I am a 20-year-old virgin. I already know what you probably think about me.

I am also the president of Love Saxa, a group dedicated to healthy relationships and sexual integrity; we often get the reputation as the abstinence club or the anti-same-sex marriage club, depending on whom you ask. At the Council of Advisory Boards Fair this past Sunday, a few students snickered at the word “chastity” on our promotional materials, exchanging telling looks with their friends.

I am not surprised that people often have a negative opinion about those of us who advocate for abstinence, dating and marriage. Today’s popular culture often portrays virgins as prudes who never have fun. I hope to dispel some common myths about people who wait until marriage, using personal examples from my life and the lives of my friends.

While people commonly believe that abstinent people fear their own sexuality or intimacy with members of the opposite sex, the reality is that many of us are in physically fulfilling relationships. My boyfriend and I will not have sex before we are married, and we have a completely normal, respectful and healthy relationship. Even my friends who are waiting until marriage might still occasionally need to apply concealer to a hickey. One might expect us to be sexually repressed, but my abstinent friends and I feel sexually liberated in our relationships.

Not only do we value our relationships with our significant others, but we also have a good time in general. I enjoy going to a party, dancing with my friends and singing a little karaoke when the time is right. Those of us not having sex are not plodding miserably through life. In fact, we are jamming to The Killers’ “Mr. Brightside” and Macklemore’s “Downtown,” just like the rest of Georgetown.

We are not waiting until marriage because we fear the opposite sex, or because we can’t find someone to love. People who abstain from premarital sex have good reasons for doing so. Some of us have religious convictions, but many of us find it to be the most logical choice for other reasons. According to a study in the Journal of Family Psychology, delaying sex leads to a more satisfying relationship in the long term. Putting off sex until marriage also correlates to more stable marriages. Moreover, a Cornell study indicates that waiting to have sex leads to happier relationships.

Now that I have hopefully convinced you that Love Saxa folks are not sexually repressed, I will address another highly-debated topic: same-sex marriage. Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples, as we believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level – emotional, spiritual, physical and mental – directed toward caring for biological children. To us, marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults. That being said, I think that there are members of the LGBTQ community that agree with Love Saxa on the issues that we hope to address this year: pornography and the hookup culture. Some LGBTQ people wish that the hookup culture was less prevalent, including 2013 GU Pride President Thomas Lloyd (SFS ’15), and LGBTQ communities are disproportionately victimized by revenge pornography.

Some might also question our ideas about gender complementarity. However, just because we believe that gender differences exist does not mean that we believe one gender is better than another. I identify as a feminist: I believe that men and women are equal in human dignity and should always be equal before the law. Men and women each have unique qualities to contribute to society. It devalues women to try to make us act more like men, rather than embracing our own qualities and characteristics. Of course, gender differences exist on average and not necessarily in every person. The average woman is a better nurturer than the average man, but a particular man may be better than a particular woman in this respect. It is not sexist to believe in gender complementarity, but it is sexist to insist that women conform to standards set by men.

If you are interested in joining a fun community of people who care deeply about love, relationships and marriage, check out Love Saxa. In the coming year, you can expect social events as well as speaker events on the topics we are hoping to focus on this year. We are hoping to initiate discussions about pornography, which has been proven by research to increase aggressive behavior, and the prevalence of hookup culture, which has contributed to the sexual assault crisis faced on college campuses today. As students across campus continue to face the same issues related to sexuality and relationships, Love Saxa can be a group that unites us, rather than divides us.

Maybe you are questioning your own sexual choices, or maybe you just want to learn more about our beliefs. You can judge us for our ideas, but do not think for a second that we come from a different planet. We have fun relationships, interesting social lives and big plans, just like you. Do not believe the stereotypes, and come see for yourself what Love Saxa is all about.

Amelia Irvine is a junior in the College. She is president of Love Saxa.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

51 Comments

  1. While I think that the author has the absolute right to be abstinent for whatever reasons she chooses, I think she should learn the importance of understanding the biases of the studies she cites to back up those reasons. The study she mentioned that concluded that waiting until marriage to have sex produces more stable marriages was written by two professors out of Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution. The authors’ religious backgrounds likely influenced their desire to come to a conclusion that encourages abstinence, which diminishes the reliability of their results. Georgetown is an elite institution, so I would hope Hoyas are willing and able to be skeptical consumers of scientific studies.

