What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

[KostyaJMJ]

I think that people who will only date a marry virgins are simply minimizing risk and looking to give themselves the best odds for a good marriage. If you have two players with comparable performance, are you going to select the one with a history of substance abuse, or are you going to select the one who has displayed a great work ethic up until that point? It doesn’t mean that the other person may not make a great player, it just means you’ll let someone else take a risk on them.

Anther point is, all this not having sex isn’t as easy as virgins make it out to look. Nope, waiting until marriage takes hard work and dedication. However, waiting does come with many benefits. Why would you sacrifice all the benefits of waiting to be with someone who has been irresponsible and squandered their gift of chastity? It is like playing the ant to the foolish grasshopper. Might not be something you’re really willing to do.

 

[thewanderer]

I think that people who will only date a marry virgins are simply minimizing risk and looking to give themselves the best odds for a good marriage. If you have two players with comparable performance, are you going to select the one with a history of substance abuse, or are you going to select the one who has displayed a great work ethic up until that point? It doesn’t mean that the other person may not make a great player, it just means you’ll let someone else take a risk on them.

Anther point is, all this not having sex isn’t as easy as virgins make it out to look. Nope, waiting until marriage takes hard work and dedication. However, waiting does come with many benefits. Why would you sacrifice all the benefits of waiting to be with someone who has been irresponsible and squandered their gift of chastity? It is like playing the ant to the foolish grasshopper. Might not be something you’re really willing to do.

And noone here is saying that it is wrong to want to marry a virgin. That’s just not the topic of this thread. This tread is about the fact that there is nothing wrong with marrying a non-virgin. Both are true.

 

[In_Spiration]

I think he was the pope who owned a 1996 Jeep Wrangler.

That’s correct. It’s really surprising how so many Catholics act like the Fourth Vatican Council never even happened.

It isn’t the first time on this forum I have had an attack of this sort over my rape and situations surrounding it. I am used to it and having to fight to have something done with it.Ya. I agree. Too bad that nothing has been done about it yet, but if enough of us report her, something will be done.

If you’re referring to this thread, then you should stop being so passive-aggressive, because nobody attacked you in it.

Uh oh. I’m going to be reported now, aren’t I? I’m not sure I can handle the righteous indignation of CAF’s new makeshift brigade of vigilantes. Will you spare me if I promise to stop disagreeing with you all?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That’s correct. It’s really surprising how so many Catholics act like the Fourth Vatican Council never even happened.

If you’re referring to this thread, then you should stop being so passive-aggressive, because nobody attacked you in it.

Uh oh. I’m going to be reported now, aren’t I? I’m not sure I can handle the righteous indignation of CAF’s new makeshift brigade of vigilantes. Will you spare me if I promise to stop disagreeing with you all?

Unless you’re posting under a fake account because your old one was just banned yesterday, I don’t think you have anything to worry about

 

[TrixieMcGee]

That’s correct. It’s really surprising how so many Catholics act like the Fourth Vatican Council never even happened.

If you’re referring to this thread, then you should stop being so passive-aggressive, because nobody attacked you in it.

Uh oh. I’m going to be reported now, aren’t I? I’m not sure I can handle the righteous indignation of CAF’s new makeshift brigade of vigilantes. Will you spare me if I promise to stop disagreeing with you all?

I am not talking about this thread. I am talking about another thread and why would I report you? I don’t care if people disagree with me and I rarely report people. I am not the only one who saw what Willy said in another thread out of line.

 

[In_Spiration]

And noone here is saying that it is wrong to want to marry a virgin. That’s just not the topic of this thread. This tread is about the fact that there is nothing wrong with marrying a non-virgin. Both are true.

While I was obviously joking before with my comment about Pope Pius XXVIII, as of course there isn’t anything morally wrong per se with marrying a non-virgin, it is still also true that (ceteris paribus) marrying a virgin is better than marrying a non-virgin.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

While I was obviously joking before with my comment about Pope Pius XXVIII, as of course there isn’t anything morally wrong per se with marrying a non-virgin, it is still also true that (ceteris paribus) marrying a virgin is better than marrying a non-virgin.

