Redefining Sex & Marriage in the Modern Days

The debate on whether premarital sex was virtuous, initiated by liberals, has long been
opposed by conservatives and religious scholars alike. The former argues that marriage is a
social construct that molds itself according to the times’ cultural landscape, while the latter
believes marriage is universal and has specific principles that do not change over time. The
recurring principles mentioned in these discussions are found to be the following: (1)
Permanence/Indissolubility, (2) Procreative/Openness to New Life/Generative, (3) Public
Vows/Public Profession. In Mattisson’s Premarital Sex and Chastity, he too adopts the latter
principle on marriage when asserting his claims. This puts a limitation on the definition of
marriage as a purely heterosexual, monogamous, and legalistic privilege. Mattisson does
acknowledges that not all marital sex is virtuous, and not all extramarital sex is on the same
level of viciousness. For one to speak of virtue, it’s established that it’s not simply a question of
right or wrong. We will now consider the possibility of virtuous sex outside of marriage by first
laying down the goods of marriage, in light of the Christian perspective. Aside from the aspect of
permanence and indissolubility, we request that a modern and egalitarian reappraisal of the
current principals of marriage and sex be made. However, due to the stubbornness of the
Church, a cultural shift and acceptance in marital thought and sexual ethics may still be far off in
the future. For a long time, the Church has taken a Kantian approach to resolve the increasing
disapproval of progressive society allowing no exceptions nor considerations for highly disputed
issues like contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, pre-marital sex, and the like. Yet, most if
not all of these controversial topics are not as black and white as traditional Christian thought
has conveyed. Morality and the dilemmas and actions that accompany it, we suggest, should
always be evaluated in a gray space.

According to Virtue Theory, to be virtuous has always been associated with finding the
middle ground between these two extremes. So, to clarify, we too do not promote radical
liberalist ideas of hyperindividualism and hyper-sexuality. As Virtue Theory aptly puts it, it is
through habituation that our character or who we are becoming is developed. To be a virtuous
person, we must commit ourselves to do “the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the
right amount, toward the right people.” Considering all things mentioned above, we would like to
propose some of our ideas that we believe is a good start to reform marriage practices,
including premarital sexual activities. Note that this proposal is not a comprehensive one,
however it may provide some insightful thoughts on those that desire marriage to be a more
inclusive activity. To begin, we’ll start by dissenting from the Church’s widely known claim that
marriage and sex are inherently procreative in nature. Statistically speaking, most sexual activity
is done without the intention to procreate, even intentionally eliminating the possibility of it. The
creation account in Genesis 1–2 makes it very clear that God is the gracious creator of
everything in the universe, including humans and sexuality. God made humans sexual beings,
not as a begrudging afterthought, but as a deliberate way to manifest his own character. We see
this in Genesis 1:26–27: ‘then God said, “let us make man in our image, according to our
likeness” and God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created him.’ Since God does not have gender, the obvious question here is ‘how
does creating humans as sexual beings (male and female) reflect the image of God?’ The
answer is suggested in the very grammar of the passage, for plural pronouns are used of God
 Redefining Sex & Marriage in the Modern Days

(us, our), suggesting that God is not a solitary being, but rather that God is in intimate
relationship with himself. Further biblical revelation fleshes this out, for Scripture teaches that
the divine being has three equal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are in perfect
intimate union with each other (John 17:21). Thus, human sexuality is central to humans, being
made in the image of God, for our sexuality gives us the longing and the capacity for intimate
relationships.For this reason, some have said that our sexuality is the most God-like part of who
we are as humans. But if the creation account affirms that God designed our gender, does it
follow that the sex act itself is a gift from God? Absolutely, for the two are inextricably
connected. Immediately after creating the man and the woman, God blessed them and
commanded them to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. In other words, in a clear context of divine
blessing, God essentially commands Adam and Eve to have sexual relations. Furthermore,
when God was finished creating he reflected on what he had made, including human gender
and procreation through the sex act, and pronounced it ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). It is quite sad
that Christians often imply that sex is dirty and unspiritual, for this is not God’s verdict. He
created sex as a divine gift, and put his enthusiastic stamp of approval on it by exclaiming that
sex as an expression of love between a husband and a wife is not just good, but ‘very good’.
Additional divine approval (and hence blessing) of the sex act is found in the very words he
uses to describe the man and the woman he created. In Genesis 1:26, the Hebrew words
zachar and nekebah are used to convey ‘male’ and ‘female’. These two words are expressly
sexual, and literally mean ‘piercer’ and ‘one pierced’. So in the very words God uses to describe
the male and the female he created, he graphically describes the sex act. Clearly, God is not
embarrassed by sexual intercourse; it was his good creation. A final indication that sex is a gift
from God is seen at the end of the creation account, where after God made a wife for Adam, the
author declares that in marriage a man and a woman are to create a new family unit and
become ‘one flesh’. Thus, the sex act in marriage is intended by God to express, reinforce, and
re-enact the marital covenant itself. This helps to explain the beautiful Hebrew euphemism for
marital sex—‘to know’. Adam, who had been given Eve as his life companion on the sixth day of
creation, could continue to express and re-enact their union throughout their earthly days by
‘knowing’ Eve sexually (Gen. 4:1). What a beautiful picture of sex bringing pleasure and bonding
a man and a woman in marriage. Thus, marriage and the sex act itself are wonderful gifts from
God.

