Fornication

Not to be confused with formication.

Paolo and Francesca, whom Dante's Inferno describes as damned for fornication. (Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, 1819)

Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. For many people, the term carries an overtone of moral or religious disapproval (living in sin), but the significance of sexual acts to which the term is applied varies between religions, societies and cultures. The definition is often disputed. In modern usage, the term is often replaced with a more judgment-neutral term like extramarital sex.

Etymology and usage

Prostitutes in ancient Rome waited for their customers out of the rain under vaulted ceilings, and the Latin word for vaults, fornix, became a euphemism for brothels, and the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel. The first recorded use in English is in the Cursor Mundi, c. 1300; the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records a figurative use as well: "The forsaking of God for idols".

Fornicated as an adjective is still used in botany, meaning "arched" or "bending over" (as in a leaf). John Milton plays on the double meaning of the word in The Reason of Church-Government Urged against Prelaty (1642): "[She] gives up her body to a mercenary whordome under those fornicated [ar]ches which she cals Gods house."

The Greek term porneia (πορνεία), meaning "illicit sexual intercourse", was translated as "fornication" in the 1611 King James Version of the bible and has also been translated as whoredom, sexual immorality or simply immorality.

History

Britain

In the 1170s, "it was common practice for ordinary couples to cohabit before marriage and for cousins to marry one another" and there was very little stigma around bastards at any social level in medieval England. For instance, William the Conqueror's right to succeed to the throne of Normandy was never questioned on the grounds he was a bastard nor, in his conflict with Harold Godwinson over who should rule England, was this issue raised as an argument against him. However, attitudes shifted a few generations later when bastards were no longer able to claim the English throne.

During the ascendancy of the Puritans, an Act for suppressing the detestable sins of Incest, Adultery and Fornication was passed by the English Council of State in 1650. At the Restoration in 1660, this statute was not renewed, and prosecution of the mere act of fornication itself was abandoned. However, notorious and open lewdness, when carried to the extent of exciting public scandal, continued to be an indictable offence at common law.

Before the passage of the Marriage Act 1753, it was common for couples to live and sleep together beginning at the time of betrothal. Until the mid-18th century, it was common for brides to be pregnant at the time of the wedding ceremony.

Prior to the passing of this Act, laws against bastard children became more strict during the 1730s and 1740s.

Abrahamic religions

See also: Adultery § Abrahamic religions, and Extramarital sex § Religions

Christianity

Fornication

See also: Extramarital sex § Christianity, and Adultery § Christianity

The Pauline epistles contain multiple condemnations of various forms of extramarital sex. The First Epistle to the Corinthians states "Flee from sexual immorality" and lists adulterers and "those who are sexually immoral" in a list of "wrongdoers who ... will not inherit the kingdom of God". First Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians also address fornication. The Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem also includes a prohibition of fornication.

Christianity and premarital sex

Some have said that some premarital sex can be considered different than other forms of extramarital sex. Witte argues that the Bible itself is silent on the issue of consensual, premarital sex between an engaged couple. One theologian whose opinion stands contrary to Witte's claim was the medieval English monastic, John Baconthorpe, who believed it can be argued from the Bible that sex before marriage is immoral. A more contemporary theologian, the modern day English Anglican Lee Gatiss also argues that premarital sex is immoral based on scripture. He states that, from a Biblical perspective, "physical union should not take place outside of a "one flesh" (i.e. marriage) union.... In [1 Corinthians] chapter 7 Paul addresses the situation of two unmarried Christians who are burning with passion (7:8–9) who should either exercise self-control or get married (cf. verses 36–38). The underlying assumptions are the same as those in Deuteronomy 22."

Some of the debate arises from the question of which theological approach is being applied. A deontological view of sex interprets porneia, aselgeia and akatharsia in terms of whether the couple are married or non-married. What makes sex moral or immoral is the context of marriage. By contrast, a teleological view interprets porneia, aselgeia and akatharsia in terms of the quality of the relationship (how well it reflects God's glory and Christian notions of a committed, virtuous relationship.)

The discussion turns on two Greek words—moicheia (μοιχεία, adultery) and porneia (el:πορνεία, from which the word pornography is derived). The first word is restricted to contexts involving sexual betrayal of a spouse; however, the second word is used as a generic term for illegitimate sexual activity. Elsewhere in First Corinthians, incest, homosexual intercourse (according to some interpretations) and prostitution are all explicitly forbidden by name (however, the Septuagint uses "porneia" to refer to male temple prostitution). Paul is preaching about activities based on levitical sexual prohibitions in the context of achieving holiness. The theory suggests it is these behaviours, and only these, that are intended by Paul's prohibition in chapter seven.

One major academic theological work that equates porneia with premarital sex is Kittel and Friedrich's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament from 1977. In defining porneia as fornication, it states that "The NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse." Likewise, Friberg's Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament defines porneia as being "generally, every kind of extramarital, unlawful or unnatural sexual intercourse".