    If you want to be abstinent, that’s fine, but don’t pretend to use science to act as if your preference is an inherently healthier one.

    • And also marriage is legal contract, all are equally protected by the Constitution to make contracts, e.g. if I wanted to, I could have several husbands like a male has wives in Mormon states, as US has separation of church and state.

  2. I have a couple of thoughts about this. Firstly all three “studies” the author lists about how abstaining from sex longer leads to healthier relationships are not studies. They are links to articles that condense the information of other studies. We as readers do not have access to the actual published study or any of the data that came from those studies. We have no knowledge of the people in the sample population or the study’s questions, for example, which could influence the type of responses. The author’s link to a maxim article references the same Brigham Young study of the author’s first link. The maxim article also references a number of very badly carried out studies, one of which is a mathematical summary of a made up binary for the purposes of testing probability. Why are these articles even allowed as references?
    To quote the author “Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples, as we believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level – emotional, spiritual, physical and mental – directed toward caring for biological children.” Why does this definition of marriage exclude same-sex couples? Perhaps the author means all children should come from their parents, which excludes adopted children even for non same-sex couples. This definition also excludes non same-sex couples who are unable to have their own biological children. We can then presume that love saxa do not consider those marriages to be valid either.
    One of the author’s claims: “The average woman is a better nurturer than the average man, but a particular man may be better than a particular woman in this respect.” has absolutely no references at all. One of the author’s strongest points to support her opinions on abstinence has no context or objective scientific study. Why should the readers even trust this claim? Why did the hoya even allow this to be published?

  3. Thomas Lloyd says:

    Just a quick pass at this column reveals that Love Saxa remains the same homophobic bunk-science embracing group it was when I authored the (kindly) linked column

    The “marriage is for a relationship that raises biological children” argument is dated beyond belief – and it wasn’t well constructed anyway since Christian relationship groups like this have always said that infertile couples, old couples, etc should still marry. This of course ignores data that gay parents, since they are almost always intention parents, actually make better parents.

    Speaking of ignoring data, I’m real happy waiting to have sex makes some people “happier?” But the public health data on abstinence education is comprehensive and beyond a single Cornell study – it makes us all worse off, and also leads to more unintentional pregnancies and STDs

    And while I’m glad the new president is not sexually repressed, in my day many of the Love Saxa ilk were – as I saw in my time but respected the privacy of more than one member, general and board, of Love Saxa cheat on their opposite sex partner with someone of the same sex – and always in contexts that involved alcohol, shame, and sneaking. This is not meant to cast aspersions – this is to illustrate a point. Because of course – this group has no place for LGBT persons, and in fact, probably finds them disordered, so the LGBT inevitable among their ranks do what the data has told us they will – seek out their desires in ways that are less healthy mentally and medically

    Tl:dr – if you want to hookup less and maybe ween of porn, talk to a friend or actual psychologist – don’t join a gate group

    • Fair-minded student says:

      It is an unfortunate reality of the English language that “marriage” in the civil sense and “marriage” in the sacramental sense share the same word. I am not affiliated with Love Saxa in any way, but I do take umbrage with your characterization of the organization as “homophobic.”

      Advocating for relationships which orient themselves with respectful reference to marriage in it’s sacramental sense — a sacred union of man and woman, who were both created in God’s image and with a complementary disposition to the other, which both conveys and participates in God’s love and grace — does not inherently disparage, disrespect, or deny the human dignity of any homosexual person. Instead, it is offering a perspective which: A.) is fundamentally guaranteed in it’s rightful access to the marketplace of ideas by the First Amendment’s protection of religion and speech; and which B.) aligns with the views of the Catholic Church, this university’s ultimate parent.

      Granted, such positions might be “hetero-normative”, but that makes no imposition on the civil rights of any gay person vis a vis the possibility for (currently lawful) civil unions, which we also (legitimately) call “marriages.” Nor does it treat any homosexual person unjustly. It is foolhardy to project one definition of “marriage” onto the other, in my view — though moral clarity and justice are paramount in all cases, however one falls on that.

      No matter your position on marriage, Love Saxa is admirable in its aims. Accusations of it relying on “bunk science” seem to me to be merely participating in the coercive pressure of university group-think. We should save the tainting label of “homophobic” for when it is needed.

