burnsspivey Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='aloha918' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:14 AM'] what is the purpose of sex? ......pro creation and unity of the spouses contraception gets rid of both so really it gets rid of the entire purpose to have sex [/quote] Just a note: the word procreate means beget offspring. There is no word "pro create" -- and if there were it would require a hyphen. That said, contraception in no way reduces the "unity" of partners. Perhaps an argument could be made that prophilactics can reduce the actual physical contact, but that's not saying much as to the "unity". Additionally, my catholic friend has told me repeatedly that within marriage, sex is supposed to bring pleasure. A man has a duty to please his wife just as a woman has a duty to please her husband. So, yes, sex can be about procreation and "unity" but it is also about pleasure. Thus, contraceptives do not remove the entire purpose of sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Another quick and perhaps random thought: Some people (Catholics included?) view the use of contraceptives saying something along the lines, "I am holding something back from you." There is not a unity of self-giving when someone holds back his or herslef by the use of a contraceptive. The man or woman is not giving freely and totally when the use a barrier between them. It is not so much a physival thing... You are right, the man and wife have a duty to each other through the marital (sp?) act, part of which is plesaure. Just a thought on why contraceptives may offend against unity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:54 AM'] Another quick and perhaps random thought: Some people (Catholics included?) view the use of contraceptives saying something along the lines, "I am holding something back from you." There is not a unity of self-giving when someone holds back his or herslef by the use of a contraceptive. The man or woman is not giving freely and totally when the use a barrier between them. It is not so much a physival thing... You are right, the man and wife have a duty to each other through the marital (sp?) act, part of which is plesaure. Just a thought on why contraceptives may offend against unity... [/quote] On the contrary, I feel that I can give of myself more freely when I know that there is no risk (okay, almost no risk) of concieving. When there is (more) risk I always feel that I'm holding back, because it's always in the back of my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 To that I would only reply, why do you feel that giving life to a new thing restrains you from giving yourself freely? I can understand not being able to financially support the child and what not, but God always supports those in need in the way that they need it. Ok, granted one has to have faith to begin with. That seems to be where we differ, on our views of the sacredness of life. Some people view it as a consequence of sex and would rather not support life that they do not have to. Some view it as a sacred gift the comes from the marital act. It all comes down to how much you value life that is not your own. Or so I think. As I said, a view held by some. I can understand why you think it holds you back, you think that supporting life that may come from your actions a possible burden? I hope I am not overstating your stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Luke 23: [quote]“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For the time will come when you will say, ‘[b]Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed![/b]’"[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 12:01 PM'] Contraceptives are a very good thing. Sex for pleasure is not wrong at all. If you want to make love with your significant other and still not want to have to worry about getting pregnant than its the way to go. [/quote] So you think pouring chemicals into your body for 20-30 years is a good thing? Covering parts of your body with plastic to touch your wife is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 23 2005, 07:24 AM'] So you think pouring chemicals into your body for 20-30 years is a good thing? Covering parts of your body with plastic to touch your wife is a good thing? [/quote] We take chemicals in all the time. You have probably have had enough perservative to fill a pool over your life span. You ever take medicine before? Tylenol or anything for your headache? The fact is, we take all sorts of chemicals. Unless your are a devoutly wholistic, you take chemicals all the time. Im not one who really likes taking pills and having a bunch of chemicals in me. But I dont see any reason why someone should not. Personally I dont like anything plastic on me, but if someone is going to have casual sex I hope they do. I rather them do that, than to have yet another child in an orphanage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I voted #1 because, as many have already established, NFP is not a contraceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 22 2005, 11:09 AM'] To that I would only reply, why do you feel that giving life to a new thing restrains you from giving yourself freely? I can understand not being able to financially support the child and what not, but God always supports those in need in the way that they need it. Ok, granted one has to have faith to begin with. That seems to be where we differ, on our views of the sacredness of life. Some people view it as a consequence of sex and would rather not support life that they do not have to. Some view it as a sacred gift the comes from the marital act. It all comes down to how much you value life that is not your own. Or so I think. As I said, a view held by some. I can understand why you think it holds you back, you think that supporting life that may come from your actions a possible burden? I hope I am not overstating your stance. [/quote] As I said, I am childfree. I feel that I am emotionally and mentally unable to raise children. I know that I am financially unable to raise children. That doesn't even touch on my