What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

Your first link is extremely vague. It assures me that it wasn’t funded by a conservative group, but it doesn’t say who funded it. The one line summary at the bottom was not written by the author of the study. And it claims that it controlled for a host of variables, but it doesn’t say what those are.

And the second link is just an abstract that says nothing to support your point.

 

[TimeEntrance]

One of the saints is quoted as saying “Lord, make me chaste – but not yet.” I have forgotten which saint it was - it may have been Ignatius of Loyola (that would fit his earlier life) - but if his prayer could be like that, it is certainly a forgivable act. I do believe that, men more than women would carry a concern that a non-virgin wife would be more easily tempted and it could be a cause of trouble and jealousy in the marriage. Girls (women) seem to have more acceptance of the male’s difficulty in remaining chaste.

I think you are referring to Augustine (credited with composing the 1st autobiography - which he wrote in the form of a prayer) and I think what he’s credited with saying is something like, “Lord, make me a saint, but just not yet.”

Augustine had pre-marital sex by his own admittance, and many today use him as an example of a notoriously great sinner that converted his ways and led a saintly life. However, from what I’ve read of him (and I’ve read his Confessions), he came across as a boyscout to me. If he was a great sinner I must be hell on wheels.

(actually, some of those savage Crusaders come across as worse sinners than Augustine to me)

 

[The_Bucket]

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 only have a quarrel with actual trolls. People like Chevalreese for instance. I don’t take my disputes over theology or even people speaking up against the Church’s doctrine to the moderators. As a veteran of these series of tubes that are the Internets, I can deal with misinformed clowns thank you very much.

And you sir… don’t fit any of those. In fact, I like the cut of your jib.

 

[In_Spiration]

Your first link is extremely vague. It assures me that it wasn’t funded by a conservative group, but it doesn’t say who funded it.

That doesn’t mean it was funded by a conservative group, which is what you initially criticized it for.

The one line summary at the bottom was not written by the author of the study. And it claims that it controlled for a host of variables, but it doesn’t say what those are.

I didn’t claim it was. I was showing examples of how you obviously failed to carefully read the post. If you had, then you wouldn’t have supposed that you’re damning the evidence by appealing to an alleged conservative bias or introducing a factor that was left unmentioned or overlooked, such as liberal vs. conservative religious values. The post claims that the importance of the study lies in its moving beyond the influence of prior values and into evidence that one’s number of prior partners is significant by itself. If you think it doesn’t, then, again, address the merits of the original study. Keep in mind that the blogger has read it and analyzed it, and you’ve apparently just skimmed his post uncharitably.

And the second link is just an abstract that says nothing to support your point.

You have to pay for it. I was kindly providing you with the material for a potential sociological rebuttal.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That doesn’t mean it was funded by a conservative group, which is what you initially criticized it for.

I never criticized it for that. I said I would need to know who it was funded by. I’m not going to take the bloggers word that it wasn’t a conservative group when they can’t tell me who it was. That’s not criticizing. That’s being smart and getting all the info.

I didn’t claim it was. I was showing examples of how you obviously failed to carefully read the post. If you had, then you wouldn’t have supposed that you’re damning the evidence by appealing to an alleged conservative bias or introducing a factor that was left unmentioned or overlooked, such as liberal vs. conservative religious values. The post claims that the importance of the study lies in its moving beyond the influence of prior values and into evidence that one’s number of prior partners is significant by itself. If you think it doesn’t, then, again, address the merits of the original study. Keep in mind that the blogger has read it and analyzed it, and you’ve apparently just skimmed his post uncharitably.

I did in fact read it. But like I said earlier I’m not going to take the bloggers word for anything, because A. He’s a blogger and B. He himself obvioulsy has a bias. I’m not going to trust anyone’s interpretation of it.

You have to pay for it. I was kindly providing you with the material for a potential sociological rebuttal.

Definitely not paying to read a study conducted almost 20 years ago for the sake of an online debate.

In order to trust this I would need to know a lot more about it. Also, the study doesn’t even seem to pertain to your statement that it is better to marry a virgin. That wasn’t the conclusion at all. It seems to compare the divorce rate of women who cohabited with only their husbands before marriage vs. those who cohabited more than once. You can’t extrapolate that to all virgins/non virgins.

 

[TimeEntrance]

This thread - and related topics - sparks an honesty curiosity in my mind. If say in light of a society where poverty meant little to no social safety nets (I think that equal most of U.S. history doesn’t it? Maybe until the end of WWII or maybe up until the 1960’s or '70’s?) what percentage of female virgins would opt for marrying - and lose their virginity to - Scarface Al Capone?

Al Capone had an STD too.

