If they are going to have sex......

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 22 2005, 06:00 PM'] As for your comment about sex being an expression of your love to your spose and vice versa, welcome to the Catholic view of sex in marriage! The difference is that the primary function of sex is to procreate. It is also used as the marital act between a husband and wife as an expression of love. It is not something that is to be degraded by the use of condems and what not. I see a comparison between condoms and heroin for they both are harmful to a person's character.

Personal opinion here: When someone uses condems they want to seperate sex from the act of giving life. That is something that is very dangerous to do. It also inhibits full unity between spouses. A quote from the contraception thread:

Sex is a very appropriate expression of love to a spouse, we call it the marital act. When used wrongly, however, like all things it can be abused. I am claiming NOT that you are using your wife as a piece of meat. And I seriously apologize for others if you got that impression. You sound like a very sincere and honest person and I would never offend your marriage. I am just asking you to view it through our lense for a while aside from what the secular world says about your "rights" to express a sexual urge... [/quote]
How are condoms harmful to a person's character?

I snipped the quote, because I responded to that over in the other thread.

I can completely respect your religious position on sex (even if it is sometimes misstated by others) and yet disagree with it completely. And it isn't just the secular world with which you have to contend here. Many pagans (which is the term used for nature religions) see sex not only as a good thing on its own, but also as part of their worship. One of the fundamental aspects of pagan rituals (akin to your mass in context) is called "The Great Rite" and it is symbolic of sex.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:22 PM'] 2. If you are not mature/ready to accept the natural consequences of your action, then do not take that action. It's that simple. [/quote]
This is logically similar to saying that if you are not prepared to take steps to prevent a possible natural result of your actions you are not prepared to take that action. If you are not prepared to wear a helmet and pads you are not prepared to skateboard. If you are not prepared to use contraceptives you are not prepared to have sex.

[quote]3. If someone came to you and said that he was going to rape someone, and there is nothing you could do about it, would you tell them to use a condom? No, because rape is wrong and because you would then be an accessory to the rape. Similarly, if someone said that they were going to murder (a very bad man) would you give them advice so as to not get caught? Or if someone was going to commit suicide, would you tell them the best, least painful, way? [/quote]

No, no and yes, after first attempting to dissuade them and if they had a legitimate reason to do so. In the first two examples one person is harming another. This is in no way similar to sex. I consider the last example an issue of self-determination and I know that catholics do not. I'm not going to discuss it in this thread, though.

I would echo Melchisedec on the example of the woman who was raped. She asked her attacker to use a condom while still insisting that she did not want to have sex with him. He was convicted.

[quote]4. Intentionally sterile marriages are objectively inferior to fruitful ones. Love is inherently fruitful, overflowing, desirous of sharing itself with others. That is what having a child does. The opposite of love is not hate, but use. The opposite of treating someone like a person is treating him/her like an object. Contraception encourages that. Contracepted sex is conceptually far closer to mutual masturbation than it is to fruitful sex. This is because neither of you are completely giving yourself to the other. You are holding back a vital, central part of yourself. Contraception has had devistating effects on married life. Sex is now seen as merely a recreational sport, competing with other recreations. "Should we have sex or watch a movie?"  But sex is far more than mere recreation for Catholics. [/quote]

How arrogant. And, again I tell people here that the opposite of all emotions is apathy. The opposite of love is not use, it is apathy. Love is not an action it is an emotion. Contraception does not encourage anything. It simply prevents pregnancy as much as it's able.

[quote]5. The better solution is invariably positive behavioral change rather than a technical "quick fix". Is it better to diet and exercise to lose weight or to have a once a year liposuction?  Is it better to hope for a cure for cancer or to stop smoking two packs a day? Is it better to wear a helmet when running across freeways, or to avoid that behavior? Sex isn't inevitable. We have the capacity to make responsible choices. Yes, we all make mistakes, but to reclassify our mistakes as our virtues is the biggest mistake of all. Sexually transmitted disease rates have skyrocketed in the "safe-sex" era and out-of-wedlock births and divorce are higher than ever.[/quote]

The general solution to all the world's problems is behavioral change. The problem with saying this is that it doesn't really offer much in the way of applicability. Not all cancers are caused by smoking. Some are caused by genetics -- the only way to stop those are to not have children and thus not pass on those genes. Somehow, I don't think you'd be in support of that.

STI's have been prevalent throughout time, we just know more about them now because we have easy access to information. I would argue that divorce is more prevalent now because of economics. People are more likely to leave harmful marriages now because they actually can. And, finally, out-of-wedlock births are not inherently harmful. People who are unmarried can be in equally committed relationships without getting a piece of paper from the government.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:39 PM'] No true, pure love can exist without God. [/quote]
This is simply and absolutely untrue.

