I disagree with some Catholic teachings... How do I deal with this?

[Dameedna]

I will argue against the point that men bond through sex and women bond through communication.

While the latter is true, it is something that happens in addition to the bonding through sex and not to the exclusion of it. A study of marriage throughout history proves that the female instinct to bonding during sex is innate and is designed to protect oneself and one’s offspring. A woman is not just seeking a means to procreate when selecting a male partner for sex, but also attempting to secure a provider for herself and her children.
Back up your claim that men are primarily the ones who bond.

I never said the bonding was exclusive in terms of communicatio or sex, in fact I did indicate that bonding occured for the woman as well.

I will not claim an absolute certainty on this, I’ve been reading recently about hormones, their effect on the brain and human behaviour. What I’ve been studying indicates that female bonding and male bonding chemicals released in the brain, differ in quantity depending on the activity being performed.

Both bond during sex, but for males it is much more so than females, which is why a woman can go without sex for a few weeks and feel nothing is wrong in a relationship. For a male, if there is a serious dip in sexual relations, he will begin to wonder what is wrong and start to feel a bit anxious. For a woman, if there is a serious dip in communication SHE will wonder what is wrong.

Our “primary” bonding mechanism is different. This is not a bad thing, just something to be recognized. On a side note, upon realizing this, it made me re-think how females deal with male advances(even withing marriages that did not consumate until after the fact). He isn’t being a “horny” male, he wants to bond . A lot of women, don’t actually realize how important this is. That changes things considering how society seems to view men these day’s. Neanderthals who think about nothing but sex…how cruel we are in our view of ourselves and each other sometimes!!!

As to your comments about females having innate sexual desire for their mate, well okay sex is pretty fun and females do desire this for many reasons. But you are reading about an observation and drawing a conclusion that may not actually be accurate. Females having sex with their partner occurs for many reasons, but IF as you claim it is to secure a provider, then that isn’t a result of bonding chemicals. It is a recognition, that if they have sex, the male will stay with them.

THIS is why, women will have sex when they don’t want to. Not because THEY feel happy bonding chemicals, but because they innately recognize HE is more commited when she does have sex, so she will do so, to keep him around.

The old adage that women use sex, to find and keep a guy, is actually true. Crude, but true. I’ve seen it too many times. She will be physical JUST enough, to keep him around. She doesn’t do it, because she’s got overwhelming feelings of lust(even if those feelings are there to a degree). She does it, because she know’s its how she keeps him.

Why will the male stay with them? Because his primary bonding mechanism IS sex, not her primary mechanism.

Right observation, wrong conclusion imo.

You may also want to question, the male provider idea. Women historically and even in more primative cultures today provide more than males do. That, is a big ole myth. It’s the “protector” she required and companion and equal provider, not THE “provider”.

However, since we still have lots to learn, it’s all very interesting.

 

[Dameedna]

I would have thought that the evidence was well and truly settled. There are also studies out there that show that arranged marriages have a higher than normal success rate. I only mention this to demonstrate that commitment trumps all in relationships.
I think the church has it 100 percent correct to hold us to celibate relations until matrimony.
Gerry

No the evidence is not even close to being settled. The “last” statistic I read was that Athiest feminists and their partners rated their marriages the happiest out of all other possible combinations and had the lowest divorce rates in the US.

Of course for every study that supports one thing, you can find an opposing one.

One thing you must ask yourself, in terms of these statistics you’ve read, what is the marriage like? Are the individuals involved happy, healthy, are they able to support each other to become the humans they are capable of becoming(more important than immediate happiness to me)? Is some-one repressed, is some-one dominant, are they just in it because they don’t know any better and are so drained that rather than invigorate each other’s spirit they sit and watch TV all nigth?

The length of a marrige does not determine its success by any means. For me, the Jury is still out on this.

If you look at arranged marriages, you will see a huge amount of pressure, historically in making them work, regardless of the emotional spiritual needs of the individuals. You end up with unhappy communities, children and society depending on the restrictions including caste systems and the repression of female rights, to make arranged marriages work. The only way arranged marriages worked in the past, was to remove a womans right to choose. She HAD to marry, because she couldnt’ work. If she had the choice to work, there was no Job she could do, because she wasn’t allowed an education. So she accepted the marriage as a mode of survival that was considered best for her by her family. Again, the length of a marriage provided statistically does not indicate it’s success.

Having said that, I have seen quite a few arranged marriages actually work in today’s society, but they aren’t really “arranged”. With the upper classes of India where this is still prevalent, it’s more like a dating service.

The children, can explore their lives, education, hobbies, and the parents do all the work in understanding their children, then finding a good mate for them. It’s usually more a matter of “We found a good one and we are inviting her to dinner”. The parents do a LOT of work, research and are very protective of their children, so the potential mates selected, are usually extremely good choices.

