Marriage later as a virgin?

[mek42]

As a content husband, when my wife to be and I were dating, I tried to assess us as life partners.

(completely new thought begins here)

I don’t know that I’m rightly able to offer Catholic advice, but reading your posts makes me think of Augustine. Specifically, I wonder how you would react if he (or a man who lived a life such as his, if thinking of himself this way is bothersome) expressed an interest in you (after his conversion; you’d be quite right to rebuff him prior)?

Someone else suggested you be open to being called to a Vocation, which is a very good idea - even just wrestling with the idea of the priesthood helped me grow spiritually and discover the wonder of a Franciscan mass when I was in college.

I hope it is ok to consider that maybe, just maybe, the big guy has his eyes on a sinner boy now, waiting on the lad to open his eyes and see. It might could be the calling is to be a wife and family for someone who has been wrong but has decided to strive to be right. Someone who has chosen to follow God at a later age than you have.

Anyhow, the way the big guy often works, you’ll probably find the man you ideally wish for - the day after you become truly ok with the alternatives.

I feel weird writing this to you. I hope it was ok, me kinda being on the outside and all.

(wrote the below after reviewing the thread again)

As for your question of premeditated, pre-marital sex and being in a committed, pure relationship later, that you are here having this conversation - I wonder whether you would forgive yourself such an act during your current state of spiritual awareness. I’ve no doubt neither your future husband nor God would hold it against you, but from what tiny bit I see of you in this thread, I do not think you would forgive yourself.

It would be this lack of self-forgiveness that would be a wedge in the future marriage, not the act of sex.

 

[57thDimension]

Esther,

It is very much possible to achieve, and I think you do have the strength and will to wait until marriage. I would recommend avoiding negative influences, especially people who will pressure you to give up your deeply held beliefs, as well as those who believe that premarital sex is acceptable or “just a part of growing up.” Find faith-filled Catholic or Christian friends who help you in your goal. In fact, I think you could find some people like that on this forum.

It is frustrating! You see lack of self-control and little reverence for something that is immensely spiritual and powerful, thrown away as though it doesn’t matter. Take heart, though. There are many people who successfully wait until marriage, and there are many people who will respect your desire to wait (and will hopefully be committed to chastity themselves for its own sake).

Keep praying for strength.

+Sebastian

 

[57thDimension]

I’m not sure about these comments. It’s certainly the case that people make comments that are untrue, especially in regards to guarantees, but I don’t know that they’re common. It goes the other way, too, where people say that anyone who waits until marriage is “damaged goods” or “psychologically dysfunctional” as though it were a guarantee. As to prevalence, I can’t say any sort of over-embellished statements are that common. Do you have any instances that you can show me? The reason I ask is because people can sometimes rush to conclusions without fully understanding what people are saying (e.g. “cohabitation increases the risk of divorce” is interpreted by a defensive/sensitive person as “cohabitation guarantees divorce”). A huge number of assumptions are made by people on this forum in many areas of discussion, not least of which is the one this thread is on. That brings me to another point…

We haven’t really listened to (and thus accurately answered) what Esther is asking. She was wondering whether she will have the wisdom and strength to wait until marriage. Not at any point did she say anything about only marrying a virgin. That assumption has been made, though, and it’s partially derailed her thread. When I speak of assumptions, I’m referring to those kinds of things. I start to wonder if people are overly defensive of their choices/mistakes (depends on their views, of course) and thus make those kinds of interpretations. It mirrors a person guilty of some action becoming very defensive of even tangential references to that action - guilty people become almost consumed with such thoughts. It’s definitely something to watch out for, as psychological stress is not good for you.

Anyhow…

Sadly that’s a pretty common view on this site

But is it? I’ve never encountered it.

its things like that that make people tune out abstinence lectures.

