32 Comments
|
|
||
|
|
||
I may be asked to turn in my man card for this, but here goes. On a getaway for my wife’s birthday, I joined her to watch an episode of The Bachelor.
If you’re not familiar with this made-for-TV reality show you just may be better off.
But for the rest it offers a combination of strategic gaming and plain old on-camera romance.
The show puts a bachelor and 25 single women into a manipulated environment that forces him to send women home each week until he comes down to one that the producers hope will become his wife.
At a crucial stage in the contest, with only three women remaining, the bachelor is invited to spend the night with each of the women in turn.
They are offered a night in the "fantasy suite" and the assumption has been, in seasons past, that the couple would engage in sexual intimacy. But this year was different.
This year’s bachelor — Sean — had let it be known throughout the series that he held certain values. Tabloids have trumpeted the fact that he claimed to be a virgin who, at 29, was saving himself for marriage.
The same tabloids decried the fact that his engagement would be "sex-less" as though such a thing was just plain foolish.
And when the "fantasy suite" dates ended up being time to talk rather than have sex, there were critics everywhere trashing his character with incredulity.
What I want to know is this: when did chastity go from being smart and mature to being foolish? In what way is sexual promiscuity beneficial to either those involved or the society around them?
A very recent study on breast cancer in America has shown a marked rise in the disease among women 25-35. Among the significant factors listed for this is the fact that more and more pregnancies "are not taken to term."
Pregnancy and breastfeeding are recognized as factors that reduce the risk of breast cancer, and as abortions rise, so do the incidents of this dreaded disease.
As sexual promiscuity expands, so do terminated pregnancies, and those women who pay the emotional price tag for the procedure apparently are also raising their risk of cancer.
Decisions in the area of sexuality certainly have consequences, perhaps more than is apparent at the time.
Those who pretend that sexual promiscuity is preferable to chastity have yet to prove, in any scholarly study, that unrestricted sexual involvement benefits either the individuals involved or their society.
The devastated families and children that trail behind those who promote an undisciplined view of sexuality form a growing mountain of evidence proving that, even if it feels good, you shouldn’t do it outside of marriage.
So I was greatly surprised and pleased to see that, on a show dedicated to the most modern definitions of romance, the final four contestants agreed that sexual intimacy before marriage was actually a hindrance to relational intimacy.
They exhibited a strong value in believing that commitment should precede cohabitation, and that commitment meant marriage.
I realize that those who agree with me are swimming upstream against the current of our culture.
So what?
The day that truth is determined by majority vote is the day anarchy will reign.
With everyone else weighing in on proposed solutions to the moral decay in our society I thought it only right to advance what may be the answer with the most historical support.
Understand marriage as God created it to be: One man, one woman, one lifetime. And be willing to prize marriage enough to keep its gifts of intimacy wrapped up until you say "I do."
David Hegg is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church and a Santa Clarita resident. Ethically Speaking" runs every Sunday.