Depends on the people. I a lot of people even on this site married non virgins and wouldn’t agree that marrying anyone else would have been better, virgin or not.

 

[thewanderer]

While I was obviously joking before with my comment about Pope Pius XXVIII, as of course there isn’t anything morally wrong per se with marrying a non-virgin, it is still also true that (ceteris paribus) marrying a virgin is better than marrying a non-virgin.

Only if they were truely pure and only in the same sense that priesthood and the religious life is better. In other words, theoretically it’s better, but not necessarily for a given individual.

 

[WillyOnWheels]

If you’re referring to this thread, then you should stop being so passive-aggressive, because nobody attacked you in it.

Uh oh. I’m going to be reported now, aren’t I? I’m not sure I can handle the righteous indignation of CAF’s new makeshift brigade of vigilantes. Will you spare me if I promise to stop disagreeing with you all?

If you ask an historian, more people died at the hands of vigilantes than there were victims in the first place.

But thanks for saying what I’m apparently not allowed to say. I’m still a target for everyone’s frustrations.

 

[joshvanrad]

I sure hope not or I could be in big trouble.

I have a shameful past that I have had trouble coming to terms with over the past few years. Since my reversion into the faith I’ve had to deal with skepticism from others because of who I was years ago, in my past. I am ashamed of who I was, but I know I am a different (and better) person than I was back then and I really hope others can see that.

Ite in pace,
Joshua

 

[thewanderer]

I sure hope not or I could be in big trouble.

I have a shameful past that I have had trouble coming to terms with over the past few years. Since my reversion into the faith I’ve had to deal with skepticism from others because of who I was years ago, in my past. I am ashamed of who I was, but I know I am a different (and better) person than I was back then and I really hope others can see that.

Ite in pace,
Joshua

Don’t worry, there are definitely people out there who are fine with overlooking a past for the sake of the person they see in the present.

 

[In_Spiration]

Only if they were truely pure and only in the same sense that priesthood and the religious life is better. In other words, theoretically it’s better, but not necessarily for a given individual.

Instead of “theoretically,” I would say “generally.” And the study to which my link referred pertains to correlation, not causation; it offers no further details re: whether a particular girl was a virgin for good or bad reasons. What it does indicate is that, for one reason or another, in general, all other things being equal, a woman’s odds of long-term marital stability free of divorce drops from around 80% to 50% as soon as she’s had more than one partner.

Depends on the people. I a lot of people even on this site married non virgins and wouldn’t agree that marrying anyone else would have been better, virgin or not.

Please look up the meaning of ‘ceteris paribus.’ And, since I saw several good points made by WillyOnWheels during the brief time we got to spend with him, whether he was violating a previous ban or not, those points stand until someone refutes his arguments. So far he was right when he said that everyone is failing to comprehend his logic or address the legitimate substance of his posts. All you did was sarcastically ridicule a caricature of your own design.

I sure hope not or I could be in big trouble.

I have a shameful past that I have had trouble coming to terms with over the past few years. Since my reversion into the faith I’ve had to deal with skepticism from others because of who I was years ago, in my past. I am ashamed of who I was, but I know I am a different (and better) person than I was back then and I really hope others can see that.

Ite in pace,
Joshua

Nobody has a perfect past, but people in this thread and others seem to be denying a basic principle of science, namely, that the past is one of our most supremely reliable means to predicting the future and evaluating risks. A lot of it boils down to a matter of economical epistemology. Some folks can’t afford to take certain risks or suspend judgment until further data are available, and that’s typically unrelated to whether they forgive someone for his past. I would forgive a forgive a former prostitute, but I would never marry her. I would forgive a former child molester, but I would never let him babysit any children I care about. I’m sure you see the point. The question at hand differs by degree, but the principle remains applicable here.

 

[Kelfa28]

I read over that thread and chose to stay out of it because you know who was involved. But I am sorry for the way you were treated in a public forum over something so personal.

I also have a theory that a lot of those virginity threads that have popped up recently made by someone with one post are by the same person to bait others in to arguments. She seems obsessed.

