Sex before marriage is it OK?

That's EXACTLY what the article meant and Ill let you know when I find it. Family life REQUIRES a LOT of work, you need to learn to live as one, one of the major aspects of the research was the term of sacrifice and the amount of sacrifices both must do to ensure they can coexist peacefully.

The unhappiness is well, unhappiness, there isn't much to add, it's the result of not talking to your partner, not tending to their need and not being tended back.

The article is very pro marriage, but, it highlights the flaws and pitfalls that leave so many couples unhappy, specially when they don't marry out of love OR when the passion ends and they don't know how to be friends with the partner.

 

One could argue that having the option to leave, even if you don't intend to, could reduce stress and make the relationship more stable. On the other hand, forcing a commitment between two incompatible people could have negative results. I would argue that a stable "unbound" relationship is far better than an unstable or toxic marriage.

 

Stop using averages to make assumptions about individuals. That is a very dangerous form of reasoning. And I already told you why spamming this number is not an argument for marriage:

 

Absolutely! It's really ridiculous to say you need to be married to stay committed. I actually remember attending a wedding where the Reverend who was quite dismissive of the wedding vows. He talked about how the vows at a wedding are rather meaningless if you can't commit to loving your spouse every day. He quoted that scripture in Colossians where it says, 'And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony'. It doesn't say just make one big vow in front of people, and you'll be fine.

Immature people need the wedding vows, mature people are able to be committed without a wedding.

 

So Communists states stopped getting involved in marriages? When exactly did that happen?

 

36 year old, married guy here. I have had sex, made commitments to girls, and lived with girls, before I married my wife. My wife waited until marriage.

I think that waiting until marriage can bring a greater sense of commitment, it elevates sex to a more sacred position between you. And it can alleviate any fears you might have of being compared to exes, etc. on the other hand, a lot of us might be waiting for a long time before we get the opportunity to get married (or forever), and sex is something that we all want to experience (I think?). If we are only willing to date people who abstain until marriage, that also means that we are restricting our possible partners to the small minority of people who share that view.

If I had decided that I would wait until marriage, I would have saved myself a few embarrassing encounters - I certainly felt pressured into having sex a few times when I was uncomfortable, and would have been better waiting until I felt better about it - and possibly been more committed. I also would have been married and divorced at least twice, as I moved in with and was committed to two girlfriends before things fell apart. So overall, it's probably best the way things happened.

 

Ideally the decision to be married shouldn’t be forced at all, so within the context of two willing and consenting adults, who freely choose to be married, the option to leave/break that commitment seems counter productive, not only towards the couple but towards the nature of the commitment itself.

 

You might have missed the point of the reverend’s position. It sounds more like he’s stating that vows are going to be meaningless if both people do not enter into the vows with the same mindset and love, which is correct. Just like it’s meaningless to take a vow to always tell the truth when you don’t intend to actually tell only the truth. Those who take vows without The foundation to make them work are the ones who are immature. Those who take the vows with the foundation in place to make them work are the ones that are mature.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding your words. It seems that the value you see in marriage is the commitment. But my main point is that if marriage is about commitment, why not just call it commitment, why do we have to call it marriage?

How is the option to leave counter-productive? And what would you define as "productive" in the context of relationships? Is having zero options more productive? And if you need to remove the option to leave, then it doesn't seem like the commitment is one of good faith.

 

Marriage isn’t just about commitment. It is about two people becoming one unit. It removes the “me” and “I” and leaves “us” and “we”. This is why marriage has vows that espouse this shift from two individuals transforming into one whole. The vows illustrate that if one of them goes through health or sickness, riches or poverty, then both of them go through it as a whole. Keeping the option to stay two individuals erodes the very purpose and nature of that wholeness. Classifying divorce as an option that enhances a marriage is like saying the option for crime enhances lawfulness. Lawfulness isn’t less pleasing without the option to commit crime, just like marriage isn’t less pleasing without the option to have a divorce. Furthermore how does keeping the option to leave demonstrate ones good faith in remaining wholly together? Leaving yourself an option to leave removes the good faith and reduces it to a trail run that requires zero faith.

