Lust In Marriage

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250934' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:12 PM']marriage is indeed "about" having children. procreation is the PRIMARY end of the sacrament of marriage. you keep acting as though i am denying the spiritual element of the relationship, which i am not. this is crucial to a successful relationship.

[color="#FF0000"]No I didn't say that, what I said is that not everyone partakes in it at the same moments, and that it doesn't validate or invalidate a marriage. It's the vows, receiving the sacrament of marriage, etc. that validate a marriage, not the sexual act. Protestants believe that intercourse is a Sacrament, not marriage itself and I don't subscribe to that theology. I'd also say that marriage isn't just about having children, if it were then it would be a sin for women that are barren or men that are sterile to partake in the sacrament of marriage.

We're encouraged to follow the Saints example, and many of them wrote about abstaining from various activities for various reasons [even within the confines of marriage]. My wife and I spent most of our time, studying the scriptures, praying and seeking God's path for our lives. If we were to partake in the physical aspect, we would be doing it our way, not God's way. God's way was to seek him, in prayer and scripture reading. Now I never said that this is the path for everyone, but for some. In marriage there is so many aspects, and if you go for the sexual aspect first, just because of what it is, rather then asking God, "what would like me to do first", you're going to fail. My wife particularly had some inner demons [as everyone does] as did I and we felt it nessessarily to pray, fast, and read scriptures rather then partake in something at the wrong moment [as other past Saints have done].

I don't believe that the physical aspect or children are the primary factor of marriage but are but one factor. I believe that those that cannot have children, can have a marriage that can bless this world, just as much [and often more] then those that can have children.[/color]

however, you seem to be saying that the physical element of marriage - the good which God created so that we could show forth love with our bodies, image Him and be co-creators with Him - is somehow subordinate to that. that is incorrect.

[color="#FF0000"]No you were the one saying that it's a primary factor of marriage, even going as far as saying if someone doesn't partake in the physical element of marriage, that they shouldn't have gotten married to begin with... I said that marriage is much more then just the physical factor and that we should decide to be married, not just because of that but moreso because of our love and desire to spend eternity together. Marriage isn't just about the physical aspect, but the willingness to love each other forever, and the willingness to serve God together forever. Being someone that seeks the company of older people often [I volunteer with the elderly whenever I can], I'm most astounded by the true love, that the elderly hold. Men loving their lives for 30+ years after their wives can't physically partake in the physical aspect of marriage no more, but moreover love them because of who they are...

There's even Saints in the 3rd century that were married, and seperated from their husbands [temporarily] to lean closer to God amongst the desert mothers, only to reunite with their husbands and be a better wife.

Note: I would never condemn the physical aspect of marriage, for my little daughter Naila wouldn't be here today if it weren't for that aspect that God created![/color][/quote]

[kateri05]

[quote]I'd also say that marriage isn't just about having children, if it were then it would be a sin for women that are barren or men that are sterile to partake in the sacrament of marriage.[/quote]no but it is impossible for those who are impotent to be married. the Church won't marry them because then the marriage wouldn't be able to take place. what does that say about the importance of sex within marriage?


[quote] it doesn't validate or invalidate a marriage. It's the vows, receiving the sacrament of marriage, etc. that validate a marriage, not the sexual act.[/quote]

theologically, you are incorrect. sex does indeed VALIDATE the marriage. VOW+SEX=SACRAMENT. the vows and sex is HOW you receive the sacrament of marriage. vows alone don't do, sex alone either, but both together. the sexual act is an integral, inseparable FUNDAMENTAL part of marriage.

this is the teaching of the church. its in the catechism. look it up



[quote]In marriage there is so many aspects, and if you go for the sexual aspect first, just because of what it is, rather then asking God, "what would like me to do first", you're going to fail. My wife particularly had some inner demons [as everyone does]as did I and we felt it nessessarily to pray, fast, and read scriptures rather then partake in something at the wrong moment [as other past Saints have done].[/quote]


if you did indeed have things to work through, it is good and commendable to spend time in prayer, even together. but because sex is a fundamental part of the sacrament, and the sacrament does NOT occur without, why did you not WAIT to be married, until you had worked through these issues? i'm sorry, but from a theological Catholic perspective, that seems a more appropriate thing to do.

Edited April 21, 2007 by kateri05

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1251016' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:35 PM']no but it is impossible for those who are impotent to be married. the Church won't marry them because then the marriage wouldn't be able to take place. what does that say about the importance of sex within marriage?

