Christianity and Sex

[gboy72590]

Let me start off by saying that "By no means am I claiming that I hold the right and/or wrong views and opinions on this topic," I am merely stating certain views that I've encountered from my Christian friends, and my views on them. Feel free to debate these views or try to disprove them.

Lets start this off with a big one: Christians view on Pre-marital sex and abstinance.

A major view that a lot of my friends hold is that the Bible forbids premarital sex and that it "makes God sad" for you to sleep with some one, whether out of love or lust, before you are married. My first view on this is obviously, why does it matter, especially if you love someone, to have sex with them before you marry them? First, marriage in a sense can mean to things: one is a "legal" marriage. The other is an "emotional" marriage. These two things are very similar but not the same. One major flaw I see with "no sex before marriage" is; which type of marriage does it mean. I can understand and agree with this policy if it means an "emotional" marriage, by which I mean a great attraction and love for a person who feels the same about you, and you treat him or her as your significant other. So in this since, you have everything that a legal marriage should have, except the legal document stating that you are legally binded to one another. In all senses, doesn't it make sense for it to mean an emotional marriage, because an emotional marriage actually involve love, where a legal marriage doesnt, unfortunately, always contain love. With that said, why is it that it is the current fad among teens and young adults to believe and practice the thoughts of that sex is immoral and wrong before young legally marry someone, and that it magically becomes beautiful and right as soon as you get a peice of legal paper. People marry, or don't marry, for many different reason. Some marry for love, others for money and benefits, and others because they are simply to afraid of commitment, or afraid of breaking a commitment. Now why does it seem to make any sense, that sex should only be enjoyed by two people who are legally binded, but may or may not love each other? It doesn't. Sex should be enjoyed by anyone who is emotionally attatched and devoted to one another, whether they are legally bound or not. On that note, it also should not matter if one has premarital sex, or sex in general, with some one they are not emotionally attatched too. What Im saying is that, casual sex between two consenting and reasonable adults, is not wrong. My main personal view is that I don't believe the view of premarital sex being wrong, because of my already stated reasons coupled with the fact that I have yet to see any solid statements in the Bible banning premarital sex.

My next view that I want to talk about is; why do Christians view sex in general as something sinful and disgusting. Did God not create us? And did He not also create sex between us? So why is it that something God created in us, is viewed as disgusting and wrong? Is sex really wrong, or is it more that we as a society are prone to be afraid of things, in this case; teen pregnancy and STD's? Did we just come up with this idea of sex to prevent these things? I think we did, because as we've lengthened our life times as time goes on, we are now looking down on a natural instinct, made by God, that is hitting us at an age that, a few hundred years ago, would be our sexual prime and we would be married and having kids. We need to look at these views and realize that sex is a natural thing that shouldn't be viewed as wrong or shameful.

With all that said, I open up the floor to you.

[Euphrates]

Euphrates: When you say sex is ONLY for procreation, do you oppose use of condoms?

No, I don't. I could list several of the natural purposes of water (humidity, drinking, etc.), but that doesn't mean we can't load up our Super Soakers and have some fun, or build hydroelectric plants.

[Lux]

Oh, I get it. I think you misunderstood me. God created sex for procreation, but He also created a whole social system around it. We call it "family". It starts with a husband and wife, where the husband promises to love his wife and she promises to submit to his authority.

What? Seriously, there are still people who think women should be subject to men? Wow.
Every single married person I know considers their spouse and equal, not a superior or inferior.

Anyway, the whole "sex is only right when you're married" is pretty much moral sel-righteousness. If a married couple has sex, with condoms, just for fun, what makes that better than a non-married couple doing the same thing?

If sex is only for procreation, do you suggest that people who can't have children should never have sex? Never get married?

[Euphrates]

What? Seriously, there are still people who think women should be subject to men? Wow.
Every single married person I know considers their spouse and equal, not a superior or inferior.

The Christian view is that wives submit to their husband's authority. It's not about inferior or superior. The husband has a role. The wife has a role. Those roles are different, but equal.

Anyway, the whole "sex is only right when you're married" is pretty much moral sel-righteousness. If a married couple has sex, with condoms, just for fun, what makes that better than a non-married couple doing the same thing?

The Christian view is that sex should only be done in the context of marriage.

If sex is only for procreation, do you suggest that people who can't have children should never have sex? Never get married?

Of course not.

[Lux]

What? Seriously, there are still people who think women should be subject to men? Wow.
Every single married person I know considers their spouse and equal, not a superior or inferior.

The Christian view is that wives submit to their husband's authority. It's not about inferior or superior. The husband has a role. The wife has a role. Those roles are different, but equal.

It's one thing to have different roles, but if one submits to the other, there is a superior.

Anyway, the whole "sex is only right when you're married" is pretty much moral sel-righteousness. If a married couple has sex, with condoms, just for fun, what makes that better than a non-married couple doing the same thing?

The Christian view is that sex should only be done in the context of marriage.

But why?

If sex is only for procreation, do you suggest that people who can't have children should never have sex? Never get married?