As for making people “tune out abstinence lectures,” I doubt extreme or fringe comments on a forum are going to factor into the equation. Let’s be honest: people who tune out abstinence lectures are almost invariably opposed to abstinence. The fact that people don’t like the presenters is a reason they tune them out, too.

What’s interesting is that the most recent statistics suggest that living together no longer increases the chance of divorce if the couple is engaged when they move in together, and that most people who live together do end up getting married. If a couple isn’t engaged when they move in their chance of divorce does go up, but not by as much as you would think. Actually education level has a higher effect on the chance of divorce than living together does.

As a statistician, I can say this isn’t really true. It still does increase the chance of divorce, but the interpretation is being based on self-selection rather than causal/experience - basically, people predisposed to cohabitation are more likely to be less religious, hold nontraditional values, advocate greater gender equality, report lower levels of education, and come from less stable family backgrounds potentially resulting in more pessimistic views of the stability of intimate relationships, and thus those factors are connected to later marital discord much more strongly than the intermediating factor of cohabitation. The statement that it “no longer increases the chance of divorce” is above and beyond those factors - resolving those confounding factors is done prior to making that statement. So, again, it’s the factors that are being considered in relation to later marital dissolution, not the cohabitation experience, though in both cases it is still shown to lead to higher rates of discord/unhappiness. The latest research has deemed it to not be statistically significant, but only in very weak terms (e.g. “this might be suggestive of evidence for”). Also, for education, the divorce rate goes up with level of education for women, but not for men. It’s less than a standard deviation, but still statistically significant. Researcher suggest that better-educated women are less tolerant of marital discord (less reliance on husband, higher self-image, etc - also, financial penalties are often less (or nonexistent) for a woman in a divorce, especially with children involved).

I don’t mind that some people are against premarital sex and living together. It’s not the choice I would make for myself and it isn’t one that I will recommend to my children, but I don’t have a problem with it. But I do wish that people who advocated it did it on honest grounds. Instead of “Your relationship is doomed and an open marriage is in your future” I wish that they would just say “Hey, because god says XYZ premarital sex is immoral, and although it may not seem like it hurts you, it will hurt him”.

I don’t think your original premise is sound. Your statement above is suggesting that people who oppose premarital sex only do so in a dishonest way since you seem to be presenting extreme/fringe comments in opposition to premarital sex as entirely representative of opposition to premarital sex. This seems like a false dichotomy (either “your marriage is doomed to failure” or “the only thing bad about premarital sex is that it is immoral”). It is a very tenuous jump in logic to make since it is based on misrepresentation and an assumption that premarital sex does not have any consequences (when in fact it does). Basically, you can’t just take an extreme comment (“Your relationship is doomed and an open marriage is in your future”) and claim it represents all opposition to premarital sex, thus making opposition to premarital sex beyond moral disapproval as something incorrect.

+Sebastian

 

[57thDimension]

Anyhow, the way the big guy often works, you’ll probably find the man you ideally wish for - the day after you become truly ok with the alternatives.

If you accept the alternatives, will you have an ideal? What is an ideal if everything is okay? Obviously men and women can change their lives and become good Catholics and experience happy marriages, but as my confessor has told me in the past (in a very high-level, 45-years-of-experience way) that the memories (and potentially other consequences) never leave. Sex is meant to bond people, and from what my confessor says, it does, and well.

You’re right about self-forgiveness - we have to move on from the past, especially if we want to leave it behind. But to say that a person can “will away” temporal consequences ignores the power (and even danger ) of sex. Of course, temporal consequences could be a good thing, like a child, or a bad thing, like HIV (which I hope doesn’t happen to anyone), but they are still consequences of an action and pretending they don’t exist is really to deny reality.

It would be this lack of self-forgiveness that would be a wedge in the future marriage, not the act of sex.

Well, this is not quite guaranteed. A lack of self-forgiveness will cause problems, but as I explained above, so could the act of sex.

