Romantic involvement with multiple people - how can it be anything else than wrong?

[chevalier]

Just to avoid confusion… I should rather have said “teenagers” instead of “children”. At any rate, while children can be excused to some extent by fickleness and ignorance, adult Catholics after confirmation seeking such polyamorous romance are probably more of a problem on the moral side, even though late teens are far more material in a young person’s sexual formation for the rest of the life. The biggest problem would have to be those “Catholic” sites, authors and speakers claiming that “love” (in reality, just the external side of it) is for fun and real commitment is no longer trendy.

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

The Catechism doesn’t say that children should have multiple romantic partners, does it? …

To me, it’s not an agree to disagree kind of matter.

The Catechism doesn’t say one way or the other which method of dating is better (a point you have ignored several times.) That is because it is not an issue of sin or morality. Regardless of your opinion of the matter, the Church does not consider it worth addressing in its definitive teaching on morality. I admire the fact that you stick by your principles and morals, bu in this case, they are* your* principles, not the Church’s.

 

[DeniseR]

When I was a teen I would exclusively date one guy at a time. My parents said it wasn’t wise to do so because dating one person for a long time leads to sexual behavior. Let me repeat: The familiarity of being with one person exclusively ultimately leads to sexual behavior. It was expected socially in high school to only go with one person, have sex, break up when it didn’t work out (usually when the girl got too serious and started thinking about marriage and being in love but they guy was getting what he was looking for), then start dating someone else and start the whole cycle again.

After several exclusive relationships that led to broken hearts, betrayal, damaged emotions, etc. I decided to take my parents advice. I began dating a guy (now my husband) and we didn’t get physical at first. I told him from the beginning that I wasn’t interested in dating only one person and if someone else asked me out I may say yes. He understood from the start. About a month later I was asked out by someone else and went out with him a few times. I told him I was dating another guy too but that we weren’t serious. At the end of the evening of our second date he tried to give me a kiss. I allowed a short kiss on the lips good night. He seemed to want more but I told him that because I was dating someone else too I wasn’t going to be “making out” with either of them. I didn’t want any reason for either of them to think I was doing something with the other that I was also doing with him.

The whole time I was dating more than one guy I was able to keep the relationships from becoming physical. I was open and honest with the guys and let them know from the start that I was not going to be exclusive and I was dating as friends. It was then their choice to go out with me or not. When I see some of these guys now I can look them in the eye. We never did anything to be ashamed of and we never hurt one another, unlike a couple guys I dated exclusively in high school where sex was involved.

Eventually, my husband won out. He continued to date me and eventually we became exclusive. Unfortunately, we later began having sex before marriage. I don’t want any judgements proclaimed against me. I’m not bragging about fornication but ashamed of it. I’m just trying to point out how dating exlcusively leads to sex and broken hearts but casual dating with honesty up front keeps sex and broken hearts at bay.

I have friends who claimed to be virgins on their wedding night because they didn’t count oral sex as sex. We now talk about how wrong we all were and all agree that exclusive dating leads to sex.

One side note: Thank God for his loving forgiveness and the sacrament of Confession.

 

[Princess_Abby]

DeniseR:

When I was a teen I would exclusively date one guy at a time. My parents said it wasn’t wise to do so because dating one person for a long time leads to sexual behavior. Let me repeat: The familiarity of being with one person exclusively ultimately leads to sexual behavior.

After several exclusive relationships that led to broken hearts, betrayal, damaged emotions, etc. I decided to take my parents advice. I began dating a guy (now my husband) and we didn’t get physical at first. I told him from the beginning that I wasn’t interested in dating only one person and if someone else asked me out I may say yes. He understood from the start. About a month later I was asked out by someone else and went out with him a few times. I told him I was dating another guy too but that we weren’t serious. At the end of the evening of our second date he tried to give me a kiss. I allowed a short kiss on the lips good night. He seemed to want more but I told him that because I was dating someone else too I wasn’t going to be “making out” with either of them. I didn’t want any reason for either of them to think I was doing something with the other that I was also doing with him.

