The immaculate misconception

[Rence]

Whilst I agree that statistics can certainly be ‘massaged’ in order to point to any desired conclusion, I think there is one thing left out of the analysis of the effectiveness of contraception. Humans are, by nature, fallible and often rather stupid. Success rates of various forms of contraception are very high, if these methods are used correctly. When you factor in the proportion of couples who either fail to use any given method correctly (such as forgetting to take the pill), along with those who think, “Oh, just this once, it won’t matter if we don’t use a condom,” then the overall success rates of contraception tend to plummet.

As a nurse, I can’t tell you how many people forget to take their pills, take other medications without considering their contraceptives (like certain antibiotics), who don’t know how to properly use a condom, etc. There is no doubt that ABCs have high percentages of effectiveness with proper use. But the reality is, they are not being used correctly as often as people would like.

There is also a certain logic to the idea of what the church calls a ‘contraceptive mentality’ - the idea that if people are using contraception (correctly or otherwise) they are more likely to seek an abortion if the contraceptive method fails.

I personally don’t think that’s true and have yet to see a study that supports it. In addition, I know many people whose ABCs who have failed and they welcomed the pregnancies. Don’t doubt, I’ve also seen them end with abortions. But what I do see is that there is a difference between being “open to life” and contracepting. There is a big difference.

I do think people can be ‘open to life’ and want to avoid pregnancy with contraception. I don’t think NFP is particularly healthy either to relationships. It’s great when it does work for folks, but that’s not always the case. My heart goes out to those on this forum who have described the destruction of their marriages and relationships over unplanned pregnancies due to NFP failure, or those facing a threat to their very wellbeing if they are to becoome pregnant. They are angry and confused and frustrated. I find that more often people are hurting over the lack of intimacy with their spouse. But I can’t blame the Church for the rigid rules. There are other reasons people can’t use ABCs, and even when they use them, those methods fail as well.

 

[StarFireKK]

EvilAtheist has answered it perfectly. No need to add anything.

You asked for examples of harm and I gave them to you. That is the world that grew out of your philosophy.

Sex has two purposes: to procreate and to give/receive pleasure. When you take the consequences (children) out of the equation you also take the largest motivating factor for communication between lovers. It also reduces sex to something you can share with someone you never want to see as a parent.

I could explain more but I doubt you’ll take me seriously. If you want to learn more read “Theology of the Body” yes it talks about the Catholic reasons but you’d be surprise how much of it applies to your “secular” arguments.

 

[Sair]

They should be but very often they are not wanted **for any reason **whatsoever because they just happen to be inconvenient **under any circumstances **- the evidence being the endless stream of abortions. They are the supreme misconceptions…

Undoubtedly there are people who don’t want children because of mere inconvenience. Some people just are that shallow. However, I would think such people would be in the minority. There is far more to be considered in the raising of a child than whether or not it will fit into your schedule. Long-term factors like having a support network, the financial security to adequately feed, clothe and educate the child, even having the emotional wherewithal to cope with being a parent - the commitment to taking complete responsibility for another person’s life - these are all things that weigh more heavily on most women than whether they’ll be able to fit back into their favourite LBD after pregnancy, or deal with 3am feeds.

 

[RobbyS]

Where did you get your statistics? Can I take a peek at the raw data? And your definition of love? And why would non-procreative love be a problem? Maybe you have a very “special” definition of love - that it must be procreative, otherwise it is not love. I have seen nonsense like this before.

This would be a joke, if it were not so sad. Guess what, even people of the same gender can and do love each other.

Love is normally taken as the desire for union between two persons. Not quite the same thing as a coupling that aims only for the sexual pleasure of the two. With humans, the affection felt between two persons is long-lasting. While even animals can feel affections toward their mates, they seem not to have any future goals in mind. But we are animals, too, and certainly, the survival of the species is a primary reason why we mate. Else why all the particulars of the machinery?