Lee Gatiss also argues that "porneia" does encompass premarital sex. He states that the word "fornication" has gone out of fashion and is not in common use to describe non-marital sex. However, it is an excellent translation for porneia, which basically referred to any kind of sex outside of marriage.... This has been contested ... but the overwhelming weight of scholarship and all the available evidence from the ancient world points firmly in this direction. "Flee sexual immorality (porneia) and pursue self-control" (cf. 1 Thess 4:1–8) was the straightforward message to Christians in a sex-crazed world.

A survey undertaken by the American Sociological Review between 2000 and 2008 covering 31 developing countries found that "94 percent of Jews ... reported having premarital sex, compared to 79 percent of Christians, 65 percent of Buddhists, 43 percent of Muslims and 19 percent of Hindus."

Jesus and the early church

Attitudes towards marriage and sexuality at the time of Jesus stemmed from a blend of Roman and Jewish ideas. For instance, during the lifetime of Jesus, there was a strong social disapproval among Romans of polygamy. This made its way into Judaism and early Christianity, despite the Old Testament portraying examples of this behaviour among patriarchs and kings.

Jewish marriage in the time of Jesus was a two-stage process. First, there was a betrothal in which the man claimed the woman to be his only bride. Secondly, there was the marriage contract that specified what the bride and groom's families would give the couple and what the bride would obtain if she divorced. "At the time of Jesus, and in rural areas like Galilee, a young couple might well cohabit before the contract was signed 'in order to get acquainted'."

After the crucifixion, the early Church's statements on marital affairs mainly concerned acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage. Whilst Paul, in his epistles to early believers, emphasised that both celibacy and marriage were good forms of life, after his life the Church felt that celibacy was more virtuous and liberating. This focus came about because the early church was very ascetic, possibly due to the influence of Greek philosophical thought. The focus on celibacy meant that other issues relating to sexual morality for the non-celibate remained under-developed.

Augustine of Hippo's views strongly influenced how later Christians thought about sex. In his later writings, he was "deeply suspicious of sexual passion" and this has influenced the outlook of all the major Christian denominations down to the present day.

It was some time later, during the sixth century, that the Emperor Justinian formulated laws that were to become the basis of Western marriage law for the next millennia. Under his legislation, cohabiting couples were no longer recognised as married and their children were regarded as illegitimate, with the same status as the children of prostitutes. However, the status of illegitimate children could be updated if the parents later married.

Lutheranism

According to Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks in their book, Luther on Women, Martin Luther felt that "The sex act was of course sinful outside of marriage...." In his sermon on the Epistle to the Ephesians Chapter 5, Luther stated:

“ In naming uncleanness in addition to fornication, the reference is to all sensual affections in distinction from wedded love. They are too unsavory for him [Paul] to mention by name, though in Romans 1, 24 he finds it expedient to speak of them without disguise. However, also wedded love must be characterized by moderation among Christians. ”

Luther however, in contrast to his Roman Catholic opponents, considered that it was not the Church's business to define marriage law. He understood marriage to be a legal agreement rather than a sacrament. He stated that a marriage was instituted by God but its regulation was the business of the State, not the Church. Luther defined marriage as "the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God. The ultimate purpose is to obey God, to find aid and counsel against sin; to call upon God; to seek, love, and educate children for the glory of God; to live with one's wife in the fear of God and to bear the cross...."

Martin Bucer argued that sexual intimacy belonged in marriage and that, in marriage, the man becomes "the head and saviour of the wife and forms one flesh with her in order to avoid fornication and that the wife is the body and help of her husband, again to avoid fornication". Marriage for him, though, not only meant the avoidance of sin and procreation of children but social and emotional bonding resulting in a fellowship. As Selderhuis notes, for Bucer, "When people conduct themselves lasciviously, either as married or unmarried folk, they fall under divine judgement... Marriage ... [is] the context in which sexual intimacy should have its place.... Marriage is, after all, the only framework within which sexual desires can be legitimately satisfied."

Immanuel Kant, who was raised as a Pietist, considered sex before marriage to be immoral. He argued that sexual desire objectifies the person you crave and, since no logically consistent ethical rule allows you to use a person as an object, it is immoral to have sex (outside of marriage). Marriage makes the difference because, in marriage, the two people give all of themselves to create a union and, thus, now have rights over each other as each now belongs to the other. As Kant himself puts it, "The sole condition on which we are free to make use of our sexual desires depends upon the right to dispose over the person as a whole – over the welfare and happiness and generally over all the circumstances of that person… each of them ... [are obliged] to surrender the whole of their person to the other with a complete right to disposal over it."

In the current day, the Lutheran Church of Australia holds to the belief that premarital sex is sinful. It believes that sexual activity belongs within the marriage relationship only and that the practice of pre-marital sex is in "violation of the will of God".

In the United States, pastors of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod undertook a survey on premarital sex among their congregations in 2010. "These Lutheran pastors reported that over 57 percent of the couples they now marry are living together prior to the wedding, and that the rate of cohabitation in their congregations is increasing." Despite this trend, the Synod believes that "Regardless of the reasons given for living together, cohabitation is simply wrong for Christians."

