Is physical intimacy a mandate of marriage?

[themuzicman]

Strictly speaking, if a couple wasn't going to engage in any sexual behavior, then why bother getting married? I suppose one could do so for the tax benefits, but at that point they're nothing more than close friends.

It's a harder question when the couple is unable to engage in sex, with no possible reparation to make it possible in the future.

If a couple enters a marriage relationship without the desire to engage in sex, but are otherwise able, then I'd say they're disobeying commands of God.

If a couple has been in a marriage relationship, and becomes unable to engage in sex, permanent or not, then there is no issue. Older couples come under the threat of the stress causing heart attacks/etc.

If a couple wants to marry, but one is presently unable to engage in sex presently, then I would think they would seek to remedy that problem before taking vows together.

No, I don't mean to say that they should guarantee the ability to procreate before marrying, but sex is an integral element to marriage, and is the one thing that sets them apart from everyone else.

Michael

[JB]

I'm inclined to think that, even in the absence of capacity for sexual intercourse, mutual love and commitment suffice as grounds for a marriage, just as they would for a couple that lost that capacity after the wedding. Sex is of course an ideal component of marriage, and that isn't to be denied, but its definitive absence doesn't negate marriage itself or reduce it to mere friendship or economic convenience. Naturally, if some sort of remedy is easily available, that ought to be pursued; and, of course, if a couple has no desire for sex, without that being grounded in some kind of physiological or psychological condition... well, beyond disobedience to Scripture, I'd have to check their pulses.

[themuzicman]

Well, we are called, as the body of Christ, to be one, even as the Father and the Son are one. That calls for us to be as close as possible, meeting each other's needs and such. I don't know that a sexless marriage, either by choice or by inability, constitutes a relationship that is closer than one that should exist between brothers and sisters in Christ.

The next level of intimacy, after what we are called to embrace in the body of Christ, is physical.

Michael

[JB]

So you wouldn't be inclined to say that the connection between a man and a woman the day prior to their wedding (or immediately following it but prior to consummation) in any way transcends the agape that they're called to have for any brother/sister in Christ? There's no additional closeness in the former in comparison to the latter?

[themuzicman]

Oh, it absolutely does, because it introduces the eros, the sexual desire, which should not exist in any other relationship, and is considered sin in that context. A couple marries for the purpose of taking that next step of intimacy.

Michael

[Tanakh Keeper]

So, the command to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" is just something God said for fun? The value of the "two becoming one flesh" is something easily set aside? The command in 1 Cor 7 to "do not deprive each other .. and then come together" is just so many words on a page?

There is a procreative mandate. There is a fulfilling of the image of God in marriage. There is a requirement of fully giving oneself to one's spouse.

Unless there are medical issues that prevent sexual intercourse, a couple ought to be open and desiring to engage that act, as commanded in Scripture.

Michael

Moses! Of course that's the norm. The poster is just asking about this one specific case. Would you say that a man that's had a vasectomy is forbidden from marrying a women that's had a hysterectomy?

[themuzicman]

Moses! Of course that's the norm. The poster is just asking about this one specific case. Would you say that a man that's had a vasectomy is forbidden from marrying a women that's had a hysterectomy?

From a Scriptural perspective, there is more to marriage than procreation. That's only one aspect.

There is also the "two becoming one flesh", and the idea that this kind of intimacy reflects the image of God. Not to mention Paul's commands in 1 Cor 7.

So, I would certainly not have any issues with this marriage, provided that there is consummation.

Michael

[JB]

Oh, it absolutely does, because it introduces the eros, the sexual desire, which should not exist in any other relationship, and is considered sin in that context. A couple marries for the purpose of taking that next step of intimacy.

Michael

So now I'm rather curious: how do you reconcile that [closeness(agape + eros +~consummation) > closeness(agape)] with the post you made just before that, in which you didn't "know that a sexless marriage, either by choice or by inability, constitutes a relationship that is closer than one that should exist between brothers and sisters in Christ", which certainly appears to imply closeness(agape + eros + ~consummation) = closeness(agape)?