I’ve found, though, that people who say to themselves “I’d be okay if I committed this sin” are much more likely to commit that sin. There’s a very delicate balance between self-forgiveness and preemptive forgiveness.

Anyhow, good advice overall.

+Sebastian

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m not sure about these comments. It’s certainly the case that people make comments that are untrue, especially in regards to guarantees, but I don’t know that they’re common. It goes the other way, too, where people say that anyone who waits until marriage is “damaged goods” or “psychologically dysfunctional” as though it were a guarantee. As to prevalence, I can’t say any sort of over-embellished statements are that common. Do you have any instances that you can show me? The reason I ask is because people can sometimes rush to conclusions without fully understanding what people are saying (e.g. “cohabitation increases the risk of divorce” is interpreted by a defensive/sensitive person as “cohabitation guarantees divorce”). A huge number of assumptions are made by people on this forum in many areas of discussion, not least of which is the one this thread is on. That brings me to another point…

We haven’t really listened to (and thus accurately answered) what Esther is asking. She was wondering whether she will have the wisdom and strength to wait until marriage. Not at any point did she say anything about only marrying a virgin. That assumption has been made, though, and it’s partially derailed her thread. When I speak of assumptions, I’m referring to those kinds of things. I start to wonder if people are overly defensive of their choices/mistakes (depends on their views, of course) and thus make those kinds of interpretations. It mirrors a person guilty of some action becoming very defensive of even tangential references to that action - guilty people become almost consumed with such thoughts. It’s definitely something to watch out for, as psychological stress is not good for you.

Anyhow…

But is it? I’ve never encountered it.

As for making people “tune out abstinence lectures,” I doubt extreme or fringe comments on a forum are going to factor into the equation. Let’s be honest: people who tune out abstinence lectures are almost invariably opposed to abstinence. The fact that people don’t like the presenters is a reason they tune them out, too.

As a statistician, I can say this isn’t really true. It still does increase the chance of divorce, but the interpretation is being based on self-selection rather than causal/experience - basically, people predisposed to cohabitation are more likely to be less religious, hold nontraditional values, advocate greater gender equality, report lower levels of education, and come from less stable family backgrounds potentially resulting in more pessimistic views of the stability of intimate relationships, and thus those factors are connected to later marital discord much more strongly than the intermediating factor of cohabitation. The statement that it “no longer increases the chance of divorce” is above and beyond those factors - resolving those confounding factors is done prior to making that statement. So, again, it’s the factors that are being considered in relation to later marital dissolution, not the cohabitation experience, though in both cases it is still shown to lead to higher rates of discord/unhappiness. The latest research has deemed it to not be statistically significant, but only in very weak terms (e.g. “this might be suggestive of evidence for”). Also, for education, the divorce rate goes up with level of education for women, but not for men. It’s less than a standard deviation, but still statistically significant. Researcher suggest that better-educated women are less tolerant of marital discord (less reliance on husband, higher self-image, etc - also, financial penalties are often less (or nonexistent) for a woman in a divorce, especially with children involved).

I don’t think your original premise is sound. Your statement above is suggesting that people who oppose premarital sex only do so in a dishonest way since you seem to be presenting extreme/fringe comments in opposition to premarital sex as entirely representative of opposition to premarital sex. This seems like a false dichotomy (either “your marriage is doomed to failure” or “the only thing bad about premarital sex is that it is immoral”). It is a very tenuous jump in logic to make since it is based on misrepresentation and an assumption that premarital sex does not have any consequences (when in fact it does). Basically, you can’t just take an extreme comment (“Your relationship is doomed and an open marriage is in your future”) and claim it represents all opposition to premarital sex, thus making opposition to premarital sex beyond moral disapproval as something incorrect.

+Sebastian

There are a lot of factual errors in what you said, and in fact being a statistician does not make you qualified to make the unsubstantiated claims that you did. I have some links and studies to post when I’m not in my car.

