From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Debora123]

Correct…that is the topic that should be being discussed.

That’s my point, you say this but don’t follow through because you are on here debating the issue.

 

[Debora123]

When taken to climax, how are non-intercourse sexual acts between heterosexuals any different from homosexual acts?

…They are done between a validly married heterosexual couple, and not between homosexuals.

Likewise, someone could use this same logic and say “intercourse between unmarried people is the same act as intercourse between unmarried people, therefore there is no difference and the act is immoral.”

Yet there IS a difference. One is between a married couple, the other is not.

Same answer as above.

 

[Debora123]

Correct…that is the topic that should be being discussed.

Furthermore, you only take half of one sentence out of my enitre post that consisted of a few sentences.

My entire message was this:

I left this thread because people were complaining that it was off topic. I came back because those same people are further leading the thread away from the original topic.

This thread was meant to be for married people to post their good experiences with NFP, yet has turned into another contraception debate, half way do to the very people who were complaining about it being off topic.

Just figured I’d throw that out there.

Talk about taking things outta context… good grief people.

 

[Bookcat]

Furthermore, you only take half of one sentence out of my enitre post that consisted of a few sentences.

My entire message was this:

Talk about taking things outta context… good grief people.

That is the part I wish to comment on.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s my point, you say this but don’t follow through because you are on here debating the issue.

If people keep posting things contrary to the Teachings of the Church…even if they are off topic…I will respond.

It only works if everyone gets back on topic.

The thread is way off the tracks…and should just be deleted.

 

[Good_Daughter]

…They are done between a validly married heterosexual couple, and not between homosexuals.

Likewise, someone could use this same logic and say “intercourse between unmarried people is the same act as intercourse between unmarried people, therefore there is no difference and the act is immoral.”

Yet there IS a difference. One is between a married couple, the other is not.

Same answer as above.

I asked specifically about the acts, not the people.

I’m not judging the morality of the acts, just comparing.

 

[Blacksword]

I never had any qualms about ‘non-intercourse sex’ either until one day something hit me: I wouldn’t even need to be a woman to perform this act for my husband. Likewise, he wouldn’t even need to be a man to perform this act for me. These acts remove the need for male/female compliment from sex. Isn’t that exactly what homosexual acts do? When taken to climax, how are non-intercourse sexual acts between heterosexuals any different from homosexual acts?

I’m not naive enough to think my comments will change your mind on this matter, and I have no idea if you even object to homosexual acts. I just wanted to give you a little food for thought.

Oh good grief! You know, you wouldn’t have to be married to someone to have sex with them either, how is married sex different from fornication really?! Oral sex between you and your spouse is different from homosexual sex because you are YOU, you both are opposite sex married people, obviously. With that kind of generalization no sexual behavior is acceptable, or anything else. There’s always some way in which two totally different things are similar if we move to extremes of generality. Why is a raven like a writing desk? They’re both “things”, tangible solid objects after all, so totally the same!

 

[Debora123]

That is the part I wish to comment on.

Yes, conveniently so. It’s called a strawmman. Disregarding the whole point and commenting on half of one sentence.

I would suggest you stop calling people out on taking things outta context if you’re going to do the same thing.

 

[Debora123]

I asked specifically about the acts, not the people.

I’m not judging the morality of the acts, just comparing.

That’s my point. You can’t compare the acts in isolation and use that to determine whether or not they are moral. There is a right time and place for certain acts.

 

[Blacksword]

If people keep posting things contrary to the Teachings of the Church…even if they are off topic…I will respond.

It only works if everyone gets back on topic.

The thread is way off the tracks…and should just be deleted.

I would ask that it not be, it’s lead to some fruitful discussion and real insights frankly. Why delete a thread with so much useful discourse?

 

[Debora123]

**Oh good grief! You know, you wouldn’t have to be married to someone to have sex with them either, how is married sex different from fornication really?! ** Oral sex between you and your spouse is different from homosexual sex because you are YOU, you both are opposite sex married people, obviously. With that kind of generalization no sexual behavior is acceptable, or anything else. There’s always some way in which two totally different things are similar if we move to extremes of generality. Why is a raven like a writing desk? They’re both “things”, tangible solid objects after all, so totally the same!

Haha, I love how this is exactly what I said.

 

[Blacksword]

I asked specifically about the acts, not the people.

I’m not judging the morality of the acts, just comparing.

Yes, asking about the acts at such a general level of comparison that it removes every substantive actual difference between the two, and then saying the two are the same. Not very sensible.

And on further thinking for only a few moments, I also realize the implicit argument your question makes assumes the consequent, and actually argues for a conclusion I don’t think you mean it to. Your argument implied in this question is that all sexual contact outside of intercourse is analogous to homosexual acts, and therefore immoral. This means though that ANY oral genital contact is immoral, even as foreplay, a position all on here say is not correct. For surely it’s not the question of whether a homosexual act is taken to completion that determines it’s immorality?

 

[Debora123]

If people keep posting things contrary to the Teachings of the Church…even if they are off topic…I will respond.

It only works if everyone gets back on topic.

The thread is way off the tracks…and should just be deleted.

I just realized I don’t think you actually ever even answered the question of the thread…

So why complain about it being off topic?

 

[Blacksword]

Haha, I love how this is exactly what I said.

Yeah, I saw your post after posting mine, great minds think alike!

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, conveniently so. It’s called a strawmman. Disregarding the whole point and commenting on half of one sentence.

I would suggest you stop calling people out on taking things outta context if you’re going to do the same thing.

Not at all the same.