Just curious how much money or living in abject poverty might weigh in on a person’s virtues and virginity issues.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

Alphonse Gabriel “Al” Capone (January 17, 1899 – January 25, 1947) was an American gangster who led a Prohibition-era crime syndicate. The Chicago Outfit, which subsequently became known as the “Capones”, was dedicated to smuggling and bootlegging liquor, and other illegal activities such as prostitution, in Chicago from the early 1920s to 1931.

In the final years of Capone’s life, he suffered mental and physical deterioration due to late-stage neurosyphilis, which he had contracted in his youth.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Some how I get the feeling St. Augustine before his conversion was a boyscout next to Capone or the City of Chicago during the Roaring Twenties.

Which begs a question… where are the really notorious sinners that have made dramatic conversions in Catholicism? And I’m not talking biographical stories that use vague language like, “He/she lived a life full of ‘impure thoughts.’”

I’m talking about a biography that speaks to modern day realities, concerns, with all it’s huge, secular metropolises. Like for example… a man that was pedophile. The gay, male, teenager that prostitutes himself online. Can shemales that have gotten secular marriages to men even become saints post secular divorce?

I need some real meat and potatoes sins that speaks to my experiences of 21st Century Milwaukee, Wisconsin (which is no L.A., New York, London, or Paris - and more conservative) and not 6th Century A.D. sins about a guy looking at some woman’s bare ankles and having “impure thoughts” whatever that is.

 

[In_Spiration]

In order to trust this I would need to know a lot more about it. Also, the study doesn’t even seem to pertain to your statement that it is better to marry a virgin. That wasn’t the conclusion at all. It seems to compare the divorce rate of women who cohabited with only their husbands before marriage vs. those who cohabited more than once. You can’t extrapolate that to all virgins/non virgins.

You didn’t merely suspend judgment on the evidence. You offered a critique. Your words (with my emphasis):
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.

Or, in other words:
I haven’t looked at the actual study, and I refuse to read it, but I have a problem with it and it’s an utter failure.
Well, I could’ve figured that out myself. In fact, I had predicted you’d think exactly that.

If you’re not going to criticize the evidence in a sociological manner, perhaps you want to suspend judgment, at least until thoroughly comprehending the blog’s summary. I don’t blame you for being skeptical, but I do expect you to come with solid reasons for the definitive conclusion you’ve made about something you refuse to even consider on any decent level. Your first attempt was made as if you’d actually read enough about the study to object to its methods on objective, scientific grounds. Only now do you seem to be retreating to healthier skepticism.

 

[In_Spiration]

I only have a quarrel with actual trolls. People like Chevalreese for instance. I don’t take my disputes over theology or even people speaking up against the Church’s doctrine to the moderators. As a veteran of these series of tubes that are the Internets, I can deal with misinformed clowns thank you very much.

And you sir… don’t fit any of those. In fact, I like the cut of your jib.

Very good. And thank you for the kind compliment of my jib.

 

[The_Bucket]

St. Augustine cavorted with hookers and had a kid outside of marriage. How about that as some down and dirty sinning? Then he turned his life around, became a bishop and wrote Confessions. His history of sexual sin forever warped his attitude towards sexuality so that should fit right in with a society rife with pornography and metropolises where the “hook-up culture” is the norm.

I can’t cite a 21st century example because there are only so many saints, you know? Before he stumbled back into the wilderness, many people liked to cite Fr. Corapi as a guy who lived a horrendously sinful lifestyle and then put it back together and became a great preacher. Sadly, the guy was probably always a charlatan or his conversion was short-lived after he once again got ahold of a big bag of cash.

But what about guys like Ignatius of Loyola? Or even St. Francis of Assisi? We like to romanticize the fact that they were soldiers before becoming men of peace, but chances are that they engaged in some pretty nasty stuff and the battles in which they were participating were far from just. I mean, the Battle of Pamplona was between Spain and France and over pretty trivial stuff. Again, probably not a just theater of war. And Francis’ time? Plenty of looting and massacring during the Crusades period.

If you want famous contemporary examples, that’s going to be tough. But maybe someone like Venerable Matt Talbot? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Talbot

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You didn’t merely suspend judgment on the evidence. You offered a critique. Your words (with my emphasis):
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.
Oops! Big typo on my part. That should have read "It doesn’t say who funded it, just that is wasn’t 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.

Or, in other words:
I haven’t looked at the actual study, and I refuse to read it, but I have a problem with it and it’s an utter failure.
Well, I could’ve figured that out myself. In fact, I had predicted you’d think exactly that.

If you’re not going to criticize the evidence in a sociological manner, perhaps you want to suspend judgment, at least until thoroughly comprehending the blog’s summary. I don’t blame you for being skeptical, but I do expect you to come with solid reasons for the definitive conclusion you’ve made about something you refuse to even consider on any decent level. Your first attempt was made as if you’d actually read enough about the study to object to its methods on objective, scientific grounds. Only now do you seem to be retreating to healthier skepticism.