And I did not set up any false dichotomies. But really, I was subjected to too much abstinence stuff as a kid and I’ve heard the claims and rhetoric.

 

[57thDimension]

It’s very common.

Cohabitation virtually guarantees divorce
Sex before marriage guarantees adultery and “open marriage”
Marrying a non-Catholic guarantees an impossibly difficult marriage and eventual divorce
…]

I’m sure all the holier than thou folks are looking for their smelling salts and a near by couch.
…]

It’s a totally different thing to throw out judgements and supposed “statistics” about the end results of not “doing everything right” in accordance with the Church.

I’ve never seen any of the guarantees you mentioned. Could you possibly link a few? Thanks.

Also, I don’t think being harsh with “holier than thou folks” will encourage them to change their views. When I took my psychology courses in undergrad, I remember reading about how people who are criticized or attacked for their views tend to hold onto them tighter, rarely consider alternate views, and tend to misinterpret those alternate views, along with lashing out. I can’t for the life of me remember what it was called, though.

Also, as a statistician, I am curious as to why you’ve put statistics in quotations. Are saying that when people say that something is guaranteed, that those statements are statistical? (Obviously, there are few guaranteed things in life, and a single counterexample is proof of that.)

Of course it can happen. We got married last year, both virgins - he was 27 and I was 30.

We were lucky, in that we both had the same background (which is, of course, rarer and rarer that older you get.) But, I was prepared to marry someone who wasn’t a virgin, provided that they had a proper understanding of sex now, and that they regretted their past actions.

While I don’t think Esther was concerned with marrying a virgin (if she is, that’s okay), but rather about waiting until marriage.

As an aside, I am curious* as to what your limit would be for sexual experiences - that is, if your husband had 50 partners (a study I conducted had a woman with 960 partners - it is possible) would that be too much? If you could provide a generic answer, that would be great. If you don’t want to answer, that’s okay, and I’m not going to consider any answer “wrong.”

+Sebastian

*always

 

[EstherTherese]

Um…

 

[57thDimension]

There are a lot of factual errors in what you said, and in fact being a statistician does not make you qualified to make the unsubstantiated claims that you did. I have some links and studies to post when I’m not in my car.

And I did not set up any false dichotomies. But really, I was subjected to too much abstinence stuff as a kid and I’ve heard the claims and rhetoric.

While I don’t feel your comment is very charitable, I will respond anyway.

I am a statistician, but also a researcher. Part of my job is to ensure sociologists (among others) do not make errors in their research. Since I am quoting from the latest research, with an excellent understanding both of the research and its implications, I believe I am indeed qualified to write what I did. By the way, the claims I wrote are not my own claims, and I don’t think it is reasonable or charitable to assume that I would consider my qualifications as grounds for the correctness of any claims. You are welcome to submit current, peer-reviewed studies for evidence of your claims.

I am afraid you did set up a false dichotomy, at least by the way you wrote your comment. If you’d like to clarify/re-phrase your comment so that myself and others can understand your view better, that would fine.

As for your childhood experience - it is not representative of all abstinence views, and not all opposition to premarital sex is homogenous in terms of arguments. I’m also unsure as to how or why it relates to how your comment has been read by others.

I hope we can all proceed in a courteous way and discuss this in a civil manner.

+Sebastian

 

[57thDimension]

Um…

Yes?

+Sebastian

 

[EstherTherese]

Yes?

+Sebastian

Sorry to confuse with my brief reply.

It a lot to process for me at the time.
In any case, thank you for addressing my original question.

Good to find users who use both knowledge and faith-filled, personal advice to strengthen who are unsure and still have yet to mature like me.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Good to find users who use both knowledge and faith-filled, personal advice to strengthen who are unsure and still have yet to mature like me.

Don’t be so hard on yourself; you are way more mature than your peers regarding morals. We all are tempted, and have questions and doubts. The key is not to lead them astray.

