any postmarital sex either. I went into that marriage full of ideals about a "white wedding" and "giving one's virginity to one's husband on one's wedding night." I left it somewhat disillusioned. When I accepted a second marriage proposal (with a guy I'd been cuddling with but not having sex with), I told him that before we announced the news officially I wanted to have sex with him a few times and verify all would be well. Later on we went to our rabbi for a pre-wedding conference and one of the first questions he asked was whether we'd agreed on if/when we wanted children and on birth control methods to be used. I don't object to anyone else have nonmarital sex but I'm not emotionally suited to physical intimacy without the commitment of an intention to marry, so it's not for me. I look forward to reading other comments. --Lee Gold
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/19/85)
> I don't object to anyone else have nonmarital sex but I'm not emotionally > suited to physical intimacy without the commitment of an intention to > marry, so it's not for me. > > I look forward to reading other comments. > > --Lee Gold I am very happy to hear someone say that she doesn't like premarital sex and not try to enforce that preference on anybody else. I am a 20 year old male, brought up under Jewish influence (currently agnostic), not married, and have no plans for it in the near future. On the other hand, I have tried my hand at nonmarital sex, and have enjoyed it very much. The young lady that I had it with was someone that I had known well, and I had gotten very close to before. My idea is that if a man and a woman are consenting, anything goes. I would not have sex with someone that I just met, or don't care very much for, and I don't quite understand why other people do, but I am not one to impose my own morals on anybody else. I just think that commitment is the keyword here, but it does not necessarily have to be towards marriage. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/21/85)
> > Let us have consideration for other people and not ourselves when we come > to judgements about morals which will effect future generations. What we > decide here will either de-restrict pre-marital sex or control it. > A new generation of children will be, in increased measure, of single parent > families, and if the concept of marriage cheapens further, the family unit > will dissolve. These are facets of the permission of pre-marital sex which we > should not ignore. How can we argue with respect only to our own benefit? > This is 1985. We have birth control. Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily mean pre-marital children. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
wmmw@ukc.UUCP (W.M.M.Weir) (06/24/85)
[Munch me] I often think that there is a good deal of material talked about premarital sex that people should be ashamed of. The talk that's going on at the present is mere pandering to wont. It is very easy to say that there is nothing wrong with premarital sex, and equally very easy to say (dogmatically) that it's right out. What annoys me is that people are so ready to jump on the band wagon. I mean, for instance, is the analogy of shopping for a car *really* applicable to marriage? Would the marriage be best arranged if the partner was a belonging, primarily designed to satisfy? It's a very appealing analogy because it favours that which satisfies. Now just suppose I came up with an analogy suggesting that premarital sex is completely immoral. I'd have a flame on my hands. And should we also rule out talking to the opposite sex if we are to rule out premarital sex (an infered, serious suggestion)? Surely this "reasoning" is folly. Let us have consideration for other people and not ourselves when we come to judgements about morals which will effect future generations. What we decide here will either de-restrict pre-marital sex or control it. A new generation of children will be, in increased measure, of single parent families, and if the concept of marriage cheapens further, the family unit will dissolve. These are facets of the permission of pre-marital sex which we should not ignore. How can we argue with respect only to our own benefit? And here I should make my point of view clear. I am deciding. But I am not willing to jump on a bandwagon, and I am not willing to take the easy way out merely because it is satisfying. [Note, I am seemingly arguing here for sex restriction, but that is only because it is the system under attack. If sex were totally de-restricted I would probably argue from the other point of view. Just let's THINK!] No smileys. W.Weir
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/27/85)
From: barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold), Message-ID: <2077@sdcrdcf.UUCP>: >I don't object to anyone else have nonmarital sex but I'm not emotionally >suited to physical intimacy without the commitment of an intention to >marry, so it's not for me. > >I look forward to reading other comments. > >--Lee Gold My comment: In many states (most still?) I'm not *allowed* to marry anyone I'd like to have sex with. Something about no men involved makes 'em nervous down at the marriage license bureau. [I know, I know, no women involved makes 'em nervous too. Poetic license, it was just poetic license (no marriage license, anyway).] -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.