What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DlandFan06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
austenbosten said:
Now who is being punished Norseman? May I honestly ask you that?
Click to expand...
As I pointed out in a previous post, every decision we make rewards someone and punishes another. Or, looking at it another way, someone wins, and another loses.

When Jane chooses to marry John instead of Jim, John wins, Jim loses.

In the old Baltimore Catechism, in one of their “This, not this” illustrations, there was one where a boss (A) said to another (B), “I’m giving the job/promotion to X. Y was better, but he didn’t vote right”. Upon hearing this, the other person (B) remarked to A: “I thought you Catholics were fairer than that”.
 
Norseman82 said:
As I pointed out in a previous post, every decision we make rewards someone and punishes another. Or, looking at it another way, someone wins, and another loses.

When Jane chooses to marry John instead of Jim, John wins, Jim loses.

In the old Baltimore Catechism, in one of their “This, not this” illustrations, there was one where a boss (A) said to another (B), “I’m giving the job/promotion to X. Y was better, but he didn’t vote right”. Upon hearing this, the other person (B) remarked to A: “I thought you Catholics were fairer than that”.
Click to expand...
So instead Jane should marry Jim instead of John; so both Jane and John lose? :confused:

Not a very logical view. :nope:
 
Norseman82 said:
As I pointed out in a previous post, every decision we make rewards someone and punishes another. Or, looking at it another way, someone wins, and another loses.

When Jane chooses to marry John instead of Jim, John wins, Jim loses.

In the old Baltimore Catechism, in one of their “This, not this” illustrations, there was one where a boss (A) said to another (B), “I’m giving the job/promotion to X. Y was better, but he didn’t vote right”. Upon hearing this, the other person (B) remarked to A: “I thought you Catholics were fairer than that”.
Click to expand...
Just because something good happens to you does not mean that you are being rewarded. My upcoming marriage not a reward for anything. Likewise, just because something bad happened to you or you didn’t get what you want it does not necessarily mean that you are being punished. And looking and marriage as a reward/punishment system both sad and wrong.
 
Norseman82 said:
As I pointed out in a previous post, every decision we make rewards someone and punishes another. Or, looking at it another way, someone wins, and another loses.

When Jane chooses to marry John instead of Jim, John wins, Jim loses.

In the old Baltimore Catechism, in one of their “This, not this” illustrations, there was one where a boss (A) said to another (B), “I’m giving the job/promotion to X. Y was better, but he didn’t vote right”. Upon hearing this, the other person (B) remarked to A: “I thought you Catholics were fairer than that”.
Click to expand...
Maybe instead of viewing a relationship as someone “winning” and someone “losing”; someone being “punished” and someone else “not being punished”, you could just rejoice for those two people that have found love in this crazy, mixed-up world. Love is rare and precious. Rather than limiting it further, why not promote its growth?
 
austenbosten said:
So instead Jane should marry Jim instead of John; so both Jane and John lose? :confused:

Not a very logical view. :nope:
Click to expand...
And I was thinking it was very short sighted. In reality, Jim wins too because Jane is not the right person for him…someone else is.
 
David_Thorne said:
The highest ideal marriage is partwise based on two virgins marrying. I think Norseman is striving for that. Is this accurate, Norseman?
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, tradition has it Joseph wasn’t a virgin (i.e., previously married) when he married Mary. Is this a non-ideal marriage, and something we shouldn’t strive for? If it good enough for Mary, I think we really have to start asking ourselves why it isn’t good enough for us.
 
Norseman82 said:
Let me ask you this. Is it more just to punish those who play by the rules or those who don’t?
Click to expand...
I think what people are saying is that there is no ‘punishment’ involved and that’s why we’re having trouble understanding your point of view.

Would you marry a woman who was not a virgin or would that absolutely mean that you wouldn’t consider marrying her? There’s nothing wrong with that point of view but it is only a point of view and it also means that you may well be rejecting outright some wonderful women and the chance of a happy and loving marriage.

Just trying to understand.
 
