What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DlandFan06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
No, that’s not something we should strive for. Even if the pius tradition is true, which is not an article of faith, the type of marriage you describe requires that one spouse be DEAD! That is not ideal.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
No one is telling you that being a virgin isn’t good. What I’m saying at least is that saying “I deserve her more than he does because I’m a virgin and she should reward me for that” is very degrading and absolutely not what marriage is about.
Click to expand...
@ bold: No it’s not. Norseman is a bit self-righteous (and doesn’t appear to have much of humor) but at least he says some pretty funny stuff. This dude literally has me laughing out loud behind the computer screen with some of his comments.

This one is classic and sig worthy if I do say so myself:

Sorry, son, but the minute one’s pants come off, one loses the right to lecture a virgin.

I wanted to say the Norse doesn’t do virgins much justice by coming off as too serious. But then I see there are a number of non-virgins in this thread equally as too overly serious.

Virgin men are like gay men - or fat women - they’re probably never going to become President of the United States or a Marine Corps General (or win a Superbowl ring), so, :coffeeread: not much reason to get overly hung up on the apparent or real dejection gay men, fat women, and virgin men feel. They just all want to be loved. And have some equal footing and reciprocity in life.

I’m quite confident not being a virgin “the world” will richly reward me. Because the so-called “world” is run by the damned, the evil, and the ******* incompetent. Hey, even the Church run by men in their 60’s or older couldn’t even figure out maybe it’s not such a wise idea (especially with lawsuits) to keep a grown, non-virgin, pedophile around little boys.

But at least virginity can get you into the Papal chair - if you’re not in an Italian Renaissance court.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Um, marrying someone to reward them or decking someone as a punishment pretty much destroys the meaning of marriage.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. That why throughout the vast sum of human history marriages were arranged by parents. People in the United States didn’t even “date” until maybe the twentieth century. And by “date” I mean with out chaperones.

Also, marriage is not merely about “two people” as you incorrectly stated earlier. In fact, I believe most the non-Christian world (outside the West anyways) allows men to have multiple spouses. A year or so ago I was reading about some pagan, black African king in some dirt poor African nation that has I think 20 or more wives. Actually, maybe it was over 100. I can’t remember. But it was a lot. Then you got some bloke (to borrow British slang) in Bum Town Cleveland that wears shoes with laces and not sandals, and the chap still can get a date with all her teeth still in her mouth.

I don’t drink goat milk by the way.

Hey! I’m just saying… life is a trip (American Hip Hop slang). 🤷
 
Lets leave female virgins out of this question I’ll pose:
Which is a greater mortal sin - or is one venial and the other mortal or both simply venial - a young man doing recreational IV drug use or a young man repeatedly having sex before he’s married?*
 
Marie1234 said:
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?
Click to expand...
IMHO, it doesn’t matter.

What concerned me in this thread is something one of the posters said. Not only is he insistent on what he wants, but also has derogatory comments on other others (comparing having sex with a virgin to stealing, a crime…as if the virgin had nothing to do with having sex in the first place).

Sometimes people confuse what “we” want with what God wants. God may put an imperfect person in front of another person that wants perfection, just to prove a point. Reject that person, and the person expecting perfection may very well spend their life alone.

It reminds me of the story where a bad storm is coming. A person knocks on door to warn the property owner to evacuate. The property owner insists on waiting from a sign from God and stays put. As the storm hits and the water rises, a boat comes to rescue the person, who again insists on waiting from a sign from God. The water keeps rising, and the property owner is sitting on the roof, when a helicopter comes to rescue him, and once again insists on waiting from a sign from God. So the property owner finally drowns, then asks God why He didn’t send a sign. God states “I send a person on foot to warn you, then a boat and helicopter to rescue you. What more did you want?”

I have a feeling a certain person in this thread, will continue to hold firm to what they want, and miss what God really wants for them.
 
Norseman82 said:
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”?
Click to expand...
Is you point that it’s okay to marry a non-virgin as long as they are in a Josephite marriage?

Make sure you follow through with your line of logic on the matter.
 
ValPal said:
Sometimes people confuse what “we” want with what God wants. God may put an imperfect person in front of another person that wants perfection, just to prove a point. Reject that person, and the person expecting perfection may very well spend their life alone.

It reminds me of the story where a bad storm is coming. A person knocks on door to warn the property owner to evacuate. The property owner insists on waiting from a sign from God and stays put. As the storm hits and the water rises, a boat comes to rescue the person, who again insists on waiting from a sign from God. The water keeps rising, and the property owner is sitting on the roof, when a helicopter comes to rescue him, and once again insists on waiting from a sign from God. So the property owner finally drowns, then asks God why He didn’t send a sign. God states “I send a person on foot to warn you, then a boat and helicopter to rescue you. What more did you want?”

I have a feeling a certain person in this thread, will continue to hold firm to what they want, and miss what God really wants for them.
Click to expand...
Well said 🙂
 
ValPal said:
Sometimes people confuse what “we” want with what God wants. God may put an imperfect person in front of another person that wants perfection, just to prove a point. Reject that person, and the person expecting perfection may very well spend their life alone.
Click to expand...
There are people for whom a partner’s sexual past would be troubling. We shouldn’t make them feel bad for not being able to handle it just as we shouldn’t make a non-virgin feel bad for their mistakes. We need to be cognizant of the feelings of others. Now, if a virgin is judgmental of others and could in fact marry a non-virgin, then yes, that is not good, but is of course something they are still allowed to do.

And your example of God only sending one person to someone makes him seem ill-disposed and cheerless. I don’t think wanting to marry a fellow virgin makes someone guilty of wanting perfection.
 
ValPal said:
I have a feeling a certain person in this thread, will continue to hold firm to what they want, and miss what God really wants for them.
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia:
A chastity belt is a locking item of clothing designed to prevent sexual intercourse. They may be used to protect the wearer from rape or temptation. Some devices have been designed with additional features to prevent masturbation. Chastity belts have been created for males and females, ostensibly for the purpose of chastity.
Click to expand...
According to modern myths the chastity belt was used as an anti-temptation device during the Crusades. When the knight left for the Holy Lands on the Crusades, his Lady would wear a chastity belt to preserve her faithfulness to him. However, there is no credible evidence that chastity belts existed before the 15th century (more than one hundred years after the last Crusade), and their main period of apparent use falls within the Renaissance rather than the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
On September 19, 2012, China People’s Daily reported that a man in his 50s, naked except for a homemade chastity belt, appeared with a pair of banners in Changchun World Sculpture Park in Jilin province in China, seeking a wife. He stated that he wore the chastity belt to symbolize fidelity to his future wife.[17]
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
ValPal said:
Is you point that it’s okay to marry a non-virgin as long as they are in a Josephite marriage?

Make sure you follow through with your line of logic on the matter.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but how did you come up with THAT conclusion? I was merely replying to your post regarding the Mary-Joseph situation to put it into context.
ValPal said:
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 know if you just were unaware of the context, or if you were just trying to issue a manipulative guilt trip.
 
David_Thorne said:
And your example of God only sending one person to someone makes him seem ill-disposed and cheerless. I don’t think wanting to marry a fellow virgin makes someone guilty of wanting perfection.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the whole notion of God having only one person in mind for someone was debunked by Karl Keating himsel in one of his e-letters (which also appeared in This Rock):

archive.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_080108.asp
 
TimeEntrance said:
LOL. 😃 I knew someone was going to mention him.
Click to expand...
Additionally, what about Phil Rivers? (that is, if he ever wins a Super Bowl)?

I’m sure we can come up with other examples to show that you don’t have to be a fornicator in order to be a star athlete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top