Alternatively, the Wisconsin Synod takes the view that a Christian couple could engage in sex before marriage but for the fact it would be an act of defiance against civil and religious norms in society. On being asked this question by a couple, the Church's Paul Kleim stated, "Were there no civil laws regulating marriage or Christian rite publicly uniting couples in marriage, your commitment to each other before God would be sufficient basis for you to begin living together as husband and wife. However, the civil and religious expectations that prevail make it wrong for you to practice marriage without a license.... In your wedding ceremony you will be asking God to join you in marriage, and you will be testifying to state and church that this is the beginning of your marriage. While sexual intimacy during your engagement might not be fornication, it would certainly be civil disobedience and spiritual dishonesty. And that's wrong before God."

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) delivered a detailed document, entitled A Social Statement on Human Sexuality, in 2009. With regard to sex before marriage, the document, declares that "Because this church urges couples to seek the highest social and legal support for their relationships, it does not favor cohabitation arrangements outside of marriage. It has a special concern when such arrangements are entered into as an end in themselves. It does, however, acknowledge the social forces at work that encourage such practices. This church also recognizes the pastoral and familial issues that accompany these contemporary social patterns. In cases where a decision is made for cohabitation, regardless of the reasons, this church expects its pastors and members to be clear with the couple regarding the reasons for the position of this church and to support the couple in recognizing their obligation to be open and candid with each other about their plans, expectations, and levels of mutual commitment. Some cohabitation arrangements can be constructed in ways that are neither casual nor intrinsically unstable.... This church believes, however, that the deepest human longings for a sense of personal worth, long-term companionship, and profound security, especially given the human propensity to sin, are best served through binding commitment, legal protections, and the public accountability of marriage, especially where the couple is surrounded by the prayers of the congregational community and the promises of God."

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland's stance on the issue is ambiguous. It strictly condemns extramarital sex but in relation to pre-marital sex it states only that "Sexuality disconnected from love and from responsibility enslaves people, bringing harm to themselves and others."

According to the Kinsey Institute, "Today, the Swedish Lutheran Church is very liberal in action, but careful not to take formal stands in most sexual issues, such as premarital sex, cohabitation, and sex education."

The Lutheran Church in Germany (EKD) has noted that all forms of long-term cohabitation are vulnerable and that legislators must give due recognition to the fundamental significance of marriage. The Church has further stated that "Marriage and family alone can be considered as role models for living together."

Calvinism

Calvinism has traditionally always asserted that engaging in premarital sex is a sin. Calvin himself said little on why he thought engaged couples should not have sex and Witte believes his rationale for the prohibition was vague but he did seek to reduce the length of engagements among couples in Geneva to less than six weeks, to reduce the temptation of premarital sex. He agreed, though, with Luther that marriage was a legal matter for the state, not a sacramental matter for the church.

John Witte, Jr. has written a study on John Calvin and marriage and family life. In it, he notes that "For Calvin, the Commandment against adultery was equally binding on the unmarried, and equally applicable to both illicit sexual activities per se, and various acts leading to the same. Calvin condemned fornication sternly—sexual intercourse or other illicit acts of sexual touching, seduction, or enticement by non-married parties, including those who were engaged to each other or to others. He decried at length the widespread practice of casual sex, prostitution, concubinage, pre-marital sex, nonmarital cohabitation and other forms of bed hopping that he encountered in modern day Geneva as well as in ancient Bible stories. All these actions openly defied God's commandment against adultery and should be punished by spiritual and criminal sanctions. Calvin preached against fornication constantly.... He often led the Consistory in rooting out fornicators and subjecting them to admonition and the ban, and to fines and short imprisonment."

There were remarkably low rates of premarital conceptions and illegitimate births among Huguenots in seventeenth century France compared to the rates among their Roman Catholic opponents. This indicates how the Calvinists had internalised values that condemned premarital sex as immoral.

The famous Swiss Huguenot theologian, Karl Barth, discussed sexual morality in his magnum opus, Church Dogmatics. He stated that "Coitus without coexistence is demonic" ("demonic", in Christianity, simply meaning any sphere that does not submit to God.) Barth goes on to state that "the physical sexuality of man should form an integral part of his total humanity as male or female, and that the completion of the sexual relation should be integrated into the total encounter of man and woman. All right or wrong and therefore salvation or perdition in this matter depends on whether it is viewed in isolation and abstraction or within this whole.... If it is not, if physical sexuality and sex relations have their own right and authority in which man and woman and their encounter may be controlled and fulfilled, then it is a demonic business. Naturally, the command of God will always resist any such idea of sovereign physical sexuality." For Barth, to engage in sex outside of marriage is not only rebellious but dehumanising as it puts humans on the level of animals, driven by passion and a search for self-gratification.

Furthermore, for Barth, "A wedding is only the regulative confirmation and legitimation of a marriage before and by society. It does not constitute a marriage." Sex within marriage can be sinful as well unless it affirms the coexistence of the couple. This opens the door to a more holistic understanding of sex.