 

[57thDimension]

BlueEyedLady, I await your substantiation of your claims of factual errors. Since you suggest that you already know what they are, it would be good for all reading this thread to have them presented and addressed.

That said, I’m quite certain there aren’t any.

+Sebastian

 

[EasterJoy]

I’ve always taken pre-marital abstinence and lifelong chastity seriously, but I’ve become disillusioned by the lack of reverence for these virtues as I’m getting older…

In youth groups, I seemed to be taught that if I did not wait until marriage, I would end up having sex in some cheap, valueless way. However, sex simply seems to be a part of “adult” life that many friends have succumb to in any long-term commitment.

Is it possible to have a Catholic marriage later while remaining pure?

Yes, it is possible to have a Catholic marriage later while remaining pure. There is no reason to concern yourself with why a man would remain pure “without a religious imperative”, because, as I gather, you have a religious imperative and you want to marry someone who lives his life based on religious imperatives. While you can’t be guaranteed that the man who waited for you will make a good husband, you at least know that he has self-discipline and puts real actions where his values are. Even if he is none of that, though, you will have done the will of God, and that is what is most important. Keep your eye on that ball.

Here are some alternatives:

1. Have sex with someone that you do not know will be your husband because you think he’ll drop you if you don’t. Do you think you forget that, that you thought he wouldn’t have waited for you? Not after all the guys who you feel have left you because you stuck to your convictions. You’ll remember. And if you don’t marry him? Well, think of those guys you broke up with…do you really wish you’d had a sexual relationship to break up from, too? What would those “other reasons” have meant if you had gotten pregnant? (Or were you planning on using birth control, too?)
2. Marry someone before you are ready because he won’t wait around if you don’t give in, because he’s “struggling to remain pure.” Think back again…how would that have worked out for you? Would you like to be dealing with those “other reasons” because you rushed into marriage?
3. Follow the laws of God that you know are true and marry when and if you find someone that you believe will help you through this life and help both you and your children into Heaven. Maybe none of that happens, but as Mother Teresa used to say: God did not call me to be successful. God called me to be faithful. When, dear sweet soul, have you ever regretted being faithful?

There are a lot of reasons people divorce now, and they don’t all have to do with premarital sex. Let’s be very blunt: there used to be divorces that should have happened and did not. Why should they have happened? Because it would have saved someone’s life, sometimes a child’s life. Because someone would not have been forced to stay with a serially unfaithful spouse because they couldn’t stand the social or financial repercussions of leaving that spouse. Because someone would have been able to preserve half of the family’s finances from someone who was gambling or drinking away everything needed for the family to live. Even when the bond remains, there are just reasons for divorce, and it is better if we do not get into secretly judging who has just reasons and who does not or who married when we would not have and who did not. Maybe they did better than we would have in their place, all other things being the same. Preserved from the trial of divorce, let us just be thankful that we don’t have to know what we would do in their situation.

You have been doing the right thing, and let’s hope you’re not doing it because you subjected moral law to your own analysis before you decided to follow it. That, my friend, is taking a big bite out of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the fruit that promises that “the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad”. (Gen. 3:5)

Statistics are a great help for understanding some things and for making many decisions, but not this one. Do what you know is right, with no other reason needed for thinking it right than that you know it pleases God for you to do so. Be ready, too, to be as the father wished the older brother had been in the story of the Prodigal Son, immediately ready to welcome the stray with love and joy when he repents, with no resentment for all the so-called “adventures” he has been on that you have faithfully refrained from. Feel no need to defend your fidelity from scoffers or people trying to defend other choices. No one deserves it, and no one ought to even imply that fidelity needs any defense.