 

[RobbyS]

According to Orthodox Jewish teaching, the main purpose of marriage is not procreation, important and essential as this is. The main purpose is love and companionship. Although I don’t agree with everything Torah Judaism teaches, I do agree with this point. At the same time, Torah Judaism is opposed to gay sex (particularly male homosexuality) as well as masturbation, while Reform Judaism is not. Conservative Judaism is in the main opposed to the former but not the latter.

Marriage as opposed to sex has purposes other than procreation. One main purpose is to regulate sex and to guarantee that children are taken care of, in part so that they receive their inheritances, the “property” which sustains a society. Homosexuality doesn’t have the future in mind, likewise any couples who marry without intending to have children. Traditionally, such a union is not a marriage. Sex is a seal not because it shows an emotional attachment but be cause it is the first step in the process of procreation. Whether it is fruitful is besides the point. It shows good faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Marriage as opposed to sex has purposes other than procreation. One main purpose is to regulate sex and to guarantee that children are taken care of, in part so that they receive their inheritances, the “property” which sustains a society. Homosexuality doesn’t have the future in mind, likewise any couples who marry without intending to have children. Traditionally, such a union is not a marriage. Sex is a seal not because it shows an emotional attachment but be cause it is the first step in the process of procreation. Whether it is fruitful is besides the point. It shows good faith.

I agree with you, Robby. The love of only two persons for each other is no more than a mutual admiration society!

 

[tonyrey]

Undoubtedly there are people who don’t want children because of mere inconvenience. Some people just are that shallow. However, I would think such people would be in the minority. There is far more to be considered in the raising of a child than whether or not it will fit into your schedule. Long-term factors like having a support network, the financial security to adequately feed, clothe and educate the child, even having the emotional wherewithal to cope with being a parent - the commitment to taking complete responsibility for another person’s life - these are all things that weigh more heavily on most women than whether they’ll be able to fit back into their favourite LBD after pregnancy, or deal with 3am feeds.

Incontrovertible! Yet very often an abortion is the consequence of inconsideration.

 

[Alindawyl]

The basic scenario depicts people who honestly love each other, who wish to express that love, and during that act they do not “drag” anyone else into the situation. They simply are not ready to procreate at that moment, so they take active measures against it - either by positive contraception, or by bypassing the usual, intravaginal intercourse. If it so happens, that a conception occurs, they are willing to accept that, and do not wish to seek abortion. I hope this is clear enough…

I would take exception to the bolded bit. You are presupposing that this is the norm. However, we live in an environment which glorifies sex for the sake of physical pleasure alone and with a wave of the hand dismisses both of the obvious negative consequences of promiscuity - sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Unwanted pregnancies are often aborted (otherwise why would there be over a million of them performed in this country every year?), but don’t forget the cases of the child being given up for adoption. Also, don’t forget the couples who never marry where the child is raised by only one parent.

You can’t simply wave your hand and dismiss those scenarios. They are all too common in our society today. Ask the children given up for adoption if they’d rather have their biological parents. Ask the children raised by a single mother or single father if they’d rather have two parents. Think of the consequences to the children from this culture of rampant promiscuity and lack of commitment with which we have surrounded ourselves in our drive to elevate the individual to prominence and deny the existence of consequences. This isn’t a child growing up in a poor environment outside of anyone’s control, such as losing a parent due to an accident or something else along those lines. This is a child growing up in a poor environment as a direct consequence of the deliberate action of their parents - to engage in sex when they’re not wanting a child.

There is more at stake here than whether or not two people can engage in some momentary physical pleasure. There is a child to consider, another person who, as realities of abortion and adoption show us, will come into existence a whole heck of a lot more often than those who tout the free sex culture would have us believe.

Based on your response to the post where I mentioned the negative consequences of suicide to those who know the suicide, of “Your need does not impose an obligation on me”, I suppose you’d say that in those situations where a child is deprived of having a stable couple for parents, a child’s need does not pose an obligation on those who wish to engage in sex. After all, we can simply bury our heads in the sand and repeat “No consequences” over and over again until we convince ourselves that none exist.