morbid fear of pregnancy and childbirth (after seeing others pregnant and the damage done to their bodies). So, yes, the knowledge that I might get pregnant is a burden that keeps me from giving freely. It has nothing to do with the value I put on others' lives. If I simply didn't care about other lives I wouldn't use contraceptives at all; I would simply have an abortion. The point is that I [i]do[/i] care enough about myself and others to try not to get pregnant. Since I've also found myself to be unable to remember to take a pill every day, I am unwilling to try anything more involved than that -- namely NFP. For those who say that NFP is not contraceptive I have to argue that you are misconstruing the meaning of that word. Even total abstinance is contraceptive. I know that NFP can be used to get pregnant, but that isn't what we're talking about in this situation, so NFP [i]is[/i] contraceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argent_paladin Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Contraception in marriage destroys the idea of marriage and leads to gay marriage, adultery, divorce, etc. If it is ok to engage in sexual activity soley for pleasure and not for children or unity, then what if "feeling isn't there anymore" (i.e. not pleasurable)? Then why not divorce if the reason for getting married (pleasurable sex) is no longer present? And that is exactly what is happening. Marriage is for as long as the sex is good. No longer. Also, if others get the same pleasure from sex, then why can't they marry? If gay people get the same pleasure from sex then why can't they marry? Why does it matter that they can't procreate? If marriage can just be about pleasurable sex, then why not gay marriage? And finally, if we say that sexual abstinence is impossible for most people (the assumption of contraceptive proponents) then why would we get upset that a spouse has an affair? He can't help himself, right? If he can't controll his sexual urges before marriage, or during marriage, then how can he outside of marriage? We should stop treating people (mainly men) like infants, who cannot control themselves and hold them to a certain standard. Oh, and these aren't novel observations. Pope Paul VI predicted an explosion in sexual infidelity, divorce and even possibly gay marriage as a result of the widespread acceptance of contraception because it destroys the natural unity of marriage, sex, love and children. The rhyme had it right: first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage. Today one can have marriage without children, love without marriage, sex without love or marriage or children, etc. It is pick and choose. Marriage now depends on love, and love is just a feeling. So, marriage is only as solid as a feeling. But after the feelings disappear and the marriage crumbles, the children remain, in broken homes and unloved. That is the legacy of contraception. To say that at every moment I am not having sex that results in pregnacy I am contracepting is ludicrous. So, is a pregnant woman or a woman giving birth contracepting? Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, not the main purpose. It is like food. Just as eating a fine meal and vomiting it up is wrong because one wants the pleasure without consequences, so is having contracepted sex. There is nothing wrong, and much right about having a tasty meal. There is also nothing wrong, and much right with having sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 11:53 AM'] As I said, I am childfree. I feel that I am emotionally and mentally unable to raise children. I know that I am financially unable to raise children. That doesn't even touch on my morbid fear of pregnancy and childbirth (after seeing others pregnant and the damage done to their bodies). So, yes, the knowledge that I might get pregnant is a burden that keeps me from giving freely. It has nothing to do with the value I put on others' lives. If I simply didn't care about other lives I wouldn't use contraceptives at all; I would simply have an abortion. The point is that I [i]do[/i] care enough about myself and others to try not to get pregnant. Since I've also found myself to be unable to remember to take a pill every day, I am unwilling to try anything more involved than that -- namely NFP. For those who say that NFP is not contraceptive I have to argue that you are misconstruing the meaning of that word. Even total abstinance is contraceptive. I know that NFP can be used to get pregnant, but that isn't what we're talking about in this situation, so NFP [i]is[/i] contraceptive. [/quote] I would just like to start by saying that I respect the choice that you make concerning your ablility and responsibility to childrearing. It takes a very big person to be able to recongize one's limits and accept them. For this I commend you. I do not however agree with your means. I would just ask that you take a step back and view the consequences that contraceptives have had on our society. I mean really look at what removing the creation of life from the act of sex has done to this country and others... It has not allowed people to give more freely of themselves. All that it has done is enslave more people to the act of commiting sexual sins because now the consequences are not as noticible or visible. They are still there, but only compounded by condems and then swept underneath the rug comfortably so they may continue the way that they are headed without having to acknowledge the harm it has done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 [quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:56 PM'] Contraception in marriage destroys the idea of marriage and leads to gay marriage, adultery, divorce, etc. [/quote] No, no it doesn't. [quote]If it is ok to engage in sexual activity soley for pleasure and not for children or unity, then what if "feeling isn't there anymore" (i.e. not pleasurable)? Then why not divorce if the reason for getting married (pleasurable sex) is no longer present? And that is exactly what is happening. Marriage is for as long as the sex is good. No longer. [/quote] Ah, I see, you're equating sex with marriage. If anyone really got married to have sex, I feel very, very sorry for that person. Perhaps you should re-think your ideas on marriage. [quote]Also, if others get the same pleasure from sex, then why can't they marry? If gay people get the same pleasure from sex then why can't they marry? Why does it matter that they can't procreate? If marriage can just be about pleasurable sex, then why not gay marriage?