The work you are doing was given to you by God in order to more beautifully mold you into his image, in order to make you a saint fit for happiness forever in his holy presence. That is why that wealthy father with many servants sent his sons into his fields in the Prodigal Son story: that is, to mold them into people like himself, and nothing else. Want that. Pursue that. Accept the joys and trials that come out of that, and when the day comes, you will have a crown, my friend, like the older brother to whom the father said, “you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.” (Luke 15:31)

 

[mek42]

If you accept the alternatives, will you have an ideal? What is an ideal if everything is okay? Obviously men and women can change their lives and become good Catholics and experience happy marriages, but as my confessor has told me in the past (in a very high-level, 45-years-of-experience way) that the memories (and potentially other consequences) never leave. Sex is meant to bond people, and from what my confessor says, it does, and well.

…

The alternatives I was referring to were a celibate vocation or marrying someone not as pure as the OP during his time before following God. I may not have been sufficiently clear on this while I was writing.

 

[chevalier]

I’ve always taken pre-marital abstinence and lifelong chastity seriously, but I’ve become disillusioned by the lack of reverence for these virtues as I’m getting older.

I’m entering into my 20’s and I have seen two patterns in my friends: my Catholic friends are getting married early (my roommate next year is 21 and is engaged. She’s one of many who are doing so around my school) or my non-religious friends are in long-term relationships where sex is involved.

I’m enrolled in my final year in college and plan to get married later in my life, preferrably after I am 25. My past relationships have ended primarily for other reasons, but the guys have struggled with my devotion to chastity. This used to make me bitter at my exes for not controlling their urges around me. However, I’m quickly realizing that the older I get, the less virgins there are. Without the same religious imperative, what’s stopping those in my age group from acting on lust?

In youth groups, I seemed to be taught that if I did not wait until marriage, I would end up having sex in some cheap, valueless way. However, sex simply seems to be a part of “adult” life that many friends have succumb to in any long-term commitment.

Is is possible to have a Catholic marriage later while remaining pure?

You’re young! It was in the middle ages that 20 was a serious age.

Also, it can be difficult to find someone, but there is still a pool of appropriate, eligible someones. And not even all men who are sexually active are incapable of controlling their urges to the point of pressuring you, violating your boundaries etc.

 

[TraderTif]

As an aside, I am curious* as to what your limit would be for sexual experiences - that is, if your husband had 50 partners (a study I conducted had a woman with 960 partners - it is possible) would that be too much? If you could provide a generic answer, that would be great. If you don’t want to answer, that’s okay, and I’m not going to consider any answer “wrong.”

An interesting question…

Yes, I think it’s likely that I’d have been uncomfortable with numbers in the double-digits (or higher), but if I believed that God was calling me to such a person for a spouse, then I suppose He would give me the strength for it. (I think it’s unlikely, but still possible, for someone with HUGE numbers of sexual partners in their past, to come to realize and embrace God’s plan for sexuality…and surely God might intend for them to marry, so SOMEONE has to be their spouse!)

 

[Robert789]

I feel exactly what you feel, being a 21 year old virgin. I only have one friend who i know is still a virgin too because of his beliefs. But i find it really humiliating when the “lads” get into sex conversations…i just step back and hope nobody notices.

I dont know, i feel that it makes it look as though there is something “wrong” with me and i nearly avoid a relationship incase i get turned into a laughing stock when the sex question comes up.

As we get older, yes there’ll be less and less people like us, but the few that remain may be even quiter about being a virgin too.

To be honest, i find it to be a heavy cross, but all i can do is put my faith in the Lord that He will reward me with the woman of my dreams some day…then when we’re married, we’ll have to make up for all the sex we’ve missed out on

 

[EasterJoy]

I feel exactly what you feel, being a 21 year old virgin. I only have one friend who i know is still a virgin too because of his beliefs. But i find it really humiliating when the “lads” get into sex conversations…i just step back and hope nobody notices.

I dont know, i feel that it makes it look as though there is something “wrong” with me and i nearly avoid a relationship incase i get turned into a laughing stock when the sex question comes up.

As we get older, yes there’ll be less and less people like us, but the few that remain may be even quiter about being a virgin too.