 

[Warrenton]

Maybe this analogy will illuminate my point. Consider war. There have been plenty of unjust wars fought for terrible reasons which did a great deal of harm. But this does not mean that there are no just wars and that countries are always wrong to fight regardless of the circumstances.

I liked you other analogy better - the one about cars and accident related fatalities.

First, there is a question whether the decision to transition to such an inherently dangerous mode of transportation was fair. Assuming it was, the Catholic position with respect to sex is similar to the government’s position regarding traffic: it seeks to regulate, not forbid it.

The only forbidding going on was Spock’s claim that Catholics should be forbidden to intrude upon other peoples’ conscience.

The Church teaches that some sexual acts are immoral, but it takes no active role in forbidding people from doing them. That is why the Miller’s Tale could be written in a very Catholic age. Similarly, the government prohibits some driving conduct is forbidden, but does not actively attempt to prohibit people from engaging in them. It punishes speeding, it does not forbid people from buying Porsches. The “secular” logic rests on premises of justice and fairness and overall safety.

Since there are roughly the same number of men and women, each gets one mate. Catholics do not follow secular logic in claiming that the strong get whatever they can take, and the weak get what the strong don’t want.

By the way, in response to your later points, I do not think all sex outside marriage is good- far from it

Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, they say. Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Cheers!

 

[Spock]

Sex has two purposes: to procreate and to give/receive pleasure.

So far, correct.

When you take the consequences (children) out of the equation you also take the largest motivating factor for communication between lovers.

Sheer nonsense. Many people consciously choose not to have children and they have excellent relationships.

It also reduces sex to something you can share with someone you never want to see as a parent.

Sure, so what?

 

[Spock]

I would take exception to the bolded bit. You are presupposing that this is the norm.

No, not at all. I do not think that it is typical, in fact it may be extremely rare. But that is not the point. The church says that contraception is evil in each and every case. All I need to do is provide one exception.

Based on your response to the post where I mentioned the negative consequences of suicide to those who know the suicide, of “Your need does not impose an obligation on me”, I suppose you’d say that in those situations where a child is deprived of having a stable couple for parents, a child’s need does not pose an obligation on those who wish to engage in sex. After all, we can simply bury our heads in the sand and repeat “No consequences” over and over again until we convince ourselves that none exist.

That is not what I said. If the child is already there, then the parent is responsible for the upbrininging. But to prevent that event does not affect anyone. If the prevention fails, that is a whole different ballgame. I am only interested (in this thread) in the successful preventive method.

 

[Alindawyl]

No, not at all. I do not think that it is typical, in fact it may be extremely rare. But that is not the point. The church says that contraception is evil in each and every case. All I need to do is provide one exception.

If I play Russian Roulette with some friends and nobody gets killed… does that mean that negative consequences do not exist, or does it only mean that there were no negative consequences that time?

If I play Mumblety-peg with some friends and nobody gets cut by the knife… does that mean that negative consequences do not exist, or does it only mean that there were no negative consequences that time?

If I engage in casual sex without catching a sexually transmitted disease… does that mean that negative consequences do not exist, or does it only mean that there were no negative consequences that time?

If I engage in contraceptive sex with my spouse without a pregnancy resulting… does that mean that negative consequences do not… hold on a sec. Since when is a child a negative consequence? I wonder if viewing a child as a negative consequence could have any possible repercussions on how I raise them? I wonder if society at large holding a widespread belief that pregnancy is a negative consequence could have any repercussions?

The fact that each and every instance of contraceptive sex does not have an immediate and proximate negative effect does not necessarily mean that there are no negative consequences at all. Negative consequences, if they exist, would not be self-evident and would require effort to be recognized. And because of that, if someone wishes to dismiss any negative consequences, they have an easier time doing so than they would if the consequences were evident every time someone had contraceptive sex.