[color="#FF0000"]That's not what I said, what I said was someone's inability to have offspring. A Sterile man, doesn't nessessarily mean that he can't "erect" [to put it in the safest terms]. I don't know what the Roman Position is, but I do know what the Coptic Position is and it's that someone's ability or inability to have children doesn't validate or invalidate them from marriage, as marriage is much more then that.

However, as I'd mentioned you've continually misquoted me. You want to admit to that now or later?[/color]

theologically, you are incorrect. sex does indeed VALIDATE the marriage. VOW+SEX=SACRAMENT. the vows and sex is HOW you receive the sacrament of marriage. vows alone don't do, sex alone either, but both together. the sexual act is an integral, inseparable FUNDAMENTAL part of marriage.

this is the teaching of the church. its in the catechism. look it up

[color="#FF0000"]This is just a roman position then [unless you're taking it out of context, which I wouldn't be surprised]. Vows aren't just saying words, and having intercourse isn't just having sex but their significance and meaning are much greater then that and that's my point. Moreover vows are not what validate the marriage, it's love. Vows are one's committment verbally, your position has been that marriage is about children, my position has been that marriage is about love, the choice to love and spend eternity together and as I'd pointed out, numerous Saints have even abstained from intercourse for a set amount of time in order to grow closer together spiritually, and not to be led astray.[/color]

if you did indeed have things to work through, it is good and commendable to spend time in prayer, even together. but because sex is a fundamental part of the sacrament, and the sacrament does NOT occur without, why did you not WAIT to be married, until you had worked through these issues? i'm sorry, but from a theological Catholic perspective, that seems a more appropriate thing to do.

[color="#FF0000"]Being that you added this part, after the fact, let me comment upon it. This is your fundemental problem, you seem to believe that marriage circulates around sex and marriage and that a marrige isn't validated without either. I believe that marriage is a much deeper spiritual connection. That the primary part of marriage isn't sex, but it's the desire to spend eternity together and want to live together forever worshiping God in unity with all the benefits that comes with it. Your take is that you should get married to partake in vows, sex and children.[/color][/quote]

Edited April 21, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[kateri05]

i apologize if i have misquoted you, i certainly did not intend to.

[quote]This is just a roman position then [unless you're taking it out of context, which I wouldn't be surprised].[/quote]

i'm sorry, "just" a roman position? that is phrased a bit on the insulting side.

[quote]Vows aren't just saying words, and having intercourse isn't just having sex but their significance and meaning are much greater then that and that's my point[/quote]i completely agree! thats why you need both together for a valid sacrament! see CCC 1639 and 1640

[quote]. Moreover vows are not what validate the marriage, it's love. Vows are one's committment verbally, your position has been that marriage is about children, my position has been that marriage is about love, the choice to love and spend eternity together and as I'd pointed out, numerous Saints have even abstained from intercourse for a set amount of time in order to grow closer together spiritually, and not to be led astray.[/quote]

marriage IS about children. children are the primary end of marriage (CCC 1652). love is not necessary for marriage, as you yourself said, in the example of arranged marriages (i could include the quote from above so that you don't accuse me of misquoting you, but i think that scrolling should be sufficient!). this is the reason that people who no longer "feel" "in love" are not then able to end their marriage. love is an action, a decision, that is above and beyond any emotion you can "feel." christ's love for us is not expressed in feelings or words, but in an Action that accomplishes our salvation. this is why conjugal union is the renewal of your marriage vows, not saying i love you, or even giving a kiss. by becoming one flesh, offering the gift of yourself to another, you embody, enflesh, the words of your vows WITH your bodies. this is what JPII discusses in his theology of the body.

[Socrates]

If two people have absolutely no interest in sex or procreation, then they shouldn't get married.
However, when and how often a married couple has sex is up to them, and is their own business.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1251113' date='Apr 20 2007, 08:59 PM']i apologize if i have misquoted you, i certainly did not intend to.

[color="#FF0000"]It's cool...[/color]

i'm sorry, "just" a roman position? that is phrased a bit on the insulting side.

