Sex before Marriage - crazy Christianity

Most Christian sects are against sex before marriage. Whilst there may well be very sound property-ownership and psychological reasons for insisting on marriage when sex is likely to lead to off-spring, the Christian argument usually involves some religious rather than practical element. In other words, their claims purport to rest on universal law rather than cultural convenience.

Before writing this I started to look for the first recorded marriage in the Bible - I was curious to know what the prototype of marriage was. Well I didn't actually get very far, but I did notice that that it was commonly assumed that the bonding of Adam and Eve in Genesis was 'marriage'. Ignoring for the moment the obvious objection that an argument based on mythological characters is hardly sound, consider what this proto-marriage means. Adam and Eve were brought together by God. Indeed within the story Eve was made especially for the job. There was no priest, no ceremony, no special form of words. This really was a case of a marriage made in heaven.

At least within the Catholic church one can find some semblance of logic to their position. The priest is acting as the conduit for holy authority. One could well argue that until the priest has brought together the couple they are not joined in any religiously legitimate sense. But what of the churches in which the minister/pastor/preacher can make no claim to special priestly powers beyond any member of the congregation? If all they and the congregation are doing is witnessing the union, when did the union take place? Perhaps God had brought the couple together long before the ceremony witnessed the marriage. Since they acknowledge that the 'true' marriage (as opposed to the civil registration of the fact) is brought about by God, the ceremony, ritual and general fuss is no indication of this. It is no indication because nobody present can claim to be a conduit of God's authority - or at least cannot make any greater claim than the couple getting married.

Indeed to go further, the couple might be seen to be destined for each other, 'married' before they were even born. In which case sex with a life partner can never be 'before' marriage - unless the minister and congregation presume to speak on behalf of God.

There is a fascinating article about the various models of marriage mentioned in the Bible without criticism - involving the ownership and rape of slaves, captives and relatives. It is clear that much of marriage was a question of owning a breeding partner and had little to do with the modern romantic image. When the Bible speaks of a man taking a woman as his wife, it could mean forced sex according to custom - or it might be the lesser relationship of concubine in which the woman has fewer rights. It certainly didn't mean a white wedding and all the present day razzle-dazzle.

So the next time a Christian argues against sex before marriage, you might just ask at precisely what point the happy couple are deemed married in a religious sense rather than a civil or ritual sense. If the answer involves some moment in the ceremony, one might well ask where they derive this authority from.

(The Buddhist answer to this foolishness is very simple: marriage is a civil matter, not a relious one. Monks are often called upon to give a blessing to the union but that does not change the fact that marriage is viewed purely as a social and civic convenience).