Sex before marriage is an outdated concept that doesn’t serve most people in today’s world or society. Not all people, just most people. No sex before marriage is predicated upon an old and outgoing paradigm. God never told man to first get married before having sex. The Bible clearly shows that having sex created the marriage. When you had sex, you were married. You couldn’t even be married if sex didn’t take place, according to the Bible. So you didn’t get married first and then have sex. You had sex first and then became married. Hey, just keeping it real but also being technical.
And by no means is my motive here to promote sex before marriage. I’m just promoting and espousing doing what works best for you and your mate and you guy’s personal circumstance and situation whatever it may be. If sex before marriage is your thing, good for you. More power to you! If sex before marriage is not for you, hey, the same applies – more power to you. I’m a respecter of free will. DO YOU!
Sex before marriage is not a sin, especially if you’re not a Christian (no disrespect Christian brethren). People who believe that sex before marriage is a sin hold a subjective belief and they should not speak in terms of sex before marriage being a sin in an objective fashion because nothing exists to support such a notion. It’s wholly preposterous!
Sex after marriage is dangerous, or could be. What if you don’t like the sex after marriage? What to do? Stay stuck with the person? We cannot pretend that in a society such as ours that sex is not important because it is. Relationships and marriages end all the time over sex: not getting enough sex or getting too little sex, affairs (having sex outside of one’s marriage or relationship), not sexually satisfied from the sex act with your partner, etc.
Our society has made marriage too burdensome. It is seen as bondage and slavery by many people in our society. It comes along with too much pressure. There’s even a marriage tax imposed by government and how does this promote marriage? Many married couples see the governmental marriage tax as a penalty on marriage and rightfully and understandably so.
Why would government make married couples pay more on their taxes? Marriage should be an incentive as far as government is concerned. Many couples wisely file their taxes separately and you can’t blame them.
Many people, due to personal irresponsibility and immaturity, are afraid of marriage due to commitment and possible legal ramifications. People have to consider marriage tax penalty, costly divorce, alimony and palimony, child support, court fees and expenses, and for some couples, a prenuptial agreement. Of course all of this is on the negative end of the pole, but many people have to think like this because the truth of the matter is that marriage in our society is a legal business and commercial agreement. If the marriage doesn’t work out, money will be spent, perhaps more money than it cost to be married depending on the couple and circumstances.
“Man, when you get married you are pretty much paying for sex! In-house sex! That’s all you’re doing; and the trip thing is that after you get married (about 6 months to a year), the fucking slows down drastically and you’re lucky if you get any at all. Oh, and don’t have children. You can forget about the sex then. Shit drastically slows down after your woman has a baby. They’re always tired or tending to the baby and you’re left with nothing but a rock hard dick.” – Keith C, San Francisco, CA
Marriage is a privilege and not a right in our society. The State (government) has replaced God today and the collective people have allowed it. People don’t go before God to get married. They go before the State to get married.
So you think marriage is not a privilege but a divine or God-given right? Well, if this is so, why do you have to apply for and get a marriage license?
License denotes a privilege that without the license the act would be illegal. In addition, a license denotes PERMISSION!
“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful.” Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W. 2d 493; 145 Tex. 237, 241
“The purpose of a license is to make lawful what would be unlawful without it.” State v. Minneapolis-St.Paul Metro Airports Com’n, 25 N.W. 2d 718, 725
Why would marriage be unlawful before the eyes of the State if a man and woman were in love and decided to come together for purposes of satisfying God’s command of man and woman coming together in holy matrimony and also to multiply via children and establishing a family? Why would this be illegal without the State’s permission? If God ordained marriage, why would the State (man) have a problem with marriage, wanting to regulate it?
Civilized marriage all boils down to the fact that the State sees both man and woman as pieces of state-owned property, JURISTIC PERSONS, that don’t have sense in their head (brain), that are in a state of non compos mentis (not of a sane and sound mind) and thus are incompetent and must get permission from a competent authority, which clearly is the State, to do things (things that constitute natural rights).