[color="#FF0000"]No, it is just a Roman Catholic Position [and I'm not Roman Catholic if you didn't know][/color]

i completely agree! thats why you need both together for a valid sacrament! see CCC 1639 and 1640

[color="#FF0000"]I'm not Roman Catholic, and countless Saints have abstained for various reasons as I'd pointed out.[/color]

marriage IS about children. children are the primary end of marriage (CCC 1652). love is not necessary for marriage, as you yourself said, in the example of arranged marriages (i could include the quote from above so that you don't accuse me of misquoting you, but i think that scrolling should be sufficient!).

[color="#FF0000"]I NEVER EVER EVER SAID THAT LOVE ISNT NESSESSARY!!! That's the most crazy statement to make, to say that love isn't nessessary for marriage. Marriage is just that, LOVE. Without love, marriage is nothing more then having some babies.[/color]

this is the reason that people who no longer "feel" "in love" are not then able to end their marriage. love is an action, a decision, that is above and beyond any emotion you can "feel."

[color="#FF0000"]I believe that love is a choice, that's totally right it's not a feeling, an emotion, etc. but a decision.[/color]

christ's love for us is not expressed in feelings or words, but in an Action that accomplishes our salvation.

[color="#FF0000"]Christ's love is expressed in feelings and words, but also in actions that accomplish our salvation.[/color]

this is why conjugal union is the renewal of your marriage vows, not saying i love you, or even giving a kiss. by becoming one flesh, offering the gift of yourself to another, you embody, enflesh, the words of your vows WITH your bodies.

[color="#FF0000"]I agree with this, and my wife's prayers, obedience and dedication are just that. You're putting every amount of emphisis on the action of sexuality and depriving the rest. Marriage is an emblem of God's relationship with the Church, does Jesus Christ have sex with the church? Is that the main factor of his love? I believe that his love is deeper![/color][/quote]

[N/A Gone]

I think you must say the differences in speculative moral theology, and what the church teaches. I big problem is that many people try to force their own position on each other. Remember, this is a very sensitve subject and we must remain charitable. Many argue from personal experience. the "I am married" arguments. Everyone wants to obey the teaching of the church, but be sensitive when it involves the bedroom.

The idea the marriage is "only"....

is the wrong term. As all sacraments are, there are numerous aspects of it that we only know the tip of. There is unity, there is proper experience of love, there is desire, pleasure, procreative, romance, the graces that come from any aspect of this are incredibly beautiful and should be respected as a mystery. Honoring human life in all aspects is our goal, but please. dont lose the concept of respect and love. The married life is a blessed thing, not a theological exercise.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]9 results for: Lust

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
lust /lʌst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[luhst]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
[b]1. intense sexual desire or appetite.[/b]
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
–verb (used without object)
6. to have intense sexual desire.
[b]7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often fol. by for or after).[/b]
[Origin: bef. 900; ME luste, OE lust; c. D, G lust pleasure, desire; akin to ON lyst desire; see list4][/quote]

Budge, you didn't look at all the definitions. Lust is, unfortunately, very loosely defined in the dictionary because its connotations aren't always so bad in our society. However, the kind of lust (which is in reality the only kind of lust, despite the world's misconceptions), fits under the second, third, and fifth definitions. Lust is an "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite" because it lust controls a person, rather than the other way around. Lust is "a passionate or overmastering desire or craving" because as a desire, it is often difficult to master. Lust is also an "obsolete pleasure" because it falls short of the true plan God intended for love.

Lust is not the same thing as attraction; "lust" is only one of the ways the world falsely defines attraction. I'm extremely attracted to my fiancee. She's very attractive, not only in her physical form and beauty, but in her intelligence, her charity, her sense of humor, her fidelity, and ultimately in how she shows God to me by allowing Him to live in her. To lust would be to take her beauty and try to claim it for myself, rather than allowing her to give it to me as a gift. To lust would also be to accept only those parts of her that are beautiful and good and not to accept the flaws or the parts I didn't like as much. To lust would be to use her as a means to my own sexual, physical, or emotional gratification.

Attraction says, "I see the truth and beauty in you and desire to be drawn into your life and painted into the masterpiece of God that you are, and to give you myself because, before your beauty, myself is the most I can offer."

Lust says, "I see things I want, but I don't love you as a whole; I want to receive you so that you can fill my desires, I want to give you my body in exchange for yours (bartering is not love), but I don't want to fill your needs or desires, nor to point you toward God. I don't care if you're saved or not; I just want what you have to offer me."

Lust fails to recognize the dignity of the human person. It treats the human person as a means to an end.