      • Thomas Lloyd says:

        I’m sorry you took umbrage, unfortunately your moniker would be better as wrong-minded student – the appeal to the “sacramental” definition of marriage is a dodge that isn’t particularly effective

        1) Love Saxa, if you knew anything about its history, as I do (if you didn’t catch my name, i’m the LGBT person the author cites), isn’t only concerned with the “sacramental” definition. When it was first formed in ~2013/14, a majority of the speakers it brought were brought to explicitly speak out against expanding LGBTQ rights, and tied their empowerment to entirely false claims about how gay marriages would lead to a precipitous drop in straight marriages (which, shocker, Obergefell didn’t – but we knew that because states like MA -which were among the first to legalize same sex marriage – already had the lowest divorce rates). Its no surprise either that they have insignificant ties to groups that seek to roll back Obergefell and make our marriage certificates meaningless – like the Family Research Council.

        They outright refused to collaborate with any LGBT student groups, even to find common ground on issues of “authenticity” – because their leadership no such common ground could exist. Could you imagine any other group on campus getting away with refusing to collaborate with another because one of the groups is affiliated with a protected minority group? I can’t. Furthermore – their language is inherently demeaning. They set up a dichotomy that they alone bring about “sexual integrity” and the “proper” way to think about sex. They aren’t merely an alternative, they are superior. BUT they also have a means of being superior that is entirely inaccesible to an oppressed minority.

        I’m glad you think projecting your idea of marriage on to mine would be foolhearty, sadly thats what Love Saxa does.

        2) Even if it WAS supposedly only concerned with “sacramental marriage” you’d be wrong for a few reasons – namely that the history of marriage in the church isn’t as clear or enduring as you make it sound

        A) Marriage wasn’t even recognized as a sacrament until around ~1100, before then it wouldn’t even take place in a church or in the presence of a priest – it was unclear if it was church’s business
        B) Even after this point, the woman fundamentally became the man’s property, and married Christain women had fewer legal or property rights than in other religious traditions including Judaism and Islam. There is strong evidence that it remained largely about property and stability.
        C) You know, the whole monogamy thing wasn’t exactly central to the church teaching on marriage the whole time either
        D) In fact, in the NT – Jesus doesn’t really even push people in to marriage, there is plenty of Catholic scholarship that actual universal celibacy was the ideal. And in fact, “josephite” or celibate marriages were common in the Medieval era
        D) Because women were essentially property – the concept of same sex marriage wouldn’t have made sense – as a man couldn’t be traded or bought as a woman was. This also of course ignores the fact that consensual same sex relationships aren’t really even given a term until like the 1800’s.
        E) There is also evidence that the Catholic church DID sanction some same sex marriages to help nontraditional relationships achieve stability. Take for instance “brother affrèrement” in 16th century France

        We are in total agreement that the author has a right to say and believe whatever she wants – but your first amendment defense doesn’t mean she and the group isn’t homophobic.

        Finally, its not merely “accusations” of bunk science – earlier commenters pointed that her studies are either
        A) Not studies
        B) Not even in the slightest methodologically sound

        Neither of these things are “group think” or “pressure” – they are objective interpretations of years of data. They sure as hell aren’t coercive if you can’t be bothered to look at the literature

        Whereas, I pointed out that literally every major peer reviewed study on the subject, and even national medical associations like the Society for Adolescent Medicine, have concluded the abstinence education does more harm to mental health, public health, and of course ironically but not surprisingly – pregnancy rates

        • Fair-minded student says:

          As I mentioned before, I am not affiliated with Love Saxa in any way, and I am admittedly not familiar with its history. Considering that, please allow me to address your responses in the abstract, specifically your comments in section 2.

          1.) Your claim that marriage was not “recognized as a sacrament before 1100” — and indeed, your entire refutation — seems to suggest that the Church’s theology of the sacraments should not be taken as seriously as I present it, specifically by Catholics, because of some inorganic development in the sacrament’s history vis a vis Christian dogma.

          Such claims could not be farther from the truth. Simply put, the sacramental institution of marriage in the Catholic Church has a legitimate scriptural and historical basis which largely transfers over from the Judaic tradition. The Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of laws that concern marriage, and though most of them are not binding on Christians per Christ’s establishment of the New Covenant with humanity, they are still integral to Catholic theology (read about the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD if you’d like to know which laws were carried over).