I was just wanting to agree with that line…

and if someone wants to cut a part of my post to just comment on just that part…such is common practice. (I am not the only one who noted the problem before of posting very old posts …)

 

[Nate13]

I didn’t say pleasure was the reason for having sex, so yes, you misunderstand. I sai the pleasure you derive from it is part and parcel, that is, a critical factor in, the unity that sex creates. The pleasure drives the biological, hormonal, and resulting neurological bonding mechanisms and effects of sex. You know, facts about human sexuality and biology that we know now that the early fathers in no way had any access to.

And secondly, it’s interesting you readily agree with me that loveless baby-making sex is then morally the same level of grave sin that you say ABC is, since this is EXACTLY the kind of sex that many MANY people are experiencing in the drive to conceive a child, plenty of then Catholic and, I’m sure, unaware of this grave evil they are committing. I wonder why no papal pronouncements, homilies, or sweeping drives against loveless baby-making sex???

And it’s also interesting that in this example you assume it’s the MAN using the woman, objectifying her, and treating sex in this poor fashion. Often in this situation it’s the other way around you know…plenty of men have been made to feel like they’re nothing but sperm donors, and essentially unwanted once the bun is in the oven! That assumption speaks volumes.

I don’t believe the bonding aspect relies upon pleasure, otherwise you are condemning the women who are unable to achieve an orgasm because they can’t experience full pleasure and the “fullness” of the bond you are talking about. Thus I stand by my statement that the unitive aspect is not reliant on the fact that sex is pleasurable. It is merely the motivation for doing so and we use our intellects to determine if we are to act on them, and then our will to carry through. Now all of this happens in a much slicker form in practice and doesn’t feel so step by step but if we break it down this is what we should see.

Secondly I don’t assume its the men taking advantage of the woman. It could be either way. If I implied one way or the another I didn’t mean to. I believe this comment actually helps to prove my point because I believe the only thing that can separate the procreative aspect of sex and the true unitive aspect of sex is our intent assuming vaginal intercourse. If a man has sex with his wife and views her solely as a baby maker he is sinning because of his intent and separating the unitive and procreative aspect. The same would work the other way around for a woman. I’d also add that YOU are judging people to the extreme in this paragraph as you have accused us of doing and assuming their intent of these people who are struggling to conceive.

 

[Nate13]

That’s total nonsense, but your joking manner seems to indicate you know it, so we can leave off on that tangent.

Oh common now its a good joke. Jesus is married to the Church and the Church is referred to in the feminine as a “Her”. I believe it made complete sense and the joke worked rather nicely with lots of underlying Truth to it

 

[Nate13]

@Blacksword
By making the unitive aspect of sex at all reliant on the pleasure that is felt by both parties you in effect condemn some people to never have the same unitive bond that others are able to feel. Whether its the woman that can’t achieve orgasm or the guy who has problems you are cheapening the unitive aspect. Luckily this isn’t what the “unitive” purpose of sex is all about. It is very simply two people giving themselves entirely to each other at the same time while expecting nothing in return. Thus it doesn’t matter if the woman is not capable of achieving orgasm since both parties know they are giving themselves completely to the other and holding nothing in their power back from the other in a bond of complete trust. Thus the two become “one flesh”.

 

[Blacksword]

I don’t believe the bonding aspect relies upon pleasure, otherwise you are condemning the women who are unable to achieve an orgasm because they can’t experience full pleasure and the “fullness” of the bond you are talking about. Thus I stand by my statement that the unitive aspect is not reliant on the fact that sex is pleasurable. It is merely the motivation for doing so and we use our intellects to determine if we are to act on them, and then our will to carry through. Now all of this happens in a much slicker form in practice and doesn’t feel so step by step but if we break it down this is what we should see.

Secondly I don’t assume its the men taking advantage of the woman. It could be either way. If I implied one way or the another I didn’t mean to. I believe this comment actually helps to prove my point because I believe the only thing that can separate the procreative aspect of sex and the true unitive aspect of sex is our intent assuming vaginal intercourse. If a man has sex with his wife and views her solely as a baby maker he is sinning because of his intent and separating the unitive and procreative aspect. The same would work the other way around for a woman. I’d also add that YOU are judging people to the extreme in this paragraph as you have accused us of doing and assuming their intent of these people who are struggling to conceive.

Absurd, and lacking in understanding of biology and brain physiology. Look up dopamine and read on it, and other hormones released from sexual activity and how they act on the brain. Also, I never said the pleasure of sex had to be some hypothetical level of intensity or extreme or it’s no good. Whether a woman, or a man, doesn’t orgasm during sex, the pleasure from the activity still has a reaction biologically and causes bonds of closeness and unity from an emotional standpoint. You’re hacking at a straw man.

 

[Blacksword]

@Blacksword
By making the unitive aspect of sex at all reliant on the pleasure that is felt by both parties you in effect condemn some people to never have the same unitive bond that others are able to feel. Whether its the woman that can’t achieve orgasm or the guy who has problems you are cheapening the unitive aspect. Luckily this isn’t what the “unitive” purpose of sex is all about. It is very simply two people giving themselves entirely to each other at the same time while expecting nothing in return. Thus it doesn’t matter if the woman is not capable of achieving orgasm since both parties know they are giving themselves completely to the other and holding nothing in their power back from the other in a bond of complete trust. Thus the two become “one flesh”.

No I don’t. This argument does not follow at all. And I’m sorry, but it is a fact of biology that pleasure in sex facilitates emotional and unifying bonds. I’m not sure why you’re even fighting that point.