God bless,

Micah

[carrdero]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250218' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:43 PM']Anyway that is just to start the discussion. Evidently there were some things the guy was doing that noone would approve up, i.e. pornography. He was forcing his wife to do things she was not comfortable with either. Sounds like behind the scenes this well respected pastor had some issues that the teaching of his religion, which said lust is okay in marriage, was not helping him to deal with and overcome.

Discuss.[/quote]
Sounds to me like he married the wrong woman.

[Budge]

Reza, Im glad your life with your wife is happy now, but your experience was not the norm. Really by the laws of most states and even via the Bible before you had sex you really were not married in the truest sense. A kiss doesnt count for consumation either.
Im glad some of the Catholics realize this is true too.

I can understand two virgins especially late life virgins being hesistant, even after the wedding night, but several years? That is simply not the norm. That tells me one of the parnters has some major psychological or socio- sexual issue they are dealing with. I am glad the Catholics here see what I am talking about. What if you had never been able to come together due to whatever issues there were, health, fear, lack of physical attraction-even with the presence of spiritual and emotional attraction?


[quote]so say that marriage isn't just about having children, if it were then it would be a sin for women that are barren or men that are sterile to partake in the sacrament of marriage.[/quote]People past menopause wouldnt be allowed to have a second marriage either [ie widowe and widowers, or infertile people.
[quote]That the primary part of marriage isn't sex, but it's the desire to spend eternity together and want to live together forever worshiping God in unity with all the benefits that comes with it. Your take is that you should get married to partake in vows, sex and children.[/quote]

If you never have sex, [and yes couples later may not have sex for a variety of reasons, getting old-bad health etc, mutual agreement, Catholics using NFP on short term basis--2 weeks off] you never are "married" in the fullest sense of the definition, you may be soul mates, you may be best friends, but you are NOT married. Even the BIble says the two must become one.

[Budge]

Micah if thats the definition of lust you all are using, I agree then,. It should be avoided.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1251367' date='Apr 21 2007, 07:52 AM']Reza, Im glad your life with your wife is happy now, but your experience was not the norm. Really by the laws of most states and even via the Bible before you had sex you really were not married in the truest sense. A kiss doesnt count for consumation either.
Im glad some of the Catholics realize this is true too.

[color="#FF0000"]Actually that's not true, the reason that I know if that we met with a Judge personally [a friend of ours] and he said that the only way that a marriage wouldn't legally be validated is if the couple didn't kiss in public, and even then there's ways around the law.[/color]

I can understand two virgins especially late life virgins being hesistant, even after the wedding night, but several years? That is simply not the norm. That tells me one of the parnters has some major psychological or socio- sexual issue they are dealing with.

[color="#FF0000"]No what it tells is that the couple chose to abstain for whatever purpose [you dont know the facts or the details in order to make an assumption]. As I'd pointed out, there were countless Saints that also abstained, for different purposes.[/color]

I am glad the Catholics here see what I am talking about. What if you had never been able to come together due to whatever issues there were, health, fear, lack of physical attraction-even with the presence of spiritual and emotional attraction?

[color="#FF0000"]It's not that we weren't able to come together, you're seriously misinformed but see it doesn't surprise me that you're jumping to conclusions, as you attempted to twist a scripture in your previous post to fit your agenda and it didn't work, so now you resort to a different method of manipulation.[/color]

People past menopause wouldnt be allowed to have a second marriage either [ie widowe and widowers, or infertile people.
If you never have sex, [and yes couples later may not have sex for a variety of reasons, getting old-bad health etc, mutual agreement, Catholics using NFP on short term basis--2 weeks off] you never are "married" in the fullest sense of the definition, you may be soul mates, you may be best friends, but you are NOT married. Even the BIble says the two must become one.

[color="#FF0000"]This is an idiotic response to the elderly, and definately not scriptural or possess much knowledge. The Bible does say that the two must become one, spiritually my friend, spiritually. You seriously like to take scriptures out of context don't you?[/color][/quote]

[Budge]

[quote]
Actually that's not true, the reason that I know if that we met with a Judge personally [a friend of ours]and he said that the only way that a marriage wouldn't legally be validated is if the couple didn't kiss in public, and even then there's ways around the law.[/quote]

Maybe in your home country, but thats not true in America. I know that for a fact. In every state in America, that for a marriage to be valid, it has to be consummated, otherwise you can go get an annulment that says you were never married. If your Judge was American, he was wrong.