More than one person in this thread has mentioned some of the negative consequences of widespread use of contraception. But since those negative consequences are not clearly proximate to their cause, you will continue to dismiss them out of hand as long as you hold on to the notion that negative consequences for contraceptive sex do not exist.

That is not what I said. If the child is already there, then the parent is responsible for the upbrininging. But to prevent that event does not affect anyone. If the prevention fails, that is a whole different ballgame. I am only interested (in this thread) in the successful preventive method.

My apologies for not understanding your original post better. If you’d simply asked “Why does the Church teach that contraceptive sex is wrong?”, I would probably not have missed your point. I had thought you were asking a more general question, but rereading the OP with that in mind, I can see it clearly now.

The means of contraception, when used properly, are typically quite effective at preventing pregnancy. Effectiveness, however, does not automatically make a means moral. It definitely makes it effective, but morality is not based on the effectiveness of an act.

If there are unintended consequences of widespread contraception, it would be a shame to “fix” one “problem” only to find ourselves faced with a completely different problem (or problems) resulting directly from the supposed fix.

But if you are unwilling to accept the problems inherent in a widespread contraceptive mentality (the least of which being the results of holding the idea that pregnancy and hence children are a “negative consequence”), I doubt there’s anything anyone could say to convince you which hasn’t already been said. You don’t want to be convinced, so won’t be convinced. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[exnihilo]

People with better social support tend to live longer, so it makes sense that married men live longer than single men.

How do you know people with better social support live longer and how do you know single men do not have that social support?

And even if this is so could it be that people who do not marry, which would include homosexuals, pursue a life of selfishness which does not build strong ties to others and do things which are more risky to ones health? Homosexuality is also associated with a party lifestyle and a high incidence of drug use. One explanation for this is that the homosexual is more selfish and reckless. This could be a consequence of homosexuality or lead to it. But the simple fact of leading to a shorter life should give people reason to pause rather than explain it away.

And yes, sadly, gay men do not live as long as straight men. But this does not show that the sex is the cause. I think the real harm is caused by those who say that homosexuality is evil. Imagine how it would feel if most people you knew thought that you were evil. That’s something that drives many gay people to suicide. If society was accepting of homosexuality, many needless deaths would be avoided. When children are taught that homosexuality is evil, they will treat gay children as inferior and taunt them mercilessly. They will even taunt those perceived as gay. In middle school, I was perceived as gay, and taunted endlessly because of it. It drove me to depression. I know there are many who had it far worse, some of whom committed suicide. Alindawyl’s post shows the unimaginable tragedy of suicide, not just for the individual, but for everyone who loved them.

I’m sorry you were taunted. Children can be very cruel and especially so in the government schools where diversity is celebrated.

People do think I’m evil for thinking homosexuality is evil and a host of other beliefs I have. Homosexuality is mostly accepted these days. This argument simply does not hold water anymore. You’d receive more taunting for being a devout Christian in a government school than you would for being gay.

What is interesting is that so many things called sins by the Church lead to a shorter life expectancy. Instead of appreciating the wisdom the Church has it is rejected as being categorically wrong. Many folks dont even stop to wonder if maybe there is some truth there. Absent objective morals you’d think living longer would be a proper measure of what is good for the relativist. But he rejects this measure when it goes against licentiousness.

We need to agree on “morality” first, and that might be impossible. But I will offer mine: “Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a certain society in a certain time”. Some of it is “written” or codified, others are not. One does not have to agree with all of it.

If morality is what society determines then it is not really morality, as traditionally understood. That is what is wrong is not really wrong in a metaphysical sense. It is just against the custom. And if this is true then there is no argument that ‘morals’ should be loosened because there is no objective truth to appeal to. What metaphysical obligation would I have to treat others with justice or fairness? Any duty I have would be what I elected to have. If I chose to be unfair to my fellow man I’d be doing nothing wrong in any real sense.