However, a few modern Swiss Reformed theologians, such as M. Cornuz, believe that premarital sex is permissible if the sexual activities take a form which respects the partner and helps the relationship grow in intimacy. These theologians hold that it is when a relationship is exploitive that it is sinful. Hence, engaging in sex with prostitutes is always sinful as it is an exploitive relationship and does not allow the participants to grow in dignity. This change has come about within the last two generations in Switzerland. Prior to that, the cultural norm was that the couple would not engage in sex before marriage. Modern Reformed theologians have endeavoured to meet the challenge of applying Christian teaching to this very different culture from that of the past.

In summary, Cornuz and his colleagues feel that one should always be true to one's individual conscience, so if the person feels sex before marriage is sinful, that person should listen to his or her conscience and abstain. Hence, it is up to the couple themselves to decide if engaging in premarital sex or remaining virgins is the best way for them to reflect the love of God in their relationship.

French Calvinists hold to very high standards of ethics and feel themselves to be different from French Roman Catholics, in terms of attitudes and behaviour, including sexual behaviour. French Reformed Christians "are widely regarded as having particularly high standards of honesty and integrity".

Scottish Calvinists remain deeply opposed to any kind of sex outside of marriage. In 2008, the Scottish health minister, Shona Robison noted, "There are deeply-held views on moral issues and cultural and lifestyle issues.... The Highlands in general ... have a strong Calvinistic streak, a prudish thing that sees sex as something that happens behind closed doors and drawn curtains. As a consequence of this and because of lack of a scene for gay people, both straight and gay people are being driven out into these isolated areas to have [casual] sex."

The American Presbyterian Church, "like other Christian bodies [in the United States], has viewed marriage as a prerequisite to sexual intercourse and considered sex outside marriage a sin".

The prominent conservative American Calvinist theologian, R. C. Sproul, opposes premarital sex on the grounds that the marriage covenant is an essential legal safeguard, protecting both members of the couple from each other's sinfulness.

Anglicanism

The English reformers took a stern view of adultery and fornication, which Homily 11 of the First Book of Homilies (1547) defined to include "all unlawfull use of those parts, which bee ordeyned for generation".

However, prior to the Marriage Act 1753, British couples could live together and have sex after their betrothal or "the spousals". Until the mid-1700s, it was normal and acceptable for the bride to be pregnant at the nuptials, the later church public ceremony for the marriage. With the Act in force, for the first time in British history, all marriages in England and Wales had to take place in their parish church. (The law also applied to Roman Catholics, but Jews and Quakers were exempt.) The Act combined the spousals and nuptials and, by the start of the 19th century, social convention and the Anglican faith prescribed that brides be virgins at marriage. Illegitimacy became more socially discouraged, with first pregnancies outside of marriage declining from 40% to 20% during the Victorian era but returning to 40% by the start of the 21st century. The reason that the Hardwicke Act led to pre-marital sex being equated with sin is because, whilst the State defined who was married, it was the Anglican Church that was given the responsibility to police this law for the State. Today, Britain remains abnormal among European nations in having Church weddings whereas most other nations on that continent insist on civil registrations leaving it up to the couple if they choose to have a religious ceremony as well.

In the Victorian era, however, the English working class continued to have a different set of sexual mores from the upper-middle and upper classes. Premarital intercourse was considered acceptable for the working class but only after an extended period of courtship and occurred infrequently even then. The couple were expected to marry, though. Disgrace only arose if the female became pregnant and the couple did not marry.

The 1984 Anglican booklet Forward to Marriage was also tolerant of premarital sex but strongly endorsed marriage as "a necessary commitment for a long-term relationship".

In 1987, the General Synod of the Church of England asserted "(1) that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship, (2) that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion".

The 1988 Lambeth Conference declared in its Resolution on Marriage and Family that "Noting the gap between traditional Christian teaching on pre-marital sex, and the life-styles being adopted by many people today, both within and outside the Church: (a) calls on provinces and dioceses to adopt a caring and pastoral attitude to such people; (b) reaffirms the traditional biblical teaching that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship; (c) in response to the International Conference of Young Anglicans in Belfast, urges provinces and dioceses to plan with young people programmes to explore issues such as pre-marital sex in the light of traditional Christian values" (Resolution 34).

The 1998 Lambeth Conference made a subsequent resolution. The Conference held "in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage" (Resolution I.10). This Resolution also commended a report on human sexuality entitled Called to Full Humanity which stated that "The Holy Scriptures and Christian tradition teach that human sexuality is intended by God to find its rightful and full expression between a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage, established by God in creation, and affirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Holy Matrimony is, by intention and divine purpose, to be a lifelong, monogamous and unconditional commitment between a woman and a man. The Lambeth Conference 1978 and 1998 both affirmed 'marriage to be sacred, instituted by God and blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ'. The New Testament and Christian history identify singleness and dedicated celibacy as Christ-like ways of living."

A 2002 survey by the Church Times found that less than half of the 5,000 readers questioned said it was wrong for men and women to have sex before they married. Over 25% also said it was acceptable for a couple to live together without ever intending to marry.

The 2003 report, Cohabitation: A Christian Reflection, produced by the Diocese of Southwark, found that the Church's traditional teaching that sex before marriage is wrong has been inherited from a different form of society from that of today but then cited research that illustrates the problems that accompany cohabitation, particularly with regard to raising children. It concluded that marriage is "a much more satisfactory social convention than cohabitation", but says that the Church has failed to present marriage in a way that captures the imagination of young people and that the Church needed to rise to the challenge and rediscover its confidence in marriage.

