Finding Other Catholic Virgins?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I really think the op needs to re-examine his idea of a good spouse. Hymenical privileges shouldn't be on the top of his list. 

[Amppax]

I really think the op needs to re-examine his idea of a good spouse. Hymenical privileges shouldn't be on the top of his list. 

 

Why didn't you say this on page 1?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Because Selah wasn't trying to close it on page one. 

Edited July 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Selah]

It's all good.

[HisChildForever]

I think we scared off the OP. Then again, who knows if he actually wanted to join the forum vs. post his question.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm not a virgin but I'd totally date him. There, all your bad comments are neutralized. 

Edited July 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Norseman82]

I find the notion of "forgiving" someone for a sin they didn't commit against you idiotic.

 

 

I really think the op needs to re-examine his idea of a good spouse. Hymenical privileges shouldn't be on the top of his list. 

 

Sex is reserved for marriage (under the pain of mortal sin), so yes, when you have sex outside of marriage you are hurting your spouse.  So it follows logically that yes, the spouse is entitled to that exclusivity. 

 

Or do you deny that sex is supposed to be only between a husband and wife?

Edited July 28, 2013 by Norseman82

[BG45]

Sex is reserved for marriage (under the pain of mortal sin), so yes, when you have sex outside of marriage you are hurting your spouse.  So it follows logically that yes, the spouse is entitled to that exclusivity. 

 

Or do you deny that sex is supposed to be only between a husband and wife?

 

I'm pretty sure of two things:

1) Winchester, as a Catholic, will agree that sex is supposed to be between a husband and wife.  I've yet to see any Catholic in this thread say otherwise. 

 

2) CatholicsAreKewl's got "Atheist" under his name, so he probably isn't big on the concept of mortal sin and such.  I could be wrong.

 

 
 

[arfink]

Until you are married, you are entitled to nothing of the kind. I personally would rather forgo any sense of entitlement for the sake of my beloved than be alone forever because I couldn't find someone who eagerly anticipated my supreme rule over her body.

 

Of course, even if I was married, that still doesn't mean I am entitled to have sex. That's not how love works. Nobody is ever entitled to a gift, ever. And just because a gift has been given exclusively still does not mean you are entitled to it. As soon as sex changes from a gift shared between husband and wife to a debt that is owed, it ceases to be loving and free. This is as much a violation of the conjugal act as contraception, because it undermines full consent by making it compulsory.

[Norseman82]

 

 And just because a gift has been given exclusively still does not mean you are entitled to it.

 

Of course it does.  If 2+2=4, then it naturally follows that 4-2=2.

 

 

 

 As soon as sex changes from a gift shared between husband and wife to a debt that is owed, it ceases to be loving and free. This is as much a violation of the conjugal act as contraception, because it undermines full consent by making it compulsory.

 

Yet that is what the Bible calls it (see 1 Cor. 7:3). 

 

So, if you still dispute it, don't yell at me, take it up with the Author.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Norseman82

[Ice_nine]

That's such a beautiful scriptural passage. I must be reading much differently from you.

 

Telling the giver he/she must give is not the same as telling the receiver he/she must take, and deserves to take.

 

 

But you're welcome to keep that attitude if it helps you or whatever.

 

 

[Norseman82]

That's such a beautiful scriptural passage. I must be reading much differently from you.

 

Telling the giver he/she must give is not the same as telling the receiver he/she must take, and deserves to take.

 

 

But you're welcome to keep that attitude if it helps you or whatever.

 

The receiver has nothing to receive if the giver will not give.  That's what St. Paul is warning about - not to deprive one another.  Therefore, due to the use of the word "deprive" (or whatever other versions translate it as), it is aimed at those who refuse to give. 

Edited July 28, 2013 by Norseman82

[Ice_nine]

sure bro

[arfink]

Of course it does.  If 2+2=4, then it naturally follows that 4-2=2.

 

 

 

Yet that is what the Bible calls it (see 1 Cor. 7:3). 

 

So, if you still dispute it, don't yell at me, take it up with the Author.

 

Well, excuse me for not taking the passage in the light of total literalism, despite the fact that the Author says it is to be understood by way of concession and not as a command. (1 Cor 7:6)

 

BTW, I must ask, how's all this working out for you? I'm sure you're really fulfilled and happy in your relationships with women.

 

[Norseman82]

Well, excuse me for not taking the passage in the light of total literalism, despite the fact that the Author says it is to be understood by way of concession and not as a command. (1 Cor 7:6)

 

 

 

Yet this does carry through into sacramental theology, since a marriage needs to be ratum et consummatum to be valid.  Sex is what differentiates living as husband and wife from living as brother and sister.  Additionally, if you read on, after St. Paul talks about "concession, not command", he stated that he preferred people to be single than married, so when read in that context that does not diminish that once you are married, it is a debt.  As he stated earlier in the chapter, a married person does not belong to him/herself but rather to his/her spouse.