A judge in the Indian capital, Delhi, has said that pre-marital sex is “immoral” and against the “tenets of every religion”.
Judge Virender Bhat made the remarks after ruling that sex between two adults on the promise of marriage did not amount to rape.
Pre-marital sex remains a cultural taboo in India.
Last year, a court in Delhi said live-in relationships were immoral and an “infamous product of Western culture”.
Judge Bhat presides over a fast-track court set up in the Indian capital to dispose of cases relating to sexual offences against women.
He made his latest remarks while clearing a man employed with a multinational company of charges of rape.
The 29-year-old had been arrested after a woman working in a different company lodged a complaint of rape against him in 2011.
The woman alleged that the man had sex with her after promising marriage.
“In my opinion, every act of sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape, if the assurance or promise is not fulfilled later on by the boy,” Judge Bhat was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India.
“When a grown up, educated and office-going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter’s promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril. She must be taken to understand the consequences of her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise.
“He may or may not do so. She must understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in the world allows pre-marital sex,” the judge added.
In 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed a number of cases against a Tamil actress who spoke in support of the right of women to have pre-marital sex. The court also endorsed the right of unmarried couples to live together.
Actress Kushboo was accused of “outraging public decency” and 22 cases were filed against her in 2005.
Source: The BBC.
My comment:
While lesser and lesser part of the Post-Christian west have any clue about the word “moral”, India shines bright in the night.
Despite being mostly populated by Hindus, most of the Indian’s agree that good moral is to wait till after marriage before having sex.
In the west, very few young virgin’s are getting married. Fornication and sexual immorality is a widespread disease.
And by the way. There are laws in India against sodomy. This laws protect the natural family, of one husband and one wife, raising the next generation.
Praise Jesus the Messiah for the better part of family values in India.
Written by Ivar
News that matters 
Actually, scripture indicates that the marriage between believers begins as a promise which implies consent to sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse automatically fulfills a promise of marriage between believers.
You might recall that Isaac (after his mother sarah died), took Rebekah into his tent and she became his wife. Did they have a marriage ceremony first and make promises? NO! The promise was implied before she had even met Isaac, but the act of intercourse ahd actually sealed the promise and the vows were enacted by default.
The same with Mary & Joseph, they were betrothed, promised. Yet although not officially married by a legal decree, Joseph sought to secretly Divorce Mary when he discovered her pregnancy. Now the Divorce act was a breach of promise and was applicable despite not actually having been married. Yet in the eyes of God, where all promises are made, they were already husband and wife. So God sent His angel to inform Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife because the child was of the Holy Spirit, but that Joseph must not know (sexual intercourse) Mary until after the child Emmanuel (Jesus of Nazareth) was born.
Let every man be a liar and let God be true!
Congratulations to the Indian judge, Sex before marriage is forbidden by YHVH as is sodomy and both are considered as abominations in YHVH’S eyes, this also found in 1 Corinthians 6: 9.
Isaac like his father Abraham was GODFEARING and walked in righteous, obeying the commandments and statues of YHVH, Isaac would not have committed fornication, knowing that it was wrong in the eyes of YHVH.
The direct translation from Hebrew says
Massoretic Text OT Hebrew Genesis 24:67 Lexicon Strong’s Concordance Cross ReferencesAdd Your Comments on Genesis 24:67 Forums Online 24:67 And Yixçäk יִצחָק 3327 brought x935 her y935 z8686 into his mother 517 §ärà’s שָׂרָה 8283 tent, 168 and took 3947 z8799 x853 Rivkà רִבקָה, 7259 and she became x1961 his wife; 802 and he loved 157 z8799 her: and Yixçäk יִצחָק 3327 was comforted 5162 z8735 after 310 his mother’s 517 [death].
NIV Genesis 24: 66 Then the servant told Isaac all he had done. 67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
It is clear that Isaac married Rebekah before they consumated their relationship as husband and wife. As l already stated Isaac loved and feared YHVH, he would not have committed the sin of fornication.
There is no mention of the word ‘marriage’ or ‘married’ in the original Hebrew text. The marriage is implied by the fact that he had ‘TAKEN’ her into his mother tent and ‘LOVED’ her. Your quoting NIV was to purposely deceive by a poor translation.
Here is what it says for those who want to know the truth:-
… and took Rebekah and she became to him a wife and he loved her and was comforted …
There was no mention of any marriage, but took (וַיִּקַּ֧ח) or way-yiq-qah is to take hold of, and he loved her, and she became a wife – AFTER BEING TAKEN.
What is clear is that any act of intercourse between believers constitues the laws of marriage of being joined by God and becoming one flesh.
1Cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh.
Now where is the marriage ceremony here? Yet God considers the two consenting adults to become one flesh.
Forget the traditions of men and go back to basics. If we taught this understanding to children, then there would be no doubt that an act of sexual intercourse automatically implies marriage.
John 4: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Why did God tell the woman that the man she was with was not her husband, but that she has had 5 husbands previously? Has she been married and Divorced 5 times already? Or has she had 5 different male partners previously, that God would consider them husbands, but she now has a male partner but that God still doesn’t consider that man to be her husband either. Is it that God sees her first male partner as her husband (whether having been formally married ceremonially or not), and they are considered as husband & wife for as long as that man remains alive?
How do you see it now?
What if a woman marries a man, but the man goes to war and becomes lost in battle, not a POW, nor any record of his body being found or any other remains identified. So she obtains a judgement decreeing her husband to be declared dead after 7 years and is free to marry. But then a year later the man appears and returns to his wife? WHo’s wife is she according to law, and who’s wife is she according to God?
it says a lot about abiut the lack of morals of the male also though assumed free in the matter of morals in pre or any other way…men seem to believe it okay to look but no to tiuch yet the Word does not say that either yet many a joke come from the pulpit. ..