ValPal said:
Interestingly enough, tradition has it Joseph wasn’t a virgin (i.e., previously married) when he married Mary. Is this a non-ideal marriage, and something we shouldn’t strive for? If it good enough for Mary, I think we really have to start asking ourselves why it isn’t good enough for us.
Click to expand...
ha I love that 🙂 ❤️
 
ValPal said:
Interestingly enough, tradition has it Joseph wasn’t a virgin (i.e., previously married) when he married Mary. Is this a non-ideal marriage, and something we shouldn’t strive for? If it good enough for Mary, I think we really have to start asking ourselves why it isn’t good enough for us.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that that tradition is true (nor a tenet of the faith) and various people have stated so. Are you suggesting that men shouldn’t be virgins at marriage? Regardless of that, God wants us to remain virgins until marriage and that is the ideal for each person entering the marriage. That all aside, as I said above, it certainly is good enough for us. But for people, like Norseman, who want that ideal marriage as God intended for us, then that is also good.
 
ValPal said:
Interestingly enough, tradition has it Joseph wasn’t a virgin (i.e., previously married) when he married Mary. Is this a non-ideal marriage, and something we shouldn’t strive for? If it good enough for Mary, I think we really have to start asking ourselves why it isn’t good enough for us.
Click to expand...
Wow, excellent point.
 
ValPal said:
Interestingly enough, tradition has it Joseph wasn’t a virgin (i.e., previously married) when he married Mary. Is this a non-ideal marriage, and something we shouldn’t strive for? If it good enough for Mary, I think we really have to start asking ourselves why it isn’t good enough for us.
Click to expand...
But does not the same tradition (if you are quoting the Protoevangelium of James) state that the marriage was really a protection arrangement, one where Joseph would protect Mary a she became a “temple virgin”, so to speak, and the marriage would be celibate - hence the origin of the term “Josephite marriage”?
 
David_Thorne said:
I don’t believe that that tradition is true (nor a tenant) and various people have stated so. Are you suggesting that men shouldn’t be virgins at marriage? Regardless of that, God wants us to remain virgins until marriage and that is the ideal for each person entering the marriage. That all aside, as I said above, it certainly is good enough for us. But for people, like Norseman, who want that ideal marriage as God intended for us, then that is also good.
Click to expand...
David no one is saying men shouldn’t be virgins at marriage

We are saying that people like Norseman can strive for his ideal marriage, but he should not seek out to persecute those who are also doing the same regardless of their virginal status. He wants a virgin bride, that’s fine…there are many non-virgins who simply just want to find their spouse God has intended for them, what right does Norseman have to say that only he and men like him can marry freely, while all others have to be limited in who they can marry? 🤷
 
Norseman82 said:
It’s human nature to take offense when someone who plays by the rules loses out to those who do not.
Click to expand...
Have you ever asked yourself about the possiblity that those who played by the rules and lose out to those who did not might themselves responsible for it? Maybe the virgin who “loses out” to one of those evil fornicators didn’t play by the rules concerning things other than waiting until marriage to have sex.
 
RyanBlack said:
Have you ever asked yourself about the possiblity that those who played by the rules and lose out to those who did not might themselves responsible for it? Maybe the virgin who “loses out” to one of those evil fornicators didn’t play by the rules concerning things other than waiting until marriage to have sex.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I think that everyone who is happily married looks at their spouse and thinks that there is absolutely nothing they could have done to deserve them.
 
austenbosten said:
David no one is saying men shouldn’t be virgins at marriage

We are saying that people like Norseman can strive for his ideal marriage, but he should not seek out to persecute those who are also doing the same regardless of their virginal status. He wants a virgin bride, that’s fine…there are many non-virgins who simply just want to find their spouse God has intended for them, what right does Norseman have to say that only he and men like him can marry freely, while all others have to be limited in who they can marry? 🤷
Click to expand...
ValPal was, I believe, putting forth a rhetorical question and the response was in keeping. Now of course there could be multiple ideals, I simply don’t know. But the fact that people rejoice when two virgins marry would suggest that it is at least one ideal. I think it can be best generalized to reaching marriage in the state that appropriately observing chastity throughout one’s life would bring one to.

I don’t believe anyone has a right to limit the choices of others in marriage partners.
 
I’m sorry, I still just don’t get why people are making such a big deal about this…I mean does it really matter if a virgin marries a non-virgin? Does it really matter if a priest was not a virgin before he entered the priesthood? Does his repented sin make him any less suitable to enter the seminary?

This debate to me is just getting to be ridiculous. If God forgives us our pasts, why can’t we just forgive each other of our pasts…I just don’t get what there is to hesitate about…?
 
Marie1234 said:
This debate to me is just getting to be ridiculous. If God forgives us our pasts, why can’t we just forgive each other of our pasts…I just don’t get what there is to hesitate about…?
Click to expand...
Because we have to deal with the temporal consequences?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top