What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DlandFan06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is pretty harsh when it comes to those who were uneducated, not raised in the faith, etc and ended up converting to the Catholic Church.
It doesn’t matter what the reason was, the end result is the same. Plus, there is the concept of the law of God being writtten on our hearts.
 
The virgins put in the effort to obey the rules, the fornicators didn’t. Therefore, it is a bigger slap in the face to the virgins. Remember what the good thief said on the cross (Luke 21:41): “We deserve it, after all. We are only paying the price for what we’ve done, but this man has done nothing wrong”.
(1) What about the fact that very often it is the result of weakness? Not every non-virgin wishes to or looks to disobey. Many non-virgins probably tried really hard to obey and fell to temptation. But it’s much easier to judge them all as purely disobedent, evil “fornicators”, right?

(2) By quoting that verse, are you seriously equating virgins with Jesus Christ Himself?

(3) You seem to place virginity above all other qualities/characteristics. Perhaps the virgin “obeyed” in matters of sex, but disobeyed in matters of honesty?
 
(1) What about the fact that very often it is the result of weakness? Not every non-virgin wishes to or looks to disobey. Many non-virgins probably tried really hard to obey and fell to temptation. But it’s much easier to judge them all as purely disobedent, evil “fornicators”, right?

(2) By quoting that verse, are you seriously equating virgins with Jesus Christ Himself?

(3) You seem to place virginity above all other qualities/characteristics. Perhaps the virgin “obeyed” in matters of sex, but disobeyed in matters of honesty?
At the end of the day, are we going to reward those who obeyed the rules or those who disobeyed? That is what it all boils down to.
 
At the end of the day, are we going to reward those who obeyed the rules or those who disobeyed? That is what it all boils down to.
Wrong. Thats not what it boils down to. We’re going to show mercy to those who may have disobeyed and are now trying to obey. Or do you believe that God only rewards those who have always obeyed?
 
That is pretty harsh when it comes to those who were uneducated, not raised in the faith, etc and ended up converting to the Catholic Church.
I have to agree with the above. I personally had no religious up bringing and converted to the Catholic Church this past april. Before that I was agnostic at best and very secular. Waiting until marriage really was not that important to me until I about 2 years before I decided to convert.
 
Wrong. Thats not what it boils down to. We’re going to show mercy to those who may have disobeyed and are now trying to obey. Or do you believe that God only rewards those who have always obeyed?
It’s very messed up if the only way you can show mercy to the disobedient is to give the shaft to the obedient.
 
It’s very messed up if the only way you can show mercy to the disobedient is to give the shaft to the obedient.
I’m convinced that you are being willingly obtuse. No one is choosing one person over the other simply because of their sex status. A person is more than just their sex status…at least to the rest of us.
 
The virgins put in the effort to obey the rules, the fornicators didn’t. Therefore, it is a bigger slap in the face to the virgins. Remember what the good thief said on the cross (Luke 21:41): “We deserve it, after all. We are only paying the price for what we’ve done, but this man has done nothing wrong”.
No, it really isn’t. Marriage isn’t some reward for “following the rules”. The reward is life eternal, remember? On earth we are supposed to take up our cross, not look for an earthly but a heavenly reward? Marriage is about a commitment two people make to each other, it is not about “rewarding” those who followed the rules.:rolleyes:

I have a question for you. So you honestly think that if I am presented with two good Catholic men, one is a virgin but we just don’t click all that well and the other had a one time slip-up in his youth which he has thoroughly repented of an we get along really really well, our minds work in a much more similar fashion so we can u derstand each other better and empathize wih each other more. Are you really claiming that in such a situation I have a moral obligation to marry the virgin who can’t understand where I am coming from rather than the repentant and chaste non-virgin who I get along with really well?
 
You sound like the “good son.” In the parable of the Prodigal Son.
:yup:

Nobody is saying that everyone ought to go marry non-virgins to show them mercy and forgiveness. What we are saying is that virgins are not “owed” marriage for their fidelity to Christ’s teachings.

One thing I know for sure, I would never, ever marry someone who felt they were “owed” it for their virginity. And to be honest, if any of my friends asked my advice about it I would strongly counsel them against it. Marriage is not “owed” to ANYBODY. The whole point is that it is not owed, but a freely given commitment and gift of self. Feelings of entitlement do not mix well with married life. :nope:
 
I have a question for you. So you honestly think that if I am presented with two good Catholic men, one is a virgin but we just don’t click all that well and the other had a one time slip-up in his youth which he has thoroughly repented of an we get along really really well, our minds work in a much more similar fashion so we can u derstand each other better and empathize wih each other more. Are you really claiming that in such a situation I have a moral obligation to marry the virgin who can’t understand where I am coming from rather than the repentant and chaste non-virgin who I get along with really well?
Then I would either question why I didn’t click with the fellow virgin, or I would keep looking for a good Catholic who is still a virgin and who I click with.
 
Then I would either question why I didn’t click with the fellow virgin, or I would keep looking for a good Catholic who is still a virgin and who I click with.
That is fine that that is what you would do, but that doesn’t answer my question. Do you or do you not believe that I would be morally obligated to pass over the non-virgin even if we were perfect in all other respects simply because he was a non-virgin (and a repentent one at that)?
 