          To this end, Jesus’ own comments on marriage underscore the continuity between the natural law, Jewish Torah, and Christian doctrine. As he puts it, referencing the Book of Genesis, “Have you not read that from the beginning [that] the Creator ‘made them male and female…For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’…Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mt. 19:4-6, ref. Gen 2:18-25).

          Jesus is clearly endorsing the perspective outlined in Genesis.

          Next, recall how St. Paul finishes his emphatic declaration in the Letter to the Ephesians — that the relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ and his Church: “[Marriage] is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church” (Ephesians 5:32). In the Latin, “sacramentum,” the Greek, “mysterion”; the theology of those terms is the same, so whatever the case, there lies proof of the doctrine’s presence before 1100, to say nothing of Church history thereafter.

          Finally, it cannot be left out that the presence of Christ and his Mother at the Wedding at Cana provides Biblical example of the grace he bestows on married couples of good faith — the nature of sacraments in the first place.

          2.) Considering all this, I hope it is clear how your historical argument misses the mark in its suggestion that marriage was contrived as a sacrament around the year 1100. With this said, I would still like to answer your criticism fully and appropriately, so please forgive me for diving into the weeds as follows. Since this is not a history discussion, however, I will refrain from citing individual authors or examples, though they abound – consult Tertullian, or St. Jerome, if you’d like.

          The reason that marriage was not expressly and formally included among the sacraments earlier is to be found in the historical development of the doctrine regarding the sacraments themselves. When it came to the several religious rites designated as “Sacraments of the New Law”, there was always in the Church a profound conviction that, as instruments, they conferred and participated in divine grace, the language I provided earlier. But the grouping of them into the same category did not occur until a later period, when the dogmas of faith in general began to be scientifically examined and systematically arranged.
          Furthermore, that the seven sacraments should be grouped in one category was by no means self-evident. To elaborate: though it was accepted that each of these rites carried interior grace — in contrast to their common, invisible effect — the difference in external ceremony was so great that, for a long time, it hindered a uniform classification. In other words, it confused people how baptism could be of the same category as marriage, when one takes the form of a consecration, and the other that of a contract.

          For this reason, the precise terms of sacramental theology vis a vis marriage only took form in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, when it was confronted with the spurious claims of various heresies. Thereafter, Church teaching is very clear, though please understand that it has never changed in any substantial way.

          3.) Moving on, I would like to briefly discuss your comments regarding the commoditization of women, Church views celibacy, and the Church’s supposed sanctioning of same-sex relationships.

          A.) Regarding first the commoditization of women as it pertains to the sacramental institution of marriage, I’d like to remind you of the first thing I said on this thread, that, in language, there is a misleading overlap between “marriage” in the civil sense and “marriage” in the sacramental sense. In the Catholic Church, a marriage cannot confer sacramental grace if it was done without the consent of both parties, or through coercion; in other words, no marriage is theologically legitimate if it is arrived at solely and plainly amid the circumstances you described – women being “property.”

          Now of course, all this is not to say that all arranged marriages (or ones like that) have been “illegitimate” throughout history. Rather, it is to explicate the Catholic theology regarding sacraments in the first place: that correct form, matter, AND intention are required for a marriage (or any other sacrament) to be valid. Moreover, when it comes matrimony, the SPOUSES are the ones who, as ministers of God’s grace, confer upon each other the sacrament, provided the ritual is done before the Church. Therefore, I’d ask you to be mindful when thinking about the sort of marriage Love Saxa stands for – there is a reason the author calls herself a feminist.

          B.) Next, in terms of celibacy: while it is true that celibacy has been counted among the Christian ideals throughout history, it is important to note that celibacy, i.e. perpetual virginity, only has its virtue in parallel with matrimony. Neither path is required of Christians, but they both stand as affirmations of the Love of Christ.

          Perhaps it is the case that you are confusing celibacy with chastity. They are different, and Love Saxa doesn’t seem to be advocating for the former, considering its support for traditional marriage, which is associated with family – a bedrock of Church teaching.