[argent_paladin]

"Love is an emotion, not an action."
I think that is the source of our disagreement. If love is an emotion, then it cannot be commanded. Then Jesus makes no sense when he gave us the two most important commandments : Love God and Love your neighbor. And what sense it it when he said "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend." That sounds like an action to me. And how can you love your enemies, if it is an emotion? Love is fundamentally an act of the will, not of emotion.

And you are changing the example. The original question was how you would advise someone who was going to do a particular action. The proper analogy for rape would be that you are advising someone who is planning a rape. It is a completely different question as to what you would advise the other person at the time. If that were the question, then I would advise the other person to try to persuade the first person to abstain from sex, since it takes two, the first would also have to abstain. But that is changing the question. I would never say to someone "Well, if you cannot be dissuaded from raping her, then put on a condom at least" because that would make you an accessory to a crime. Similarly saying "Well, if you cannot be dissuaded from having sex, then put on a condom at least" makes you an accessory to a sin. Don't change the analogies.

Your analogy with skateboarding is also flawed. Skateboarding with pads is still skateboarding. The fundamental character of it is unchanged. However, contracepted sex *fundamentally changes* the act into something completely different. Proceation is a natural, expected result of sex. It is not a disease that should be prevented. Contracepted sex is only a shell, a crude parody of true sex, the sacred act connecting heaven and earth.

For the Mass itself is a far more profound symbol of the sexual union. It is the marriage supper of the Lamb, the union of Christ, the bridegroom, with his Bride, the Church. And lest you think that the marriage is purely symbolic, we know that Christ gives a part of himself, his own flesh and blood, his own bodily fluid, to us and we make it a part of ourselves. Jesus transmits a part of his lifegiving self during the mass and we take it in and it gives life to us, producing a "new man". This Easter Vigil, every Church will have the Paschal Candle dipped into the bowl of holy water, three times, symbolizing the impregnating of the water by the Holy Spirit, as Mary was impregnated and as We, the Church have been impregnated with the Holy Spirit. Christopher West and Scott Hahn go into great detail about this. But the mass is truly a marriage service, every day when Christ renews his vows with his Bride.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 12:08 PM'] So your argument is that fornication didn't exist before media bombardment of immorality? Please. [/quote]
No. Let me put it a little clearer for you.

People say that abstinence only programs do not work. That is what I was replying to. Not that fornication is the direct result from our immodest, immoral, lustful, anthing-goes society. What I was saying is that to tell kids to abstain from sex, and then to do nothing to prevent the promotion of such a passion prioritized society is extremly stupid and hypocritical. When people say they are going to do it anyway and hand them a condem. That is what I was disagreeing with. Of course it does not make sense to tell teens to abstain and then let them view all there is out there on the T.V., internet, and other forms of media. We are warping our youth and then not accepting responsibilty for it. My point is that people are confusin the cause of why abstenence programs do not work. It is not because abstaining is impossible, it is because the world is constantly sending teens with already raging horomones mixed signals! One should not expect chastity to be hard because it is hard, but because this society tells them Yes and No in the very same breath. What do you expect them to do? Do not get cause and effect confused here.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:21 PM'] "Love is an emotion, not an action."
I think that is the source of our disagreement. If love is an emotion, then it cannot be commanded. Then Jesus makes no sense when he gave us the two most important commandments : Love God and Love your neighbor. And what sense it it when he said "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend." That sounds like an action to me. And how can you love your enemies, if it is an emotion? Love is fundamentally an act of the will, not of emotion. [/quote]
Love can manifest in actions, such as giving your life for a friend. However those actions are not love. This works in much the same way that sex is not love. Loving your enemies works in the same way that you are supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin. You should love all people, but you don't have to love their actions. Your enemies are people, thus you should love them. That isn't that difficult to comprehend, right?

[quote]And you are changing the example. The original question was how you would advise someone who was going to do a particular action. The proper analogy for rape would be that you are advising someone who is planning a rape. It is a completely different question as to what you would advise the other person at the time. If that were the question, then I would advise the other person to try to persuade the first person to abstain from sex, since it takes two, the first would also have to abstain.  But that is changing the question. I would never say to someone "Well, if you cannot be dissuaded from raping her, then put on a condom at least" because that would make you an accessory to a crime. Similarly saying "Well, if you cannot be dissuaded from having sex, then put on a condom at least" makes you an accessory to a sin. Don't change the analogies.[/quote]

I didn't change the analogies, I identified them as false.