To be honest, i find it to be a heavy cross, but all i can do is put my faith in the Lord that He will reward me with the woman of my dreams some day…then when we’re married, we’ll have to make up for all the sex we’ve missed out on

This reminds me of a woman who, when she heard someone talk about some equally-disgusting exploit, looked at him and said, “And I suppose you’re *proud *of that?” Taken aback hardly describes the fellow who’d been bragging about himself.

As full as the world is of people who take offense at being laughed at, remember that you are one who fully deserves to take offense when you’re put down because you have the self-control to keep your pants zipped up. You don’t need to be quiet about saying that you don’t think that the practice of “dating” as if you were a tomcat or a dog in heat is nothing particularly to be proud of. You don’t need to apologize for not doing your part to spread venereal disease or pregnancies outside of marriage. So while you can choose to let the “lads” run off at the mouth if they like, don’t feel that you have anything to be humiliated about. The truth is, you should feel embarrassed for them and their lack of self-respect and respect for women, not embarrassed for yourself. “Well, lads, I’ve never known anyone in politics who ruined his career by failing to have sex with the wrong women, nor any virgins who are paying palimony. My father was a virgin when he married, and my grandfather, too, and that’s good enough for me.”

 

[manualman]

I hear you. Also, I’m slowly accepting that my adherence to my faith and self-control will be labeled as “uptight,” “prudish,” and my favorite “close-minded.”

Yes it will… by guys you should be thankful not to be in a relationship with! They’re out there. My chastity was far more a matter of dumb luck than virtue, but I was 29 when I got married. There really is no shame in being weird in this culture. You’re not missing anything by refraining from engaging in false marriages. That’s what fornication really is.

 

[manualman]

There are two really common errors on this subject. An awful lot of people commit one or the other.

1. Premarital sex makes you damaged goods no longer suitable to be a spouse. Disqualified, done, out. This implies that sex, unlike all other sins, can’t be forgiven and there is no healing. Silly, but you do sometimes see it (often manifests as "I’d break up with her if I found out she wasn’t a virgin, even if she had been repentant). The proper frame of reference is to recognize that we’re ALL sinners. All of us are damaged goods in a wide variety of ways. We need Grace to be healed of the damage we’ve done to ourselves. Singling out just one form of damage for unique status is a manifestation of pride and a bit of scapegoat mentality (THOSE people are the really bad ones…).
2. Yeah, God has this weird hangup about sex, so we’re supposed to obey, but I wasn’t a virgin before marriage and it hasn’t hurt me any, so it’s not like it’s any big deal! This approach ignores the reality that sins are, by definition, things that hurt people and damage relationships. Fornication is a sin precisely because it damages and dilutes the bond intended to be exclusively between husband and wife. To deny that there was any negative effects is to declare it not sinful. Good luck with that… I can understand why BEL would see it that way as an atheist. Y’all with “catholic” on the label should rethink this approach.

As for statistical studies, well, you know. Read the fine print. It’s always in there. Betcha there’s a GOTCHA asterisk in those “no negative effects” by which they are measuring differences after just 8 years or some such relatively short term outcome. Yeah, cohabitating won’t affect outcomes for the first 8 years. That might seem like a long marriage by today’s standards, but I’m sure not impressed.

The other potential gotcha in there is when said cohabitating couples are each others FIRST partners and go on to get married. The claim was made that for such couples there is little to no difference in outcomes compared to those who married without cohabiting. Even if this IS true, I have a minor quibble: when you make the decision to cohabitate, you don’t get to know if you’re going to make it to marriage. Those who didn’t make it that far, probably thought they would, but didn’t. Those unlucky souls cohabitated, perpetuated the failed relationship far longer than it would have gone if chaste, got hurt worse, and due to the long time process involved have fewer opportunities to actually find the right partner to marry (each relationship takes more time to explore and you only get one lifetime). It’s just better to keep your head by keeping your clothes on.