When you obtain a license, such as a marriage license, you are asking for permission from someone more competent than yourself in order to do or perform some act:
“A license is a Right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license, would be illegal.” Beard v. City of Atlanta, 86 S.E. 2d 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584 Did you see the words COMPETENT AUTHORITY above in Beard v. City of Atlanta?
A license cannot be a right granted because rights are not granted, only privileges are granted. You don’t need permission to exercise a right, only a privilege.
License, such as a marriage license denotes authority has been given to do or perform some act:
“License.” n. 1.a Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Syns at permission. b. Proof of permission granted, usu. In the form of a document, card, plate, or tag. 2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods. 3. Latitude of action, esp. in behavior or speech. 4. Excessive freedom. – v. -censed, -cens’ing. 1. To give permission to or for. See Syns at authorize. [< Lat. Licentia, permission < licÄ“re, be permitted.] The American heritage Dictionary (1994), 3rd edition, pg. 480, “License.”
You have to get permission and authority from the State to get legally married because the truth of the matter is that both man and woman, husband-to-be and wife-to-be are both private property of the State and the proof is that they both have Social Security numbers that were given by the State upon application of the applicants of course. Basically, the couple has to ask for permission to come together. And really, the State wants the man to pay for his in-house sex from the female. You see, in a legal marriage, the woman has all the value (and thus more rights under the law) because she is the one to bear new life (babies) and bring more property (res accessoria) into existence. Legal marriages favor women more so than men in the Matrix.
Now here’s the history behind the need for a license (permission) in civil marriages. If the term ‘license’ means “permission granted by a competent authority which without the license would make an act illegal, trespass, or tort”, pertaining to marriage, what kind of marriage was illegal without the licenses, especially since so-called civilized people have been marrying for centuries?
The answer is: INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES! That’s right! Marriages between Black people (so-called Negroes) and Caucasians were illegal and required licensing and this fact is well recorded. When Blacks and Whites were married, the State didn’t recognize such marriages and considered them illegal and void:
“In an act of Jan. 17, 1829, titled: An act respecting free negroes and mulattoes, servants and slaves; provides: Sec. 3. Forbids the intermarriage of “persons of color, negro, or mulatto with white persons.“
“California Civil Code of 1872 (Sec. 60), and as amended in 1905 (Cal. Stats. 1905, p. 554) restricted marriages as follows: All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void.“
Georgia General Assembly enacted a law on Aug. 20, 1927, that restricted intermarriages: “All marriages of a white person with a person having any ascertainable trace of either Negro, African, West Indian, Asiatic Indian, Mongolian, Japanese, or Chinese blood in their veins are a felony and the marriage void.“
Clearly, marriage licenses eventually came into existence so Blacks and Whites could intermarry, legally. The license made the otherwise illegal act of a Black and White marrying, legal in the eyes of the law.
However, today all marriages are based upon business, well, at least in the eyes of government. They are contracts that give the State jurisdiction to rule and govern the married couple:
“Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruit spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145
Legal marriages (civil marriages) bind both man and woman, husband and wife, to the government. As the Reynolds case supra states: Marriage creates social obligations and duties; social obligations and duties to whom? Can you say – The State (government)?
When you get legally married, whether you know it or not, you’re involved in a legal manage a trios (threesome). The marriage involves the man (husband), woman (wife) and the State – Uncle Sam’s bitch ass! When you understand how the Game is ran or played, you’re screwing your ole lady (and vice versa) and Uncle Sam is screwing the both of ya’ll, and with no Vaseline at that.
And if ya’ll (married couple) have a baby, the State is the legal parent or guardian under a legal doctrine known as parens patriae, which means “the State as father.”
The child from a married couple (and really an unmarried couple) belongs to the State, especially when that child is born in a hospital and a birth certificate is issued followed by the issuance of a Social Security card. The child belongs to the State. Why do you think the State (Department of Children Protective Services) can take away ‘your’ child? It’s because the child (baby) is the State’s property. How could it not be when both the parents are the State’s property?
