But what if she just doesn't like children?

[DreadVandal]

Kendy:

Thank you for thinking of me. I am not sure that Ms. Schlafly and I always get along very well .

Kendy

Kendy,

What is your view on moral decision making? In other words, how should human beings go about deciding matters of morality?

 

[Kendy]

DreadVandal:

Kendy,

What is your view on moral decision making? In other words, how should human beings go about deciding matters of morality?

Well, that depends on the human being. If that human being is catholic, I think they should do it prayerfully and certainly seriously consider the church’s teaching. If a catholic found himself constantly at odds with the church’s teachings, I think she should evaluate their faith.

On the other hand, I have yet to meet a catholic who doesn’t have any problems with something the church teaches. I am not saying that one should dismiss the church. However, I don’t think we should shut our brains off either. Sometimes, I am just not satisfied with the church’s explantion. It doesn’t move me.

I love the Lord and I want to receive the Eucharist, but I am still not 100% sold about every detail. Sometimes, the church feels a little intrusive. I, at least, need some breathing room.

Kendy

 

[Youngcatholic]

. I will point out that when people say they don’t like children, quite often they mean they don’t like the things people who complain about their own children are going through, or they don’t like the behavior of undisciplined brats among their own friends and family. .

I agree. I would think this is the main reason why women may not want children- many kids today are bratty and have no manners. When they are your own you can shape them and the love is much deeper when the baby is yours and not someone elses.

 

[DreadVandal]

Kendy:

Well, that depends on the human being. If that human being is catholic, I think they should do it prayerfully and certainly seriously consider the church’s teaching. If a catholic found himself constantly at odds with the church’s teachings, I think she should evaluate their faith.

On the other hand, I have yet to meet a catholic who doesn’t have any problems with something the church teaches. I am not saying that one should dismiss the church. However, I don’t think we should shut our brains off either. Sometimes, I am just not satisfied with the church’s explantion. It doesn’t move me.

I love the Lord and I want to receive the Eucharist, but I am still not 100% sold about every detail. Sometimes, the church feels a little intrusive. I, at least, need some breathing room.

Kendy

So, irrespective of religion, do you think that there is a moral reasoning process that applies to everyone? If not, would you say that all morals are relative?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Little Mary:

Not like children? What?

Does this selfish young woman realize that she was once a “children”???

I don’t think we have enough information to judge whether or not this woman is selfish, or at least anymore selfish than many people who have children.

What are the reasons for not wanting children? I am not sure that we really understand all of the motivations.

 

[DreadVandal]

One might argue that all motives that lead to action not in conformity with the moral law are selfish motives, even if we don’t realize it subjectively. But that would be to start another thread, which I might do since its an interesting question.

I will just out that this question here is not one of motive: It doesn’t really matter what motive the person has. If a person intends to marry while positively excluding children, then the person is not contracting a valid marriage and is sinning. That is the Church’s teaching.

 

[Kendy]

DreadVandal:

So, irrespective of religion, do you think that there is a moral reasoning process that applies to everyone? If not, would you say that all morals are relative?

I don’t think morals are relative. But I think one’s faith informs your morals. However, if you don’t have faith, then you may not have complete access to moral truth. It doesn’t mean that it’s not truth, it just means you are not perceiving them.

Kendy

 

[DreadVandal]

Kendy:

I don’t think morals are relative. But I think one’s faith informs your morals. However, if you don’t have faith, then you may not have complete access to moral truth. It doesn’t mean that it’s not truth, it just means you are not perceiving them.

Kendy

That would be my view too, for the most part. I’m just trying to see where you are coming from. Sometimes, when debating these issues its helpful to know the way that people are going about reasoning. I do think that there are moral principles that anyone can know according to reason. This is debateable, I suppose, but if one holds that human actions should tend toward their natural ends, then it would seem that marriage should tend toward its natural end, which is procreation. In fact, there is no other societal or natural reason for marriage but procreation and raising of families. This is, incidentally, why gay marriage is also illegitimate. It has nothing to do with religion. gay sex is intrinsically unprocreative, so there is no reason to have an institution of marriage for gays. Naturally and societally, marriage is not about romantic love. Ethics and politics define rights and duties, not how we should feel about our arrangements.