          C.) Lastly, as it pertains to supposed examples of the Church or members of it sanctioning same-sex relationships — I cannot speak to these. All I can say is that no matter the actions of any bishop, cardinal, or pope (in the majority of circumstances), the Church’s teaching has not and cannot change on the question of directly approving same-sex relationships, in that the Catholic position is informed by a certain understanding of the natural law. This is not to say that attitudes and perspectives on the relationship between homosexuals and the Church cannot change and evolve organically, in accordance with the principles of human dignity and pastoral care; all it is saying is that any attempt to deconstruct Church teaching on the matter will inevitably fall short.

          In conclusion – and if you read this far – thank you for your attention and responses. Please take my above comments as speaking to the fact that, the rest of this conversation aside, the sacramental nature of marriage is a legitimate, ironclad aspect of Church teaching and Christianity at-large. This was the mechanism you employed when calling my initial thread comment a “sidestep,” and so I felt it very important to explicate the integrity of my position here.

  4. The good John Carroll says:

    I can’t believe I actually read this entire piece of shit disguised as coherent thought.

  5. I’m not going to waste my precious time or headspace trying to explain to you all the reasons that this opinion is completely lacking in unbiased information, basic common sense, and human empathy, but what I will say is that your approach to alleviate sexual assault is so incredibly wrong and baffling. Linking hookup culture to the prevalence of sexual assault is bunk science, and encourages slut shaming of the worst kind. Morever, demonizing the LGBTQIA community by making it clear that you don’t value their emotions or the unions that they might form with other persons that they care about, and then providing cop-out “inclusive” statement at the end is appalling. Go see the world and actually listen to the people not included in your narrow worldview and you may actually learn enough to write a better article.

  6. Why so self-righteous? says:

    While I appreciate the author attempting to de-exoticize those of us in the Georgetown community who have chosen not to have sex, I take issue with their argument that such choices are necessarily healthier, more logical, and generally “better” than the decision to have sex.

    The choice to have sex or not is a personal one, and one tangled with different desires, expectations, and anxieties. Promoting ideas of “waiting until marriage” and “virginity” does more to delineate people based off an experience that is multifaceted, hard to define, and frankly has no business in defining someone’s character, personality, or position in life. Choosing not to have sex is not necessarily one of “abstaining,” but often just preference, or having other shit to do, so I object to the author’s implication (intentional or not) that those of us “virgins” might do so for the fallacious studies she describes. I find these ideas far more alienating than any held by my more sexual friends.

  7. Hoya Alum '16 says:

    Great article Amelia! In a college culture where hook ups are the norm, it can be challenging to talk about the benefits of abstinence. I’m glad that you remain unafraid to speak up about your beliefs!

  8. Great Article says:

    Amelia, thank you so much for your courage in sharing this piece. While it can be difficult to open up about one’s own relationship and personal life, I believe that your piece can be a good inspiration to others on campus, including myself, who are abstaining from having sex. Campus culture and individual people (even those we are in romantic relationships with) can make this incredibly challenging, so thank you for your example.

  9. think about it says:

    My takeaway is that you can have a fun, healthy, sexy, (hickey-inducing?) relationship without having heterosexual intercourse. The gays knew it all along! Maybe Love Saxa should start recruiting fellow Hoyas who also haven’t inserted their/had a penis inserted into their vagina (that all important and sanctifying act that apparently makes marriage meaningful).

  10. For those who disagree with the author, can you definitively say that your choices to have sex with multiple partners actually improves your quality of life? Do you feel at peace with yourself? Do your choices enable you to treat others like you would want them to treat you? Tl;dr: do you actually get what you thought you would out of the choices you make?

    • This is what I don’t understand about people who choose to remain abstinent. Of course you’re free to do so, but why must you do it from a place of moral smugness and superiority? It is wrong to assume that everyone who has made a different choice than you have is unhappy as a result of that choice. There are plenty of people who choose to have sex before marriage, both in casual relationships and in committed ones, who are perfectly happy with that choice, despite some anecdotal evidence you may have to the contrary.

      Your choices should come from knowing that that was the right choice for you, not out of some perception that the other choice inherently leads to unhappiness or lack of fulfillment. Please learn to understand that people’s decision to have casual sex or sex before marriage leads to a full range of emotions, including positive ones, and trust that everyone is just as capable of evaluating their own decisions as you are able to evaluate yours.

  11. thehoyacandobetter says:

    It’s honestly a bit disappointing that The Hoya would publish this piece, not because of the author’s opinion, but because of the lack of credible “research” she proves to back up her claim. Why didn’t anyone notice the author was clearly manipulating the conclusions of these studies? Seems like lazy editing, to me.

