100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Marriage first? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Everyone is different at my age heck no.. If the sex is no good then I'm sure the hell ain't gonna marry them... I'm gonna do the test drive first before I make a commitment...Honestly have always felt this way.. Sex is what bonds two people together.. Just my opinion....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well done dodo
at this point in life, I have had enough to know its a new deal with each new person and that it takes commitment to get to know each others sexual proclivities and interests I can easily wait to start that process, sex is the easy part,, at least to me it is,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waiting for sex after marriage is like waiting for them in HS to be at a legal age to date them. JMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being abstinent by choice is never easy, but again I believe it will be worth it in the end 
Again; another awesome man. All I meet is dirt bags that don't give a damn about knowing me and just want to have sex; especially on the first date. I gladly kicked them to the curb. I deserve better than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being abstinent by choice is never easy, but again I believe it will be worth it in the end
Again; another awesome man. All I meet is dirt bags that don't give a damn about knowing me and just want to have sex; especially on the first date. I gladly kicked them to the curb. I deserve better than that. lol  tread carefully lest ye be face down in the dirt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Happiness2U
on
Sun 01/04/15 09:57 AM
|
|
ya know, the old premise of waiting till marriage was first devised to allow both people to make sure their relationship was not based upon only sexual pleasures, because you can really like someone in bed, but be annoyed and nearly hate how they use their brain in daily life matters... but the old laws of "morality" shielded the actual reasons for beliefs passed down, since over time, all those that adopted such "rules" of abstinence, were just people who most wanted to be recognized in their communities as "good people", to fit in, and be accpeted as "good", and so never actually knew the founding reasons the "rules" made up originally... but the people who made up the "rules", were not actually the "good people" they liked to think of them self as, or they would have never espoused a "one size fits all rule", as the only people who do that are superior self righteous people who love to think of them self as such, so self superior, they actually make rules for the rest of the world based upon their own personal self and experience. of course, because they were "self worshipers", they forgot, each person is unique, and so then is each occurrence that each create. Ummm no. The reason waiting until marriage and remaining a virgin was devised by males to ensure ownership and that any offspring was their own. Women were chattel and ownership was the husband and father of the children. No man wanted to waste time and energy raising a child that was not his own. Much like animals who will kill young to induce estrus in the female and impregnate her to ensure their own lineage. We have moved way past this mentality in most societies so that the choice to engage in premarital sex is up to the individuals involved. A romantic notion mostly. IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya know, the old premise of waiting till marriage was first devised to allow both people to make sure their relationship was not based upon only sexual pleasures, because you can really like someone in bed, but be annoyed and nearly hate how they use their brain in daily life matters... but the old laws of "morality" shielded the actual reasons for beliefs passed down, since over time, all those that adopted such "rules" of abstinence, were just people who most wanted to be recognized in their communities as "good people", to fit in, and be accpeted as "good", and so never actually knew the founding reasons the "rules" made up originally... but the people who made up the "rules", were not actually the "good people" they liked to think of them self as, or they would have never espoused a "one size fits all rule", as the only people who do that are superior self righteous people who love to think of them self as such, so self superior, they actually make rules for the rest of the world based upon their own personal self and experience. of course, because they were "self worshipers", they forgot, each person is unique, and so then is each occurrence that each create. Ummm no. The reason waiting until marriage and remaining a virgin was devised by males to ensure ownership and that any offspring was their own. Women were chattel and ownership was the husband and father of the children. No man wanted to waste time and energy raising a child that was not his own. Much like animals who will kill young to induce estrus in the female and impregnate her to ensure their own lineage. We have moved way past this mentality in most societies so that the choice to engage in premarital sex is up to the individuals involved. A romantic notion mostly. IMHO. uh... did you somehow feel from my post i agree with the archaic primitive notion of marriage? the opposite was stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya know, the old premise of waiting till marriage was first devised to allow both people to make sure their relationship was not based upon only sexual pleasures, because you can really like someone in bed, but be annoyed and nearly hate how they use their brain in daily life matters... but the old laws of "morality" shielded the actual reasons for beliefs passed down, since over time, all those that adopted such "rules" of abstinence, were just people who most wanted to be recognized in their communities as "good people", to fit in, and be accpeted as "good", and so never actually knew the founding reasons the "rules" made up originally... but the people who made up the "rules", were not actually the "good people" they liked to think of them self as, or they would have never espoused a "one size fits all rule", as the only people who do that are superior self righteous people who love to think of them self as such, so self superior, they actually make rules for the rest of the world based upon their own personal self and experience. of course, because they were "self worshipers", they forgot, each person is unique, and so then is each occurrence that each create. so, what you are saying is that the concept of marriage first is actually a 3rd party imposition to the general public designed to have themselves put on a pedestal? pretty much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 01/04/15 08:18 PM
|
|
ya know, the old premise of waiting till marriage was first devised to allow both people to make sure their relationship was not based upon only sexual pleasures, because you can really like someone in bed, but be annoyed and nearly hate how they use their brain in daily life matters... but the old laws of "morality" shielded the actual reasons for beliefs passed down, since over time, all those that adopted such "rules" of abstinence, were just people who most wanted to be recognized in their communities as "good people", to fit in, and be accpeted as "good", and so never actually knew the founding reasons the "rules" made up originally... but the people who made up the "rules", were not actually the "good people" they liked to think of them self as, or they would have never espoused a "one size fits all rule", as the only people who do that are superior self righteous people who love to think of them self as such, so self superior, they actually make rules for the rest of the world based upon their own personal self and experience. of course, because they were "self worshipers", they forgot, each person is unique, and so then is each occurrence that each create. Ummm no. The reason waiting until marriage and remaining a virgin was devised by males to ensure ownership and that any offspring was their own. Women were chattel and ownership was the husband and father of the children. No man wanted to waste time and energy raising a child that was not his own. Much like animals who will kill young to induce estrus in the female and impregnate her to ensure their own lineage. We have moved way past this mentality in most societies so that the choice to engage in premarital sex is up to the individuals involved. A romantic notion mostly. IMHO. mmm so it was the male with the sense of responsibility for children to be able to know who there parents were? interesting belief that responsibility doesn't seem gender specific,, but I would certainly hope it was the female who had it if it were a commitment doesn't require marriage,,nor does it ensure parentage of a womans child so the idea its conceived to ensure whose child someone is seems kind of a far stretch,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there was a legitimate reason for the creation of marriage before sex long ago...