I read that thread too and I’m sorry you were treated that way as well Trixie. This whole thing is nuts. I think she/he really is obsessed.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

I read that thread too and I’m sorry you were treated that way as well Trixie. This whole thing is nuts. I think she/he really is obsessed.

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it.

 

[Kelfa28]

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it.

Prayers and hugs!

:grouphug:

 

[thewanderer]

Instead of “theoretically,” I would say “generally.” And the study to which my link referred pertains to correlation, not causation; it offers no further details re: whether a particular girl was a virgin for good or bad reasons. What it does indicate is that, for one reason or another, in general, all other things being equal, a woman’s odds of long-term marital stability free of divorce drops from around 80% to 50% as soon as she’s had more than one partner.

Please look up the meaning of ‘ceteris paribus.’ And, since I saw several good points made by WillyOnWheels during the brief time we got to spend with him, whether he was violating a previous ban or not, those points stand until someone refutes his arguments. So far he was right when he said that everyone is failing to comprehend his logic or address the legitimate substance of his posts. All you did was sarcastically ridicule a caricature of your own design.

Nobody has a perfect past, but people in this thread and others seem to be denying a basic principle of science, namely, that the past is one of our most supremely reliable means to predicting the future and evaluating risks. A lot of it boils down to a matter of economical epistemology. Some folks can’t afford to take certain risks or suspend judgment until further data is available, and that’s typically unrelated to whether they forgive someone for his past. I would forgive a forgive a former prostitute, but I would never marry her. I would forgive a former child molester, but I would never let him babysit any children I care about. I’m sure you see the point. The question at hand differs by degree, but the principle remains applicable here.

Where on this thread has anybody claimed that a persons past should play no part in a decision as to whether or not to date/marry them? All that people have been saying is that there is nothing wrong with dating/marrying a person who has changed even hough hey had a bad past. in other words they were correctly answering the OP’s question. Why do you have such a problem with people acknowledging the truth that there is nothing wrong with dating/marrying a non-virgin?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Instead of “theoretically,” I would say “generally.” And the study to which my link referred pertains to correlation, not causation; it offers no further details re: whether a particular girl was a virgin for good or bad reasons. What it does indicate is that, for one reason or another, in general, all other things being equal, a woman’s odds of long-term marital stability free of divorce drops from around 80% to 50% as soon as she’s had more than one partner.

Please look up the meaning of ‘ceteris paribus.’ And, since I saw several good points made by WillyOnWheels during the brief time we got to spend with him, whether he was violating a previous ban or not, those points stand until someone refutes his arguments. So far he was right when he said that everyone is failing to comprehend his logic or address the legitimate substance of his posts. All you did was sarcastically ridicule a caricature of your own design.

Nobody has a perfect past, but people in this thread and others seem to be denying a basic principle of science, namely, that the past is one of our most supremely reliable means to predicting the future and evaluating risks. A lot of it boils down to a matter of economical epistemology. Some folks can’t afford to take certain risks or suspend judgment until further data are available, and that’s typically unrelated to whether they forgive someone for his past. I would forgive a forgive a former prostitute, but I would never marry her. I would forgive a former child molester, but I would never let him babysit any children I care about. I’m sure you see the point. The question at hand differs by degree, but the principle remains applicable here.

I don’t put much stock in those studies. Least of all that one. It doesn’t say who funded it, just that it was funded by a conservative organization.

But beyond that I have an issue with it. It focuses on virginity. Period. I’m not disputing the findings, but they do sweep under the rug the fact that people who are virgins upon marrying tend to come from backgrounds that heavily frown on divorce and were very likely raised to see divorce as a complete non-option ever. It doesn’t show causation or prove anything. If you could convince a group of people from a secular, mainstream background to remain virgins until they were married they would likely have the same divorce rate because they wouldn’t have the underlying attitude. Same with if you got very conservative, religious people to have sex just for the sake of the study. Their attitudes would not change, and its likely that their chances of divorce wouldn’t either.