    Next time, some due diligence would be appreciated.

  12. Yes, yes, yes, and yes

  13. Mike from NOVA says:

    This was a fantastic article that was well argued and well written. Thank you for expressing your beliefs on this issue. Keep standing strong!

  14. Person from 2003 says:

    Love to jam to Mr. Brightside.

  15. Destiny Is Calling You says:

    Amelia, while you may think that you’re coming out of your cage and you’re doing just fine, I think that you’ve actually gotta gotta be down, because you (don’t) want it all [sex].

  16. Hoya Alum 2015 says:

    The author of this piece is very brave — given all of the vitriol that comes out in the comments, I can imagine it’s not easy for her to stand up for her views in such a hostile environment. In a culture so wildly obsessed with gratification of desires, anyone who appears to stand in the way of a good time will be treated as a threat. If you’re reading this, I encourage you to stay strong and keep the faith, and your lived example will change more hearts than any amount of articles or studies.

  17. Excellent article, Amelia, and response also from Fair Minded Student. Pretty much everything has been covered by those in opposition. What is the TRUTH about the issue of pre-marital sex and homosexual activity? Christ was brutally scourged for these sins of the flesh. I ask you to watch the scourging scene from Passion of the Christ and think about how much Our Lord Jesus loves you to suffer so to make reparation. On YouTube. They researched the markings on the shroud of Turin (and no, it’s not fake) to know how many times He was whipped. He was also scourged frontally. Grandma

  18. Pingback: LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A Letter to a 'College Virgin'

  19. Hoya 2016, you criticize a study because the authors work at a Mormon institution, stating “The authors’ religious backgrounds likely influenced their desire to come to a conclusion that encourages abstinence.” Since Georgetown is a Catholic institution, I assume you warn people not to believe any scholarship that comes out of this school, as it must be biased as well, according to your reasoning.

    What if the study were authored by two Muslims? Would you denounce it based on the Islamic beliefs of the authors? And, of course, anti-Semitism still exists in this country, with too many bigots thinking that you just can’t trust those Jews. Next time, maybe you can assess the actual work instead of dismissing anything written by members of groups you don’t like.

  20. Pingback: Georgetown LGBT Lobby Calls for Defunding of Pro-Marriage Student Group as ‘Homophobic’ | Bible Prophecy In The Daily Headlines

  21. Adoptive Mom says:

    Amelia, are you aware of how hurtful and offensive your definition of marriage as being “directed toward caring for biological children” is to those of us who are adoptive parents? According to your group, my husband and I, who were abstinent before marriage, married at 21, have been married for 18 years, and are both devout followers of Jesus, are not in a “traditional” marriage simply because we are raising adopted children. This is terribly hurtful to couples who have struggled through years of infertility and miscarriages, and whose heart’s desire is to have a child. And besides that, it’s simply not true. Caring for the least of these, especially orphans, is at the very heart God. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your view of marriage in light of this.

    • Good grief! You are just one more person waiting in line to be offended. There is nothing in Amelia’s article that is remotely offensive to adoptive parents, at least those who don’t have onion thin skin. Congrats on being a great adoptive mom. Now grow up your emotions.

      • Adoptive Mom says:

        Are you an adoptive parent? Because if not, then you don’t get a say in what other adoptive parents find hurtful. Her article clearly states that a godly marriage is two parents having biological children. Please explain to me how that is NOT offensive and hurtful to those of us who are unable to have biological children or choose adoption? A godly marriage absolutely does not have to include biological children, and her statement of marriage should be amended to reflect that fact.

        • You need to revisit a class in logic as her statement doesn’t exclude adoptive parents from having a Godly marriage. Let it go and grow a thicker skin.

          • Achilles,

            You are my namesake from many years ago and I used to comment under that name- and when I read a comment here I respond in my head and look down to see that you have written just what I would say and I hope I am not writing a note to myself because that would mean I need help. Anyway, glad your out there- How absurd that a young lady could express the virtue of chastity and give a decent definition of sacramental marriage at a “Catholic” school and get so much unhinged ideological hate. There is no shame in vice anymore- Keep up the good comments!