The report noted that one problem for the Church is that there is no biblical text dealing explicitly with cohabitation, and clergy have no answer to the question they often face: "Where does it say in the Bible that I should not live and sleep with my partner?" The report notes that Paul gave a "cautious welcome" to marriage, but that there was also a "militant apostolic view" that favoured celibacy, which "was seen as more noble than marriage" by many early Christians. The report also noted that "the strict sexual codes of the earliest Christian communities helped to give them a separate identity distinct from the sexual hedonism of the pagan world."

The report ultimately rejected the possibility that cohabitation with no intention to marry is acceptable for members of the Christian Church.

In a 2004 interview, the Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley, noted that heterosexual de facto relationships and a disinclination to commit were more serious worries for him than the same-sex marriage movement. When asked if he thought sexual morality was subjective, he disagreed, stating "I think it's possible to say, for example, that it is objectively quite clear that promiscuity is a bad thing."

In 2009, N. T. Wright noted that, in popular discourse, there has been a "supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal 'identity' characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of 'rights'.... Without entering into discussion of the scientific evidence, it must be said that the Christian notion of personal identity has never before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort. Indeed, desires are routinely brought under the constraints of 'being in Christ'. This quite new notion of an 'identity' found not only within oneself but within one's emotional and physical desires needs to be articulated on the basis of scripture and tradition, and this to my mind has not been done.... The church has never acknowledged that powerful sexual instincts, which almost all human beings have, generate a prima facie 'right' that these instincts receive physical expression. All are called to chastity and, within that, some are called to celibacy; but a call to celibacy is not the same thing as discovering that one has a weak or negligible sexual drive. The call to the self-control of chastity is for all: for the heterosexually inclined who, whether married or not, are regularly and powerfully attracted to many different potential partners, just as much as for those with different instincts."

The 1996 National Church Life Survey in Australia found that Australian Anglicans were more liberal about premarital sex than churchgoers from other denominations and more conservative than the general population. The survey noted a divide between Anglicans who wanted to support sexually active unmarried couples in their churches and others who didn't. A 2009 survey found that Anglicans (along with Baptists, Roman Catholics and Uniting Church members) had become a little more accepting of premarital sex compared to a 1993 survey, whereas Pentecostal Christians had become markedly more conservative. 54% of Australian church attenders felt pre-marital sex was always or almost always wrong, whereas only 3% of non-church attenders thought it was always or usually wrong. Among those who attended church on a weekly basis, the percentage of those who thought pre-marital sex was always or almost always wrong rose to 67%. Another survey confirmed that most non-religious Australians thought that premarital sex was acceptable and that there was a correlation between liberalism, education levels, lack of religious beliefs and a permissive attitude to premarital sex.

In the United States, the Episcopal Church only approves "of sex between men and women who are married. In 1979, the U.S. church's governing body voted down a resolution to approve other sexual activity."

Earlier, in 1987, Spong's Newark Diocese had commissioned a report that concluded that the "Episcopal Church should recognize and bless committed non-marital sexual relationships between homosexuals, young adults, the divorced and widowed...." The report aimed "to ignite a new debate on sexual ethics among leaders of the nation's 3 million Episcopalians in the hope that they will amend church doctrine to embrace all believers.... Spong, an advocate of the recommendations ... said his views are a minority position in the church."

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York John Sentamu have expressed tolerance of cohabitation. In 2011, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, commenting on Prince William and Catherine's decision to live together before their wedding, said that the royal couple's public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past. Sentamu said that he had conducted wedding services for "many cohabiting couples" during his time as a vicar in south London.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, did not personally believe sex outside of marriage to be a sin and noted in 2002 that he found it hard to reconcile his liberal personal beliefs with the public stance of the Church. However, in 2008, Doctor Williams said, "Sex outside marriage is not as God purposes it.... I always find it difficult to condense sexual ethics into a soundbite.... All I can say is where the Church stands – it's not a question of what Rowan Williams's view is ... the biblical view of sexual relations is consistently within the pattern of absolute mutual commitment, reflecting God's commitment to his people. And the assumption of the Bible is that that commitment is heterosexual. That is the framework we work in."

In his 1997 essay, "Forbidden Fruit: New Testament Sexual Ethics", Dr Williams had noted, "I can't see that the New Testament easily allows any straightforwardly positive evaluation of sexual intimacy outside a relationship that is publicly committed [in marriage]."

In 2013, Doctor Williams' successor, Justin Welby stated that "My understanding of sexual ethics has been that, regardless of whether it's gay or straight, sex outside marriage is wrong." He reiterated this belief again later in 2013, further noting that "To abandon the ideal simply because it's difficult to achieve is ridiculous." After Welby made his first statement, a Sunday Times poll found that "A majority of adults (69%, including 76% of those professing no faith) believe Justin Welby to be wrong in condemning sex outside marriage, while 17% think he is right (including 30% of Anglicans), and 13% are unsure."