[quote]Your analogy with skateboarding is also flawed. Skateboarding with pads is still skateboarding. The fundamental character of it is unchanged. However, contracepted sex *fundamentally changes* the act into something completely different. Proceation is a natural, expected result of sex. It is not a disease that should be prevented. Contracepted sex is only a shell, a crude parody of true sex, the sacred act connecting heaven and earth. [/quote]

And sex with contraceptives is still sex. By sex I mean penile-vaginal intercourse which is ultimately unchanged by contraceptives. Otherwise, having sex for pleasure (which is encouraged within marriage by the church), or during infertile periods, would not be sex. Remember, contraceptive just means preventing pregnancy, so NFP is contraceptive too.

[quote]For the Mass itself is a far more profound symbol of the sexual union. It is the marriage supper of the Lamb, the union of Christ, the bridegroom, with his Bride, the Church. And lest you think that the marriage is purely symbolic, we know that Christ gives a part of himself, his own flesh and blood, his own bodily fluid, to us and we make it a part of ourselves. Jesus transmits a part of his lifegiving self during the mass and we take it in and it gives life to us, producing a "new man". This Easter Vigil, every Church will have the Paschal Candle dipped into the bowl of holy water, three times, symbolizing the impregnating of the water by the Holy Spirit, as Mary was impregnated and as We, the Church have been impregnated with the Holy Spirit. Christopher West and Scott Hahn go into great detail about this. But the mass is truly a marriage service, every day when Christ renews his vows with his Bride.[/quote]

And? This has what bearing on what I said?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 23 2005, 02:04 PM'] No. Let me put it a little clearer for you.

People say that abstinence only programs do not work. That is what I was replying to. Not that fornication is the direct result from our immodest, immoral, lustful, anthing-goes society. What I was saying is that to tell kids to abstain from sex, and then to do nothing to prevent the promotion of such a passion prioritized society is extremly stupid and hypocritical. When people say they are going to do it anyway and hand them a condem. That is what I was disagreeing with. Of course it does not make sense to tell teens to abstain and then let them view all there is out there on the T.V., internet, and other forms of media. We are warping our youth and then not accepting responsibilty for it. My point is that people are confusin the cause of why abstenence programs do not work. It is not because abstaining is impossible, it is because the world is constantly sending teens with already raging horomones mixed signals! One should not expect chastity to be hard because it is hard, but because this society tells them Yes and No in the very same breath. What do you expect them to do? Do not get cause and effect confused here. [/quote]
Generally, those of us who feel that abstinance only education doesn't work have other reasons than those you've cited. Namely that it's unreasonable to ask people to deny their sexuality. Well, that and statistics show that when those with abstinance only education do start having sex they are more likely to contract STI's than those with comprehensive education. See, we don't expect everyone to abide by our moral code, but by their own. If a given teenager is catholic and chooses to abstain, great. However, if a given teenager is pagan and sees no reason to abstain, then that person will have knowledge of various contraceptives available.

[jasJis]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:01 PM'] ... Namely that it's unreasonable to ask people to deny their sexuality. ... See, we don't expect everyone to abide by our moral code, but by their own. ... [/quote]
I take offense at this. We aren't below animals. Even male sea lions don't try to have sex with any female available because it doesn't want the consequences. People who have sexual urges to have sex with children better control them, I don't care if it is their own sexual morality.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:01 PM'] Generally, those of us who feel that abstinance only education doesn't work have other reasons than those you've cited. Namely that it's unreasonable to ask people to deny their sexuality. Well, that and statistics show that when those with abstinance only education do start having sex they are more likely to contract STI's than those with comprehensive education. See, we don't expect everyone to abide by our moral code, but by their own. If a given teenager is catholic and chooses to abstain, great. However, if a given teenager is pagan and sees no reason to abstain, then that person will have knowledge of various contraceptives available. [/quote]
No one is asking them to deny their sexuality, but to be prudent with it. What do you say is a comprehensive education? I did not say that they should not be informed about the dangers, risks, and complications out there. I agree with you that they should be educated as to that degree, but not to be educated as to how to use a condom and what not. That is like handing someone a gun knowing the have the bullets and then wondering why someone got shot.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:12 PM'] I take offense at this. We aren't below animals. Even male sea lions don't try to have sex with any female available because it doesn't want the consequences. People who have sexual urges to have sex with children better control them, I don't care if it is their own sexual morality. [/quote]
Your example of sea lions is amusing, but vague and has no bearing here. And when speaking of people's sexuality, we don't include their mental illnesses.

Try again.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:31 PM'] No one is asking them to deny their sexuality, but to be prudent with it. What do you say is a comprehensive education? I did not say that they should not be informed about the dangers, risks, and complications out there. I agree with you that they should be educated as to that degree, but not to be educated as to how to use a condom and what not. That is like handing someone a gun knowing the have the bullets and then wondering why someone got shot. [/quote]
Dangers, risks, complications, benefits, pleasures -- comprehensive. And, yes, teaching them about birth control is included in that. Like I said, not everyone is catholic and not everyone should be taught from a catholic perspective.

