to not understand Christians who have sex/live together before marriage then marry in church?

[onlytwo]

Posting here because I am genuinely confused and not trying to offend anyone.

I keep seeing couples who describe themselves as Christians who have been living together for years, sometimes with kids, then they get married in church with all the religious vows etc. I thought one of the key Christian teachings is no sex before marriage yet it seems really common that people ignore that part but still have a big church wedding.

AIBU to think it is hypocritical?

Yep.

And yep again to @SlightlyTooMuch who said Paul/Saul was a wanker. Even Christians think so.

Well I suppose those that do have premarital sex can just repent and they’ll be forgiven.

I agree that Mumsnet or any forum isn’t representative of all Christians. But the issue isn’t just whether someone is “devout” or not, It is that many Christians today openly say premarital sex is completely acceptable within their faith, not just a personal failing or weakness.

That’s different from simply choosing how devoted to be. It’s about redefining what Christianity teaches to fit modern preferences, even when traditional Christian teaching has consistently said sex is for marriage.

So while everyone has the freedom to make their own choices, changing what the faith says about right and wrong to match what’s culturally comfortable isn’t just a personal decision; it’s altering the core of what Christianity has taught for centuries.

@onlytwo, I agree with @NoisyGoldMember, and can’t help but wonder why you are still banging on about this. If you are not getting the guidance you need from your own real life religious advisor, then I can’t see how you’re going to get it from here. It might make you feel good to bang on about people ‘sinning’ via extra marital sex and the rest but no-one else cares, or feels shamed by you, so it might be a good idea to just make a nice cup of tea and go to bed. If there is anything more specific than this, then do share it. I genuinely wish you the best , take care xxx

I appreciate your concern, but if the discussion bothers you, you’re free to leave the thread. I started this conversation to explore a topic I find interesting and important and several people have engaged thoughtfully.

I’m not here to shame anyone but to understand different perspectives on how Christians today approach teachings about premarital sex. If that’s not a discussion you want to take part in, it might be better for you to step away rather than tell others to stop talking.

Thanks for your well wishes.

Lots of people saying it's not a key teaching. In the Galatians quoted it's listed right next to adultery. And most mumsnetters take a very dim view of that.

Christianity does tend to be a pick and mix depending on your own preferences and vices. And churches accept this approach for the cash donations. Obviously lots of Christian pre marital shaggers on Mumsnet. Just the one partner though. I believe them.

Not really. Grew up in a COE household and attended Sunday school. It wasn’t until my early twenties that my mother joined a new church and my younger sister was ‘saved’. There was a lot of pressure for me to do the same but when I did my homework it occurred to me that I would just be a sinner everyday because I lived with my boyfriend (and was obviously having sex). I couldn’t figure out how I could reconcile the two. Did I pray every night and request forgiveness for the same sin?

Sure it does , for a few particular reasons. One, sex with such a young person would’ve been indeed seen as immoral, even in those times, because we are talking very early teens here. While not necessarily considered children (as we see it today) it was still too early, plus for many, before they reached puberty, and then there’s that whole thing about sex for conception purposes.

Another , is that a lot of people get married so much later nowadays. Late 20’s, 30’s , even 40’s. That’s a very long time to go without sex . You can of course disagree, but we have to be realistic here.

Then, and this is another biggie, there is no real NEED for marriage in the same terms. A woman can get to 30 without being considered an “old maid”, be shunned by society, be considered defective. Women can own property , make and keep their own money etc. They aren’t just an extra burden/mouth to feed /something to get rid of or use for political alliances/financial gains, so much so, the groom deserved payment in return.They don’t need the protection of marriage against being kidnapped, defiled, having then to marry the guy and so on.

My grandfather had to marry my grandmother in a day (they were courting) because they had word a bloke from another village was coming that night to kidnap my (16 yo) grandmother. That would’ve been it. Even if nothing had happened, the fact that she “spent “ the night with him would’ve been enough for her to have to marry him instead.

It’s all pretty fucked up really when you think about it , and it’s less about morality and more about the wants of men and everything that follows.

So devoted or a little less devoted still means the same reward for your faith … salvation and life after death?

You are absolutely right that the historical realities of marriage and gender roles were often oppressive, unfair, and dangerous for women and there is no denying that marriages were sometimes arranged or rushed to protect girls from horrific situations like the one you described. But those cultural practices do not erase or invalidate the underlying moral teaching that sex was meant to be within a committed, lifelong relationship even if the way marriage was handled in society often fell short of that ideal.

Yes, people marry much later today, and it is true that waiting until your late 20s or beyond for sex is difficult. But difficulty does not change the moral standard itself. Christian teaching has never said “only wait if it is convenient”. It calls believers to sexual self-control as part of honouring God even when it is hard or countercultural.

While modern women thankfully have far greater rights and independence than in the past, that does not mean the purpose of marriage has disappeared. The Christian view of marriage is not just about property, protection, or political deals. It is meant to reflect a covenant of love, faithfulness and mutual support.

I agree many old marriage customs were unjust but the moral call to reserve sex for a lifelong, faithful commitment is not about controlling women or outdated social norms. It is about upholding a standard for intimacy that protects and honours both partners regardless of when or why marriage happens.