[/quote] See above. [quote]And finally, if we say that sexual abstinence is impossible for most people (the assumption of contraceptive proponents) then why would we get upset that a spouse has an affair?[/quote] 1) No, that's not the assumption of contraceptive proponents. Know thy enemy. 2) The reason to be upset over an affair is that a spouse broke the contract formed when they got married. The reason to be upset over an affair is because a spouse has lied. [quote]He can't help himself, right?[/quote] OYOS. Those who argue that they can't help themselves are either lying or need psychotherapy for their compulsion issues. [quote]If he can't controll his sexual urges before marriage, or during marriage, then how can he outside of marriage? We should stop treating people (mainly men) like infants, who cannot control themselves and hold them to a certain standard. [/quote] I agree. However, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. [quote]Oh, and these aren't novel observations. Pope Paul VI predicted an explosion in sexual infidelity, divorce and even possibly gay marriage as a result of the widespread acceptance of contraception because it destroys the natural unity of marriage, sex, love and children. The rhyme had it right: first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage. Today one can have marriage without children, love without marriage, sex without love or marriage or children, etc. It is pick and choose. Marriage now depends on love, and love is just a feeling. So, marriage is only as solid as a feeling. But after the feelings disappear and the marriage crumbles, the children remain, in broken homes and unloved.[/quote] That's why marriage should be based on something more solid than just love. IMO love is the worst reason to get married. [quote]That is the legacy of contraception. [/quote] Actually, that has nothing to do with contraception. It has more to do with economics. People no longer feel that they must stay in unhappy relationships to survive. [quote]To say that at every moment I am not having sex that results in pregnacy I am contracepting is ludicrous. So, is a pregnant woman or a woman giving birth contracepting?[/quote] It requires action -- NFP is action. NFP is contraceptive. Abstinance is not just 'not having sex' it's also the choice to not have sex. That choice is contraceptive. [quote]Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, not the main purpose.[/quote] Pleasure is one of the purposes of sex. Even to catholics, this is true. [quote]It is like food. Just as eating a fine meal and vomiting it up is wrong because one wants the pleasure without consequences, so is having contracepted sex. There is nothing wrong, and much right about having a tasty meal. There is also nothing wrong, and much right with having sex.[/quote] The thing that is wrong about vomiting up food (in the non-bulemic sense) is that it is harmful for the body. The problem with bulemia is that it is a mental disorder that has very little to do with food. The problem with your analogy is that food is essential to the body and sex without contraceptives is not. If one vomits up all the food zie eats, zie will die. If one has no sex, or only sex with condoms or NFP, zie will not die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 23 2005, 02:19 PM'] I would just like to start by saying that I respect the choice that you make concerning your ablility and responsibility to childrearing. It takes a very big person to be able to recongize one's limits and accept them. For this I commend you. I do not however agree with your means. [/quote] Well, thanks for that, I guess. [quote]I would just ask that you take a step back and view the consequences that contraceptives have had on our society. I mean really look at what removing the creation of life from the act of sex has done to this country and others... It has not allowed people to give more freely of themselves. All that it has done is enslave more people to the act of commiting sexual sins because now the consequences are not as noticible or visible. They are still there, but only compounded by condems and then swept underneath the rug comfortably so they may continue the way that they are headed without having to acknowledge the harm it has done...[/quote] The use of birth control hasn't had a noticable adverse effect on society. We need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. However, if you are referring to "sexual sins" as the harm to society then I don't think I can have this conversation with you. It's fine to feel that sin is harmful to the individual, but to say that it harms society is preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Burn, disregard your friend who told you marriage is about pleasure as well as procreation and unity. Pleasure is derived from the sexual act, but never is a purpose for the sexual act. This is lust, and as Catholics we are told to turn away from lustful desires. I am not saying that the pleasure derived from the sexual act is to be frowned upon, but it cannot be the purpose of the sexual act. Even if the lovers are inflamed with mpasisono, once they remove the procreative and unifying effects of sex then it becomes nothing but lust. The passion then becomes disordered and not loving, but selfish. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 I haven't followed this thread. Just posting this article for those interested. It's entitled "Contraception: Why Not?" by Janet Smith. [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4420"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4420[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now