[
Replying to benchwarmer in post #25]
Sigh all you want. You said:
What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act
A hysterectomy does all of the above
You don’t know Church teaching like you think you do. If a man had to get chemo because he had cancer (and chemo kills sperm), he could still have sex with his wife, because the chemo is necessary and he isn’t actively choosing to block the sexual act. The same goes for a woman who for medical reasons has to have her uterus taken out. The Church recognizes sometimes other things beyond our control can affect ones fertility and she condemns no one for it. Google it and learn something about the Church.
Forcing people to only have sex in a particular way is one of the controlling aspects of the RCC which I find ridiculous.
What do you mean in only one way?
Intercourse. I thought that was obvious. Any other act that doesn't deposit sperm into a place that allows pregnancy falls into your quote about thwarting the procreative nature.
I knew that is what you meant, but I was trying to be a little funny in the sense that someone would think it limiting to only be permitted to have sexual intercourse, as I can think of many ways (positions) this can be enjoyed and have never found it a difficulty/hardship in life. Also, again, you must be ill informed on Church teaching, because the Church permits things like foreplay(rubbing, kissing, sucking, etc) It only says the sexual act should be permitted to come to full completion in the way God designed in sexual intercourse.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmWho decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children?
First, I did say "consensual", but I guess I need to be more clear. I don't know where you live, but where I live we have an age of consent for sex. In other words, people who are not old enough to fully understand what's happening can't really give consent. Consent is not just saying "yes".
So, since children can't give informed consent, we as a society decide this with laws.
That was my point. Groups like the Man-Boy Love Association argue children can give consent. They also might argue what age defines someone as a child.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmThe Man-boy Love Association finds it wrong to force such a narrow one-sided view of sex. Brothers and sisters are not supposed to have sex. So, I guess you think that is wrong too? Most people frown upon a person being able to have sex with their dog. Maybe you think sex should only be certain ways as well???
The only way I care about is informed consent. Beyond that, I have no qualms.
In other words, I'm against rape.[/quote]
Ok, then, odd and a little creepy. You are cool with incest, polygamy, older men and younger males, adultery, and perhaps even some forms of beastiality (as it can be demonstrated animals can give consent). This is what happens when people do not recognize moral truth. But at least you are consistent in your erroneous thinking.
You have misinformation. The Church does not approve of NFP because there is still a remote possibility to conceive, rather because the couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then doing something to block/thwart/stop conception. NFP requires abstinence. It actually means NOT having sex. The couple isn’t saying we want the pleasure of having sex right now, but won’t accept the natural consequences of having sex right now.
I think it is you who is misinformed.
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
https://www.usccb.org/topics/natural-fa ... y-planning
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the general title for the scientific, natural, and moral methods of family planning that can help married couples either achieve or postpone pregnancy.
From a Canadian site that I am familiar with when I was a Catholic:
https://serena.ca/what-is-nfp/
What is Natural Family Planning?
Natural Family planning refers to the use of knowledge of the woman’s menstrual cycle to guide the couple’s decision to time intercourse according to their plan to achieve or postpone a pregnancy.
You don’t read very well. I said the Church approves NFP because again abstinence is required. And again NFP does not involve engaging in the sexual act and thwarting/blocking the consequences from THAT act. If the person doesn’t engage in sex during a time when their body would naturally not conceive, then that is natural, huh? That’s how God designed the body to work. No one is forbidding the natural consequences of their behavior.
.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmIt's like saying if someone wanted to lose weight, he doesn’t eat dessert. That is noble and moral and disciplined. What would be wrong would be for a person to want to lose weight, eat dessert and then vomit up because they don’t want the calories(consequences). That behavior is contrary to natural law. It’s not proper order. In fact, we would label it disordered.
Do you understand the difference?
Your analogy is flawed. It's more like saying if someone wants to lose weight, they eat dessert during certain times of the month when it passes right through them and only abstain when they know it will be absorbed. [/quote]
Ha, ha, ha . . . my analogy is spot on. Yours is ridiculous. If I want to lose weight, it would be pretty smart to skip an evening dessert M-F, but allow myself to have dessert on the weekend. In fact, that is healthy and not denying oneself, which tends to backfire anyway. What you don’t have a problem with is someone who eats dessert and then vomits it up as a way to control their weight.
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pm
If God only wanted people to achieve pleasure during 'correct' sexual relations, that would be the way it is.
Non believers always love to tweak God’s design or suggest they would have done things differently.
Yet many non believers seem to have better ideas that would cause far less grief. How is this possible? Perhaps because some of the ideas from religions are actually just ancient ideas of men which have since been found to be lacking in many areas.
Ha, ha, ha . . . yep, just like I said you think you know better. How about take G.K. Chesterton’s advice on some of these ancient ideas . . .
“Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmIf you properly understood the Church’s beautiful teaching regarding sex, love, marriage you would be on board. Everyone would be on board if properly understood. It is wise, reasonable, awesome, and incredible. You should look into and not make your decision based on mis information and unsupported anti-Catholic propaganda.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was a Catholic.[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss it. I just find it irrelevant because I was a cradle Catholic who went thru catechism, confirmed, weekly masse, etc. as well, but was never taught the truth of Church teaching until after college. One can be Catholic and be poorly catechized. I know that more than anyone. And again, your responses in this thread show me you do not know Church teaching or why the Church teaches what it does. In fact, you don’t necessarily reject Church teaching. You reject what you think the Church teaches. Big difference!