For animals, it’s rather the opposite. Animal intercourse is primarily procreational and only
animals that are of higher intellect and often more social usually have intercourse recreationally.
It’s undeniable that humans are the most intelligent and most social creatures on earth, so
things like social interactions, romantic relationships, and sex are naturally more complex to us
as compared to, well, asexually reproducing single-celled organisms. We would even go as far
to say that saying sex is mainly reproductive discredits not only sex’s complexity but ultimately
the complexity of human relationships in general. We then argue that, instead of procreativity,
there should be more emphasis put on sex’s unitive aspect. As Mattisson illustrated, sex has a
unique bonding effect between the parties involved leading to awkwardness, attachment, and
 Redefining Sex & Marriage in the Modern Days

intimacy. And, this unitive aspect is basically this unique effect that can definitely improve and a
couple’s relationship, but we argue is not a necessary element of marriage, as exhibited by
some marriages that have thrived without it (e.g. asexual marriages). Mattisson then says that
only in marriage can sex be fully definitive, which again is not always the case. Although it’s
more likely that sex within marriage is fully unitive, there are still cases outside marriage where
sex can be unitive as well, perhaps in the case of a soon-to-be-wed couple or a couple that
can’t marry due to legal/filial issues but are just as committed. So, yes, marriage does provide
that extra insurance of commitment, but does it really matter with equally committed
non-wedded couples if their intentions are clear? The Church’s adamance on the subject has
only pressured couples to marry earlier and, unfortunately, early marriage has been known to be
the leading cause of divorce worldwide.

On the subject of vows, Mattison gives great importance to why a couple’s public
profession of vows is a necessary activity, since he argues we are social creatures and our
identity is shaped by our relations with others. In turn, this will also hold true for couples who
decide to be seen as one unit for life. He goes on to say that this public profession
acknowledges a world bigger than themselves. With this, they invite the support and approval of
the society they are a part of. Yet, we think that his reasons may be too reliant on how the
relationship will be recognized and how they will be treated as a couple. Instead of seeing it as
an invitation to be accepted in society, it should be seen as an invitation to accept the
community into the relationship. Instead of just a public profession of vows to each other, which
can be communicated and clarified privately, we think that it is equally important to include in
those vows a promise of commitment to the community. Couples would be given the freedom to
craft their vision together on how they will share the overflowing fruits of their love and spiritual
growth that they’ve nurtured for each other, to the community. With this new principle of social
involvement rather than public vows, couples that do not choose to marry, for whatever reason it
may be, that are as committed with the intention of permanence, as long as they clearly
communicate their vows and promises to each other, are included in this narrative. We argue
that these couples may deem their acts of sexual intimacy as virtuous and if they were to
procreate then the principle of procreation that they must be open to life should still be upheld.
We do not argue the denial of the principle of procreation, we just wish to make this principle a
more inclusive one. In Scott Peck’s Love, he defined love in terms of its purpose — to nurture
each partner’s spiritual growth. To achieve this growth, they must both be openly and honestly
communicating the extent of their love for one another. Mattison emphasized the importance of
clarity as well. Acts such as saying “I love you”, holding hands in public, having sex and getting
married are just one of the few manifestations of a loving relationship. These acts also signify
the progression of any such relationship. Acknowledging this, we decided for this paper to focus
on sex as a symbolic act, appropriate for only specific contexts. Specifically, the context we
believe that sex may be deemed virtuous is not necessarily within marriage, but in actuality it’s
something that marriage and sex have in common. This commonality is the fact that neither of
the two can be a fulfilling experience without the presence of love Only in marriage do we find
God’s blessing upon the act of sexual love, or what is better termed, marital love. This physical
expression of love in marriage is a sacred sign of a husband and wife’s covenant of love and
love that they share in union with God. This marital love signifies the vows freely exchanged
 Redefining Sex & Marriage in the Modern Days

between each other and thereby reflects the faithful, permanent, exclusive, and self-giving love
they have promised to each other and to God. This understanding is evident in Jesus response
to the Pharisees’ question regarding divorce: "Have you not read that at the beginning the
Creator made them male and female and declared, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father
and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one’? Thus they are no longer
two but one flesh. Therefore let no man separate what God has joined" (Matthew 19:4-6).
Through the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, God blesses the couple joined in this sacred bond
and generously bestows grace so that they may assume the duties of marriage in mutual and
lasting fidelity.. Human relationships are truly complex, more than we could ever imagine.
Although the lines may blur from time to time, a good rule of thumb for answering questions
regarding sexuality and marriage is simply asking ourselves the
question, are we truly acting out of genuine love? The answer speaks for itself.

Word Count: 2,109

References:

● “Chastity and the Goodness of God: The Case for Premarital Sexual Abstinence.” The
Gospel Coalition,
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/chastity-and-the-goodness-of-god-th
e-case-for-premarital-sexual-abstinence/.

● Cna. “Pre-Marital Sex: Lessons from Reason, Scripture.” Catholic News Agency,
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55407/pre-marital-sex-lessons-from-reas
on-scripture.

● Paul, Ian, et al. “Does the Bible Prohibit Sex before Marriage?” Psephizo, 16 Aug. 2021,
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/does-the-bible-prohibit-sex-before-marriage/.

● “Pastoralia.” The Theologian : Pastoralia,

http://www.theologian.org.uk/pastoralia/index.html.