 

[udral]

DreadVandal:

That would be my view too, for the most part. I’m just trying to see where you are coming from. Sometimes, when debating these issues its helpful to know the way that people are going about reasoning. I do think that there are moral principles that anyone can know according to reason. This is debateable, I suppose, but if one holds that human actions should tend toward their natural ends, then it would seem that marriage should tend toward its natural end, which is procreation. In fact, there is no other societal or natural reason for marriage but procreation and raising of families. This is, incidentally, why gay marriage is also illegitimate. It has nothing to do with religion. gay sex is intrinsically unprocreative, so there is no reason to have an institution of marriage for gays. Naturally and societally, marriage is not about romantic love. Ethics and politics define rights and duties, not how we should feel about our arrangements.

What do you mean by “natural”? There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom and many homosexual claim that they’ve been homosexual for as long as they know, and it’s something they have no control over.

Also in nature species that exhibit sexual difference (i.e. males are bigger and different from females) tend to be polygamous (i.e. there is an alpha male who subdues lesser males and has sexual access to the females in the group). Islam permits polygamy, and even some Old Testament patriarchs had several wives and concubines.

From a biological/natural perspective the very notion of marriage and monogomy may be unnatural.

Naturally in today’s society marriage and relationships ARE about romantic love. It’s why people have relationship, it’s why they spend time together, ultimately it is why they marry.

In the past when there was exceeding control over this, and still is in Muslim culture for example, a father would just hand his daughter over to a man and it would be a contract about procreation and domestic service, havign little to do with love.

We’ve come beyond that. Vatican II acknolwedged that the unitive purpose of marriage is just as important as the procreative one.

 

[DreadVandal]

udral:

What do you mean by “natural”? There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom and many homosexual claim that they’ve been homosexual for as long as they know, and it’s something they have no control over.

Also in nature species that exhibit sexual difference (i.e. males are bigger and different from females) tend to be polygamous (i.e. there is an alpha male who subdues lesser males and has sexual access to the females in the group). Islam permits polygamy, and even some Old Testament patriarchs had several wives and concubines.

Naturally in today’s society marriage and relationships ARE about romantic love. It’s why people have relationship, it’s why they spend time together, ultimately it is why they marry.

In the past when there was exceeding control over this, and still is in Muslim culture for example, a father would just hand his daughter over to a man and it would be a contract about procreation and domestic service, havign little to do with love.

We’ve come beyond that. Vatican II acknolwedged that the unitive purpose of marriage is just as important as the procreative one.

Vatican II does not say that the unitive purpose is just as important as the procreative. It sees it as an essential end, but procreation is the primary end.

Actually, I think a better case can be made for polygamy, rather than homosexuality. That being the case, homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is not parallel to human homosexual behavior. In the animal kingdom, it has to do with domination, much like prison sex so in a way I guess it is parallel.

Society determines rights and duties according to the functions and purposes of persons and institutions. Romantic love has no social purpose. It is highly subjective and unnecessary. Children, however, are the objective result of normal, natural sexual relations between male and female. That is why society must make laws governing sexual relationships and the offspring produced.

 

[Kendy]

DreadVandal:

That would be my view too, for the most part. I’m just trying to see where you are coming from. Sometimes, when debating these issues its helpful to know the way that people are going about reasoning. I do think that there are moral principles that anyone can know according to reason. This is debateable, I suppose, but if one holds that human actions should tend toward their natural ends, then it would seem that marriage should tend toward its natural end, which is procreation. In fact, there is no other societal or natural reason for marriage but procreation and raising of families. This is, incidentally, why gay marriage is also illegitimate. It has nothing to do with religion. gay sex is intrinsically unprocreative, so there is no reason to have an institution of marriage for gays. Naturally and societally, marriage is not about romantic love. Ethics and politics define rights and duties, not how we should feel about our arrangements.

I think there is another good reason for marriage the physical and emotional health of the spouses. Studies show that married people live longer, healthier, and happier lives.