I think I can comprehend the blog’s summary. It wasn’t exactly deep or eye-opening. But there are lots of studies out there, and it’s far more ignorant to use one that is almost 20 years old, doesn’t apply to what you’re saying, is not accessible in full, just summarized by someone with a clear bias, and without knowing who funded it, who was funding the leader of it, what the purpose was, who the big donors were for the few years prior to the study to the organization that funded it, what factors were controlled for, how the subjects were found, what manner they were studied in, etc. than it is to make a typo. Seeking that information is the absolute first step in looking at something in a “sociological manner”.

And yet, even if that study came out clean when all of that was looked in to it still couldn’t be used to support your assertion that marrying a virgin is “better” than marrying a non virgin. Divorce rates are only one part of a huge reality. Domestic and child abuse, marital happiness, sexual difficulties, communication levels, levels of honesty, etc. would all play in to who it is “better” to marry.

 

[TimeEntrance]

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.

Yeah… I don’t think I would let a child molester babysit my children either. You have a fair point with that.

When it comes to sex though… I find this is a popular topic for people in general. I mean… it seems more popular than the discussion of ending hunger across the world or the issue of millions of children in poor nations dieing of curable diseases because they have no access to the medical care and medicines they need.

And conservative Catholics seem as wrapped up in the discussion of sex as liberal atheists. Which makes me wonder about latent attachments.

But I think its wiser for people to get with people that share their same values and compliment them.

For example, I doubt a virgin female could ever satisfy me sexually. And you take a woman like Jeniffer Lopez that has been through more men in a few years than I’ve been through women in a life time. I love that girl. Always will. I don’t care what people say bad about her. She has a charitable personality I like. And that fact her body is built like a living goddess does no harm either.

Now, if by some grace of God, I woke up magically married to her one day, do you think I’d really care what 2 holier than thou prudes have to say or think? I’d be living in a beatific vision on earth. And married to a super-rich woman can’t hurt.

 

[TimeEntrance]

St. Augustine cavorted with hookers and had a kid outside of marriage.

You mean he was Republican?

How about that as some down and dirty sinning? Then he turned his life around, became a bishop and wrote Confessions. His history of sexual sin forever warped his attitude towards sexuality so that should fit right in with a society rife with pornography and metropolises where the “hook-up culture” is the norm.

I can’t cite a 21st century example because there are only so many saints, you know? Before he stumbled back into the wilderness, many people liked to cite Fr. Corapi as a guy who lived a horrendously sinful lifestyle and then put it back together and became a great preacher. Sadly, the guy was probably always a charlatan or his conversion was short-lived after he once again got ahold of a big bag of cash.

But what about guys like Ignatius of Loyola? Or even St. Francis of Assisi? We like to romanticize the fact that they were soldiers before becoming men of peace, but chances are that they engaged in some pretty nasty stuff and the battles in which they were participating were far from just. I mean, the Battle of Pamplona was between Spain and France and over pretty trivial stuff. Again, probably not a just theater of war. And Francis’ time? Plenty of looting and massacring during the Crusades period.

If you want famous contemporary examples, that’s going to be tough. But maybe someone like Venerable Matt Talbot? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Talbot

Yeah… I was aware of Matt Talbot. We have a Matt Talbot lodge (for drug addicts) in Milwaukee not far from me.

I wouldn’t put Ignatius or Assisi into the categories of sinners I’m talking about.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

That’s a pretty sad outlook. I mean, not the child molester part. People who commit sex crimes against children have something engrained in them that can’t be taken away. They can fight and struggle not to do it any more, but that is nothing to risk your kids future on.

By comparison most prostitutes are not prostitutes because they like the work. Most do it to survive. I could never hold it against someone that they were desperate, hungry, and maybe even had a child to take care of so they did what they had to do. Once a prostitute is able to stop doing what they do they are grateful. They don’t have an engrained urge to go back to the streets and face rape, beatings, and sometimes even murder.

I’ve only ever known one prostitute in real life. Her mom died when she was 17 and to avoid being put in the system she ran away. Of course with no home and no money she turned to prostitution. After a few years she couldn’t take it anymore and she got help. It was a long road to get her off the street but eventually she made her way in to college. Although her degree is in business admin she now works for an organization that works with at risk youth, and she travels the country giving speeches on her experiences and what can be done to help others. She got married just over a year ago and is pregnant with her first. Absolutely one of the most loving, most inspirational, most wonderful people I’ve ever known and her husband is lucky to have her. Her experience as a prostitute make her more committed to maintaining a healthy, normal life and ensuring that nothing like that ever happens to her children. I have a hard time understanding why someone like her would be less worthy of marriage.

 

[hurting]

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.