but the world is far advanced in intelligence now... for who is stupid enough to think a written contract can inspire and invigorate the natural caring of true love because of a piece of paper one signed. if i sign a contract with you to never insult me, am i an Honorable person? if i sign a contract with you, that you will never cheat on me, am i an honorable person... for the only true love agreement, is i shall be there beside you, as long as that be your most wish. and the same for me unto to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
far advanced in intelligence, didn't change biology though
or children and their needs marriage isn't for everyone but it certainly isn't a matter of feeling 'superior' for those of us who prefer it, nor a lack of intelligence,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
far advanced in intelligence, didn't change biology though or children and their needs marriage isn't for everyone but it certainly isn't a matter of feeling 'superior' for those of us who prefer it, nor a lack of intelligence,,, well. you are right... but many who have not divorced feel superior to those who have. and many who do not have sex before marriage feel somehow superior to those who do... as hello, the whole world reside in the dark place, of most judgement of, who be most superior, or greater, or greatest. as most still want to be viewed as 'greater, or greatest'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yea yea yea. I think i can, anything for love
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
doing it for love is different than doing it for what one think will be a future sex slave for it self.
those always end tragically. hehehehe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welll this is what i am searching here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe waiting for it after marriage is just an excuse, maybe he is impotent...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe waiting for it after marriage is just an excuse, maybe he is impotent...
plausible explanation 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya know, the old premise of waiting till marriage was first devised to allow both people to make sure their relationship was not based upon only sexual pleasures, because you can really like someone in bed, but be annoyed and nearly hate how they use their brain in daily life matters... but the old laws of "morality" shielded the actual reasons for beliefs passed down, since over time, all those that adopted such "rules" of abstinence, were just people who most wanted to be recognized in their communities as "good people", to fit in, and be accpeted as "good", and so never actually knew the founding reasons the "rules" made up originally... but the people who made up the "rules", were not actually the "good people" they liked to think of them self as, or they would have never espoused a "one size fits all rule", as the only people who do that are superior self righteous people who love to think of them self as such, so self superior, they actually make rules for the rest of the world based upon their own personal self and experience. of course, because they were "self worshipers", they forgot, each person is unique, and so then is each occurrence that each create. Ahh...one thing to keep in mind about no sex until marriage is that pregnancy was a real potential before female birth control was availability in the 70's. Culture is very different now regarding pregnancy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does that include forplay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the old covenant once you have sex with a person your are automatically married to that individual person. Arranged, ceremony or paper marriage was not custom until later. (Genesis 2:24) A man shall leave his Father and Mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 24:16; 24:67) V. 16 The young damsel (Rebekah) was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: V.67 Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: According to the new covenant (1 Corinthians 7:36) If any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower (As in having her first period) of her age, and and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Your next question will probably be in that case I am already committing adultery. That maybe, but not likely. Divorce is automatically in effect if your ex-partner has slept with any other person. It is your decision to go back to the person in marriage, or have no mercy and leave. Either way forgiveness must be given. If this is not the case there is another loop hole. (1 Corinthians 7:14-15) v.14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. v.15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. If your partner is not a christian then you are not bond to thus if they choose to leave. Now the question is are they a true christian? If they are producing the fruit of God then they are true Christians. Here are the signs. (Galatians 5:17-24) & (Ephesians 5:1-20) & (1 Corinthians Chapter 13) Chances are you free to have sex and be married under God. You can get paper certificate of marriage later. In the eyes of God you are Married regardless. To keep the drama down I suggest you keep it secret until pubic marriage ceremony.
Your friend and minister, Jonathan Tranberg |
|
|
|
|
