I don’t think anyone here equates having sex with an HIV partner to be any-one’s idea of fun unless one is into playing a daily round or two of Russian Roulette for excitement…You mean being married to a Catholic is no fun? you never had fun in your relationship? you have to stay away from each other or you lust? NON sence. How borring! Why if i was without a partner i would seek one that was not catholic. No wonder the women here sound like men there is not much difference as they think the same and are all borred with each other, and most do not get married because who wants to be married to your brother? WOW
Why the slures? Why bring mental health into this? I did not say having sex with HIV was ok to do but i would not want to give my life up at a young age because the other had HIV. If you cannot answer something you find another way of being pious. Nancy
What God commands is the absolute law, and one is perfectly justified in doing it. Hence the comparison to the Old Testament fails.
Well you could try to get the marriage annuled or wait till your marriage ends due to the fatality of AIDS. But both of those choices only benefit the not infected partner. So it looks like the one who has AIDS should try to get used to abstinence, if he wants to life by the rules of the church that is.
Spoken like a true protestant.you cannot explain something God did not put in his book. I do not listen to much to man. I have found them to be wrong alot.
My Bible says ‘Do not contain’ as in it’s their choice. Not that they cannot contain themselves or do not have self control as you put it.
So you’d divorce your husband with aids because you wouldn’t want to ‘give up’ your life at such a young age. That would be your only option now wouldn’t it. Unless you’d rather risk your life and force your husband against his conscience to give you sex rather than have you ‘burn’ in passion since you sound weak with zero self control.
How about a ride on that helmet
WOW there are some people who still make mountains out of mole hills I only asked a simple question What if 2 people very young were married and One got a blood transfusion and got AIDS. i think you all did quite well answering it, even to go against a catholic and call her protestant, well i guess the door is opened.
Worse things than losing the ability to have intimacy at a young age can happen in a marriage. What would you do if your spouse had an accident and was unable to have relationships of any sort - a stroke, a gravely disfiguring accident or disease or brain damage where they were rendered completely unable to relate to you? What happened to “for better or worse”?How about a ride on that helmet
You can read hearts now? Protestants or at least most put more credibility into the Bible than the Church as it seems Nancy was doing. Maybe ‘lookaround’ and read all posts before you make a judgment call on me next time. And if you will say you have done this, then give your reasons of how you ‘know’ that I was hating at the moment I posted that.
You are forgetting the part where you laughed in a seemingly self righteous mocking sort of way at the answers people were giving you. You were snickering at the Church’s stance against condom use then giving some sort of illogical reason why it should be allowed when aids are involved when in reality that should have been a non argument because of the circumstances alone.
You behave like one by making up your own dogmas concerning the morality of condom use. You put the Bible only ahead of the teachings of the Church.
NO James I would do what you did, I would take care of him or her. that would be the right thing to do. but younger people would find it hard to do this. and my question was aderssing these issues of younger people Now you made me think of Sarah and Abraham, I think the maid girl got the rotton deal for she had to leave with her son out into the desert. funny how things were right then but not right now. it just makes me wonder.Worse things than losing the ability to have intimacy at a young age can happen in a marriage. What would you do if your spouse had an accident and was unable to have relationships of any sort - a stroke, a gravely disfiguring accident or disease or brain damage where they were rendered completely unable to relate to you? What happened to “for better or worse”?
Would you use the same argument about the necessity to satisfy youthful urges as a means to justify extra-marital relations or getting a divorce for your husband’s inability to hold up to his side of the spousal duty?
Turn it around - what if you had cervical cancer and it was too painful to accommodate your spouse even if you wanted to? Would you sanction him having extramarital affairs for the sake of “love”?
I have been in a relationship where my late spouse could not have conjugal relations for 2 years before she passed away and had no problem finding joy in taking care of her and keeping her comforatable for the time she had left.
What wimps we have all become when people can fight and die or get maimed for life defending their country or their faith but some these days could not imagine ever giving up intimacy at too early an age for the sake of their souls or “God and Church”…
James
Well you weren’t exactly denying it when I gave examples between yourself and your hubby if you have or had one of course.
Well good then - I hope you never get put to the test.
I make you think of Sarah and Abraham? LOL - I don’t ever recollect telling you how old I am. In fact one of my first questions (that you did not respond to) was “what is old”?
James, if you never knew how old you were, how old would you feel?
Hmm, this might be too personal a question for a public forum. With the right company I suppose I’d feel old enough to know I could easily meet the minimum requirements to fulfill the duties of spousal contributions necessary for having children while also being up to the motivational challenge from younger enthusiasm.
Yeah it certainly seems kind of harsh by current standards. But the truth is in the old days sibling rivalry between 1st and 2nd born was intense and Isaac was 2nd born and would not have been entitled to an inheritance if Abraham had adopted Haggai as a 2nd wife. It’s easy to predict that there would be violence and Sarah was wise in discerning the competitive and stubborn nature of Ishmael (“a wild *** of a man”). There would have been ceaseless conflict over inheritance rights between first born and first blood line. Just look at what we have today in Arabia - THAT whole middle-east conflict came directly out of this ancient sibling grudge.
Hmm, this might be too personal a question for a public forum. With the right company I suppose I’d feel old enough to know I could easily meet the minimum requirements to fulfill the duties of spousal contributions necessary for having children while also being up to the motivational challenge from younger enthusiasm.
Shame on you Nancy - Arn’t you married?
Yeah it certainly seems kind of harsh by current standards. But the truth is in the old days sibling rivalry between 1st and 2nd born was intense and Isaac was 2nd born and would not have been entitled to an inheritance if Abraham had adopted Haggai as a 2nd wife. It’s easy to predict that there would be violence and Sarah was wise in discerning the competitive and stubborn nature of Ishmael (“a wild *** of a man”). There would have been ceaseless conflict over inheritance rights between first born and first blood line. Just look at what we have today in Arabia - THAT whole middle-east conflict came directly out of this ancient sibling grudge. aahha! BECAUSE IT WASN’T THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
James
you are Loved Nancy
