Best qualities in a spouse?

[chevalier]

I can handle interests that are not in common if those interests do not put the marriage in jeapordy.

I agree it wouldn’t be a great idea to differ in interests so much that it would jeopardise the marriage. But on the other hand, don’t you think it’s quite a good idea to have some interests which do actually differ? When I was younger, I thought the only right way was to do everything together. When I became a bit older and wiser, I still didn’t drop the idea of being very close, but I thought well, after all, maybe it was a good thing to maintain a separate hobby or two. Just without a separatist mentality.

As far as people seeking virgin spouses - and this goes for both men and women - if the person seeking a virgin spouse is not a virgin, that person is a hypocrite, but if the person seeking a virgin spouse is also a virgin and wants to be on an “equal footing” for whatever reason, what is so wrong with that?

Off the top of my head: 1) focusing on a historical circumstance rather than the current state of the person, 2) lack of leniency towards a repentant sinner, 3) potential judgement (what’s worse: one sin committed physically or a million of sins committed in one’s thoughts only?), 4) closing oneself to a potentially great candidate without a good enough reason, which is shooting oneself in the leg.

Imagine I, being an err… male counterpart of a virgin (virgin is feminine, period ), tell a girl no, sorry, you aren’t a virgin. What guarantee do I have that, if I hadn’t been chasing the wrong girls X years ago, she wouldn’t be a virgin now? We never know how such things develop. Besides, I refuse to hold people to their past mistakes so much. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer that she were one - it would make many things so much easier and avoid a lot of potential trouble.

 

[Norseman82]

Off the top of my head: 1) focusing on a historical circumstance rather than the current state of the person, 2) lack of leniency towards a repentant sinner, 3) potential judgement (what’s worse: one sin committed physically or a million of sins committed in one’s thoughts only?), 4) closing oneself to a potentially great candidate without a good enough reason, which is shooting oneself in the leg.

Imagine I, being an err… male counterpart of a virgin (virgin is feminine, period ), tell a girl no, sorry, you aren’t a virgin. What guarantee do I have that, if I hadn’t been chasing the wrong girls X years ago, she wouldn’t be a virgin now? We never know how such things develop. Besides, I refuse to hold people to their past mistakes so much. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer that she were one - it would make many things so much easier and avoid a lot of potential trouble.

I don’t know if this is due to our language differences, but I think you ignored the part where I mentioned about being on an “equal footing”.

 

[Norseman82]

I agree it wouldn’t be a great idea to differ in interests so much that it would jeopardise the marriage. But on the other hand, don’t you think it’s quite a good idea to have some interests which do actually differ? When I was younger, I thought the only right way was to do everything together. When I became a bit older and wiser, I still didn’t drop the idea of being very close, but I thought well, after all, maybe it was a good thing to maintain a separate hobby or two. Just without a separatist mentality.

Actually, that was the point I was getting at, and this is why. The last girl I “dated” said “we don’t have enough in common”. But when I thought about it, that would not be a “dealbreaker” with me because the question then becomes “can we live with those differences?” I am thinking mostly about hobbies and skillsets: I may be more “techie”, and someone who is more “artsie” may actually be more complimentary, especially when it comes to exposing children to a wide range of interests. Or, for example, one of my hobbies may be a sport, and hers may be ceramics: even though I may not be interested in ceramics and she may not be interested in my sport, we can live with that difference.

 

[rinnie]

Does he have to be Catholic? No Not everyone is Blessed in the faith. But he must respect mine, funny oh yes, love to laugh, rather laugh then cry, emotional mature oh yeah dont need to raise a husband. kind comp.etc of yes no other way. Be able to support me you better believe it. A man has got to work. At least my man, money who cares God will give us what we need, As long as we can work we will get it. Interests yes you have to have things in common. the important things. not everything. Married before, well if he was married in the Church and no annulment hes still married, and im commiting adultery big problem. kids, well i guess if i loved him enough i could love them. But would have to be willing to raise someone elses kids. for me no. But dont know, never crossed that bridge.

 

[Jeanne_dArc]

I really don’t want to be one of those girls with a 4 page list of qualities that their future husband must have. (I mean I know people who have lists with some almost silly requirements.)

I know that I’m definitely not perfect, and if I try to find someone perfect, lets just say I’ll be looking for a long, long time.

Although I must say, I really would like for my future husband to be a practicing Catholic. I definitely would like someone with a sense of humor, laughing just makes life brighter.

 

[brycelaliberte]

I suppose I have to say I’m lucky to know the girl I know now (to marry my now girlfriend would be a blessing, but I’m young and that is a few years away yet) because she fulfills all the things I wanted in a girl; or, at the very least, who she was ended up becoming what I wanted!

She is very faithful, and because of that a blessing to me for having led me to the Church.