Your analogy doesn't work, again. If the gun is the condom and the bullets are the genetalia (maybe sex drive?) then the shooting is having sex. Why would anyone compare sex to killing? Even still, the giving of the gun did not cause the shooting. Moreover, if no one gave the gun then the shooting could not happen which is a particularly strong difference between your analogy and sex. Sex can, and does, happen without condoms.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:41 PM'] Dangers, risks, complications, benefits, pleasures -- comprehensive.  And, yes, teaching them about birth control is included in that.  Like I said, not everyone is catholic and not everyone should be taught from a catholic perspective.

Your analogy doesn't work, again.  If the gun is the condom and the bullets are the genetalia (maybe sex drive?) then the shooting is having sex.  Why would anyone compare sex to killing?  Even still, the giving of the gun did not cause the shooting.  Moreover, if no one gave the gun then the shooting could not happen which is a particularly strong difference between your analogy and sex.  Sex can, and does, happen without condoms. [/quote]
All analogies limp. Mine was not to establish a direct connection between killing and sex, but sex with condems and killing. My point is that if you know someone has the drive and the urge, why would you give them the means, or make them more readily accesible to fulfill that urge? If you know someone has the bullets and the urge to shoot, why give them a gun (in the case of sex, an easier way to say "yes"). Condoms make it so much easier for kids to say they want to experiment, it makes it easier for them to want to go out and try things because the consequences are detached supposedly. I see a problem with that.

If you honestly think that to say to a 14 year old girl that if they think they want to experiment with sex that is ok and here is a condom is justified, I would simply say that my arguement is proven ipso facto. When that girl contracts an STD or becomes pregnant I want you to be the one to help rear that child or help counter that STD. You supported her choice, you can support her and the consequences...

As for your comment about not everyone having the same moral code, that is part of the problem. Our society is so pluralistic and afraid of not being pc that we have developed an "anything goes" mentality. I am sorry but not everything is ok simply because two people differ on that. I leave the proof for this to the arguements already going on about the morality of contraceptives in general.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Antonius]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:39 PM']No true, pure love can exist without God.[/quote]
Nothing can exist without God.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Mar 23 2005, 05:55 PM'] Nothing can exist without God. [/quote]
Only in your worldview.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 23 2005, 04:19 PM'] All analogies limp. Mine was not to establish a direct connection between killing and sex, but sex with condems and killing. My point is that if you know someone has the drive and the urge, why would you give them the means, or make them more readily accesible to fulfill that urge? If you know someone has the bullets and the urge to shoot, why give them a gun (in the case of sex, an easier way to say "yes"). Condoms make it so much easier for kids to say they want to experiment, it makes it easier for them to want to go out and try things because the consequences are detached supposedly. I see a problem with that. [/quote]
Most analogies limp, but this one falls flat. If a person has the urge to shoot someone, but no gun, that person cannot shoot someone. If someone has the urge to have sex, but no condom, that person can still have sex. Condoms don't make it any easier for teens to have sex -- they simply reduce the risk of pregnancy and STI's.

[quote]If you honestly think that to say to a 14 year old girl that if they think they want to experiment with sex that is ok and here is a condom is justified, I would simply say that my arguement is proven ipso facto. When that girl contracts an STD or becomes pregnant I want you to be the one to help rear that child or help counter that STD. You supported her choice, you can support her and the consequences...[/quote]

As someone who used to be a 14 year old girl having unprotected sex, I have particularly strong ideas about this notion. I'm going to guess here that you have never been that girl. I had no access to condoms, but still I had sex. Not because I was overpowered by my urges, but because I wanted to have sex. I could have said no (and did often, actually) but I made a conscious choice not to. If I had had condoms available I wouldn't have to look back and think 'beaver dam I was lucky'. Now this is just anecdotal, so it doesn't prove anything, but it does bear on the issue. I would support her choice, just as I would support her choice of treatment should she contract an STI or her choice in dealing with pregnancy.

[quote]As for your comment about not everyone having the same moral code, that is part of the problem. Our society is so pluralistic and afraid of not being pc that we have developed an "anything goes" mentality. I am sorry but not everything is ok simply because two people differ on that. I leave the proof for this to the arguements already going on about the morality of contraceptives in general.[/quote]

Why does everything come down to being "PC" with you all? How about, we live in a country where religious freedom is guaranteed and thus sexual education based on religious ideals shouldn't happen. If you want to teach your children about abstinance, go ahead. They won't be any worse off for knowing about contraceptives too. It's abdication of parental responsiblity that leads to programs like 'abstinance only' sex ed.