I mean there’s on-line dating services today, where you can meet a nutter despite their questionaires used for compatability. Then there’s the old fashioned parental analysis and motivation to protect and nurture the child. Honestly, which do you think will be better?

Again, this really doesn’t mean much for our society since we do not do things this way. We allow free choice because it’s a foundation of our culture, free will.

It just seems to me that people find reasons for no habitation or no sex are just looking for what they want to. They are backed up by a belief no evidence or reason. If that’s the case, then okay, but is this going to fix the problems of broken homes?

 

[Dameedna]

even if one has a one percent belief in our faith. of that, one should be 100 percent sure on one’s path to salvation. at risk is our soul, for the eternity. that’s a tremendous responsability. one that i, for one, do not wish to make alone.

An individual that has 99% doubt about their faith, is hardly going to be 100% sure about their path to salvation.

Those that choose to follow a church that claims authority(like the FDLS), are putting their souls at risk because they prefer a belief that claims certainty rather than one that does not. Hence, faiths of certainty are never going to be correct.

It seems you are really saying if you are 1% certain, you must be 100% certain. Most people aren’t.

a person can do many things their way, but they would be wrong. the problem is that some individuals believe themselves smatter than the whole collective minds (HOLY SPIRIT) of the body of CRIST.

humility, at times, means to eat humble pie. i learned to love it. much luck.

Anytime a person makes a choice, they are doing something on their own. If you choose a particular belief system, then you are choosing that on your own, not through humility but because it’s what you have chosen to be correct.

Your choice in your religion, does not display humility, it display’s your certainty…and dare I suggest, arrogance.

 

[Sphinx]

Well of course I can also be quite happy in any situation in which I place very few standards upon my life or present situation. Variables do in fact matter. I find that this is usually the case in most lived of atheists. Just my perspective and of course not all atheists are representational of this perspective.

A good example are everal people I have met whom are quite content on welfare. These particular people set very few standards or goals for themselves to accomplish so they are usually quite content with their current position. Once again, not every person so do not become hot and bothered please.

Most atheists I have met are actually quite secure with their justification of a variety of abstract or subjetive stances on morality and ethics such as abortion. Of course they are secure in that for them glorious fact of the opposite choice and oppotunity given to them by birth.

The Church is historically the home of Christians and often times the beginning of resect and dignity in this world. It is an authority of morality and faith. It does in fact teact absolute morality which can be controversial but maybe that is more a statement of it’'s threat to subjective morality and sin than any pejorative reflection of the Church.

I would ask which advocate of abortion would voluntarily give up their life now? And why not kill redheads for their “deficiancy” or hell, most people’s ancetors were slaves let’s do it again, how about killing older folks because ther are a drag on our economy? See what I mean about what happend when the floodgate to subjectivity is opened? Just a question.

 

[redrosetea]

I think that the living together, if platonic is, OK and I am sure the church doesn’t object

I am saying this because ,when listening to Fr Groeschel talk about gays living together, he says, if they can remain chaste, and some can according to what he has said, there is no sin…If they can’t they shouldn’t , sex outside of marriage is a sin

I don’t know if it is considered a mortal sin to eat meat on Fri during Lent. I want to give something back to God during this time, so I abstain from meat

Mother Teresa has said do something beautiful for God…if you look at it in that way, doesn’t it make you long to give up meat for 6 Fridays a year? It’s not a hard thing to do

I would ask you this ,as a parent do you expect your children to be obedient to your rules, even if they don’t agree with them?

Holy Mother Church gives us disciplines to build us spiritually…to turn our thought to God, and to deny ourselves on occasion

BTW you do understand they money you save by not eating meat those few days can be donated to the poor, as an act of love?

 

[Avareyne]

I think that the living together, if platonic is, OK and I am sure the church doesn’t object

I am saying this because ,when listening to Fr Groeschel talk about gays living together, he says, if they can remain chaste, and some can according to what he has said, there is no sin…If they can’t they shouldn’t , sex outside of marriage is a sin

I was definitely under the impression that the church is overall against cohabitation due to the negative consequences it can have on a relationship in the long run. :yup: I myself have always been taught that living together before marriage is indeed living in sin for many reasons. For one, the age old sin of scandal.

“Couples who live together, even if they are not engaging in premarital sexual relations, give the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable.”
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=397

See also: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm#2390

I’d be interested in seeing any other information on this subject (cohabiting homosexuals) though as I cannot find much about it.

 

[redrosetea]

I don’t have a link to share, it is something I heard on one of Fr Groeschels programs…I can’t even give you a date. but there is a program called courage ,that is for gays and transgendered people, he is involved with

He said gays may still cohabit if the lived celibate lives…I don’t know if you could find anthing on the net about it

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.