 

[In_Spiration]

Where on this thread has anybody claimed that a persons past should play no part in a decision as to whether or not to date/marry them? All that people have been saying is that there is nothing wrong with dating/marrying a person who has changed even hough hey had a bad past. in other words they were correctly answering the OP’s question.

Plenty of posters are straying into the territory of Christian mercy and presupposing that this subject is about forgiving others. I am highlighting the fact that whether one is right or wrong to marry a non-virgin in any individual case is primarily a question of rational justification (with a lot of prudent risk assessment), and not about accepting sinners/converts with love. One could certainly be wrong to marry a non-virgin if doing so would clearly be negligent re: future children. If someone is ever likely to leave you and thus psychologically harm children and likewise contribute disorder to society, then anyone would indeed be making a mistake entering into holy matrimony with her.

Why do you have such a problem with people acknowledging the truth that there is nothing wrong with dating/marrying a non-virgin?

I don’t have a problem with that, as long as there are no further implications or statements that go beyond it. Why do you hate detailed clarification?*

*Rhetorical/sarcastic.

 

[In_Spiration]

I don’t put much stock in those studies. Least of all that one. It doesn’t say who funded it, just **that it was funded by a conservative organization.

But beyond that I have an issue with it. It focuses on virginity. Period. I’m not disputing the findings, but they do sweep under the rug the fact that people who are virgins upon marrying tend to come from backgrounds that heavily frown on divorce and were very likely raised to see divorce as a complete non-option ever.** It doesn’t show causation or prove anything. If you could convince a group of people from a secular, mainstream background to remain virgins until they were married they would likely have the same divorce rate because they wouldn’t have the underlying attitude. Same with if you got very conservative, religious people to have sex just for the sake of the study. Their attitudes would not change, and its likely that their chances of divorce wouldn’t either.

I think if you re-read the linked post, you will see you’ve misunderstood it on a very basic level, especially in the parts I emphasized.
*The study was based on data from the National Survey of Family Growth 1995 cycle and involved over 6500 women.

It was controlled for a host of variables.

The study was in no way sponsored or funded by any conservative organisation.*
And as the post says, the study was made with the deliberate intention of controlling for background values.
Executive summary: It’s not the liberal values, it the number of partners that matter.
Here is the link to the original study. If you wish to object to its merits, then I suggest doing so in the manner of a sociological researcher.

 

[thewanderer]

Plenty of posters are straying into the territory of Christian mercy and presupposing that this subject is about forgiving others. I am highlighting the fact that whether one is right or wrong to marry a non-virgin in any individual case is primarily a question of rational justification (with a lot of prudent risk assessment), and not about accepting sinners/converts with love. One could certainly be wrong to marry a non-virgin if doing so would clearly be negligent re: future children. If someone is ever likely to leave you and thus psychologically harm children and likewise contribute disorder to society, then anyone would indeed be making a mistake entering into holy matrimony with her.

I still see no problem in talking about accepting people with love, mercy, and forgiveness.

That of course does no mean that one should go out and marry the next non-virgin they find for the sake of being “forgiving” and no one here suggested anything like that. prudent assessment of your future spouse is always important, not just if they have a history. If they have a history it is not the history itsel that should make one pause but rather whether or no they are committed to the idea of marriage being for life no matter what and how well they personally understand this and hold it as true/important. His same investigation needs to be carefully taken on when dating a non-virgin as well. Just because you will more often find out that a non-virgin isn’t good material doesn’t mean you should be any more careful about non-virgins and virgins. Marrying a virgin is no gaurantee of a happy or lifelong marriage.

I don’t have a problem with that, as long as there are no further implications or statements that go beyond it. Why do you hate detailed clarification?*

*Rhetorical/sarcastic.

what’s funny about you asking me that question is the fact that the first thing I brought up on his tread is the fact that there is often extra emotional/sexual baggage that needs to be dealt with wih non-virgins. What in the world makes you think I have a problem with detailed clarification? I have never attacked anyone for clarifying further and have myself made an attempt to do so. What I have done is try to call out people for rashly attacking people for things they are not guilty of.