This is a really great post. Thank you for sharing, Denise.

When I was an outreach minister in college and grad school, we would sometimes give presentations on chastity. One of my fellow outreach ministers gave me an article which discussed the idea that all of these “serial monogamy” type of relationships were akin to “playing married” and really setting up a patternization for long-term dating, painful breakup, long-term dating, painful breakup…etc. The author spoke about how it set the stage for divorce later in life, as at some point a person would decide to marry their ‘long-term relationship’ and then…at some point…based on their prior handling of relationships when things got rough, tough or boring…‘painful breakup’ meant ‘divorce’ in a marriage setting.

I’m not claiming this article was the end-all, be-all of wisdom regarding long-term, serious and committed relationships among young people, but when the divorce rate is hovering around 60%, it’s very interesting to consider theories as to why.

I dated A LOT as a young person. (I am still young; just married now. ) Does that mean I was physical with every person I dated??? Absolutely not. I dated as friends for the most part, and was always honest about my intentions of getting to know as many people as possible and discerning what sort of personality I would best mesh with. When I found myself interested in someone, I would begin seeing more of him and less of anyone else. That does not mean that “liscentiousness with non-gential pleasure” happened. Give me a break! Relationships developed over time, but not with overly serious exclusivity. I did not want to overly attach and let my emotions cloud my thinking, nor let anything too physical get in the way of properly discerning God’s will for my life.

I was fortunate because as an outreach minister, I had access to a person at our Newman center who happened to be very good friends with Christopher West. I read the rough draft to “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” LONG before it came out. I knew all about kissing needing to be “affirmations of the other’s inherent goodness.” I had soooo many discussions about this with interesting, caring young men. Unlike what Chevalier seems to think, there are very good, genuine young people out in the world who truly do care about each other’s souls and seek to get to know the person behind the body. Another author friend of my friend came out with a rough draft called “The Virtue of Friendship” but I never found out if that was ultimately published… Regardless, it, too, was a very good book about the importance of friendship with male-female counterparts and how t

Despite my “polyamory” ways :clapping:, I was a virgin on my wedding night and had no prior sexual experience whatsoever. By the time I met my future husband, we were both spiritually where we needed to be in order to consider marriage. We dated a mere six months before becoming engaged, and were married within a week of our dating “anniversary”, six months after that. In August we will have been married two years. I think part of the reason I was so easily convinced that my husband was “the one,” was PRIMARILY because I HAD “dated” so much. I knew exactly what was out there, what I didn’t want, and what I DID want. I “recognized” my husband almost immediately and fell head over heels in love with him. We had a short but respectable dating and engagement period (with chaste kissing!) that minimized the overwhelming temptations that come with SERIOUS, COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS.

And no, Chevalier, so far I haven’t been tempted to “prostitution” nor “polygamy.” Gosh, I must be a rare statistic, huh? All that polyamory and no serious sin!

 

[Fashina86]

Princess_Abby:

Despite my “polyamory” ways :clapping:, I was a virgin on my wedding night and had no prior sexual experience whatsoever. By the time I met my future husband, we were both spiritually where we needed to be in order to consider marriage. We dated a mere six months before becoming engaged, and were married within a week of our dating “anniversary”, six months after that. In August we will have been married two years. I think part of the reason I was so easily convinced that my husband was “the one,” was PRIMARILY because I HAD “dated” so much. I knew exactly what was out there, what I didn’t want, and what I DID want. I “recognized” my husband almost immediately and fell head over heels in love with him. We had a short but respectable dating and engagement period (with chaste kissing!) that minimized the overwhelming temptations that come with SERIOUS, COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS.

And no, Chevalier, so far I haven’t been tempted to “prostitution” nor “polygamy.” Gosh, I must be a rare statistic, huh? All that polyamory and no serious sin!

It is not that you dated a lot, but if one leads others on so that they feel that more of a realitionship is coming than one is willing to give, than that is wrong. I still stand by the idea of dating only one person at a time, but haveing many friends, casually, is wonderful and can lead to a very healthy social life and eventually a happy marraige!

