Do Christians believe that they cannot have sex outside civil marriage?

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Under US laws, anyone agreeing to get civil marriage agree that:
1. He doesn’t have right to have sex with his wife. Marital rape is illegal. So it’s not part of the contract. Financial support is part of the contract though irrelevant of wife’s performance.
2. His wife has right to have sex with anyone else because that’s legal.
3. His wife can divorce him any time she wants. No fault divorce is the law now.
4. Should his wife produce children that’s not his, he is responsible to support that child.
5. Should his wife get a divorce and cohabit with other males, he still has to keep supporting that wife in life alimony.

That is the justification that government used to extort life time alimony and child support from suckers. Government main argument is, “Well, you agreed to all these when you get married.”

Do Christians really think that God want us to agree to all those terms before we can have sex?

Most christian believe that they have to get married before sex. Well there are many kind of marriage. Civil marriage, contract marriage, group marriage, sham marriage, secret marriage, and so on. All of which are significantly different than biblical marriage, with civil marriage possibly be the most different. Do Christians believe that they have to pick civil marriage out of all those different marriage? Why?

Why is what the state says about marriage important to Western civilization?

In short, marriage is still important in western civilization to ration females in equal share for everyone and hence ensuring votes from singles in coming election. Other importance of marriage has gone.

Now for the explanation:

Anything created is there to max out the interest of the creators. The same way, marriage laws are there to max out the interest of those who make marital laws. That is, whoever are in power of the society.

Furthermore, is marriage nothing more than a tyrannical institution designed to control populations?
Yes. Not much more now.

Why do couples need approval from the state to begin and end a marital
relationship?

In short, because government prohibit all alternatives that directly compete with marriage.

Because the state often says so and provide hefty penalty for those who don’t get married or use other alternatives.

Let’s examine non western culture first for comparison.

In Indonesia, marital status, rather than wealth, decide whether you can reproduce or not, officially. That’s effectively genocide against those who don’t feel like getting married.

To get married in Indonesia you need to register your marriage in a religious ceremony and then Indonesians’ government only approve certain religions and certain interpretation of religions. The rest are condemned as heresy and punished heavily.

So yes you can choose not to get married in Indonesia, but that means you go extinct.

In muslim countries, you can get stoned for having sex outside marriage. So not marrying there means you just jerk off your self for the whole of your life.

In western civilization, prostitution is illegal. Other arrangements like polygamy is also illegal. Of course, as people are more free and this penalty get less and less, marriage simply decline.

Alternatives are better. As alternatives are legal, there goes marriage.

Why do people consent to unelected and elected officials meddling in their love lives?

Depends on what you mean by consent. In a sense, too many things are illegal outside marriage that it effectively make mariage forced rather than a concented decission.

In afganistan, women can’t even work. So, their alternative, besides starving is marriage.

Many countries still have laws providing blanket bans on all sex outside marriage. So the alternative is either abstinence, which sucks, or marriage.

What about modern western civilization? Women can work right? Well yea. And that’s the very reason why marriage is in great decline. Once alternatives are legal, there is little reason to consent to get married.

Western civilization is still not fully laizes faihre when it comes to marriage. Prostitution is illegal. This has huge chilling effect. Imagine if I pay for my girl friends’ rent? Does that count as prostitution? Imagine if I have 10 girlfriends? Imagine if her ex boyfriend make a big deal out of it.

Rather than facing such chilling effect, people may opt for marriage. That explains why marriage is still around even though declining.

Also kids are indoctrinated with romance while more realistic movies like porn are prohibited and declared dangerous for minor.

Imagine if it’s the other way around. If it’s fully up to the market, marriage, as defined by government will be gone. There is little reason to consent to government deciding our mating terms. Why should we?

Marriage has some benign benefits. At least it used to.

Determination of fatherhood

In ancient time there is no blood test. There is only one way to know who the father of the child is. A man has to make a deal to a woman that she won’t bang other guys. We sort of call that kind of deal as marriage.

Society that accommodate that kind of deals tend to have more diligent males. Males are motivated to work harder because now they can inherit their wealth to their sons rather than distance cousins.

Such societies tend to be richer and win more wars. Finally, patriarchal marriage traits then become common.

Marriage it self evolve into totally different deals as time goes by of course.

Obviously, with the invention of genetic testing, this purpose of marriage is in decline. Marriage no longer protect men from having to support other’s kid. Marriage tend to increase the risk of having such fate.

