Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 21 22 23 24 25 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Not romantic so much as ideal. Although since this is my 11th wedding anniversary today, I have had practical experience of making it beome realised.
-
heterosexual couples who marry for companionship rather than for strictly reproductive purpose
That's the situation my husband and I are in. And my parents (Catholic) have mostly stopped bugging me about having kids. I do think they had always assumed I would grow out of not wanting kids, but it hasn't happened yet.
Funnily enough, we went looking for a Catholic priest to officiate at our wedding (both familes practising catholics). We had little luck. The first we asked couldn't do it as he was off hobnobbing at the Vatican. The second refused as we were not having the wedding in the church (the building, not the religion).
We ended up with an Anglican minister who was a friend of my father, and a fairly non-religious service. Suited us. And we got lots of platters and towels!
-
We ended up with an Anglican minister who was a friend of my father, and a fairly non-religious service.
Lovely guy, lovely service. Hot bridesmaids.
-
Hugh,
Governments Shouldn't Interfere in Personal Relationships
Excellent. Before you leave the playing field, would you mind levelling it?So, you think we should make sure everybody can get married before marriage is abolished?
-
Tess, I'm interested, how do you feel about heterosexual couples who marry for companionship rather than for strictly reproductive purpose?
I don't agree with it.
-
Actually, let me be more precise, if a couple marry and choose not to have children, I don't agree with that.
-
And my parents (Catholic) have mostly stopped bugging me about having kids.
Ah, but you can always count on Tess! Take it away, Tess:
if a couple marry and choose not to have children, I don't agree with that.
By which naturally you mean if a *Catholic* couple marry and choose not to have children...? So we are absolutely understood. I also assume that naturally you have ten children and don't have sex recreationally.
(I use ten because it's how many Mr. Knaus had using the only method of contraception approved by your cult.)
Marriage was created by God, it is a divine institution
All that we are asking is that it also be allowed to be fabulous.
-
While we're here, I don't get the reasoning behind the rhythm method. If you're not meant to use contraception at all, why pussyfoot around with The Timing of the Boning? Isn't that exactly the same, in the end, as putting on a condom? Because you're working against 'God's Grand Boot-Knocking Plan' by trying to artificially change the outcome whether there's latex on the wang or not. It's a weird distinction. If you're really dedicated to the cause, have at it and let the chips fall where they may, surely?
-
I don't get the reasoning behind the rhythm method
I'm much more into the swing method myself.
-
Daylight Rubbery?
and let the chips fall where they may
which chips are these?
those yummy Corpus Crispies ? (chased down with a good red - natch!)
or those set down in the Up the Ante-Room of Life's Casino (OMG - Sky City - a better life beckons!)
or are they more those of the sporting-life ?
Lofty ambitions oft languishing in a bit of rough?or have sperm gone bionic ? - swimming towards the Motherboard ... (Making primal googling sounds, awww... cute...)
yrs
Spud Murphy -
those yummy Corpus Crispies? (chased down with a good red - natch!)
Sounds like a nice alternative to the lo-fat (I-can't-believe-it's-really-Jesus) communion host.
-
Sounds like a nice alternative to the lo-fat (I-can't-believe-it's-really-Jesus) communion host.
I think those UK import Commie-union Hostess Twinkies may be the low-VAT (less-than-50%-Jesus) ones ...
WARNING: the chemystery in them may alter boys : ) -
I'm a Billings Ovulation Method teacher, BOM is a form of natural family planning. I have four children. Given my health problems it would not be prudent or safe for me to have more children. But really, I would quite like more :)
Here's a link to research about how reliable BOM is: [ [http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol27/no4/chinaEvaluation.html | linky-goodness] ]
As to why NFP is okay, but condoms or other forms of artificial contraception is not...
People aren't forced to have sex. They just have to be open to life (ie. not contracepting, or going to abort) when they do have sex. God, in his wisdom, created woman such that she can only fall pregnant for a very short time each menstrual cycle. The couple can choose to make love when they wish within that cycle. Provided that, if they are spacing their children, they must be doing so for non-selfish reasons.
The whole object of sex is mutual self-giving. Holding nothing back.
To quote from the Catholic Catechism (actually taken from Familiaris consortio):
_Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality._
[ [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM#-2EN | reference ] ]
-
Actually, let me be more precise, if a couple marry and choose not to have children, I don't agree with that.
It's a sin for a peasant not to make more peasants for their lord (or Lord, as the case may be).
-
It's a sin for a peasant not to make more peasants for their lord (or Lord, as the case may be).
And how do you explain Catholicism/Christianity prior to feudalism? How do you explain it prior to Constantine I when Christians were meeting in the catacombs and getting set on fire for Nero's amusement and garden lighting?
Do you accept people having any form of sincere belief in the Divine?
-
How do you explain it prior to Constantine I when Christians were meeting in the catacombs and getting set on fire for Nero's amusement and garden lighting?