 

[Princess_Abby]

Fashina86:

It is not that you dated a lot, but if one leads others on so that they feel that more of a realitionship is coming than one is willing to give, than that is wrong. I still stand by the idea of dating only one person at a time, but haveing many friends, casually, is wonderful and can lead to a very healthy social life and eventually a happy marraige!

I don’t recall leading anyone on. I was always honest about my intentions to simply get to know people in a variety of settings, sometimes one-on-one, etc. I enjoyed sharing meals and movies and concerts and parties and simply having fun, whether it was just me and one other person or a group of people. Once I realized I wasn’t compatible with someone, I made that clear and we either continued a friendship or stopped seeing each other socially, if they were hurt or bothered by my lack of interest.

I knew my future husband as a friend for a few months before exclusive dating him for the six months I described earlier. I did not see anyone else during that time, obviously. When we began dating, both of us “knew” very soon that we would be the one for each other. We waited six months to get engaged, however.

I use the word “polyamory” as a joke, considering that is what Chevalier would call it. I don’t think seeing many people socially is a bad thing, unless there is one person you want to commit to and whom you feel extremely sure about in terms of the future. Kisses aren’t contracts, but I did not waste myself on whomever I happened to be around, as Chevalier keeps implying most of us do. However, I met my husband at the age of 22–the years prior to that were the years of dating for fun and getting to know what I wanted in a spouse. As I said, looking for what I wanted made it very clear to me who I would be most compatible with and it’s what helped me “recognize” my husband so soon and quickly. Once I realized I wanted to date him exclusively, of course I did not see other people with any romantic intentions! I knew I had met someone very special that I wanted to give my time and emotion to–I had not given my emotions away previously. Nor my body, for that matter.

 

[Fashina86]

Princess_Abby:

I don’t recall leading anyone on. I was always honest about my intentions to simply get to know people in a variety of settings, sometimes one-on-one, etc. I enjoyed sharing meals and movies and concerts and parties and simply having fun, whether it was just me and one other person or a group of people. Once I realized I wasn’t compatible with someone, I made that clear and we either continued a friendship or stopped seeing each other socially, if they were hurt or bothered by my lack of interest.

I knew my future husband as a friend for a few months before exclusive dating him for the six months I described earlier. I did not see anyone else during that time, obviously. When we began dating, both of us “knew” very soon that we would be the one for each other. We waited six months to get engaged, however.

I use the word “polyamory” as a joke, considering that is what Chevalier would call it. I don’t think seeing many people socially is a bad thing, unless there is one person you want to commit to and whom you feel extremely sure about in terms of the future. Kisses aren’t contracts, but I did not waste myself on whomever I happened to be around, as Chevalier keeps implying most of us do. However, I met my husband at the age of 22–the years prior to that were the years of dating for fun and getting to know what I wanted in a spouse. As I said, looking for what I wanted made it very clear to me who I would be most compatible with and it’s what helped me “recognize” my husband so soon and quickly. Once I realized I wanted to date him exclusively, of course I did not see other people with any romantic intentions! I knew I had met someone very special that I wanted to give my time and emotion to–I had not given my emotions away previously. Nor my body, for that matter.

I realize and wasn’t accusing you of anything immorl, but rather was just clarifying for others. However, I was told that kisses act like contracts, showign a devotion or a special love for an individual. Am I completely incorrect?

 

[pnewton]

Fashina86:

I realize and wasn’t accusing you of anything immorl, but rather was just clarifying for others. However, I was told that kisses act like contracts, showign a devotion or a special love for an individual. Am I completely incorrect?

Kisses are like contracts? It wasn’t some guy that said this by any chance?

 

[Princess_Abby]

Hi Laura.

Kisses are not contracts, my dear. I had to think a moment about where I first heard that phrase, and I realized it had to do with a poem someone gave me about ten years ago. It’s called
“After Awhile.”

