[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

First, That means that [love's] adult expression is not sex but the binding promises of marriage

I disagree with this because to me, marriage is more about being committed to a particular individual. There are plenty of couples who are married, committed to one another but their affection or love for each other changes for the better or worse.

Second, sex outside of marriage doesn't help you understand sex... it makes your understanding of sex worse.

It's a bit hard to evaluate this because it's a conclusion lacking the necessary argument context to understand it and relies on particular definitions. For the latter, having sex outside of marriage certainly increases you understanding of sexual intercourse because of more experience, however, the author seems to be using a different definition, one that is tied in with commitment and love. Unfortunately, that's still neither here nor there as it depends on the exact situation.

Third, having sex with another person tells you nothing about whether the two are compatible, and living together tells you nothing about whether a marriage between you would work.

I agree to the first, although to me that is also common sense. If you have a one-night stand, it's the same as shaking someone's hand saying, "hello". What you learn has little to no bearing on future romantic endeavours. I have to disagree with the second because living with someone you love is very similar to marriage, only instead of introducing as husband/wife, it's boyfriend/girlfriend/fiance. The person would be the same before or after the marriage (presumably).

Fourth, sex outside of marriage isn't romantic... it's the opposite.

Ironically, the context argument given actually weakens this conclusion. The argument relies on a bunch of "what-if" questions that are open-ended, yet the author has given black-and-white outcomes they deem truthful and applicable to all people. The same "what-if" questions can be applied to sex within marriage, yet I'm certain the author would give completely opposite answers. Overall, the argument is weak, flimsy and doesn't hold up, so neither does the quoted statement.

Fifth, sex outside of marriage doesn't hold relationship together; it contributes to their decay.

This statement is a bit amusing because it's somewhat ambiguous in that there are 2 relationships: sex with the person who was married to and sex with someone else. In reality, it's a 50/50 chance for each, however, the author has given < 50% chance for the within marriage sexual partner and > 50% chance for the sex outside marriage partner. I cant see how this can be supported in any way.

Sixth, sex outside of marriage isn't a sign of commitment.

Eighth, ... sex outside of marriage doesn't bring lasting pleasure-- rather it murders pleasure.

This statement is premised on the assumption sex within marriage is a sign of commitment/pleasure. To me, that's a pretty weak assumption.

Seventh, the desire of sex is not a need but a want.

From an evolutionary standpoint, which is the view I take for this, it's both. It's an overall need that underlies numerous interactions with anyone. It's a particular want with individuals whom one finds desirable.

Ninth, it isn't marriage that's boring-- it's promiscuity[that is boring].

I can agree with this statement a bit more than the others. Promiscuity, after a while, can become boring IF the individual begins to want a longer-lasting relationship or one of the one-night stands turns into something longer-lasting.

Originally Posted by Megan1

If someone who isn't a Christian reads a book that is aimed at Christians, they aren't going to understand why certain things are said. Reason being, Christians have different definitions of things than everyone else does.

I'll agree so far as to say there are differing sets of definitions, however, it is still very possible for a non-Christian to indeed understand from a Christian perspective by employing the specific definitions and setting their personal ones aside. You're suggesting that such a feat is not possible for any non-Christian and presumably the same would apply for a Christian reading non-Christian material.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I think the author is talking about a committed and Godly marriage

I find it very problematic you have to assume with uncertainty what type of relationship the author is discussing in order to understand their statements. If you're not completely sure on this, then you really have no idea what any of the statements are premised on, hence, you have no idea of the overall meanings of each statement. Unfortunately, it also means you're shutting one eye intentionally, so you could never understand when or if, the author was discussing non-godly marriages in order to advance their view on committed godly marriages. This isn't due to your religious beliefs, rather it speaks to your reasoning capabilities.