Helping society make decision on sex by forcing the issue to be public

It’s the same reason we wrote contract. We can just shake hand and talk. However, writing a contract make it easy for society to decide who are the fraudsters. Before most people are literate, people actually make their contracts publicly.

Other reasonably benign purpose of marriage is to decide whether the sex is consensual or not. Imagine if Kobe claimed that sex is consensual and the girl disagree? Outside marriage, it’s hard to decide which one is right.

Notice if the judge can’t make decision, the mob can take justice into their own hand and well, there would be tribal wars.

However, with marriage institution, ancient people can check whether Kobe is the registered husband or not. Making consent of having sex public, which is another aspect of marriage, will make societies’ decission easy.

So another purpose of marriage in ancient time is to make consent publicly available so societies can differentiate between rape and consensual sex, where “everybody agree”, more easily.

Of course, “every body” agree is a vague term. Most marriage in ancient time is forced marriage. Even if the girl consent, you can bet her ex boy friend doesn’t. That leads to another aspect of marriage.

Marriage also tend to have another not so benign feature. Marriage tend to uphold the interest of your competitors. Marriage incorporate the interest of legislators, that incorporate the interest of voters, and those voters are your competitors. If your wife is pretty, for example, every other guy want her too but can’t because you marry her. Quite obviously they do not want you to bang too many girls.

Think about it. Imagine if there is no monogamy rule. Then Brad Pitt will get all the chicks. Obviously there are many people that are unhappy, and hence would insist that it doesn’t work that way too easily.

Marriage, or to be more exact, prohibition of various more efficient alternatives, are there to enslave and control population.

Who ever control terms of marriage, effectively become the pimp of all women. That give them enough bargaining power to get votes, and support from all the voters, or warlords, or terrorists.

Think about it. Western civilization is democracy. Natural resources get divided proportional to political power. One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife.

In western civilization, main purpose of marriage is to ration females in equal share for everyone. That’s why we have monogamy norms. Political parties that allow polygamy will be so unpopular they won’t win votes.

Alternative to life long monogamous marriage tend to be illegal in western civilization until recently. In fact, we can predict that something will be more politically incorrect based on how an option make it easy for rich males to consensually grab women. Hence, prostitution, polygamy, and contract marriage are illegal.

Sex outside marriage used to be so frowned upon. Even free sex outside marriage is not as efficient as concubinage or prostitution.

Information that encourage people to have sex outside marriage, like porn is prohibited while nonsense like romance, is taught to kids.

Let’s compare this with the only non westernized people.

The muslim worlds are led by monarch. These monarchs of course have very little interest to ration women in equal share for everyone. So monogamy is not an issue there. Sex outside marriage is. Sex outside marriage means having sex without permission from the monarch.

Now if you want to wonder how the hell Osama can motivate people to blow themselves up to your towers. Think about it. Osama control something far more precious than money for those males. Osama control their women.

No sex outside marriage means no sex until Osama or one of his underling says OK. Would you kill for Osama if you’re one of those hapless male that can only get laid if Osama permit?

Why does western culture detest polygamy while being permissive toward adultery and extramarital affairs?

That’s basically the essence of western sexual morality. Anyone can bang your wife but you (marital rape is illegal), and any kid deserve your money, except yours. Okay that’s a joke. But if you interpret lack of reward as punishment, and anything punished as prohibited, and consider marriage as a form of prostitution, it won’t be too far of to accept.

It’s not that bad considering the alternatives though. It all comes from what I call, inevitability of power.

So, basically different people favor different ideologies. Different cultures are controlled by different people and hence tend to have different values. Interests of the people that are in control decide the prevailing morality in a society.

So, basically different people favor different ideologies. Different cultures are controlled by different people and hence tend to have different values. Interests of the people that are in control decide the prevailing morality in a society.

Marriage as government favored sexual relationship

Marriage can be very intuitively defined as government favored sexual relationship.

Think about it. Marriage terms vary from places to places from time to time, but there is one thing in common for all marriage. Marriage is always the most politically correct sexual relationship.

What makes something politically correct?

Something is politically correct when people think it’s “right”. People often think something is right because God or somebody approve it. However, that theory simply doesn’t fit the data or is hard to test. A better theory is that people think something is right if those in power approve it.

So what makes something politically correct? Simple. The interest of those who are in power.

Egalitarian nature of western civilization

Western civilization is unique among all other civilization for a trait that most would find surprising. In western civilization, men tend to be equal. Don’t know how that works. The ancient chinese or persian would actually bow down to emperors. The ancient greeks doesn’t.