After a while you learn the subtle difference
Between holding a hand and chaining a soul,

And you learn that love doesn’t mean leaning
And company doesn’t mean security,

And you begin to learn that kisses aren’t contracts
And presents aren’t promises

And you begin to accept your defeats
With your head up and your eyes open,

With the grace of a woman,
Not the grief of a child

And you learn to build all your roads on today,
Because tomorrow’s ground is too uncertain for plans
and futures have a way of falling down in mid-flight.

After awhile you learn that even sunshine
Burns if you get too much

So you plant your own garden and decorate your own soul,
In stead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers

And you learn that you really can endure…
That you really are strong
And you really do have worth,
and you learn and learn…
With every good bye you learn.
Veronica Shoffstall 1971

…Hi, it’s me again. anyway, no i do not think kisses are contracts for undying love and forever commitment. Love is not about “contracts.” Marital love is a covenant, one that mirrors our relationship with the Lord. But marital love is not a “contract,” either.

Can kisses imply special love and devotion, as you say? Sure. They may also imply any number of other wonderful, good things–and as long as they are given in generosity to affectionately affirm the other person (not used for any self-seeking desire), then that is fine. Outside of marriage, kissing should be chaste without the intention to arouse nor the desire to be aroused. Kissing as foreplay is reserved for marriage.

As much as Chevalier has espoused “non-genital pleasure” leading to “prostitution” and “polygamy,” I can attest that holding hands and chaste goodnight kisses do nothing of the sort. Is discretion involved? YES. OF COURSE. No one in their right (nor Catholic) mind goes off and kisses whomever they want, whenever they want. Much discrmination in choosing is required! Personally I think there is a very simple joy in letting one (whom you have come to know) be aware that they are indeed valued, with the offering of a chaste kiss–but that certainly does not mean a contractual obligation for a life-long committment! Nor does it mean so little as to run out the door “in the same day” (sorry, just summarizing Chevalier) and kiss others, either. So yes, I think the joy of affirming the other’s goodness can bring…well, joy…otherwise perhaps called pleasure. Pleasure is different than arousal in this case.

 

[DeniseR]

Thank you, Princess Abby! You have a lot of wisdom for being so young. I wish I had grown up as you did. It’s how I’m trying to teach my kids to look at dating. The theory that the pattern of long-term-dating-break-up-repeat leading to divorce is valid. Thanks for the poem. I printed it out and will share it with my sons and maybe the girlfriend.

 

[chevalier]

pnewton:

The Catechism doesn’t say one way or the other which method of dating is better (a point you have ignored several times.) That is because it is not an issue of sin or morality. Regardless of your opinion of the matter, the Church does not consider it worth addressing in its definitive teaching on morality. I admire the fact that you stick by your principles and morals, bu in this case, they are your principles, not the Church’s.

The Catechism says that premarital relationships need to lead to marriage and that’s the purpose of love between a man and a woman. Not fun, not getting to know people in bodily but non-sexual ways. Or anything.

DeniseR:

I didn’t want any reason for either of them to think I was doing something with the other that I was also doing with him.

With respect, I would have that thought and wouldn’t allow myself to be kissed if I had knowledge of a second friends-with-benefits relationship of my date. I believe a person who can’t decide and kisses with many people is not mature enough for dating, let alone courtship and has much to think about it yet.
Princess Abby:

All that polyamory and no serious sin!

If it’s venial, we can go ahead and do it for fun. Is that what you are saying?

Fashina86:

It is not that you dated a lot, but if one leads others on so that they feel that more of a realitionship is coming than one is willing to give, than that is wrong. I still stand by the idea of dating only one person at a time, but haveing many friends, casually, is wonderful and can lead to a very healthy social life and eventually a happy marraige!

I agree with you. I don’t realise why people can’t grasp the idea of having many friends but only one lover. Christianity has nothing to do with that and the excuses that are brought up are only that – excuses to have many lovers.
Princess Abby:

I don’t recall leading anyone on. I was always honest about my intentions to simply get to know people in a variety of settings, sometimes one-on-one, etc. I enjoyed sharing meals and movies and concerts and parties and simply having fun, whether it was just me and one other person or a group of people. Once I realized I wasn’t compatible with someone, I made that clear and we either continued a friendship or stopped seeing each other socially, if they were hurt or bothered by my lack of interest.