The Kinsey Institute comments that "Prior to the 1950s, the religious influences forming sexual constructs [in Britain] came almost exclusively from "the official church" of England, and "unofficially" from the other Christian denominations. In recent decades, the picture has become more complex. Since midcentury, the Church of England's approach to social morality and sexuality has fluctuated between two poles, the traditionalists and the modernists, or the "permission givers" and the "orthodox moral directors". With the national religious scene resembling the circular approach of the politicians to sexual knowledge and attitudes, the sociosexual control and influence appears to bounce back and forth between church and state according to a mutually cooperative formula.... This doctrinal "pendulum" is confusing for the majority of the population who are not experts at moral and theological niceties and subtleties. The people themselves are part of the system of confusion: While expecting clear and definite moral messages from both establishment and Church, they reserve the right to judge the validity of those messages, even when they are biblically based."

The 2013 British Social Attitudes survey found that members of the Church of England have become more accepting of pre-marital sex over the past 30 years. In 1983, 31% of British Anglicans surveyed thought that pre-marital sex was "always" or "mostly" wrong whereas, in 2012, only 10% thought this was the case. Likewise, in 1989, 78% of Anglicans surveyed thought that people should marry before having children. In 2012, this had declined to 54%.

Mennonites

Mennonites believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful. The Mennonite Confession of Faith states "According to Scripture, right sexual union takes place only within the marriage relationship. Scripture places sexual intimacy within God's good created order. Sexual union is reserved for the marriage bond."

Quakers

As part of their "simplicity" testimony, early Quakers held to traditional sexual values, including the belief that there should be no sex outside of marriage. Quakers on the whole remained conservative on matters of sexual ethics until the early part of the twentieth century. However, there is less consensus on this today at least at meetings of liberal Quakers. These liberals form a minority view among Quakers, though.

In general, Quakers have always focused on practical love and social aspects of faith, shunning doctrine, dogma and systematic theology. Most Friends hold views similar to Evangelicals on most theological and moral issues, including those relating to premarital sex.

Methodism

The American Methodist theologian and pastor, Ben Witherington III, believes that "virginity in a woman was highly valued before marriage [in Biblical cultures].... In early Jewish law if you had sex with a woman you were considered married to her or you had shamed her. See the story of Mary and Joseph. Porneia can refer to all sorts of sexual sin including deflowering a virgin ... there was no dating or physical intimacy prior to an arranged marriage in the vast majority of cases. The notion of dating doesn't exist in Jesus and Paul's world. Second, honor and shame cultures placed a high value on sexual purity. Notice how prostitutes were stigmatized. Women were mainly blamed for sexual immorality. Finally Jesus gave his disciples two choices in Mt. 19—fidelity in heterosexual marriage or being a eunuch! This means no sex outside marriage."

The position of the United Methodist Church in the United States on the issue is as follows: "Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond."

By contrast, the Uniting Church in Australia is still formulating its views on the subject. It recognises the changes in marriage practice and lifestyle that have resonated throughout society and that the UCA is perceived by the public of being more accepting of the realities of humanity than many other denominations. A report noted that scripture is not really about marriage as understood in contemporary western societies and, in fact, has very little to say about it. In the report, the church also acknowledged that many unmarried people had sex but neither condemned nor endorsed it, instead noting that there were many different views within the church.

Stanley Hauerwas argues that questions about sex before marriage need to be reframed in terms of the narrative of the church. He asks individuals to consider if it is a pure or licentious lifestyle that will best prepare the Christian to live out and serve in the narrative of the church. Doctor Hauerwas goes on to conclude, "For the issue is not whether X or Y form of sexual activity is right or wrong, as if such activity could be separated from a whole way of life.... The issue is not whether someone is chaste in the sense of not engaging in genital activity, but whether we have lived in a manner that allows us to bring a history with us that contributes to the common history we may be called upon to develop with one another. Chastity, we forget, is not a state but a form of the virtue of faithfulness that is necessary for a role in the community ... what the young properly demand is an account of life and the initiation into a community that makes intelligible why their interest in sex should be subordinated to other interests. What they, and we, demand is the lure of an adventure that captures the imagination sufficiently that conquest means more than the sexual possession of another. I have tried to suggest that marriage and singleness for Christians should represent just such an adventure, and if it does not, no amount of ethics or rules will be sufficient to correct the situation."

Catholicism

Catholicism equates premarital sex with fornication and ties it with breaking the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in its Catechism:

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

The Catholic Church did not begin to actively condemn pre-marital sex until the twelfth century. The Paris-based "Reform Church" movement was a Catholic faction that attempted to refocus society's moral compass with a particular emphasis on sex and marriage. The movement sent priests to Wales where it was, up until that time, the norm for Christians to live together prior to marriage.

Up until this period, marriage was considered a private contract between two people. They would make a pledge to each other and, from that moment on, they were considered married. This pledge could take place anywhere; it did not have to occur in a church and neither the church nor the state were involved. It was during the twelfth century that the Catholic Church took control of the process of marriage. From that point on, to be legally recognised, a marriage had to take place in a church with a formal service conducted by a priest. At the same time, pre-marital sex came to be regarded as sinful. Hence all marriage and sexual activity now came under the control of the Church.

