Not necessarily - a better match for her would be a “good, devout, loving Catholic man” who made the “mistake” of premarital sex. I’ve even read on this forum the opinion that a repentant non-virgin could relate to a fellow repentant non-virgin better than a virgin could. So, rather than being sad, people sticking with “their own kind” is a practical “win-win” situation for all involved, both virgin and non-virgin alike.
I am a male who is a virgin and I am not able to understand you. This is most likely due to the fact that you are not making sense.
On what basis? Who are you to determine which matches are appropriate and which are not? Where does the Church state in official teaching that non-virgins should marry non-virgins and virgins virgins?
Cannot tell if troll, or simply wrong. Virgins and non-virgins are not two different “kinds.” I almost want to ask you if you believe that marriages between members of different classes and races would be okay, but I am frightened of the answer. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this statement?
There have been threads here started by people hurt by their spouses’ sexual pasts, and I’ve seen posts by non-virgins who believe that fellow non-virgins would understand them better than virgins would. So, this is a common-sense solution to a quandry that should be a win-win for everyone involved.
I hope you’re trolling, but in case you aren’t:
I’m sorry, maybe I missed something, but did you just equate an instance of pre-marital sex with an act of pedophilia? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth here, just checking…
Well, if one believes that because that a person has been to confession a particular sin that has been forgiven should not be held against them in the future, then if one is logical it must apply to all sins, whether premarital sex, pedophilia, murder, etc.
I am so glad my husband of 20 years didn’t think that.
He was a virgin, I was not.So because some people on one internet forum have expressed an opinion, it is true generally and can justify a statement involving “stick to their kind?” Can you justify this at a theological level? Because your statement included nothing this concrete originally, nor does what you are attempting to pass off as evidence support it. You still have not offered proof for your statement at all.
No, it is not. I know many virgin – non-virgin couples that are happily married.
I did, and I reviewed the other threads. The only thing that I have gathered is that the people you mention are responsible for their own circumstances and are being unfair to their spouses. Also, you are still wrong.
I would say that is unfair. There are an equal number of posters saying that the OPs in the other threads should get over it. That opinion has also been expressed in this thread. If the OP is incapable of doing so, no one here can change that. But please do not misrepresent the responses in the threads in question.
The yoking is not unequal; it is an equal yoking. And everyone can handle it, they just choose not to; see above.
It is not logical because pedophilia/pedophile is a state of being in a way that non-virgin (although a state) is not. Someone who committed an act of pedophilia in a legal sense is different than a pedophile. For you to blur that distinction is intellectually dishonest.
I also haven’t had sex, and “non-virgin” is not a deal breaker for me. However, Norseman does make sense. Just stop being so offended by the “unfair discrimination” and consider the points.
Excuse me? That’s a fallacy. Merely expressing one’s own opinion is not tantamount to claiming the authority to determine what’s appropriate objectively or for other people, as you are mispresenting it.
So you can’t form a common sense opinion about human nature without having a stamp of religious dogma on it? Would you ask a psychologist to show you a dogmatic definition if he made any opinion about compatibility? It’s you who are not making sense now, Baelor. There is no express official teaching that people shouldn’t marry cheaters, wife-beaters or even murderers for that matter, either. There’s certainly no teaching that people should not marry people they aren’t very compatible with. So is compatibility bonkers?
It isn’t really smart to suggest that a regular member is trolling just a month after registering at a forum.
Let me answer that for you. Those marriages are perfectly acceptable but they aren’t always the most prudent choice. Cultural differences, different values, different manners, different expectations, different plans and outlooks, can all be very hard to bear. In a certain sense, you could even say that an aristocrat would understand a fellow aristocrat better (at least in matters they have in common), a university graduate could perhaps relate better to a fellow grad, a refined person could get along better with another well-mannered one, and so and so forth. None of it absolute, just likely. Don’t create false extremes please. You can undermine any generalisation if you find a convenient exception. Even if the generalisation were true 99% of the time and that exception were an odd 15. The point of generalisations is drawing approximate conclusions from repeatable experience, in light of common sense. In this light, Norseman does make sense. And he wasn’t necessarily splitting people into kinds. “Their own kind,” is just an expression, it’s like saying, “people similar to themselves.”
It is not ridiculous to have virginity enter as an issue, it’s sad to regard virginity or lack of it as irrelevant. Try to look at it through a sport analogy: everybody on the track has equal human rights and constitutional rights and all of them are equally sportsmen. This is not altered by the fact that some of them make it to the end of the race and others don’t, or that places 1-3 come with a medal while others don’t. The equality of the sporstmen isn’t an argument to abolish medals for them, and in different grades. Soldiers too are very equal in a fundamental sense (and they’re equally soldiers from the 17 year old private to the four star general, from a rookie to a guy who can’t fit all his ribbons on one jacket) but not everybody wears the same ribbons.
I am not offended. I have considered the points.
I am not. He stated the argument definitively. Given the total lack of justification for his absolute statement, what other conclusion am I to make, if not that he feels he has the authority to make such a claim? Why not offer evidence, which has still not happened. Anyway, enough on this – it is tangential.
Hardly, but here even a common sense opinion is lacking.
No, it is not. At the same time, as I have been saying, there has been no actual justification for the compatibility argument at all, and his original statement was not worded in terms of compatibility, but instead in terms of almost-theological appropriateness.
You are watering down the original claim. Anything that follows that is less than the absolute presented in the post to which I originally applied will not be considered because it is simply not relevant.
I may be reading too much into it then, but I tend to see the violent opposition to the idea of a virgin seeking a virgin to be some kind of civil rights action.
He has a definite opinion and he states it. Doesn’t mean he is giving that opinion to you to believe as if he were an expert in a field of science, let alone a religious leader. Really.
How so? You can’t deny that a virgin will have a lot in common with a virgin due to what they’ve been through and a non-virgin will have a lot in common with a non-virgin due to what they’ve been through. What they have in common in other areas may outweigh this but it may not. Look at people’s nationalities or social classes or education levels. Not everyone marries within these but people generally stick within their group because that way they have the most in common. Sure, a professor may find someone with no education whatsoever and still have a lot in common in terms of values, hobbies, even intelligence. A millionaire who hasn’t touched cash or even a card in years may have something in common with a person who has never had money. But we’re talking about exceptions here and exceptions don’t invalidate a rule. Also, examining compatibility for marriage isn’t a court trial. We can’t make criteria irrelevant just because we think they’re unfair. Common sense of an observation can’t be denied by a supposed lack of fairness in the observed fact.
Let’s hear Norseman elaborate then. It should be interesting.
And you are accusing Norseman of grandstanding, eh!
I would like to give my opinion. I understand all the positions presented here. It seems the virgin to virgin thing works for me, it does seem fair. Again it also seem immature and selfish, but this is not theology it is preference. I may prefer a virgin but again i may love a non-virgin enough to mary her.
All of that can be true, it’s up to people to come to terms with it. They either can or cannot. They may also have some kind of preference, which may very well become moot once they find themselves sufficiently attracted to someone who doesn’t meet it.
Just like about 90% of other people.
Yes, that’s also a possibility. There probably are people who’d get over casual sex more easily than a non-sexual romantic relationship. I can imagine that frame of mind.