No, it really isn’t. Marriage isn’t some reward for “following the rules”. The reward is life eternal, remember? On earth we are supposed to take up our cross, not look for an earthly but a heavenly reward? Marriage is about a commitment two people make to each other, it is not about “rewarding” those who followed the rules.:rolleyes:
Sorry, but if you are serious about wanting people to obey the rules, you need to reward thoose who obey the rules, otherwise you are short-circuiting your efforts to get people to obey the rules. It’s human nature.
 
I’m convinced that you are being willingly obtuse. No one is choosing one person over the other simply because of their sex status. A person is more than just their sex status…at least to the rest of us.
No need to hurl insults.

If we are truly serious about fighting promiscuity we will put an emphasis on virginity status.
 
You sound like the “good son.” In the parable of the Prodigal Son.
And notice how the father did not tell the son that he is not owed a kid goat, or that he is obtuse, or that he did not care if he felt insulted, etc. etc.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: maybe he may have been more merciful if he had gotten his “kid goat” to celebrate with his friends.
 
No need to hurl insults.

If we are truly serious about fighting promiscuity we will put an emphasis on virginity status.
Not an insult…an observation. One that I still consider on the mark.

I have a hard time believing that you believe that choosing virgins over non-virgins will suddenly keep others from falling to temptation and having sex beofre marriage.

That;s like thinking choosing only those who always tell the truth over those who have lied will somehow keep others from ever lying.
 
That is fine that that is what you would do, but that doesn’t answer my question. Do you or do you not believe that I would be morally obligated to pass over the non-virgin even if we were perfect in all other respects simply because he was a non-virgin (and a repentent one at that)?
I get the feeling it does answer the question, but the answer may challenge many people who may have been duped by secular standards.
 
That’s great that your circles of women are very broad. Do you realize though that there could be whole sections of other women who think differently because they run in different circles than you? The US is a pretty big place with many, many different subcultures within it. I am not claiming that your rule is an overgeneralization because of just one person, I’m claiming it’s an overgeneralization because pretty much every woman I know contradicts your general conclusion. Sure, hey might like a guy that is popular with the ladies more, but having had sex would not be a draw for them, it would be something they would need to overlook. Because of this, I think it is wrong to claim that women in general desire non-virgins, but rather women within cretain cultural circles do so. Again, please do not make subh overgeneralizations, I is offensive not only to me but to practically every woman I know, as well as to many I have now met on CAF. You just live in a completely different world than me but that does not mean that my world is any less real.
Your life and world is no less real than mine, TW, true.

But you are not telling me anything I don’t know about “offending women.”

If I or another male overgeneralized women as gorgeous, kind, people that only want a “good man” not a single woman - or yourself - would get offended. But that’s as equal a generalization.

If I said men in general are just nice, caring, people not very concerned with the looks of women, and only want a “good woman,” people are culturally indoctrinated (the indoctrination is constant) to immediately object to that notion.

But here’s the thing. You can find men fitting that description I just gave like you can find women fitting the description you suggest.

In fact, let me go so far as to say the vast majority of men I know date and or marry simple, plain Janes’ of no particularly impressive characteristics. It’s a pretty observable fact. Most women are not a Halle Berry or Sharon Stone. So, is the frequent complaints of women that general men as X, Y, and Z justified?

Hey, I’ve personally courted women from very obese to physically deformed. Mainly mind you when I was much younger (still in the Corps or recently released) and still had an acne problem. I was rejected by all of them. Yet, for my entire life I’ve listened to women broad brush all men as simply chasing after Marylin Monroes’ (well… maybe not her because she’d be considered “fat” today among White-Americans).

One thing I found common among the 20ish year old obese women I courted (probably over 300 lbs) to the physically deformed (e.g., skin disease; missing limbs) to more attractive looking women, they all held out hope of getting the tall, financially impressive, suave LL Cool J types. All of them. :rolleyes:

And the number of women on welfare I got rejected by - dismissed - while a hard working employed U.S. Marine are legion. :rolleyes:

Ironically, once I got hooked on crack I started having beautiful women out of the wood work flirting with me and making advances on me. Because my looks ironically began to improve around that time.

Lesson for me: women are just as shallow as men.

I’m fortunate. A lot of men never get to experience this and learn the deeper human truths about women. They are told men are shallow and women are not. They have no clue. They crack stupid jokes and like nit wits think the girls laughing at their corny jokes is because they’re “so charming.”

Look… I crack the same corny jokes I now that I did when I was in my 20’s with severe acne and a woman sticks around now, leans her back against a wall and laughs. But I’m not one of these guys that chalks it up to me being so charming and “cool” and the woman so, so good. I’m fully aware of how superficial humans are (man and woman).

Sorry, that’s just the way I feel.
 
I get the feeling it does answer the question, but the answer may challenge many people who may have been duped by secular standards.
If you’re not willingly obtuse, why didn’t you answer her follow up question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top