[quote]
No what it tells is that the couple chose to abstain for whatever purpose [you dont know the facts or the details in order to make an assumption]. As I'd pointed out, there were countless Saints that also abstained, for different purposes.[/quote]

I have pointed out couples do abstain for different reasons. However if you have never consummated a marriage you werent married, but were in a state of engagment at most.

I do not know what led you to avoid the natural joys of marriage, whether it was illness or your own issues but doing this from the start for several years is not normal. Even your catholic brothers and sisters have pointed this out to you. I dont know if you come out of some culture or country where arranged marriages are the norm and you delayed the natural things of marriage due to youth alone, but there seems to be some pieces of the puzzle missing here.

[quote]
It's not that we weren't able to come together, you're seriously misinformed but see it doesn't surprise me that you're jumping to conclusions, as you attempted to twist a scripture in your previous post to fit your agenda and it didn't work, so now you resort to a different method of manipulation.[/quote]I have noticed you kept mentioning your wives submission and obedience, so that tells me the lack of desire to come together came from your side. You do know the Bible teaches that couples are NOT to deny one another dont you? It can be done via MUTUAL agreement, but this is not something a husband is to demand of a wife and a husband is not to make a wife WAIT SEVERAL YEARS. I actualy feel sorry for her wondering what level of rejection she must have felt even if unspoken. Obviously she loves you very much to have put up with it.

The question I have too is barring any serious medical problems, military services where you are seperated, and other factors why WOULD A NORMAL HEALTHY HETEROSEXUAL MAN WANT TO KEEP HIS WIFE HE SAYS HE LOVES WAITING FOR SEVERAL YEARS?

[quote]
This is an idiotic response to the elderly, and definately not scriptural or possess much knowledge. The Bible does say that the two must become one, spiritually my friend, spiritually. You seriously like to take scriptures out of context don't you?[/quote]

If that is true, then people could be married to their "best friends"...and not even live together or anything.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Budge

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1251442' date='Apr 21 2007, 08:36 AM']Maybe in your home country, but thats not true in America. I know that for a fact. In every state in America, that for a marriage to be valid, it has to be consummated, otherwise you can go get an annulment that says you were never married. If your Judge was American, he was wrong.

[color="#FF0000"]Sorry but America is my home country. I was born and raised here silly sister and it was an American Judge and I definately trust him more then you but moreover, I happen to know the laws very well, and know that for a marriage to be legal, the person marrying the couple and two witnessess have to witness them kissing, simple and plain. If you don't believe so, that's your choice. There's alot that you don't believe, despite the facts and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.[/color]


I have pointed out couples do abstain for different reasons. However if you have never consummated a marriage you werent married, but were in a state of engagment at most.

[color="#FF0000"]Sorry, but you have a distorted view of the laws.[/color]

I do not know what led you to avoid the natural joys of marriage, whether it was illness or your own issues but doing this from the start for several years is not normal. Even your catholic brothers and sisters have pointed this out to you. I dont know if you come out of some culture or country where arranged marriages are the norm and you delayed the natural things of marriage due to youth alone, but there seems to be some pieces of the puzzle missing here.

[color="#FF0000"]The only piece of the puzzle missing is that you don't understand the meaning of "self control", and "mutual" [see my previous posts].[/color]

I have noticed you kept mentioning your wives submission and obedience, so that tells me the lack of desire to come together came from your side. You do know the Bible teaches that couples are NOT to deny one another dont you?

[color="#FF0000"]That's the problem, you don't understand how a couple could mutually [see my previous post for the definition of this] agree to abstain. You obviously dont know self-control and see marriage as simply an institituion of sex. Once you get older, have matured, I'll try and explain it's deeper meanings to you ;-) As I'd already given you the proper context of the scripture that you quoted, and it's very clear that you twisted it like you do every other scripture.[/color]


It can be done via MUTUAL agreement, but this is not something a husband is to demand of a wife and a husband is not to make a wife WAIT SEVERAL YEARS.

[color="#FF0000"]When did I ever say that we demanded it of each other? Rather I NEVER SAID THAT this is a prime example, that you don't know how to read.[/color]

I actualy feel sorry for her wondering what level of rejection she must have felt even if unspoken. Obviously she loves you very much to put up with it.