Kissing dates and behaving like a man and a woman is not meeting as friends.

Besides, you talk so lightly about dumping people you weren’t compatible with, and yet you claim that seeing one person romantically and kissing one person at a time is wrong because… it leads to break ups when people aren’t compatible. Where’s the logic? Except maybe that one is hurt less when one has several lovers than just one. But Christianity is not about avoiding hurts. Avoiding hurts is not the religion I know.

I use the word “polyamory” as a joke, considering that is what Chevalier would call it. I don’t think seeing many people socially is a bad thing, unless there is one person you want to commit to and whom you feel extremely sure about in terms of the future.

I agree. But with all respect, I believe you are deceiving yourself. Why does seeing socially have to involve getting romantic and kissing? When you are married and seeing people socially, do you swap romantic embraces and kisses with them? I’m sure not. So what, is that polyamory still a way of seeing people socially and as just friends or is it, in fact, having many lovers or having male-female fun without paying the price for it?

Kisses aren’t contracts, but I did not waste myself on whomever I happened to be around, as Chevalier keeps implying most of us do.

What difference does it make, five or hundred? By what you said, you imply that the number of people being kissed has something to do with conduct. So? Why? You were saying that kissing romantically is a way of having fun and socialising with the other gender and is allowed for everyone with everyone without sin. So where’s the logic?

I wouldn’t say a word if it were everyone. In the sense that every friend were kissed on the mouth, attractive or not, for friendship. But dates are not friendship, people are being kissed because of each other’s attractivity and kissed in a man-woman way. Not like a brother or sister would be.

 

[chevalier]

pnewton:

Kisses are like contracts? It wasn’t some guy that said this by any chance?

Sex isn’t a contract, either, so what?

They may also imply any number of other wonderful, good things–and as long as they are given in generosity to affectionately affirm the other person (not used for any self-seeking desire),

Then why not kiss the same way the guys who are good friends but you wouldn’t date for anything in the world? Why not kiss male friends the same way after marriage, if it’s so chaste and only affectionately affirms someone? There is romantic interest involved unless one would express friendship by kissing cross-gender casual but good friends on the mouth the same affectionate way, especially also after getting married.

then that is fine. Outside of marriage, kissing should be chaste without the intention to arouse nor the desire to be aroused. Kissing as foreplay is reserved for marriage.

So you’re actually saying that genital pleasure is for marriage and anything non-genital is to be enjoyed with as many people as one likes for the fun of it, with no commitment and no obligations. Basically, as many non-genital but still male-female lovers as one wants… Hmm… how would you react to male-male or female-female friends dating the same oh-so-chaste way? After all, kissing is not sodomy…

No one in their right (nor Catholic) mind goes off and kisses whomever they want, whenever they want. Much discrmination in choosing is required!

So at what point exactly does it become Catholic? Is it not Catholic to have seven lovers but perfectly Catholic to have two? The discrimination only makes it worse. Kissing everyone would be a mere cultural custom. Kissing the male-female way because of mutual attractivity is a lovers thing, not friends. Please explain to me (in detail) why is discrimination in choosing required. Well, I’m serious about this. It’s probably going to help our argument. So, why is discrimination required and in what way does discrimination make it Catholic?

I think there is a very simple joy in letting one (whom you have come to know) be aware that they are indeed valued, with the offering of a chaste kiss–but that certainly does not mean a contractual obligation for a life-long committment!

So why not kiss people of the opposite gender the exact same way already after getting married? Why not kiss the same way opposite gender friends whom you like or even love but wouldn’t date for anything in the world and would never want to marry?

Nor does it mean so little as to run out the door “in the same day” (sorry, just summarizing Chevalier) and kiss others, either.

What difference does it make, one day or a fortnight? Would be un-Catholic to kiss all three on one day but perfectly Catholic to space it out more?

So yes, I think the joy of affirming the other’s goodness can bring…well, joy…otherwise perhaps called pleasure.