Perhaps constant welfare and dividing languages give western men bigger bargaining position toward their leaders. Some said invention of long bows giving peasants and merchants bigger power.

GINI index is always high in Asia no matter what the economic system is. GINI index tend to be lower in western civilization, again no matter what the economic system is. Asians are used to hierarchy. White guys don’t. Well, Persian, Indians, and arabs are white too.

In western civilization and only in western civilization or their “westernized counterpart” lower status males tend to have higher bargaining position. I said westernized counter part because most of us, including the chinese, are effectively part of western civilization now due to westernization of everything.

Think about it

1. Socialism

2. Democracy

3. Monogamy

All tend to redistribute something to the mass. Socialism redistributes wealth. Democracy redistributes power. Monogamy redistributes women. Guess what, all are product of western civilization.

I am not saying it’s good or bad. Obviously hierarchy and disparity of result has very important function to motivate people to perform. I am just explaining things.

In Asia we don’t have equality. You lose you die. You win, you win big. Most asians won’t bother questioning why the emperors can have 1000 concubines. They can get their whole family slaughtered. Most asians won’t bother asking why an emperor have right to slaughter families?

The closest equality we have in China is probably during the Sung dynasty where even the emperor would be punished if they break the law. After that, none.

There is only one civilization where the lowest common men have enough balls to question and challenge the alpha males. Western civilization (or “westernized” civilization).

Legalizing your winning strategies while prohibiting your main competitors’ winning strategies

So what does that have anything to do with polygamy and extra marital sex?

Simple.

Natural resources tend to get divided proportional with political power. One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife.

Got that?

In arab, monogamy doesn’t make sense. The king and tyrants are in power. Obviously they all want more. The king simply chooses to be assertive enough and call such relationship marriage.

In western civilization, any king that grabs too many women will be very unpopular. When there are contests for the thrones, those kings, or presidential candidates, would lost a lot of vote if people figure out they support polygamy.

I suppose the king in arab will be unpopular too if they grab too many women. But who care? The lesser cocks are powerless anyway. Also some arab kings, like Dubai kings, are wise enough to govern their country well that their people are quite happy.

Moreover, rich arab countries can always import women from neighboring countries. So, pressure to prohibit polygamy is simply far less than in western civilization.

Western men cannot easily import women from neighboring countries. That’s because western women, just like the males, can vote too and do not want competition from cheaper competitors oversea. That’s how we hear so much bad publicity about women trafficking even though most trafficked women actually prefer richer western males.

Now what about adultery and extra marital sex?

That’s the thing. As any socialists would soon learn, there is no such thing as equality of outcome. Humans are different. Some will get more and some will get less.

So in western civilization, just like in any civilization, you can get many women despite prohibition of polygamy.

It’s just like how you can be very rich in a socialist society. Not in theory, not legally, not openly, but you can.

You see, polygamy is like winning openly. It’s like saying, see I am ubber alles, all of you are lesser than I am, and well I am banging all the bitches that you yearn for, and there is nothing you can do about it. Well you can sort of do that, but you can’t expect all those who don’t get any because of you to be saying, “Hell yeah.”

Marriage is socially approved sexual relationship. Relationships where Justin Bieber, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet gets all the chicks are not the kind of relationship most males would say, “Hell yea”. It’s not going to be marriage. It can be done, but it won’t be an openly socially approved sexual relationship. Not in a democratic western civilization.

You can do that. But in western civilization, you can’t do that openly. There is no way you can get many women with approval of the majority of men around you. If you want to do it, be quite.

Because polygamy is illegal, despite natural, the only way to do the equivalent of polygamy is outside marriage. So there is a bigger pressure for sex outside marriage to be legal in western civilization. Too many people wanting it.

Outside western civilization, and before invention of DNA tests. Marriage has one very important role in society. Marriage is the ONLY way to know fatherhood. That assurance is established brutally. Women that get caught cheating will get stoned to death.

Some would think it’s excessive. But when things are done so commonly, there is usually some upside, at least for those who are in power. When men are sure that their whole wealth will go to their son, they are more diligent, hardworking, and risk taking. They value honor more than immediate profit because at the end honor and trustworthiness can bring money which will go to kids.

If adultery were legal, there will be less intensive to work hard and accumulate wealth. There will be too much intensive to seduce someone else’s wife instead. Obviously such culture are less likely to spread. Imagine hordes of Vikings and Mongols attacking your city and all the men are like Justin Bieber?