She definitely has a sense of humor (though I forgot to mark that) and we can talk for hours on the phone every day.

She is absolutely pure! While I realize demanding such a thing from my future wife (whoever that may be) might be an unfair expectation, I do expect such a thing from her if she were to be Catholic, for instance. Not only that, she is very insistent upon keeping pure for her wedding day, and I find that downright amazing.

The most amazing girl in the world, and I just happen to know her. God has blessed me!

 

[chevalier]

I don’t know if this is due to our language differences, but I think you ignored the part where I mentioned about being on an “equal footing”.

Contrary, you asked “what’s wrong with wanting to be on an equal footing”, ignoring “equal footing” leaves you with an empty question. Therefore it is logically impossible to answer your question while at the same time ignoring the “equal footing part”.

 

[chevalier]

By means of explanation, I suppose we differ on the premises. You think it’s simply fair enough that someone is a virgin, that he might want his bride to be a virgin as well, barring all others. However, I disagree with that premise and I raise that our choices answer to more requirements than mere even-handededness.

In this case, charity requires us to be lenient and to avoid judgement, stigmatisation and unjust rejection. Right reason suggests that we shouldn’t close ourselves to potentially good opportunities just because of a strong desire of ours. Our will (in this case the decision that we want an equal footing more than anything else) does not trump charity or reason. This desire of ours, while it rings somewhat fair, may well be disordered for reasons as I stated. When it becomes an absolute requirement, I believe it is disordered.

Let’s imagine there is hypothetically a perfect woman for me - perfect in all things and an embodiment of what I dream about - except for one single thing: she’s not a virgin. Say ten years ago she made a mistake, which she confessed and repented. Now she’s a different person. I stick to my arbitrary principle and decide she’s not for me because she’s not a virgin. Doesn’t matter what she is now, it only matters she made a mistake N years ago. Is this fair? Hardly. In fact, it’s judgemental, uncharitable and in turning her down for that arbitrary so I deprive myself of a great good which could happen to me. No amount of fairness-based justification will fix this disordered circumstance.

This is simply where laws differ from morality or from objective reality. Under the law, we have scopes of freedom where all our decisions are valid. Morality does not contain any such exceptions and in objective reality, our decisions have an objective degree of charitability and rationality and our “rights” do not apply.

Actually, that was the point I was getting at, and this is why. The last girl I “dated” said “we don’t have enough in common”. But when I thought about it, that would not be a “dealbreaker” with me because the question then becomes “can we live with those differences?” I am thinking mostly about hobbies and skillsets: I may be more “techie”, and someone who is more “artsie” may actually be more complimentary, especially when it comes to exposing children to a wide range of interests. Or, for example, one of my hobbies may be a sport, and hers may be ceramics: even though I may not be interested in ceramics and she may not be interested in my sport, we can live with that difference.

Basically, the whole disagreement came down to one thing: you wanted the relationship, she didn’t. You wanted to pursue the relationship regardless of the complications, while she preferred to keep seeking. According to the reasoning you presented a while ago, it was a fair decision on her part and you should have accepted it.

 

[chevalier]

I really don’t want to be one of those girls with a 4 page list of qualities that their future husband must have. (I mean I know people who have lists with some almost silly requirements.)

Hah. Yeah, I so totally understand you. I’m beginning to think that lists are somewhat disordered and that any absolute requirements - apart from the ability to enter into valid sacramental marriage, which is a natural prerequisite - are somewhat disordered.

“Disordered” is a big word, but I think it’s not good when we make arbitrary exclusions. We just get our priorities wrong in such situations. We don’t owe anyone marriage and we don’t even owe anyone a fair chance, strictly speaking, but this doesn’t make arbitrary exclusions fair, charitable or reasonable. I think we shouldn’t focus on particular circumstances and close our eyes to the whole person - the whole person is important, not just a single, isolated aspect.

 

[Norseman82]

By means of explanation, I suppose we differ on the premises. You think it’s simply fair enough that someone is a virgin, that he might want his bride to be a virgin as well, barring all others. However, I disagree with that premise and I raise that our choices answer to more requirements than mere even-handededness.

In this case, charity requires us to be lenient and to avoid judgement, stigmatisation and unjust rejection. Right reason suggests that we shouldn’t close ourselves to potentially good opportunities just because of a strong desire of ours. Our will (in this case the decision that we want an equal footing more than anything else) does not trump charity or reason. This desire of ours, while it rings somewhat fair, may well be disordered for reasons as I stated. When it becomes an absolute requirement, I believe it is disordered.

