XIX Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [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??? 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).
Archaeology cat Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [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.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 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!!!
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) [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 June 15, 2008 by Norseman82
StColette Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [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
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='XIX' post='1571975' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:37 PM']I made that jump??? 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.
Archaeology cat Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [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.
homeschoolmom Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [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.
Archaeology cat Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [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!
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1571971' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:35 PM']I suppose you're implying here that virgins are just better than non-virgins. That we should see non-virgins as lesser.[/quote] Well, the virgins did the work; the non-virgins did not. Do the math. [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1571971' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:35 PM']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?[/quote] I never said that virginity was the [i]only[/i] factor in compatibility. But make no mistake, it is a factor. I think at this point we need to step back from posting for a while (say an hour or so). I need to see whom I'm debating, because I have a feeling that most people have a different background and experience load and have a different perspective.
StColette Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote](HisChildForever @ Jun 15 2008, 03:35 PM) I suppose you're implying here that virgins are just better than non-virgins. That we should see non-virgins as lesser.[/quote] Only when it comes to olive oil.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Okay, one last post. Norseman, I really hope that you don't miss out on a great woman that God may have in store for you because you think you know that you can't possibly be compatible with someone who may have made a mistake in the past. What if all women who never masturbated decided they would only marry male counterparts who had managed to do the same? I mean, sure, that's someone's choice, but I think that what they would be doing (and what you are doing) is really putting a limit on a wonderful relationship that God may have in store for you. Now, he may have a virgin in store for you--who knows?--but he may not. And I think you might end up being surprised. As for this whole "I'm a virgin so a non-virgin doesn't deserve me" thing... I honestly think that's a pride issue that you might want to think about. I seriously doubt that all the virgins that Jason didn't marry (because he didn't fall in love with them and because God had someone else in store for him, maybe?) are not sitting around moping and saying "poor me! I deserved him more than she did, I'm a virgin!!!"... and if they are... then they have serious issues, IMHO. Okay. I'm out for real this time.
Era Might Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571988' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:44 PM']Well, the virgins did the work; the non-virgins did not. Do the math.[/quote] I think Our Lord's parable about the vineyard is relevant to this discussion: [quote]And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, "Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first." And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, saying, "These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat." But he replied to one of them, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?" So the last will be first, and the first last. --Matthew 20:8-16[/quote]
Recommended Posts