At the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church "officially advocated celibacy for the religious, and prohibited marriage, but allowed fornication and concubinage". For instance, in 1527 all but 10 out of 200 Catholic clergymen in Thuringia were living with women outside of marriage.

The Council of Trent (which began in 1545 in reaction to the Protestant Reformation) formally ratified the Catholic view that marriage was a sacrament and set strict guidelines around what constituted a legitimate marriage in Catholic eyes.

In his 1930 encyclical, Casti connubii, Pope Pius XI strongly condemned premarital sex and all forms of "experimental" marriage.

The Catholic belief that premarital sex is sinful was reasserted in Pope John Paul II's 1993 encyclical, Veritatis Splendor.

In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI claimed that premarital sex and cohabitation were "gravely sinful" and "damaging to the stability of society". The Catholic Church continues to portray premarital sex as a shameful act and believes that sexual relations are only acceptable between a married couple.

The 2012 British Social Attitudes survey showed that only one in ten British Catholics and Anglicans thought that pre-marital sex was wrong (however, of those who attended Church on a weekly basis, only 23% thought it was permissible).

A 1994 study of French Catholics showed that 83% preferred to listen to their consciences rather than to the official position of the Catholic Church when making major decisions in their lives, leading to 75% of Catholics, by 2003, to say that cohabitation outside of marriage is a personal matter and 13% to say whether it is right or not depends on circumstances.

A 2004 survey showed vastly different attitudes among Catholics in different nations. For instance, in Germany, 76% of Catholics agreed or strongly agreed that cohabitation before marriage was acceptable. In Spain, that number was 72%, in the Czech Republic it was 66% and in France it was 62%. At the other end of the spectrum, only 32% of Australian Catholics thought it was acceptable, followed by 39% in the Philippines and 43% in the United States.

The same survey sought to show the number of Catholics who believed that premarital sex is "not wrong at all" or "wrong only sometimes". In the Czech Republic, 84% of Catholics believed this, in France it was 83% and in Germany it was 80%. At the other end of the scale, in the Philippines it was 21%, in Ireland it was 51% and in Australia and the United States it was 64%. The survey also claimed that 40% of Catholic women in the United States have cohabited outside of marriage.

The 2013 British Social Attitudes survey showed that Catholics have become even more accepting than Anglicans of having children outside of wedlock: in 1989, 73% of British Catholics thought people should marry before having children; whereas, by 2012, just 43% thought so.

A 2014 survey showed that most German Catholics also disputed the Church's ruling against premarital sex.

Evangelicalism

In his book Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, LGBT activist Mark Regnerus notes that "Evangelical Christian teens are more likely to have lost their virginity earlier than mainline Protestants. They start having sex on average at age 16.3 and are more likely than other religious groups to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17."

A 2012 study, the National Survey of Reproductive and Contraceptive Knowledge, found that 80% of young American evangelical Christians aged between 18 and 29 are having pre-marital sex.

A 2014 press release from online dating websites announced the results of a poll of 2,600 Americans in their attitudes towards dating and sex. The poll found that 61 percent of Christians believed they would have sex before marriage. Fifty-six percent found it appropriate to cohabit with a romantic partner after dating for a time between six months and two years. Fifty-nine percent said it doesn't matter who the primary breadwinner of the family is. And 34 percent responded that they would marry someone of a different faith.

American Baptists

The American Baptist pastor and assistant professor, Jennifer Knust, believes that the Bible is contradictory on the subject of premarital sex and that some Bible texts, notably the Book of Ruth, present it as a source of God's blessing.

Southern Baptist convention

A 2013 study of married couples in Southern Baptist churches in Texas found that over 70% of respondents reported having had premarital vaginal or oral sex. The Southern Baptist scholar Frank Stagg interpreted the New Testament as saying that sex is reserved for marriage. He maintained that the New Testament teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin of adultery if either sexual participant is married, otherwise the sin of fornication if both sexual participants are unmarried.

The Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission also condemns premarital sex on the grounds of their interpretation of the Bible. Feeling that marriage is a "divine institution" the Southern Baptist position is closer to that of Roman Catholic sacramentalism than that of Luther and Calvin who maintained marriage was a legal agreement and the business of the State.

Pentecostals

In Australia, Pentecostals are increasingly opposed to the concept of premarital sex. In 1993, 62% of Australian Pentecostals felt that sex before marriage was wrong. By 2009, that figure had jumped to 78%.

Islam

Islamic parts of the world where sex before or outside marriage is forbidden. Sharia considers consensual premarital sex a hudud crime, and requires public punishment.

Islam forbids sex outside of marriage, both premarital sex and sex outside marriage (zina), with the exception of sexual intercourse between male slaveholders and their female slaves. Qur'an states:

Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful deed, and an evil, opening the road to other evils.

