The no-sex 'myth'

[Mercury]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
THE NO-SEX 'MYTH'
BBC Online

Is sex before marriage a definite no-no for the church? It may not be as clearcut as that - but then the history of marriage isn't quite what you might think.

The man who will become the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury in February is not scared of challenging tradition.(...)in declining an opportunity to sign a statement opposing sex outside marriage, Dr Rowan Williams has hit one of the church's sensitive spots.

The church's position - that people should not have sex before or outside marriage - is seen by many as non-negotiable, a central tenet which has always been at the heart of Christian doctrine.

But, says Adrian Thatcher, professor of applied theology at the University of Exeter, things are not as they seem.
"Christendom is in a state of collective amnesia about how it used to deal with marriage," he says. Until the Reformation, marriage began at the time of betrothal, when couples would live and sleep together.

This was called "the spousals"; it was legally binding. The nuptials - ie the public wedding ceremony - would happen later. Into the mid-1700s it was quite normal and acceptable for brides to be pregnant at the altar.


The situation did not change until the Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753, which for the first time stipulated that everyone in England and Wales had to be married in their parish church. The impact was widespread. The number of first pregnancies conceived outside marriage fell from 40% to 20% in the Victorian era, Briggs says in A Social History of England.

Rowen Williams (the future Archibishop of Cantebury) said "an absolute declaration that every sexual partnership must conform to the pattern of commitment or else have the nature of sin and nothing else is unreal and silly"

and-

"to condemn same-sex relations requires reliance on "a few very ambiguous biblical texts" or a non-scriptural theory about nature.

You could also argue, he says, that personal morality is stronger NOW than it was in the Victorian era, since wives were widely regarded as being a husband's property; adultery with a married woman became a property crime. At least nowadays woman are treated as people rather than chattels, he says.


</font>

full story at BBC Online

So, if we shoud go back to "traditional family values" please tell me what period you are talking about. I may agree with you!




[This message has been edited by Mercury (edited 04 October 2002).]

[eliza_nightvoice]

If you dig back through history enough, you will find that much of today's "morality" has an economic basis. The "espousal" was essentially the signing of the marriage contract. No church involvement involved to "sanctify the union." Just a piece of paper recording the contractual arrangements to be kept by the the city, state or whatever organization that registerted legal documents.

No sex outside of marrage? Need to know who the father of the child is so that the inheritance "stays in the family."

Respect for clergy? Most of the clergy in the days before the Reformation were second or third sons of the aristocracy. Big brother got the wealth and power from the father. These sons got the wealth and power from the organized church. The honorific title of "Prince of the Church" at one time was correct because most of them were princes without an inheritance.

[Guest]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mercury:
full story at BBC Online

So, if we shoud go back to "traditional family values" please tell me what period you are talking about. I may agree with you! </font>

No sex, please. We're British.

------------------
Peace,

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I certainly agree with much of what the Archbishop is saying. Despite the lament of fundamentalist evangelists, morality today IS stronger in many ways than at any time in the past, particularly with regard to treatment of women.

------------------
Rick Jackson

[LisaA]

Y'know, this makes great sense to me. Nobody I know except my brother-in-law was a virgin when they got married. The days of passion lead to a lot of children being born, universally across humanity. The fundamentalist muslim people are trying so hard to fight this natural human tendency, they will stone girls who don't seem virginal enough before marriage. And that is a chattel existence for females.

In the 70's the feminist idea about marriage was that it made women 2nd class citizens if they felt they had to do it to be respected. That's why I thought being married, being a wife, and raising children was selling out.
The feminist movement made it okay again to have sex out of wedlock. I mean, certainly we have been taught to try and be openminded about other people's lives.

So now we have these marriage laws and unwritten moral codes. Most don't hold to them. It is better to not have sex with a lot of partners. If you do you're sure to get a disease, you're sure to give away something valuable of yourself, etc.

You can look at it both ways. Now, I cohabited for a while in my youth and I learned never to do it again, because marriage made relationships equitable for me. I feel more liberated knowing there's no way to blow off this relationship, and knowing that I'm giving all and so is he.

But I do think there's something to be said for the notion that marriage laws might be about money and possession of a person. It all depends on love and choice. It's not slavery if you sacrifice purely out of love. But not enough people make that distinction.

[eliza_nightvoice]

I'm not anti-marriage, just anti-hypocracy.

There is something beatiful about 2 people who have an ongoing committment for so many years and to dedicate themselves to keep that committment to the relationship even when it has been diffficult.

[LisaA]

Good and true to both things.