They may argue the one flesh principal. Which states that having gender is being a half and that the purpose of an individual is to become whole. The way to do this is marriage through which the people become whole by their spiritual bond with their partner and God. Sex outside of marriage does not involve God and is therefore not fulfilling the one flesh principle and is wrong. Marriage should be the key focus not sex.
They may also justify their stance because their Church leaders who, have special insight in what God wants and are called by him to become ministers, instruct them.
Christians believe in the four types of love: philia- brotherly love, eros- erotic/sexual love, agapae- Christian love, and storge- familiar love. Christians should have all four types of love and marriage is therefore the fulfillment of a person. Not having sex before marriage demonstrates agapae.
There are also practical reasons with which a Christian could justify their support for sex only occurring within marriage. It reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancies, which mean that a child is less likely to be brought up in a stable relationship, to have sex before marriage is clearly not loving to the future child. Sex before marriage spreads Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs). To spread STDs is not an act of love and is therefore wrong. The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit and to ruin the Temple of the Holy Spirit is wrong. Sex treats people as flesh and this denies the tripartite nature of man and that is wrong.
Some Christians do not believe that sex should only occur in marriage. They would believe the Liberal interpretation of the Bible. They take the view that because the Bible was written by people who lived 2000 years ago it is bound to reflect the views that were around 2000 years ago and believe that these views are no longer relevant today. They might argue that Natural Law as a principle is flawed. If the purpose of the erect penis is to have children and to use the erect penis in a situation where having children is not possible is sinful, this makes masturbation a greater sin than rape. This is clearly ridiculous. They might argue that in a modern world the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies can be significantly reduced by the use of contraceptives .So we can have sex outside of marriage and still be loving to ourselves, our partners and future children by using contraceptives. They might argue that we do not need to be married to demonstrate all the four types of love. That love does exist outside of marriage and that sex which is an act of love should be allowed outside of marriage. The Liberal position is that as long as love and consent exists between the partners then it is permissible to have sex before marriage.
Ultimately the decision as to whether sex outside marriage is morally acceptable is very individual and must be based on their love of God and of their partner.
Section Three
“The view of ‘no sex before’ is hopelessly old-fashioned and of no relevance to people today.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer fully.
Some people would completely agree with the statement and argue that sex is a pleasurable experience and that if it feels good go for it. They would argue that people have freewill and should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they are not doing any harm to anybody else. Sex is a natural act and because in modern society we can reduce the risks associated with it, we should not be restricted by tradition that is based in the past and was designed to reduce problems they had in the past that we no longer have in our society. They would also argue that sex can be for recreation and that to claim sex is only for one purpose is to impose artificial limits on it. It is natural and without it none of us would be here, so if it is so natural why shouldn’t we have sex if we want to. They might believe that morality is individual and if two people feel that it is morally acceptable for them to have casual sex then they should be allowed to act upon that view. Some people believe that the sexual instinct is an ‘appetite’ that needs satisfying like hunger or thirst. So whenever there is an opportunity to meet this need, casual sex with any partner is acceptable. Some people might even argue that casual sex is useful for gaining sexual experience so pleasing their future spouse will be easier.
Other people would completely disagree with the statement argue that waiting for sex until marriage is important on a practical level. It helps reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies, which can ruin people’s lives and the life of their child because the baby is less likely to be brought up in a stable family environment. They would also point out that if everyone had only on sexual partner the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD’s) which are one of the biggest threats to human life today. The would argue that the mental pain caused by the break up of a sexual relationship is so great that people should protect themselves from it by not having pre-marital sex. People may also be against premarital sex on religious grounds for example a fundamentalist Christian would be completely against pre-marital sex as it is condemned in the Bible.
I believe that sex does not need to take place in marriage but should take place only inside a stable commited relationship. Relationships do break down, but so do marriages. Today one in three marriages end in divorce so marriage is not as serious a commitment as it was and children born in marriage are not guaranteed to be brought up in the stability of a family. I also believe that love does not only exist in marriage and since sex is an expression of love it should not be limited to marriage. Many people do not believe in marriage but they can still fall in love and should be allowed to express their love for each other. I also believe that casual sex is wrong because after it the ‘couple’ have nothing to give to each other and love, fondness and common ground do not exist. It depersonalises the sexual act and if it is only an act and not an expression of love there can be little self-respect. This only results in the two people feeling used and they become emotionally scarred by the experience. Casual sex results in paranoia as to how much people are living up to their partners previous sexual experiences and how much they are satisfying them both sexually and mentally. I also believe that the term love has been abused by modern society, we love films and foods, we can easily fool ourselves that we are in love when we are not. Love is connected with sex and is therefore easily confused with lust. We need a way to express ourselves when we are really in love and I believe sex should be saved for this purpose.
In conclusion I believe that sex before marriage is acceptable, but only in a stable, commited, loving relationship. I also believe that to dismiss saving sex for marriage as being irrelevant simply because it is old or a religious viewpoint is wrong. Everyone needs to form their own ethical values on this issue by analyzing the facts and applying logic and reasoning.