Society needs brick layers, engineers, sword wielders. Most men won’t bother becoming that if they can’t be sure that wealth and status they earn by laying bricks or swinging sword can’t go to their own child.

After 1000 years, most societies tend to be patriarchal with stiff penalty against adultery. Including western civilization.

However, we need to remember that in western civilization, main use of marriage is not to test fatherhood. At least not now. Main use of western civilizations’ common marriage is to ration females in equal share for everyone.

Marriage has a secondary use besides deciding fatherhood. Marriage is there to ration mates to those who are in power. In western civilization this second use is far more significant.

In western civilization you are already obligated to support everybody’s kid anyway whether it’s your kid or not, due to socialism. Also recently, we have DNA tests to decide fatherhood, greatly lessening the traditional importance of marriage. If I want to be sure that my kids are mine, I no longer need to get married. I just test my kids’ DNA.

Also adultery gives the poor males a chance “to win too”. Think about it. If you’re a milk man, how do you win if you have to compete with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? What I mean by winning here, means attracting higher quantity and quality of women.

If prostitution is legal, definitely you can’t win. If adultery is illegal, it’s hard to win too. Even if you can attract those women, who would feed your kids?

So it’s natural than that many poorer males in western civilization vote for

  1. Prohibition of prostitution
  2. Forcing richer males to pay even for kids that’s not his
  3. Higher welfare program so that the rich are forced to feed all their kids

In western civilization, the mass are the one who are in power and morality tends to move toward that direction.

Not all poor people like that of course. Also I am not saying this to portray the poor as evil. However, I am simply trying to point out what typical conflict of interests between the poor and the rich. We simply have different interests and hence we have different opinions on what moral value to support.

It’s the same reason why many oppose death penalty. They are robbers or robber’s family that sympathize with robbers. In ancient England, when the rich are in power, people can get death penalty for pick pocketing. When the poor in power, it’s often the home owners that defend their property that go to jail rather than the robbers.

Adultery follow similar pattern. There is absolutely no punishment for adultery in western civilization. In fact, adultery is actually rewarded by the court system. Males often have to support kids that’ not his own in case of adultery even though DNA tests show that the kids are not his.

Yes all these hurt the rich. But again, unique in western civilization, the rich are NOT powerful. Hence the rich do not decide morality. Maybe that’ll change now that disparity of wealth is growing. Also globalization means that the rich has one very important right, namely the right to flee to China where hierarchies are more tolerated. However, that’s not happening fully yet.

Cultural comparison

Let’s compare this with Arab, for example. In arab, the rich is powerful. In fact, in oil rich countries like most arab countries, the way to get rich is to be in power. Those in power will decide

  1. No sex outside marriage. That is, no sex without approval of those who are in power
  2. Allowing polygamy. Only those who are in power or get approved by those who are in power can get laid. The powerful in Arab, like bin Laden, effectively become the pimps of all women. You can get women there only if alpha males approve. Now you wonder how they motivate men bash themselves to your building and why their religious leaders are so obsessed about sex.
  3. No porn. The less people want women the better.
  4. Yea obviously they are more likely to kill each other over who get laid. Like there is any culture that doesn’t.

In arab, men has more intensive to be in power. The arab leaders then wisely channel those men to fight some great Satan, such as US or Israel, which everyone somehow has to believe as faith.

In China, money rules everything and chinese civilization tend to be much smaller. So we have

  1. Toleration of prostitution. Until communist rules, prostitution is always legal.
  2. Even when prostitution is illegal, you can always get that somehow if you have money. However, you only have that in Chinese dominated regions. At least that’s how it works in my countries.
  3. Polygamy is not common. Why fight authority? Concubines are common.
  4. Corruption. Obviously if you’re rich but not powerful, you simply pay up. Very common in all Chinese influenced society.

If women prefer the rich, how can there be kids with poor dad?

C’mon. No serious answer?
1. Perhaps, some women don’t prefer the rich. That’s one explanation. That’s disprovable. Of course that leads to another question. If some women don’t prefer the rich and their kids end up poor, then why should the rich be responsible for the social programs?
2. Perhaps there is something that prevent women from picking the rich.
For example, alimony laws tend to bankcrupt richer males but is harmless
for poor males. This obviously discourage most rich males from getting
married. It makes things difficult for women to aim for richer males. If
a woman is a 7-8, would you marry her? Well, if I am homeless, why not.
If I am a billionaire, no way. That means, a 7-8 women will have tons of homeless people proposing to her but no billionaire.Either 1 or 2. Something must be right.Edit