Legal marriages are strictly for business accounting and commercial purposes and commercial purposes deal with the transportation of goods. Commerce is also known as “intercourse.” And there’s a thing called “sexual intercourse.”
Sexual intercourse is commercial in nature because goods are being transported. When sexual fluids are exchanged between partners (especially vaginal fluids and penile fluids), goods are being transported from one body to another and under maritime-admiralty law, that’s commerce or intercourse.
Trade. noun. Commerce; Intercourse; Traffic.
This is why sex is legally called sexual intercourse, so government (the State) can regulate it. The government regulates sex and there are sexual behavior statutes in the Penal Code that regulates sexual activity and behavior, telling a person what they cannot do which presupposes telling them what they can do.
Prostitution is illegal because the State doesn’t allow it. But doesn’t a woman own her own body? Nope! If she did she could sell her body to whomever she wanted to and could never be arrested for it. But when a woman sells her body and makes money (receives compensation) and the State doesn’t get a cut of the money, the woman is engaged in a black market trade. It is illegal because government hasn’t approved of the trade nor did it get a slice of the pie (money).
It is the State that tells us when we can legally have sex. We have to be over the legal age of 18 to have legal sex because the statutes say so. If you have sex with a person (property) under the age of 18, despite the person consenting, you have committed statutory rape. You are charged with rape! You have committed a violation! Not of a person, but of a statute.
You didn’t rape a person. You raped (violated) the statute that was enacted by the Legislature. That’s your crime!
And this is not to say that statutory rape is a bad statute or law or not necessary because it comes in handy when people under the age of 18 are forced to have sex absent their consent; however, rape is rape, regardless of age. The crime should always be sex without consent and/or by force. Whether you’re 8, 18 or 28, if you don’t consent to the sex, you’ve been violated. Period!
Statutory rape legislation is also beneficial pertaining to young people who may not be aware of their right to consent or dissent to sex. So under certain circumstances, statutory rape statutes are very beneficial and necessary. Make no mistake about it.
Legal marriages are strictly for accounting and commercial purposes. Nothing else!
So men, just because you’re married, your wife may have your last name, but she belongs to the State and the State can use her to make your life miserable and bring in a lot of money from you using the court system. So don’t piss her off! LOL!!! In most cases, it’s usually cheaper to keep her!
I am a proponent of spiritual marriage which I only advocate for mature, conscious, responsible, accountable, intelligent, and spiritual people.
People who are immature, unconscious, irresponsible, unaccountable, and ignorant – generally, the masses, need legal marriages so that the State can tell them what to do as far as their duties and obligations are as well as to make them behave, civilly behave, that is. If every man automatically provided for any child he produced regardless of the circumstances or situation with the mother, child support court wouldn’t exist today. But it exists today and for a very good reason, or reasons (at least for the custodial parent and government): to enforce financial support of a child(ren) and to bring in extra revenue for the government.
And lastly, if marriage licenses were created for interracial marriages (marriages between Blacks and Whites), how come you applied for and possess a marriage license today, especially if your mate is of the same race, ethnicity, or nationality as yourself? Don’t get mad! I just want you to think, that’s all!
And no, no, no, no, no am I suggesting for you to get your marriage annulled or to get a divorce to undo the trick. You did what you did out of ignorance as well as being a good little trained and programmed slave here in the Matrix.
Again, the information given here was only for purposes of mental stimulation, to trigger thought. Not to make you upset and act while being upset.
“I would like a different kind of marriage in the world. I will not call it ‘marriage’ because the word has become poisoned. I would like to call it just a friendship; no legal bondage, just a loving togetherness. No promise for tomorrow – this moment is enough. And if you love each other this moment, and if you enjoy each other this moment, if you can share with each other this moment, the next moment will be born out of it; it will be enriched. As time passes by, your love will become deeper, it will start having new dimensions, but it will not create any bondage.” – Osho
Thank you for reading!
This article is compliments of Dherbs.com.