The joy of affirming the other’s goodness? The parish priests are probably good people. Brothers and father are. Some co-workers might be. A sister’s husband. A cousin’s fiance. Why not affirm their goodness with a chaste non-passionate closed-mouth romantic kiss?

Pleasure is different than arousal in this case.

So is the pleasure of kissing one’s fiance(e) or spouse. And yet, would we like the spouse to kiss his or her friends the same way?

It is clear that “chaste” non-exclusive dating is more than friendship. Why is it deemed less chaste to treat one person the same way? Monogamy is bad now? So why marry at all?

My view is simple: Have many, many friends. As many as you can. But keep it strictly friends, not lovers. Lovers only when it’s serious and potentially leading to marriage, which probably is what you would call courting. And that would still have to be friendship first and foremost, with a slight romantic theme and expectation of the future marriage.

Personally, I believe a girl who has caved in and have sex with a previous guy she was serious about is a better candidate than a girl who has many lovers, even non genital, despite her sin. I could possibly date the former, never the latter. Neither would I allow my son to.

Whatever else is mere having fun and feeling comfortable about chastity because of the line being drawn at genital pleasure. But something is still wrong here, as is shown by the comments that much discrimination is allowed or that a given number is too many etc.

I have contacted yet another priest and he has also said taking romance for fun or having many lovers is sinful and the moment any physical marks of love appear, it already should be exclusive relationship looking at marriage.

 

[chevalier]

The adamant refusal to give up the lovers theme of romance and kissing on dates, while also multiplying excuses for it, also says much, in my humble opinion. It really makes me wonder why it is so hard to give up. Why the insistence on keeping it and enjoying it with many people, while knowing it’s more than mere friendship.

Fifties, fifties, everything fifties. But what was before? Before fifties, before the sexual revolution, would it ever be considered licit for a young lady to have many romantic lovers? Or to exchange marks of love and romance without any real susbstance, as in friends with benefits? The sexual revolution brough about a general relaxation in everything which is male-female, not only just venereal things. It saddens me to see how good and devoted Catholics see it as normal to have many lovers or friends with benefits, let alone to see such views being passed on to children.

 

[Fashina86]

So to summerize… (I am kind of lost) kisses are meant to be a sign of friendship and affection, not as a means of forcing undying devotion. But, if one overuses them, they can lose meaning and become a means of lusting. Still, they should be of value to people, but not be a message of commitment. Therefore, by kissing on a first date, you are sending a wrong message, but by not, you aren’t showing affection for the person. This seems to be a paradox. I realize it is not a contract, but a means of showing love and desire to stay with someone, and not a way to go and meet new people. Kisses are precious and not to be wasted on just anyone. Yet, one never knows whom one with marry, therefore should we just not kiss anybody at all and wait until we are engages, hoping that by then, we will only have to kiss one person and therefore not lose the meaning of a simple kiss? Or should we just be chaste and simple and reserve the kiss for only special people?

 

[chevalier]

Fashina, the problem I have with the concept is not the kiss on the mouth itself. It’s perfectly moral to kiss on the mouth for friendship if there’s such a custom. I’m not even going to say a word about people who spontaneously kiss that way because they are friends and the motive is friendly.

But dating is a match-making process and dates are more than friends. The kiss is romantic and the motive is romantic and based on attractivity. Unattractive friends don’t get such kisses.

The conclusion is simple: it’s a man-woman lovers thing. Chaste in the genital sense, but still lovers. Many lovers for a Catholic young lady or gentleman? That’s a big joke.

 

[Fashina86]

chevalier:

Fashina, the problem I have with the concept is not the kiss on the mouth itself. It’s perfectly moral to kiss on the mouth for friendship if there’s such a custom. I’m not even going to say a word about people who spontaneously kiss that way because they are friends and the motive is friendly.

But dating is a match-making process and dates are more than friends. The kiss is romantic and the motive is romantic and based on attractivity. Unattractive friends don’t get such kisses.

The conclusion is simple: it’s a man-woman lovers thing. Chaste in the genital sense, but still lovers. Many lovers for a Catholic young lady or gentleman? That’s a big joke.