Of course not.

Then you can't maintain that sex is only for procreation.
So if people can have sex for non-reproductive purposes, why do they need to be married to do that?

[Euphrates]

What? Seriously, there are still people who think women should be subject to men? Wow.
Every single married person I know considers their spouse and equal, not a superior or inferior.

The Christian view is that wives submit to their husband's authority. It's not about inferior or superior. The husband has a role. The wife has a role. Those roles are different, but equal.

It's one thing to have different roles, but if one submits to the other, there is a superior.

I don't think so. At least, that's not the Christian perspective.

Anyway, the whole "sex is only right when you're married" is pretty much moral sel-righteousness. If a married couple has sex, with condoms, just for fun, what makes that better than a non-married couple doing the same thing?

The Christian view is that sex should only be done in the context of marriage.

But why?

Because that's what the Bible says.

If sex is only for procreation, do you suggest that people who can't have children should never have sex? Never get married?

Of course not.

Then you can't maintain that sex is only for procreation.

Why not? The purpose of sex is procreation. Using it outside it's natural/created purpose isn't a sin. If you think it is, you're going to have to do some explaining.

So if people can have sex for non-reproductive purposes, why do they need to be married to do that?

That's what the Bible says.

[Classicus]

So if people can have sex for non-reproductive purposes, why do they need to be married to do that?

That's what the Bible says.

Yeah, well, the bible says a lot of BS.

[Lux]

If sex is only for procreation, do you suggest that people who can't have children should never have sex? Never get married?

Of course not.

Then you can't maintain that sex is only for procreation.

Why not? The purpose of sex is procreation. Using it outside it's natural/created purpose isn't a sin. If you think it is, you're going to have to do some explaining.

Of course I don't think it's a sin. I don't even acknowledge that there is such a thing as "sin". I'm just trying to understand your perspective. If you don't think having sex other than for procreation is sinful, why do you think it is wrong to do it out of wedlock?

[Slopeshoulder]

Male "spiritual headship" (authority) is not THE Christian view, it is only the fundamentalist, ultra-orthodox view. It is never spoken of outside those cricles, and most non-extreme-conservative christians have never heard of it.

The idea is tha the male is in charge, but he needs to love his wife as God loves the church. That's a pretty slim insurance policy given that these same Christians think that all men sin and fall short of the mark.

It is seen as practical (I've heard them them say, "well, someone has to be in charge and make decisions, otherwise there's chaos. The Lord is perferct order, and his charge to men is a burden.") It comes from fear of complexity.

IMO it's nothing more than divinized sexism at worst and at best outdated pragmatism from a time when women were chattle. I give you the roots of the western patricarchy.

This alone is enough to make anyone of conscience walk away from this version of Christianity.


BTW, I though it was a godly sexual act at first, but was soon corrected. "Count me in!"

[Slopeshoulder]

oops, wrong button[/strike]

[Euphrates]

I'm just trying to understand your perspective. If you don't think having sex other than for procreation is sinful, why do you think it is wrong to do it out of wedlock?

Sex out of wedlock is called fornication. The Bible says that fornication is a sin. Sins are violations of moral law. Therefore, those of us that believe the Bible believe that it is wrong (immoral) to have sex out of wedlock.

The problem I'm having is that I feel like I'm missing some part of your logic. I may just be misunderstanding your question. The purpose of sex doesn't tell us much about sexual sins.

I've heard people say that homosexuality is sinful because it violates nature (which God created, therefore it violates God's will). They say heterosexual couples who are infertile or use protection to prevent pregnancy are not violating nature, but are subduing it. Psalm 8:6, for example, says "You made (man) ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet."

Nature is violated when we act contrary to it. Nature is subdued when we exercise control over it, without doing something contrary to it. If sex is meant to be the means of procreation, then nature demands that it be between a man and a woman. If that is true, then sex between two men or two women violates nature. I'm only vaguely familiar with this line of thinking, so give it a skeptical (but charitable) reading.

Male "spiritual headship" (authority) is not THE Christian view, it is only the fundamentalist, ultra-orthodox view. It is never spoken of outside those cricles, and most non-extreme-conservative christians have never heard of it.

I know many non-extreme-conservative Christians, and they all have heard of male spiritual authority.

This alone is enough to make anyone of conscience walk away from this version of Christianity.

I was watching the Lakers game earlier, so this analogy comes from there, though it would probably be more accurate using another team. Phil Jackson is one of the best coaches in the NBA, in my opinion. Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in the NBA, in my opinion. Is Phil better than Kobe? Is Kobe better than Phil? Well, one is a player and the other is the coach... they have different jobs, different roles, different responsibilities... I don't think you can say which one is better. They are apples and oranges. They are on the same team, but they do different things. You'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument that Phil is better than Kobe. But, their relationship is such that Kobe submits to Phil's leadership of the team. Does that make Kobe inferior? No. Their roles are different, but within the team, they are equals. That's how the majority of Christianity views the relationship between husband and wife.

Sorry if you don't follow basketball, but I hope the analogy still makes sense.