— Quran 17:32

The woman and the man guilty of adultery - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

— Quran 24:2

Sharia considers premarital and extra marital sex as two of six hudud crimes, that is, it is a crime against Allah. As a hudud crime, it must be dealt with a fixed punishment. Islam requires that Muslim society punish both the boy and the girl, who have engaged in premarital sex, with 100 lashes in public; for extra marital sex, the punishment required by Sharia is 100 lashes followed by stoning to death in public. These punishments are also prescribed in Sahih Hadiths, the books most trusted in Islam after Quran,

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger as saying: Receive teaching from me, receive teaching from me. Allah has ordained a way for those women. When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female, they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

— Sahih Muslim, 17:4191

For conviction, the accused must either confess in the name of Allah, or the act of sexual penetration must have been witnessed by at least four Muslim male witnesses of good character, or an unmarried woman is found pregnant. The first two types of prosecutions are uncommon; vast majority of prosecuted cases of fornication in Islamic communities have been pregnancy in an unmarried Muslim woman. A pregnant unmarried woman cannot accuse a man of sex (zina) without four eyewitnesses confirming her story, because accusation without witnesses is considered a hudud crime.

Allah's Messenger awarded the punishment of stoning to death to the married adulterer and adulteress and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people may forget it and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession.

— Sahih Muslim, 17:4194

Beyond being a crime requiring punishment in worldly life, fornication is a sin leading to chastisement in after-life in Islam.

Judaism

The Torah explicitly forbids fornication(extramarital sex). All women were expected to be virgins upon marriage. In the case they were found not to be by a betrothed husband, the punishment was death if the man to whom she married was not the man to whom she lost her virginity. Also if a man and a virgin had sex prior to marriage, then they were forced to marry.

Eastern religions

Hinduism

Hinduism condemns pre-marital sex and adultery. Among Hindu communities, sexual matters are left to the judgment of those involved and not a matter to be imposed through law. Sexual behavior of Hindus are also governed by the prevalent practices of the society. For example, Nāradasmṛti, one of many legal texts of Hindu communities in ancient India, states in verse 13.60–61,

If a man has intercourse with an attached woman somewhere other than his own house, it is known as adultery by the experts, but not if she came to his house on her own. It is not a punishable crime when someone has intercourse with the wife of a man who has abandoned her because she is wicked, or with the wife of a eunuch or of a man who does not care, provided the wife has initiated it, of her own volition.

— Nāradasmṛti 13.60–61

The term "attached woman" in the above verse includes a woman who is either married and protected by her husband, or a woman is not married and protected by her father. In verses 13.71–72, Nāradasmṛti states that a man should marry the woman, with whom he had consensual intercourse.

If a man has intercourse with an unmarried woman, who consents to it, it is no offense, but he shall deck her with ornaments, worship her, and thus bring her to his house as his bride.

— Nāradasmṛti 13.72

Manusmriti considers adultery as a source of personal trauma and social disorder, and prescribes rules for the property, maintenance and divorce rights of spouse not involved in the adultery, and the rights of offsprings if produced from sex outside marriage.

In the diversity of Hinduism, a spectrum of views on sexual freedoms thrived in ancient India. Marco Polo, while visiting Hindu kingdoms in 13th century India, made the observation that social mores in India consider sex within marriage as proper and virtuous, although they don't consider any other sexual gratification to be a sin.

In Yoga school of Hinduism, five types of temperance (yama) are recommended for ethical life, the fourth yama being celibacy and self-restraint from sexually cheating on one's partner. Marital fidelity, where all sexual thoughts and expressions are limited to one's spouse, is taught as a virtuous value.

Buddhism

Buddhism disapproves of fornication and adultery. The precepts of Buddhism denounces fornication, thieving, lying, murdering and other acts.

Laws

Fornication laws are mostly tied to religion and the legal and political traditions within the particular jurisdiction. Laws differ greatly from country to country.

United States of America

Ethical issues arising from sexual relations between consenting heterosexuals who have reached the age of consent have generally been viewed as matters of private morality, and so, have not generally been prosecuted as criminal offenses in the common law. This legal position was inherited by the United States from the United Kingdom. Later, some jurisdictions, a total of 16 in the southern and eastern United States, as well as the states of Wisconsin and Utah, passed statutes creating the offense of fornication that prohibited (vaginal) sexual intercourse between two unmarried people of the opposite sex. Most of these laws either were repealed, were not enforced, or were struck down by the courts in several states as being odious to their state constitutions. See also State v. Saunders, 381 A.2d 333 (N.J. 1977), Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005).

Some acts may be prohibited under criminal laws defining the offense of sodomy, rather than the laws defining the offense of fornication. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) rendered the states' remaining laws related to sodomy unenforceable. Lawrence v. Texas is also presumed by many to invalidate laws prohibiting fornication: the decision declared sodomy laws unconstitutional, saying that they interfered with private, consensual, non-commercial intimate relations between unrelated adults, and therefore were odious to the rights of liberty and privacy, such rights being retained by the people of the United States.

Islamic nations

In some Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Mauritania, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Sudan, Yemen, any form of sexual activity outside marriage is illegal.

See also

• Casual sex
• Religion and sexuality
• Free love
• Infidelity
• Lust
• Open marriage
• Promiscuity
• Zina