Thanks for the clarification…

 

[Princess_Abby]

Chevalier,

Could you site for me where I ever indicated having any lover prior to marriage?

Could you please site for me where I indicated I had multiple lovers simultaneously?

Could you then explain how chaste=romantic?

Could you offer an explanation of how holding hands and a kiss on the mouth or cheek is the definition of being lovers?

Could you also indicate for me where I ever detailed to you a timeline regarding my dates?

Could you also, perhaps, define the term dating as you understand it?

Could you indicate to me where I used an actual number in regards to your theory about “how many is too many” to see socially?

Could you define for me where I specifically said that homosexual kissing was or is a chaste action?

Could you please define for me why we are not allowed to choose whom we place our kiss upon? In your theory, it is either everyone, no one or the one you pledge undying love and commitment to for the rest of your life. Please site specific and verifiable sources if you are going to claim this is a matter of Catholic theology.

Could you please site specific and verifiable Catholic sources regarding where in fact the Church teaches that dating is wrong?

Could you please site specific and verifiable sources about chaste kissing leading to polygamy, prostitution and licentiousness of all kind? Research data would be a great place to start.

I do not consider random priests in Warsaw, Poland to be verifiable sources nor authorities. I want Church documents.

Thanks!

 

[Princess_Abby]

Two more curious question, Chev!

Could you also explain how the absence of serious sin indicates the presence of venial sin?

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

The Catechism says that premarital relationships need to lead to marriage and that’s the purpose of love between a man and a woman. Not fun, not getting to know people in bodily but non-sexual ways. Or anything.
.

Chevlier, I know that you have a logical mind, so perhaps you can see the fallacy in this statement. “Premarital relationships need to lead to marriage” does not and can not mean that each needs to lead to marriage or else one would have to marry the first person one dated. Therefore, not every relationship needs to lead to marriage. SInce not all relationships need to lead to marriage, there is no implied or explicit prohibition on dating more than on person in your statement.

Also, so I could read the passage you are referring to could you please give the reference paragraph.

By the way, when I said “kisses are contracts?” I was referring to somthing another poster said. It struck me as the type of line some guy would use to guilt a girl into not dating other people, or not breaking up.

I am happily married and have no vested interest any more in this issue. I do, however, have a daughter and keep here well advised on games and manipulations she faces from guys. Using poetry (like above) is a borderline call.

 

[chevalier]

pnewton:

Chevlier, I know that you have a logical mind, so perhaps you can see the fallacy in this statement. “Premarital relationships need to lead to marriage” does not and can not mean that each needs to lead to marriage or else one would have to marry the first person one dated. Therefore, not every relationship needs to lead to marriage. SInce not all relationships need to lead to marriage, there is no implied or explicit prohibition on dating more than on person in your statement.

Love needs to lead to marriage because the purpose of love is marriage. Relationships must lead to marriage but this doesn’t mean that you need still to marry the person you think is the right candidate if it shows that you are mistaken. I am not saying that all exclusive relationships lead to marriage or that all are good. Things like relationships for a predefined period of time or hooking up are a big joke. A good premarital relationship is one entered into in good faith with the hope of marriage resulting from the bond one builds with the person. One cannot possibly hope to marry more than one person. There is a reason other than social for the ban on polygamy. That is because love between a man and a woman is exclusive as God intended from the beginning, creating them a man and a woman. Finding the one right person is a natural process in a human. Engaging in multiple relationships means that either:

1. One can’t decide which one to take and therefore starts try-before-buy relationships, all but one doomed to fail, in order to find out in which one he or she feels the best.

or 2. One engages in male-female actions, even not genital and sexual in the broad but not in the strict sense, for the fun of it. While hugging a friend for the pleasure of it doesn’t have to be wrong, nor kissing a friend even on the mouth but for a friendly motive, but activities which are not genital but still related to sexual attraction are sexual in the broad sense. As one can’t possibly love many people in a way leading to marriage, such activity is vain and serves vain pleasure. This is lust, if not of the immediately genital kind. Arousal is not prerequisite for lust, nor is always arousal wrong. The two terms are not interchangeable.