I don't even know where to start with the wrongness of thishttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Christian singer Rebecca St. James was asked about how her recent marriage has impacted her stance on purity. The YouTube video is her response.
My response to her response: Seriously?????
So the most profound gift you can give your spouse is virginity on your wedding night, because it's showing faithfulness to one's spouse. Something physical, something that says nothing about the unique personality of either spouse, is the most profound gift. I don't have an issue with those who wait until marriage -- my issue here is that one's faithfulness is tied to the fact that one didn't have sex prior to marriage. Not about someone's character, not about someone's intentions, not about who that person is -- no, a physical quality.
She then goes onto to say that said faithfulness has really impacted their level of trust with one another, because they know that since each one was faithful prior to marriage, then each one will be faithful during the marriage.
Because no marriage between two virgins has ever ended in infidelity.
The implication behind these words is that if one of them hadn't waited for the other, but had had per-maritial sex, then the level of trust would be "less than" what they have now. Really? So they'd have less faith in the wedding vows? In the level of commitment one person has declared towards another? Someone's words and vows wouldn't matter as much? What really matters is a physical component prior to marriage?
That, and a virgin could be the most rotten person ever, but the fact that said virgin remained a virgin until the wedding night means ... best faithfulness ever?
Ugh. What mattered to me when I got married was someone who completely accepted me as I am, and wanted to be with me the rest of his life, through all sorts of times. Anything that occurred in prior relationships was just an important part of shaping who the person was who I married.