Very good point about not needing marriage. What about those that don’t want to get married but are Christians? Should they just live a life of celibacy just because they don’t want to get married? The same can be said with Muslims and Jews.

I think it’s more that they are accepted (rather than shunned, ostracised or simply tolerated-like a bad smell) by the church/their religious community. In a way , they are given legitimacy (not that they need it in my eyes, but I know we differ on this point) . My question to you is, would you like this to stop? Have them be turned away? They obviously won’t police themselves (for whatever reasons), so should the church start policing it again?

I’m not being goady, just wondering how deep do your convictions go, if that makes sense.

I didn't say that. I said why I thought the church has a problem - and you cannot force people to agree. Having thought about gay marriage, given I am for marriage in general, then yes, I support it.

I do not think the answer is for churches to start turning people away or harshly policing everyone’s personal lives. That would go against the core Christian call to show grace, compassion and welcome people wherever they are in life.

At the same time, I think churches have a responsibility to be honest about what they believe Scripture teaches even if it is challenging or unpopular. Being clear about those moral standards does not mean rejecting or humiliating people but it does mean not redefining right and wrong just to avoid discomfort or fit cultural trends.

So no, I would not want churches to shun people or treat them like they are beyond forgiveness. But I also think churches should not pretend certain behaviours are consistent with Christian teaching when they are not. There is a big difference between loving people unconditionally and changing the faith’s teachings to match what people want to hear.

Basically the Church and religion is discriminatory - not exactly the loving and caring approach they pretend to promote.

Isn't your OP hypocritical?
I thought a true Christian doesn't judge?

And I’d fully agree with you if marriage was the only way to have a fully committed, life long relationship. Or if it guaranteed one. We both know it doesn’t, because people are people(Christians or not).Even Jesus knew it, hence allowing one exception for divorce . He also used it as a reason why other things were grounds for divorce. “Hearts of stone” I think it was the phrase he used? You can see that as judgement or acceptance that people are people, despite the hope /demand that they better themselves.

You are absolutely right that marriage does not guarantee a lifelong, committed relationship, and plenty of marriages, even Christian ones, sadly end in failure.

But the fact that people often fall short of an ideal does not make the ideal meaningless or unnecessary. The whole point of Christian teaching is not that marriage is a foolproof guarantee of commitment, but that it is the framework God established for people to commit to each other fully and faithfully.

Jesus did acknowledge human weakness with phrases like “because of your hardness of heart,” but he did so while affirming that God’s original design for marriage was lifelong faithfulness. His teaching on divorce shows both compassion for human frailty and a clear standard for how relationships should reflect God’s covenant love.

The fact that people struggle to live up to the standard does not mean the standard should be discarded. Instead, it highlights why commitment through marriage matters: it sets a clear intention for lifelong faithfulness and provides a foundation for building a relationship meant to reflect God’s love and permanence.

So while marriage does not guarantee success, it still stands as the clearest expression of a committed, lifelong relationship as understood in Christian teaching.

No, they do not discriminate except in this one way: you are either following the Way or you are not and do not wish to. If you are not/don't wish to why are you interested in what the church is doing?
And if you are in need the church doesn't care what you believe in/don't believe in.

You know what? Absolutely fair enough. However, that’s something to be taken with the church/higher ups in the church, rather than individual Christians. After all , they are responsible for what goes on, what’s acceptable and what is present in their sermons/teachings/liturgy. I’ve attended mass for years at various points in time, and at no point was it brought up or mentioned. In fact, I became a Catholic as an unwed mother “living in sin”, with the priest fully aware. I still became Catholic, DD got baptised, got her communion and now starting her confirmation process.Ironically, I joined that particular church, because I felt accepted .

However, I do see where you’re coming from(even if I disagree, ans I would , wouldn’t I?) but I think it’s a difficult balance to strike, even for the religious higher ups.

I do sometimes wonder if this acceptance is driven by need (to keep the doors open, keep the faith going , get money in , get more parishioners or keep them etc) or driven by actual acceptance(because.. social,cultural, historical context).

I’m interested as two very good friends want to get married in a church and have a religious ceremony - and it’s refused to them. They are being rejected because they are two amazingly wonderful men rather than a man and women.

Churches sometimes change their teachings based on new interpretations of the Bible, usually because of new theologies of human personhood. For example, slavery is no longer permitted. Women are ordained in some churches. Etc.

I think it’s a good thing that modern interpretations of biblical passages about sex reflect modern understandings of human sexuality, as well as new knowledge about the language and context of the Bible.

@onlytwoI just wanted to add, that despite fundamentally disagreeing, I’m really enjoying this discussion and that we have similar interpretations, but different conclusions. This thread definitely stretches both the brain and faith muscles.

It has been really good to have this discussion without it getting nasty or horrible. I have appreciated how respectful it has been and I just wanted to say thank you for that. This thread has definitely been a good workout for both the mind and heart!

I thought the bible was meant to be a perfectly written book by god. The fact it needs updates to keep up with the times renders it unreliable and god an unreliable narrator in my opinion. Unmarried christians take as much notice of the sex rules as catholics in 2025 eating fish on Fridays.