Excellent observation. I would add that a virgin marrying a non-virgin is particularly problematic, or even if two “nons” marry one another and either or both have lengthy sexual histories. You will find no greater skeptic than me of the value of the social sciences, but as has been discussed on other threads, multiple sexual partners cheapens the act and makes bonding more difficult.

You are not in any way being judgmental by seeking a virgin to marry (and/or being one yourself). Chastity is a feature not a flaw.

Best of luck.

 

[DlandFan06]

No, not really. Though it will pretty much always be the case that non-virgins will have more emotional/sexual baggage you need to deal with which can be damagaing to a relationship. Mind you, being a virgin is no gaurantee that they won’t have such emotional/sexual baggage. But especially if they’re slept around I wwould be extremely careful, the kind of attitude that leads to sleeping around is kind of hard to shake. It is very different from someone who made a one-time mistake and regrets it and has repented etc. they both will have some degree of baggage to deal with, but the latter far far less than the former. That doesn’t mean that non-virgins are dirt and deserve to live lonely lives, but just be careful and prudent about the choices you make bbeccause they will have consequences.

So yeah, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you meet someone you think you might be called to marry and find out they are a non-virgin, think about it, pray about it, and don’t make any rash decisions either direction.

So there’s risk involved in marrying a non-virgin? I have no problem with marrying a non-virgin as long as they are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, etc. Stuff that the Church teaches. They also have to be sorry for what they did too.

 

[Lucky7]

Gee, and I thought In Spiration was Chev in disguise…something about the way he/she posts.

 

[DlandFan06]

One of the saints is quoted as saying “Lord, make me chaste – but not yet.” I have forgotten which saint it was - it may have been Ignatius of Loyola (that would fit his earlier life) - but if his prayer could be like that, it is certainly a forgivable act. I do believe that, men more than women would carry a concern that a non-virgin wife would be more easily tempted and it could be a cause of trouble and jealousy in the marriage. Girls (women) seem to have more acceptance of the male’s difficulty in remaining chaste.

But isn’t that more of the guy being insecure? Also, the “concern that non-virgin wife would be more easily tempted” thought from a husband, wouldn’t that be a sexist view from the husband? I don’t know, maybe I’m reading into things. Just curious.

 

[The_Bucket]

I think at a certain point we go around in circles. I believe we all agree that having certain “red lines” is not immoral but might be unnecessarily stringent. And I think we’re all in agreement (save for one troll) that there is absolutely nothing wrong with marrying someone who is not a virgin. For those of us in this thread that are Catholics, I would certainly hope the reason is that we understand that we’re all sinners, all in need of God’s grace and that we certainly should not put ourselves above God in terms of judging who is and is not worthy of love.

I don’t get TimeEntrance’s busting on “conservative Catholics” though. I mean, we should all be conservative Catholics. We should all be concerned about rampant immorality when it comes to sex. And the Republican joke I don’t get either. Politicians are politicians. Doesn’t matter if they’re red or blue. Though of course, the red guys are the ones at least paying lip service to trying to save the unborn while the blue guys are explicitly campaigning on ensuring women have the ability to kill their unborn children whenever they please.

To the point that this board is sometimes hung up on sex though, I’ll agree. There should not be a break between “social justice Catholics” and “conservative Catholics.” We should be concerned about both the unborn and the homeless. We should be witnesses for the faith by speaking out against sexual immorality and violence. We should be pushing back against the culture of death by opposing both abortion and the death penalty (except in rare circumstances).

The division that exists simply should not. Social justice Catholics should lay down their arms and get in line with the doctrine as it pertains to sex, contraception and abortion and “conservative Catholics” should stop being so totally focused on the pro-life movement that they forget about helping the poor, the addicts and the destitute.

 

[hannajomar]

I agree with TheBucket above.
I also want to add that if a person insists on only dating/marrying a virgin, they will unnecessarily shrink an already very small dating pool if you are looking to marry a practicing Catholic. Also, there is nothing morally superior to being a non-virgin who has been to confession and has changed their lifestyle/behaviors vs. someone who is a virgin and has never struggled with sexual sins. I actually think the first one is something to celebrate. From Luke 15:

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7*** I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent***. :extrahappy: * :extrahappy: * :extrahappy: * :extrahappy: * :extrahappy:

Did I miss the part where Jesus sat around worrying that the sheep was going to just run away again?

 

[thewanderer]

So there’s risk involved in marrying a non-virgin? I have no problem with marrying a non-virgin as long as they are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, etc. Stuff that the Church teaches. They also have to be sorry for what they did too.

lol, I think you should read the rest of my posts on this thread, I think you will find that you have made some incorrect assumptions about my position. Its funny that my posts have been assumed to have taken up each of the two different extreme. I don’t mind too much though because its a sign that I have managed to avoid both of them.