Gay relationships produce the opposite benefits. Gay men have short lifespans (and this is not including AIDS victims). They are more likely to engage and alcohol and drug abuse and die of other diseases. In fact the very sexual act practiced by gay man (anal sex) causes a number of diseases.

Lesbians don’t seem to suffer from the same social pathologies. However, lesbians often let their sexual aspects of their relationships fade (since sex has many health benefits, they might otherwise be healthier). And lesbianism is more often bisexuality mixed with a dislike for men. Many lesbians move back and forth in their sexuality and are often plagued man-hating attitudes due to past experiences.

My point is that one can build a case for heterosexual marriage that doesn’t include children. Homosexual relations are simply not healthy.

And this brings me to another reason why I am not convinced that childless couples are sinning. I can’t think of one sin that doesn’t harm other people and the sinner. Homosexual relationships hurt homosexuals; it’s not just bad societies, it’s bad for the gay person. I would like to know how couples are harmed by not having children? Are there any studies on this?

Kendy

 

[Bella3502]

Kendy:

Lesbians don’t seem to suffer from the same social pathologies. However, lesbians often let their sexual aspects of their relationships fade (since sex has many health benefits, they might otherwise be healthier). And lesbianism is more often bisexuality mixed with a dislike for men. Many lesbians move back and forth in their sexuality and are often plagued man-hating attitudes due to past experiences.

Kendy

Wow!!! I never heard this before. Do you have studies/links/facts to support such a claim, or is this just your opinion based on personal observation?

 

[DreadVandal]

Kendy:

I think there is another good reason for marriage the physical and emotional health of the spouses. Studies show that married people live longer, healthier, and happier lives.

Gay relationships produce the opposite benefits. Gay men have short lifespans (and this is not including AIDS victims). They are more likely to engage and alcohol and drug abuse and die of other diseases. In fact the very sexual act practiced by gay man (anal sex) causes a number of diseases.

Lesbians don’t seem to suffer from the same social pathologies. However, lesbians often let their sexual aspects of their relationships fade (since sex has many health benefits, they might otherwise be healthier). And lesbianism is more often bisexuality mixed with a dislike for men. Many lesbians move back and forth in their sexuality and are often plagued man-hating attitudes due to past experiences.

My point is that one can build a case for heterosexual marriage that doesn’t include children. Homosexual relations are simply not healthy.

And this brings me to another reason why I am not convinced that childless couples are sinning. I can’t think of one sin that doesn’t harm other people and the sinner. Homosexual relationships hurt homosexuals; it’s not just bad societies, it’s bad for the gay person. I would like to know how couples are harmed by not having children? Are there any studies on this?

Kendy

Well, Europe is in a real bind now due to lack of sexual reproduction. They are losing population. We are moving in that direction. If we continue, then who will pay for social security? One could even argue that unless one is exempted from marriage for some special reason (becoming a priest or nun) then one has a moral obligation to humanity to marry and reproduce.

The view that procreation is the natural end of marriage comes from the objective fact that the natural purpose for sex is reproduction. If you eliminate the only objective reason for regulating sexual relations, then there is no reason why we should have the institution at all. Why is monogamy inherently superior to polygamy once we’ve removed procreation from the equation?

By the way, polygamist groups are now jumping on the gay rights bandwagon and arguing that if, legally, society allows homosexuals to marry, then society must allow polygamists to marry as well. After all, whose to say that a girl, girl, girl, boy relationship can’t be mutually fulfilling and unitive?

Personally, I think that once procreation is severed from marriage, there is no reason for marriage. I don’t see any reason for society to honor the institution at all. Why not just shack up? There is nothing really keeping the couple together anyway since there is no offspring to bind them together. In a way, if everyone just shacked up instead of getting married, society would be saved a lot of headaches and paperwork. A lot of lawyers would be out of business though.

 

[Kendy]

DreadVandal:

Society determines rights and duties according to the functions and purposes of persons and institutions. Romantic love has no social purpose. It is highly subjective and unnecessary.