Let’s imagine there is hypothetically a perfect woman for me - perfect in all things and an embodiment of what I dream about - except for one single thing: she’s not a virgin. Say ten years ago she made a mistake, which she confessed and repented. Now she’s a different person. I stick to my arbitrary principle and decide she’s not for me because she’s not a virgin. Doesn’t matter what she is now, it only matters she made a mistake N years ago. Is this fair? Hardly. In fact, it’s judgemental, uncharitable and in turning her down for that arbitrary so I deprive myself of a great good which could happen to me. No amount of fairness-based justification will fix this disordered circumstance.

This is simply where laws differ from morality or from objective reality. Under the law, we have scopes of freedom where all our decisions are valid. Morality does not contain any such exceptions and in objective reality, our decisions have an objective degree of charitability and rationality and our “rights” do not apply.

Chev,

I know you are still young. And when I was younger, it wasn’t a big issue for me either.

But the years take their toll on you.

You will probably understand more in twenty years after years of rejection and unsuccess and holidays spent alone while constantly having shoved in your face the sight of the rulebreakers having the success.

It is not disordered to want something to show for your troubles; rather, it is human nature; otherwise, if all this is for nothing, why put in the effort? I could have spent my younger years as one of those fornicators, having my fun, and then play the “I was absolved in confession, so you can’t criticize me” card.

Again, wait twenty years and acquire the battle scars some of us have. You will understand then. Until then, look into your own heart and ask how you can fault someone that one small comfort in life that makes the wait meaningful.

 

[chevalier]

Chev,

I know you are still young. And when I was younger, it wasn’t a big issue for me either.

It was a bigger issue for me when I was younger than it is now. It’s an important thing, but what matters is the current state of the person, not a historical fact. It would be different in the case of a sexually active person, which would be a practically absolute deal-breaker for me. But a person with a history may well be much more chaste than I am, so I’m slow to make it more than it is.

But the years take their toll on you.

They already have. I learnt it the hard way to stick with Catholics and to reject compromise in moral matters.

You will probably understand more in twenty years after years of rejection and unsuccess and holidays spent alone while constantly having shoved in your face the sight of the rulebreakers having the success.

I’ve seen enough rejection. I’ve had more unrequited loves or failed relationships than years of age, if this gives me any credit. I am intimately familiar with rejection. The success of the rule-breakers is short-lived and often paid for by suffering at a sooner or later stage. I’m not interested in success - I’m interested in whatever calling God has for me.

It is not disordered to want something to show for your troubles; rather, it is human nature; otherwise, if all this is for nothing, why put in the effort?

Of course. But why rule that it has to be a virgin bride, but not a good and holy woman who once upon a time made a mistake? In fact, why not a good and kind girl with a bit of a past but a lot of heart to make up for it?

What is disordered is taking things for more or less than they are, assigning much more importance to certain circumstances than is due. Preferring a virgin bride may not be disordered (much depends on the motivation), but judging that non-virgins are forever tainted and damaged goods is uncharitable on the one hand, while it closes one to potential opportunities without a good reason, which means it’s not exactly reasonable, either.

I could have spent my younger years as one of those fornicators, having my fun, and then play the “I was absolved in confession, so you can’t criticize me” card.

If they are absolved and they no longer fornicate, they are not fornicators. God sees a child of His, not a fornicator - while we are not God and are not close to His mercy, why should we judge them more harshly than God chose to? What if God chose to judge us as harshly as we want to judge our neighbours?

“I was absolved in confession, so you can’t criticise me,” is not necessarily the attitude of all sinners. As much as a person may have that attitude with regard to sins of fornication, you or I might have the same attitude towards our sins - and we sin. If you are able to avoid that attitude yourself, then why not a man or woman who at one point had premarital sex?

“I was absolved in confession, so you can’t criticise me,” is a problem not with the sexual sin from the past, but with the current attitude.

Again, wait twenty years and acquire the battle scars some of us have. You will understand then.

Actually, I’ve got my own load of scars and I’ve only recently had some of them healed… In fact, those scars you talk about are bitterness, some form of jadedness, not really just a greater understanding. I see where those sentiments (“only a virgin because I am one”) come from - they are human and it is somewhat natural to have them, except that when they are made into absolutes (and I mean real absolutes, not just strong preferences), they come in the way of charity and reason.

Until then, look into your own heart and ask how you can fault someone that one small comfort in life that makes the wait meaningful.

I’m hoping for that same comfort as well. I just say it’s not good to make it an absolute requirement even with regard to people who have undergone a real conversion of heart. For this reason, while it would be difficult for me (by difficult, I mean very difficult), I would avoid crossing a woman out just because she weren’t a virgin if she had repented of the sins of the past. Granted, the news would probably kill the chemistry for me and in most cases it would prevent any desire of romance if the conversion weren’t a very obvious thing. But if I loved her and wanted to spend my life with her, I wouldn’t make a principle-based choice to rule her out.

Besides, actually, I think you wouldn’t either. I know you enough from your posts to say that if it came to it, you’d look at the totality of the person and you would go from there.