arguments used against waiting for marriage until sex

All research or scholarship questions
Guest

arguments used against waiting for marriage until sex

Postby Guest » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:34 pm

a lot of the time, i hear people say things like "you have to test drive a car before you buy it". what do you have to say about this? is there something biologically not sound, when you marry someone in good faith that you will be sexually in-tune, when it comes down to the act? no matter how much you talk about it beforehand, doing it is different.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:17 pm

sure you should test your wife if that's the only thing you married her for, her body.

but if you married her primarily with the intention of having a Baha'i family and raising Baha'i children, then no testing is needed.

if for example her virginity is an important thing to you the Aqdas says that you can divorce her for it, though it says its better not to.

also i doubt she was a burn victim and you'd find out her legs are charred, she would have probably told you at some point

besides, there doesn't need to be a reason. there IS a reason, but God doesn't have to give you a reason necessarily.

once you are married things are safe. but if you fornicated with her then decided you wanted to call the marriage off, who knows she could get pregnant or some emotional thing could happen, etc. the breakdown of the family at least as we know it today has its roots in the "free love" thing. as baha'is we dont believe in free love and even if you are going to marry her the next day, free is still free. you have to purchase that right so to speak.

can you go to the bar and say to the bartender "hey, man, i'll be 21 tomorrow so can you just let me have a beer"? no, of course not unless he wants to risk getting caught breaking the law. if we make an exception for someone, then we have to make more and more exceptions, greater and greater ones. the Writings protect from this.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:03 pm

you always give really strict responses, i.e. "raise bahai children", etc.

i'm just going to say... one obvious thing to tell them is "if you really love a girl, and you happen to have sex before marriage, and if she isn't like what you expected, you're gonna what, leave her? how shallow could you get. must mean you didn't really love her in the first place"

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Postby Hasan » Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:48 am

What Bahá'u'lláh said in the Aqdas is normative for bahá'ís, so I think society is lost if try to weight the laws of God with currents of society. Our laws are divine and define what is moral and what is not.

For most of society it looks too conservative, it could be, but it has not the dogmatic dimension as in other religions. I also think a bahá'í is free to choice his/her couple when he/she want to marry in base of spiritual qualities/behavior, rather virginity issue (but if he/she is virgin is best for both :)

Also I am glad to know that in Bahá'í Faith rape and sexual abuse in strictly condemned.


A bahá’í scholar wrote this: http://bahai-library.com/articles/schae ... ality.html


I would like to make a few comments on the concept of chastity, which was at the core of traditional Christian morals. It has become alien to modern man. Its decline is related to the reaction against St. Paul's zealous anti-sensualism(96) and to later Manichean exaggerations. The Bahá'í concept of chastity, however, should not be misconstrued as suppression or deformation of man's sexuality. It is rather the control and cultivation of his procreative power. The virtue of chastity and the complementary prohibition of fornication in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas(97) means the confinement of sexual relations within the institution of marriage, the legal bond between two heterosexual partners. Marriage appears in scripture as a "divine institution" and a "fortress for well-being and salvation."(98 ) Chastity, which involves renouncing pre-marital and extra-marital sexual intimacy prevents man from becoming a play-thing of his desires. Bahá'u'lláh's sexual morality is a return to a position supported by the moral systems of all revealed religions, and yet, it is a position which does not hold contempt for the body or identify sensuality as sinful.



This is on Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p.181:

36. or adultery # 19
The Arabic word "zina", here translated as "adultery",
signifies both fornication and adultery. It applies not only to
sexual relations between a married person and someone who
is not his or her spouse, but also to extramarital sexual
intercourse in general. One form of "zina" is rape. The only
penalty prescribed by Bahá'u'lláh is for those who commit
fornication (see note 77); penalties for other kinds of sexual
offence are left to the Universal House of Justice to
determine.


Spiritual implications and future legislation of the House in the same Holy Book:

77. God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and
adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice # 49

Although the term translated here as adultery refers, in its
broadest sense, to unlawful sexual intercourse between
either married or unmarried individuals (see note 36 for a
definition of the term), 'Abdu'l-Bahá has specified that the
punishment here prescribed is for sexual intercourse
between persons who are unmarried. He indicates that it
remains for the Universal House of Justice to determine the
penalty for adultery committed by a married individual.
(See also Q and A 49.)
In one of His Tablets, 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to some of
the spiritual and social implications of the violation of the
laws of morality and, concerning the penalty here described,
He indicates that the aim of this law is to make clear to all
that such an action is shameful in the eyes of God and that,
in the event that the offence can be established and the fine
imposed, the principal purpose is the exposure of the
offenders -- that they are shamed and disgraced in the eyes of
society. He affirms that such exposure is in itself the
greatest punishment.
The House of Justice referred to in this verse is
presumably the Local House of Justice, currently known as
the Local Spiritual Assembly.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:30 pm

Anonymous wrote:you always give really strict responses, i.e. "raise bahai children", etc.

i'm just going to say... one obvious thing to tell them is "if you really love a girl, and you happen to have sex before marriage, and if she isn't like what you expected, you're gonna what, leave her? how shallow could you get. must mean you didn't really love her in the first place"



I agree with Hasan this time...

"It isn't like what you expected." Well now there's a good excuse. Just go around "trying" out different girls, and each time when they ask you if you are gonna marry say "It's not what i expected." lol. a law is a law, my friend. God is wiser than us, even though sometimes we think the world revolves around our feeble selves and our ideas. it's okay though, i partly blame the culture for its emphasis on the individual, and i'm looking forward to a new World Order :)

childintime
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:01 pm
Location: Canada

Postby childintime » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:10 pm

I would say that the most obvious response is: what kind of person compares having sex with a human being to driving a car? Perhaps it says a lot about the person making the statement. If that's how they view human relationships, maybe they should just follow that course until life teaches them the hard way. These are usually the same people who, when you tell them that consuming alcohol destroys brain cells, make some profound statement like "Oh well, I don't use them all anyway." or "I can afford to lose a few million." Generally such people make more of declaring their rebellious nature than of a genuine interest in truth. And believe it, these people are not engaging in sex in order to determine the suitability of the partner for marriage. They are simply gratifying themselves, and when questioned about it, they come up with a glib remark to deflect any implications of irresponsibility.

If their argument held any merit, then one would expect marriages contracted after the couple had slept together to be better or last longer than those where the couple were virgins. After all, they have spent months or years "test driving" each other. But in fact the opposite is true. When two people marry in a state of total chastity (i.e. beyond the physical condition and into the spiritual attitude), they will develop such a close bond of affection and intimacy as cannot be described to those who have not experienced it. There is no concern of whether the other knows what they are doing, there is a complete sense of mutual discovery. Humans have been marrying and reproducing for years without extensive education or experience, and we've done quite well. If the couple have difficulties after being together awhile, they can seek guidance or counselling, and then they will find out how to solve their difficulty together.

As far as a down side to "playing the field", try to imagine the utmost devotion that a man can show to a woman, or vice-versa, if they are the only ones that each has known. Now imagine how that devotion is compromised if one or the other is thinking, "If only they could do that as well as my last lover." In the extreme, imagine one calling out the other's name in the throes of passion, and the horror of the other when they realize the name belonged to someone else.

This subject is vast, and I could go (and have gone) on at great length, but I think the point is clear. Don't waste your time trying to convince people who think they have all the answers, or even those who think that there always are answers. Life is a mystery, and that is why faith is so essential to mastering it.


Return to “Discussion”