 

You speak in poetry and vague, meaningless rhetorical language and completely misrepresent my positions.

And also, having the option to commit crime IS A VERY GOOD THING because it means you have agency and free will, which I consider to be valuable traits. Furthermore, having this option and choosing NOT to use it, means that you have a stronger value of the law than someone who exercises their option. In the same manner, having the option to leave a relationship and choosing to stay means that you value the relationship higher than your own independence. That is the definition of commitment. And it has nothing to do with marriage.

 

Nothing I’ve said is vague or meaningless. I haven’t misrepresented your position at all. You view marriage as just a tradition that signifies commitment as opposed to what it really signifies which is two individuals becoming a whole. You then claim the option for divorce is “productive” to the wholeness of marriage by providing them with options to destroy that wholeness. That seems ass-backwards. Giving the option to destroy something is always counter productive to its life and leads to degradation of that thing rather than safeguarding its dignity.

You then claim a relationship that doesn’t provide the option for divorce is one that traps individuals who’ve acted in good faith. My response to that is individuals who remove the obligation to trust have removed faith, so a marriage that begins with the option to divorce is one that isn’t acting in any form of faith.

 

Lmao, free will isn’t about having the ability to do what you want; that is called licentiousness. Free will is having the ability to do what you ought; meaning the ability to do what you should do. This means as long as you’re doing what you ought to do then you posses free will. Committing a crime isn’t an expression of free will it is the abuse of free will.

 

Okay I'll accept that I used the wrong term.

Here is my point: if you take away the ability to commit crime then the terms "criminal" and "lawful" have no meaning. Do you have a response to the rest of what I said in that post?

 

How does a woman become a part of a man's wealth? Human capital? Are you talking about women becoming the property of a man?

Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

^ Is that what you meant?

 

I think we are taking past each other. There is a difference between committing a crime and being given the option to commit a crime. Lawfulness is not less pleasing when someone doesn’t have the option to commit a crime even though they could commit a crime. Marriage isn’t less pleasing when someone doesn’t have the option to destroy the marriage (divorce) even though they still could. Divorce is the antithesis of marriage just like how crime is the antithesis of lawfulness. Permitting divorce as an option to strengthen marriage is like saying permitting crime is an option that will strengthen lawfulness, it doesn’t.

Your position that one is more committed to another when they have the option to leave but choose not to doesn’t make sense to me since a couple that forsakes the option to leave, in order to be together forever, seems more like a couple that has the higher amount of commitment and faith in each other.

I mean that’s the reason why we have marriage, to define this transcendence and transformation of commitment.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Marriage isn't "forsaking" the option to leave, it is just choosing to stay. And you can choose to stay together without being married.

 

When you choose to stay “until death do us part” you forsake the option to leave. Not only do you forsake the option to leave, you forsake the option of other people.

Technically, yes, you can (check though where you live when it comes to common-law marriages) but even a relationship between two people outside of marriage comes with a vow of fidelity. If we take your logic regarding divorce within marriage and apply that to couples who aren’t married, then you would view relationships that allow the option of infidelity as ones that would be productive towards commitment.

 

It's not a magic spell dude. You can still leave, you just make an agreement to stay together until death.

Not really. Not all relationships are monogamous.

What did I say about divorce that you are referring to? I don't think I ever said anything about "productivity" - that's a word you keep using and it keeps confusing me because I'm not sure what you mean by it. Epic strawman - crying laughing emoji

 

Of course it’s not a magical spell. That doesn’t negate that the commitment to stay “until death do us part” carries with it the understanding that nothing but death will tear them apart. This means they forsake leaving each other for any reason other than death.

The ones that require commitment are.

My apologies. I’ll rephrase; “If we take your logic regarding divorce within marriage and apply that to couples that aren’t married, then you would view the relationships that allow the option of infidelity as ones that show a higher form of commitment than those that don’t. “