You think romantic love is subjective and unnecessary. I think that’s very sad . And very much related to what I said earlier by “being disconnected to the lives of people.” Even in societies where they try really hard to suppress romantic love, it rears its ugly head. It’s a human instinct as powerful as the instinct to procreate. It’s also one of the great joys that God has given us .

Kendy

 

[DreadVandal]

Kendy:

You think romantic love is subjective and unnecessary. I think that’s very sad . And very much related to what I said earlier by “being disconnected to the lives of people.” Even in societies where they try really hard to suppress romantic love, it rears its ugly head. It’s a human instinct as powerful as the instinct to procreate. It’s also one of the great joys that God has given us .

Kendy

What objective evidence do you have that romantic love is as strong an instinct as procreation? How much of what we call romantic love is societally induced? I bet a lot of it. What natural purpose does it serve? If anything, romantic love, considered by itself does nothing but breed jealousy, vanity, disappoint, and suffering. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for romantic love to a point. It has its place in inspiring art and in getting young people together so they can procreate. But romantic love is superficial and transient. The only true love is Christian moral love that loves the person even when one doesn’t feel like loving the person.

 

[udral]

DreadVandal:

Vatican II does not say that the unitive purpose is just as important as the procreative. It sees it as an essential end, but procreation is the primary end.

To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

The good of the spouses themselves is listed first. Nowhere in the Catechism have I been able to find the notion that procreation is primary, but if it’s there I’m sure you will post it.

Actually, I think a better case can be made for polygamy, rather than homosexuality. That being the case, homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is not parallel to human homosexual behavior. In the animal kingdom, it has to do with domination, much like prison sex so in a way I guess it is parallel.

This is completely false. Do you know much about the bonobos (“pygmy chimps”)? For them sex is a social activity, they have homosexual sex, oral sex etc. as a social bonding type of thing. Bonobos are a very peaceful species and there is very little violence in their societies.

Society determines rights and duties according to the functions and purposes of persons and institutions. Romantic love has no social purpose. It is highly subjective and unnecessary.

But romantic love goes a long way to aid human happiness, mental health, and ultimately productivity. Happy people are more productive, they are less likely to engage in destructive behaviors. Children raised in homes where mom and dad love each other are better off.

What you say about romantic love being highly subjective and unnecessary almost sounds Orwellian.

It is a basic human need, what most human beings invest the most of time and effort in, the source of happiness and well being etc.

Children, however, are the objective result of normal, natural sexual relations between male and female. That is why society must make laws governing sexual relationships and the offspring produced.

Now you’re being really Orwellian! Children are also the result of rape, of polygamous relationships where an old man has 20 young wives (i.e. as is the case in fundamentalist Mormonism).

The idea that society comes before the individual is a very communist idea in my opinion. Here life is about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The very purpose of rules is the well being of individuals, and the idea is that individuals who are happy and well off will contribute to society and make it successful.

So far it as worked. Liberal Western societies have been the source of most of the world’s scientific and cultural advances, and we have the most humane living conditions.

 

[udral]

DreadVandal:

What objective evidence do you have that romantic love is as strong an instinct as procreation?

There is no biological instinct to “procreate.” There is an extremely powerful instinct and drive to have sex. And it makes perfect sense evolutionary that we would have this immensely powerful drive, because evolutionary success is leaving behind the most offspring and sex does lead to pregnancy.

But most of the time people get together because of romantic love, friendship, and sexual desire. Few people nowadays go “okay, I got to go procreate, let me find a partner.” Who knows that primitive man even connected sex with babies?

How much of what we call romantic love is societally induced?

Romantic love is a basic biological phenomenon. It is present in all societies, although in some it is extremely controlled and leads to the unhappiness of human beings.

It is so basic that no religion can really withstand it. When religion goes against romantic love people will rebell and renounce it.

 

[Kendy]

DreadVandal:

Well, Europe is in a real bind now due to lack of sexual reproduction. They are losing population. We are moving in that direction. If we continue, then who will pay for social security? One could even argue that unless one is exempted from marriage for some special reason (becoming a priest or nun) then one has a moral obligation to humanity to marry and reproduce.