Actually, that happened way less than it is advertised (and was of course avenged many thousandfold when the tables were turned), but is worth pointing out that to the extent that Christians were prosecuted, it was for sedition, not for their religious beliefs as such. It was the Christians (well, actually the Jews of the old Testament, I suppose) who invented religious persecution based on belief. Another one of those Judeo-Christian roots we are supposed to be proud of.
-
And how do you explain Catholicism/Christianity prior to feudalism?
Of course they were/are sincere. That's why power-mad people can use 'the faithful' for their own purposes later on. I love the nutty sects in late antiquity, though. Bring back the stylites!
I've read all that stuff about the rhythm method before. It still makes no sense to me. If you're timing the booty, you're not 'open to life'. You're crossing your fingers and hoping it doesn't happen. The fact that it doesn't work all the time is irrelevant: it's just a less efficient contraceptive.
-
Actually, that happened way less than it is advertised (and was of course avenged many thousandfold when the tables were turned), but is worth pointing out that to the extent that Christians were prosecuted, it was for sedition, not for their religious beliefs as such.
Now that's getting rather close to spoiling things by telling kids that there's no Santa Claus. When I were a young 'un, captured by the tykes, us kiddies were actively encouraged to pray for a martyr's death. While we were assured that it would hurt like hell (and the more painful the better - graphic descriptions of being boiled in oil or roasted upside-down were all the go in the catholic pedagogy) it was a guaranteed shoo-in to heaven.
Suffer the little children.
-
I've read all that stuff about the rhythm method before. It still makes no sense to me. If you're timing the booty, you're not 'open to life'. You're crossing your fingers and hoping it doesn't happen. The fact that it doesn't work all the time is irrelevant: it's just a less efficient contraceptive.
I can speak only to the Billings Ovulation Method, but modern NFP isn't the "rhythm" method, which was highly unreliable. BOM is highly reliable. I know, I've used it for years, and I am very, very fertile.
Contraception comes from the Latin contra + (con)ception. It means against conception. It means making the sexual act actively sterile. By using a contraceptive you are medicating a woman's fertility, or placing a physical barrier between the lovers.
By only making love at naturally infertile times the sexual act isn't being changed. As I said, there is no law that says couples must make love at all times.
-
but is worth pointing out that to the extent that Christians were prosecuted, it was for sedition, not for their religious beliefs as such.
Christians were persecuted for a variety of reasons. They were obvious scapegoats for one. And I would also question your separation of sedition and religious belief since had they been prepared to worship the Roman Emperor as divine, they would have been regarded as loyal and less likely to be persecuted. A religious AND political act was required of them.
Pliny the Younger tortured two women, and found "a debased superstition carried to great lengths" (Pliny the Younger: Letters, X.25 ff). Trajan's reply was that provided that "if any one denies he is a Christian, and makes it clear he is not, by offering prayer to our gods, then he is to be pardoned on his recantation, no matter how suspicious his past."
So there was a specific religious dimension because there was no idea of separation of religion and state.
-
By only making love at naturally infertile times the sexual act isn't being changed. As I said, there is no law that says couples must make love at all times.
But surely if you're making love at conveniently infertile times, you're doing it for the pleasure, and wasting valuable seed, so regardless of the clever escamotage devised by the Church to make that okay, and calm the flock's nerves somewhat, non Catholics still have occasion to find it amusing. Not as amusing as the whole 'letting celibate men in frocks tell you what you should do in the sack' thing, but close.
Now that's getting rather close to spoiling things by telling kids that there's no Santa Claus.
Oh, you don't want to get me started on Santa Claus.
-
So there was a specific religious dimension because there was no idea of separation of religion and state.
Course there was. Roman were allowed to believe in a multitude of different religions and quasi religions (such as orphism). Christians challenged the notion that the Emperor had an unassailable right to rule, which is different. That's just about the only thing I like about Christianity, actually, as I'm all about the sedition, but obviously they replaced the empire with something far, far worse, so my admiration ends there.
-
I still really don't get the contraception thing. Properly used most NFP/ferility awareness methods are very effective so, if you are restricting sex to times you know you are infertile then you really aren't open to creating a baby are you?
Personally I find it much harder to "give myself totally to the other" if I'm fretting about becoming unwantedly pregnant so I'd imagine that, for a lot of couples, removing contraception could very easily remove all the intimacy from a relationship.
-
Well, since I know exactly when I'm ovulating and where I am in my menstrual cycle I'm not fretting over getting pregnant.
And you all seem to think that Catholics can't space their family or choose the number of children they want - they can. In fact it would be sinful to have more children than you could care for.
The point is that the sexual act is not _changed_ to stop conception. The sexual act at a fertile time is exactly the same as a sexual act in an infertile time. The difference between the two is not a difference made by the couple, but by God when he created our bodies.
I'm likely explaining it badly, so go here and read if you care to understand:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
-
Actually that link explains it waaay better that I have been trying to do. So please look at it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.