The position I'm taking here in this thread is just this: that we are to seek to exhibit maximal love in the appropriate contexts, and so in typical interrelations we strive to maximize our agape, which is nonetheless insufficient warrant for marital union. The God-ordained ideal and norm for marriage is a maximization of the union of agape and eros through consummation, and thus in virtually all possible marital situations, couples are exhorted (as in 1 Corinthians 7:5) to deprive one another of this maximization at most temporarily, and only for higher goods such as intense devotion to prayer. Nonetheless, in those rare cases where agape and eros are present, yet consummation is rendered impossible for all intents and purposes, the union of the first two is a sufficient basis for marital union, and thus a sexless marriage may be permissible in exceptionally rare, highly non-normative circumstances.

[themuzicman]

So now I'm rather curious: how do you reconcile that [closeness(agape + eros +~consummation) > closeness(agape)] with the post you made just before that, in which you didn't "know that a sexless marriage, either by choice or by inability, constitutes a relationship that is closer than one that should exist between brothers and sisters in Christ", which certainly appears to imply closeness(agape + eros + ~consummation) = closeness(agape)?

The difference between a marriage an another Christian relationship is the level of intimacy, and desire. Obviously we aren't to be physically intimate with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor are we to be sexually desiring them.

I don't think it necessarily has to do with general relational closeness, but the specific level of intimacy experienced between couples. I suppose there is some increased closeness as a result of physical intimacy, but a sexless couple wouldn't be attaining this.

The position I'm taking here in this thread is just this: that we are to seek to exhibit maximal love in the appropriate contexts, and so in typical interrelations we strive to maximize our agape, which is nonetheless insufficient warrant for marital union. The God-ordained ideal and norm for marriage is a maximization of the union of agape and eros through consummation, and thus in virtually all possible marital situations, couples are exhorted (as in 1 Corinthians 7:5) to deprive one another of this maximization at most temporarily, and only for higher goods such as intense devotion to prayer.

Exorted? No, they are commanded. Big difference.

Nonetheless, in those rare cases where agape and eros are present, yet consummation is rendered impossible for all intents and purposes, the union of the first two is a sufficient basis for marital union, and thus a sexless marriage may be permissible in exceptionally rare, highly non-normative circumstances.

Did you read the reason that the two come together after a time? Paul recognizes that sexual desire is a powerful force, and one that ought to be satisfied between married couples. A couple experiencing agape and eros, but failing to engage sexually is simply placing temptation in their own path. "Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Of course, if people havn't noticed, the world has been filled already (too much so some would say) so we might consider that command to have been met already. .

[Tanakh Keeper]

So, I would certainly not have any issues with this marriage, provided that there is consummation.

Michael

Confirmation is tough.

[Zero Tolerance]

It's a harder question when the couple is unable to engage in sex, with no possible reparation to make it possible in the future.

Indeed, that would be another situation altogether. The way I see it, not being able to have sex would be a curse!

[One Bad Pig]

Did you read the reason that the two come together after a time? Paul recognizes that sexual desire is a powerful force, and one that ought to be satisfied between married couples. A couple experiencing agape and eros, but failing to engage sexually is simply placing temptation in their own path. "Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Michael

"Again" implies that they have come together prior to the separation. If the marriage was never consummated in the first place, I don't see how this applies. Most marriages in Paul's day would have been arranged, and it took a divorce to break off a betrothal. If both partners desired to live a celibate life, which happened sometimes in early Christianity, they would get married and never consummate the marriage (keep in mind the teachings of Jesus on divorce). This happens rather less often today. St. John of Kronstadt (19th century) is the most recent example I'm aware of.

[Zero Tolerance]

It's been awhile since I've posted here, and since then, I have learned that in healthy marriages, sex is a necessity, not simply a perk.

Marriages that have gone months at a time without intimacy...well, I have yet to encounter a healthy one. Lack of sex usually isn't the cause of conflict, but it's certainly a symptom of something larger.

[Tanakh Keeper]

For sure, sex isn't just physical. It is a deep emotional sharing and a bond. Judaism requires that a man must attend to his wife's needs...first. Withholding sex from your wife is grounds for immediate divorce.