    • As an aside, and support to you, @adoptive mom, I’m not an adoptive mom myself, but I am the proud sister of three siblings who happen to be adopted. I agree with you that I felt that this article is hurtful to parents who have adopted (and also to me as the sister to my siblings). My family would not be complete without my siblings, and I know many families who feel the same way- whether their children or biological or adopted.
      My parents had me nine months and four days after they got married, and then were unable to have biological children after. To think that they would not have a traditional or supported marriage by the Church or the Christian community, and that they are not God-fearing and God-loving Christians if they had just adopted is absurd. I would also say, that in general, this narrow definition of what marriage is perpetuates the idea that my fiance and I (who are not planning to ever have children), should not get married because we have no intention of reproducing. I am more than my ability to give birth, and the validity of our marriage should not be based on whether we procreate or not. I strongly believe that we can (and will) have a Christ centered marriage even if we never have children.

  22. Sane Person says:

    Bravo

  23. Some things bear repeating… Amelia is expressing Roman Catholic Church doctirne, the faith upon which this University exists in the first place. What I find most curious are all the naysayers who rail against her and the Church after chososing to attend this pricey school, the first Catholic university in the US. Really Weird. Thank you Amelia! Expect to see some Jesuits out there supporting you and the faith!

  24. Camille Jenman C'95 says:

    Amelia, I wanted to express my support of your viewpoint and commend you for your bravery in standing up for your beliefs. The fact that LGBT groups are calling for your organization to be defunded is a symptom of everything that is wrong with liberal arts college campuses and the liberal left. If you do not agree with them, then you must be silenced. That’s textbook Fascism. The irony of Antifa calling itself an “anti-fascist” group is rich. I sincerely hope that the University ignores this absurd request, but if they don’t, you can count on me for your funding.

  25. The idea that Love Saxa is a hate group is preposterous. Why can’t LGBT people accept there are people who don’t share their views? According to them, disagreement is a crime and must be silenced. The LGBT lobby are the most aggressive and hateful group in the nation presently; if Georgetown caves to then and kicks Love Saxa off campus, I will never donate again and will stand ashamed that I graduated from there.

  26. Pre-marital sex has created an ocean of relationship disasters for men and women in the USA. Men just love sex without commitment and our culture encourages it.The problem is that women feel like they are being used for sex because, well, they are being used for sex. You share your soul with your partner during sex and it is intended to be the cementing of marital relationships. Adam and Eve celebrated their marriage, not with a ceremony, but by having sex (they became “one flesh”).

    But, when it becomes evident in an pre-marital relationship that the relationship was about the sex and not about commitment, the trouble begins. This is a culture that insists on telling women that sex outside of marriage is good and healthy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-marital sex has resulted in a large sub-culture of men who despise women and a large sub-culture of women who regard men as sexual predators.

    Google Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) to see how our secular culture is destroying itself because it has abandoned the respect for sex that Amelia Irvine rightly advocates.

    Sex is a wonderful, when it cements a marital relationship. Sex outside of marriage creates conflict and heartache. Thank you, LoveSaxa!

  27. Great article. Thanks Amelia for the beautiful testimony and keep up the good work! Sam made a very accurate comment above: “The LGBT lobby are the most aggressive and hateful group in the nation presently.” This is absolutely true. Leftist intolerance is becoming truly totalitarian in its attacks against anyone who doesn’t agree with them and attempts at silencing them.

  28. Pingback: Georgetown students file a discrimination complaint against a campus group promoting heterosexual marriage – College News Week

  29. Pingback: Georgetown students file a discrimination complaint against a campus group promoting heterosexual marriage -

  30. Pingback: A student group at a Catholic university is under fire for affirming traditional marriage

  31. Pingback: A student group at a Catholic university is under fire for affirming traditional marriage | The Dirty Conservative

  32. Pingback: Georgetown Threatens Student Group For Upholding Catholic Teachings - The Right Side of News

  33. Pingback: Georgetown University May Defund, Derecognize Student Group for Supporting Biblical Marriage - My Blog

  34. Pingback: Love Saxa Funding, Status Remain Uncertain After Vote Postponed

  35. Pingback: Love Saxa Keeps University Funding, Pending Appeal

  36. Pingback: Professional-Biblical Marriage Scholar Group Will Stay at Georgetown - Viral Chull

  37. Pingback: Religious freedom has won some key battles recently — Political News

Leave a Reply to Hoya 2016 Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*