Oh, Europe will be ok. There will be plenty of Arabs to replace them .

I think there are other problems in Europe that is causing population. Perhaps, materialism is one of them? There are clearly unjust reasons for choosing not to have children. However, I am not prepared to say every couple needs to have children. Frankly, I want my friend working to save lives in Africa. Her work is necessary and it’s worth her not raising children. I want her during that so much that I prefer her doing it with the love and support of a spouse.

The view that procreation is the natural end of marriage comes from the objective fact that the natural purpose for sex is reproduction. If you eliminate the only objective reason for regulating sexual relations, then there is no reason why we should have the institution at all. Why is monogamy inherently superior to polygamy once we’ve removed procreation from the equation?

DreadVandal:

By the way, polygamist groups are now jumping on the gay rights bandwagon and arguing that if, legally, society allows homosexuals to marry, then society must allow polygamists to marry as well. After all, whose to say that a girl, girl, girl, boy relationship can’t be mutually fulfilling and unitive?

Polygamist marriages are often repressive to women and in societies where women have choices, particularly, in societies when they have financial choices, they don’t. I am not all that worried about the spread of polygamist or poly amorous marriages; they are simply not appealing to most people, especially women. We are probably not going to be able to do a whole lot to stop a small minority people from living in unorthodox lifestyles.

DreadVandal:

Personally, I think that once procreation is severed from marriage, there is no reason for marriage. I don’t see any reason for society to honor the institution at all. Why not just shack up? There is nothing really keeping the couple together anyway since there is no offspring to bind them together. In a way, if everyone just shacked up instead of getting married, society would be saved a lot of headaches and paperwork. A lot of lawyers would be out of business though.

Procreation will never be severed from marriage because most people will choose to marry because they want to have families. However, one does not need an offspring to bind the union. Their devotion to each other and vows should be sufficient, if they take those seriously.

My problem is that every couple who wants to wait five years before having children to savor their time together as a couple gets condemned by the church. This seems unnecessarily extreme.

Kendy

 

[DreadVandal]

udral:

There is no biological instinct to “procreate.” There is an extremely powerful instinct and drive to have sex. And it makes perfect sense evolutionary that we would have this immensely powerful drive, because evolutionary success is leaving behind the most offspring and sex does lead to pregnancy.

But most of the time people get together because of romantic love, friendship, and sexual desire. Few people nowadays go “okay, I got to go procreate, let me find a partner.” Who knows that primitive man even connected sex with babies?

Romantic love is a basic biological phenomenon. It is present in all societies, although in some it is extremely controlled and leads to the unhappiness of human beings.

It is so basic that no religion can really withstand it. When religion goes against romantic love people will rebell and renounce it.

No matter what the conscious motives are, the biological reason for them is procreation. You have just said so. The beautiful thing about being human is that we do not have to be enslaved to our appetites and passions. We can choose to rationally order our activities toward the best ends. Religion doesn’t have to renounce romantic love. Religion just reminds people that romantic love is not the basis for moral decision making.

 

[Kendy]

DreadVandal:

What objective evidence do you have that romantic love is as strong an instinct as procreation? How much of what we call romantic love is societally induced? I bet a lot of it. What natural purpose does it serve? If anything, romantic love, considered by itself does nothing but breed jealousy, vanity, disappoint, and suffering. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for romantic love to a point. It has its place in inspiring art and in getting young people together so they can procreate. But romantic love is superficial and transient. The only true love is Christian moral love that loves the person even when one doesn’t feel like loving the person.

Sure, but it’s lot easier to love a person when you don’t feel like if you were once in love with that person.

It would be pretty hard to demonstrate that romantic love is not socially induced. But I grew up in a pretty sexually repressed society, and still found myself having overwhelming crushes as a teenage girl. I didn’t need anyone to show me how to do that; it was natural.

Also, romantic love exists in every society even those that try to suppress. And as far as I can tell it seems pretty timeless. There’s no era in human history in which people were unfamiliar with the concept or the powerful emotions. That seems to suggest that there’s something very natural about those feelings.

Again, used correctly, it is one of the greatest joys that God has given us.

Kendy