[color="#FF0000"]This is possibly the worst assumption that you've ever made, you just made yourself look like an idiot, jumping to conclusions based upon what you don't know. Just to help you out, so you don't embarrass yourself more, I never kept nothing from her and she never kept nothing from me. It was a deep spiritual connection that you obviously havn't experienced and so you don't know much about it. Being that you can't wrap your head around the monastic concept, it doesn't surprise me that you can't grasp the spirituality of a marriage, such as mine. Once you learn the spiritual significance of nuns, get at me and I'll help explain the deep spiritual connection that my wife and I share ;-)[/color][/quote]

[Budge]

[quote]

Sorry but America is my home country. I was born and raised here silly sister and it was an American Judge and I definately trust him more then you but moreover, I happen to know the laws very well, and know that for a marriage to be legal, the person marrying the couple and two witnessess have to witness them kissing, simple and plain. If you don't believe so, that's your choice. There's alot that you don't believe, despite the facts and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.
[/quote]That judge was totally wrong....

[url="http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_law/divorce-dissolution.htm"]http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_l...dissolution.htm[/url]
[quote]
Annulment

An annulment also ends a marriage, but in a different way than a divorce. A divorce or dissolution ends the marriage as of the date indicated in the final decree. An annulment says that the marriage was legally void from the very beginning. Annulments are usually granted after very short marriages, but if there are children, the children do not become illegitimate because of an annulment.
[b]
Annulments are granted only when a party can show a legal defect that made the marriage invalid. This can include some kind of fraud or misrepresentation, concealment of some important fact,[u] lack of consummation by sexual intercourse[/u][/b], or a misunderstanding between the parties about something crucial to the marriage, like whether or not to have children. See Annulment on the Free Advice Divorce page for more information.[/quote]
[quote]
Sorry, but you have a distorted view of the laws.[/quote]No I do not. EVERY STATE teaches for a marriage to be valid there has to be sexual intercourse.
[quote]

The only piece of the puzzle missing is that you don't understand the meaning of "self control", and "mutual" [see my previous posts].[/quote]

So what were you trying to "prove" with this "self control"? Obviously you have some major issues regarding sex, that even sex in marriage is wrong, if it took you several years to get around to it. I think your wife assented to your desires, out of love for you so wether it was mutual is questionable. I knew of someone once who married a man who struggled with same sex desires, who refused to have sexual intercourse as well for years after the marriage, they ended up seperating in that case.


[quote]That's the problem, you don't understand how a couple could mutually [see my previous post for the definition of this]agree to abstain.[/quote]

It can happen for reasons for health, seperation--military-missionary trip etc. But to do it when young and healthy is not normal. It tells me something was clearly wrong. Couples in love do not simply sit down and say LETS NOT HAVE SEX UNTIL WE HAVE BEEN MARRIED FOR FIVE YEARS. Doing this from the start is not normal.
[quote]
You obviously dont know self-control and see marriage as simply an institituion of sex.[/quote]Sex comes with marriage. Now if you want a best friend, a buddy, a soul mate, fine, but if you want a wife, there has to be that physical connection as well.
[quote]
Once you get older, have matured, I'll try and explain it's deeper meanings to you ;-)[/quote]

You are fortunate your wife hung in there while you forced the two of you to live as celibates instead of a normal married couple. She really had no reason to stay. Even Biblically she could have walked since you were not truly married. I feel sorry for her, surely she felt rejected and deifnitely she was being denied a husband who was willing to offer all parts of himself.
[quote]
When did I ever say that we demanded it of each other? Rather I NEVER SAID THAT this is a prime example, that you don't know how to read.[/quote]You did, from first post.

Otherwise tell us, what was the reason? health, seperation, you both were out on a mission trip where pregnancy could be dangerous?, she could die from getting pregnant and you dont believe in NFP? That is what Im talking about the puzzle pieces missing.

If none of the above then surely it was some social-psycho-sexual issue on your part.

[quote]
This is possibly the worst assumption that you've ever made, you just made yourself look like an idiot, jumping to conclusions based upon what you don't know. Just to help you out, so you don't embarrass yourself more, I never kept nothing from her and she never kept nothing from me. It was a deep spiritual connection that you obviously havn't experienced and so you don't know much about it[/quote].

Im sure you did talk it out. Women are willing to do a lot for love.

And how do you know about my connections to others. I dont discuss my personal life much here, but I do know as far as marriage goes what a good one is about.

[quote]Once you learn the spiritual significance of nuns, get at me and I'll help explain the deep spiritual connection that my wife and I share ;-)[/quote]

Soulmates that never have sex are simply best friends.