Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Would You Marry Someone Who Isn't A Virgin?


rachael

Recommended Posts

[quote name='StColette' post='1571944' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:25 PM']Is virginity more important than the personhood?

You can't love an aspect more than a person or you are merely objectifying the person.[/quote]

But those aspects are wrapped up in one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1571962' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:33 PM']It has been corrected.[/quote]


Oh okay, that makes more sense now! :hehe: I was confused at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HisChildForever

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1571953' date='Jun 15 2008, 04:31 PM']And I wonder what ever happened to all the virgins that Jason dated and ended up shafting in order to marry his wife?[/quote]

I suppose you're implying here that virgins are just better than non-virgins. That we should see non-virgins as lesser.

Just because two people are virgins doesn't make them compatible for marriage. Virgin A could be a practicing Catholic, and Virgin B thinks nothing of religion and hasn't had the opportunity to have premarital sex, and would if he/she had the chance. Would you call that compatible?

Edited by HisChildForever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alycin' post='1571960' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:32 PM']Whaaaaaat?? You are SO not in the position to judge their marriage. Do you know anything about them at all?[/quote]

I simply want to know what happened to the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think St. Paul is a good analogy. Would someone with a background similar to St. Paul be ordained a Priest today? Maybe, but probably not. His background would probably keep him from being ordained. But St. Paul became an Apostle in his time.

Just as certain personal expectations for a Priest may differ according to times and circumstances, so personal expectations for a spouse will differ from person to person. But the personal expectations for a Priest today do not mean that it was wrong for St. Paul to become an Apostle, and conversely, just because St. Paul became an Apostle does not mean a person with a similar background cannot be excluded from the Priesthood today. Likewise, one person may legitimately choose a spouse that another person would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alycin' post='1571931' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:19 PM']Also--it is completely and totally errant to make the jump that you did about someone not being a virgin to speaking about promiscuity. Someone can be without their virginity without having a history of sleeping around.[/quote]
I made that jump???

:idontknow:

I did touch on my viewpoint that different sins are (IMO) different degrees of the same thing. So somebody who has had sex once is culpable of the same sin as somebody who has slept around, albeit to a very different degree. But I didn't mean so say that all non-virgins have slept around. (parenthetically, I don't think I ever did say it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archaeology cat

[quote name='Era Might' post='1571973' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:35 PM']I think St. Paul is a good analogy. Would someone with a background similar to St. Paul be ordained a Priest today? Maybe, but probably not. His background would probably keep him from being ordained. But St. Paul became an Apostle in his time.

Just as certain personal expectations for a Priest may differ according to times and circumstances, so personal expectations for a spouse will differ from person to person. But the personal expectations for a Priest today do not mean that it was wrong for St. Paul to become an Apostle, and conversely, just because St. Paul became an Apostle does not mean a person with a similar background cannot be excluded from the Priesthood today. Likewise, one person may legitimately choose a spouse that another person would not.[/quote]
Yes, these are good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am gonna step out of this before it gets ugly. :)

I don't think anyone's minds are going to be changed (thank goodness, since most minds are already in the right place) so I'm gonna go unpack my new laptop! Wooo!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1571949' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:29 PM']IMO, rejecting someone solely on the basis of their virginity (or lack thereof) is looking at someone in a purely sexual way, and not at the whole self.[/quote]

But sex is what differentiates between two people living as husband and wife and as opposed to living as brother and sister.

Edited by Norseman82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1571964' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:34 PM']But those aspects are wrapped up in one another.[/quote]

personhood is not an aspect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='XIX' post='1571975' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:37 PM']I made that jump???

:idontknow:

I did touch on my viewpoint that different sins are (IMO) different degrees of the same thing. So somebody who has had sex once is culpable of the same sin as somebody who has slept around, albeit to a very different degree. But I didn't mean so say that all non-virgins have slept around. (parenthetically, I don't think I ever did say it).[/quote]


No, NM did. I thought my post was clear, sorry. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archaeology cat

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1571978' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:38 PM']But sex is what differntiates between two people living as husband and wife and as opposed to living as brother and sister.[/quote]
While that is true, I would not want my husband to see me only for my sexuality. That is an integral part of me, but I am much more than just that. I should be looked at for my whole person, not just one aspect (whether that aspect be sexual, intellectual, physical, etc.), by my husband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homeschoolmom

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1571908' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:00 PM']I'd like to carry this analogy further.

To St. Colette, Rachel, and all the others who have the "he's forgiven, it's all in the past, look at the person at who they are now" attitude:

If I were to operate a babysitting or child care service, would you acceot a repentatnt pedophile as your child's babysitter?[/quote]
Oh, come on Norse... pedophilia is a disorder and such acts are inherently disordered. Unless one has reversed the disorder (and I have yet to believe that pedophiles can be rehabilitated), they are a DANGER to children. This example is ubserd

It is not necesarily the case that a non-virgin is a danger to his/her virgin spouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archaeology cat

[quote name='Alycin' post='1571977' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:38 PM']I am gonna step out of this before it gets ugly. :)

I don't think anyone's minds are going to be changed (thank goodness, since most minds are already in the right place) so I'm gonna go unpack my new laptop! Wooo!!![/quote]
Yay for new laptop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...