Since the children are unable to consent, you are in a wholly different ballpark than the proposed arrangement in the OP. Are you interested in the real scenario that I am asking about?

What is consent and how can it have any objective value in a relativist system? That seems to me something arbitrary and invented by a culture. If our culture says the age of consent is 18 that decision is not reflective of any metaphysical truth. It could just as well be 8. The only reason I should care about sex with children is if there is true, metaphysical morality that goes beyond culture. If there is no such thing, as argued by moral relativists, then while I might dislike the practice I have no grounds for imposing that belief upon others. Nor would I have any duty to protect children.

The moral relativist quickly loses all ground on which to condemn anything as wrong. But they tightly cling to tradition, as it suits them. They cant fully embrace their belief because it would lead to the acceptance of every deviance imaginable.

 

[Spock]

If I engage in casual sex without catching a sexually transmitted disease… does that mean that negative consequences do not exist, or does it only mean that there were no negative consequences that time?

It means only that negative consequences MIGHT exist. Nothing more.

If I engage in contraceptive sex with my spouse without a pregnancy resulting… does that mean that negative consequences do not… hold on a sec. Since when is a child a negative consequence?

Why do you view the world in black and white? Sometimes a child is very much a negative outcome. Other times it is very positive. The woman might have a condition where a new pregnancy is very likely fatal for her, leaving the existing children in jeopardy.

The fact that each and every instance of contraceptive sex does not have an immediate and proximate negative effect does not necessarily mean that there are no negative consequences at all.

There MAY be negative consequences, that is all. Every time you get into your car, you MAY get into an accident. So what?

More than one person in this thread has mentioned some of the negative consequences of widespread use of contraception.

They mentioned what they THINK is a negative consequence. Big difference.

My apologies for not understanding your original post better. If you’d simply asked “Why does the Church teach that contraceptive sex is wrong?”, I would probably not have missed your point. I had thought you were asking a more general question, but rereading the OP with that in mind, I can see it clearly now.

The means of contraception, when used properly, are typically quite effective at preventing pregnancy. Effectiveness, however, does not automatically make a means moral. It definitely makes it effective, but morality is not based on the effectiveness of an act.

And if something is not moral, it does make it immoral either. Again, the simplification of everything to be black or white.

But if you are unwilling to accept the problems inherent in a widespread contraceptive mentality (the least of which being the results of holding the idea that pregnancy and hence children are a “negative consequence”), I doubt there’s anything anyone could say to convince you which hasn’t already been said. You don’t want to be convinced, so won’t be convinced. We will have to agree to disagree.

I am not here to be convinced or not. I am simply interested in the types of arguments that are brought up. Of course we can always declare a stalemate, and part on amicable terms.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think it is the rebellion of teenagers against overbearing parents that has largely led to the proliferation of teenage pregnancies. There seems to be an unwillingness to engage with sexuality as a driving force within the human psyche, particularly for adolescents; as a consequence, sex is treated as something aberrant, something to be ashamed of, even in secular culture (consider the application of the word ‘slut’ to women who are open about their sexuality). Consider the consequences of a world in which all parents knew and felt comfortable discussing the consequences of sexual behaviour with their children - do you really think teenage pregnancies, abortions and STIs would be so prevalent as they are in a culture that - despite the commercial saturation of sex - stigmatises sexual desire as a weakness or an inherent evil?

First, I apologize as I haven’t had time to read this entire thread.

I think what you have stated in your first sentence may be at least partially true (actually, the more I think about it the more I’m thinking it isn’t true at all), but that’s not all of it. Teens obviously have the physical requirements needed to procreate. But they usually aren’t mature enough to understand that all actions have consequences. There’s this feeling of “it won’t happen to me.” We’ve all gone through that stage, even if it doesn’t involve sexuality. How many teens really believe that they might be killed or kill others if they drink and drive? They don’t even really believe they will ever be 60 years old! They are immortal and safe from danger. And if a teen becomes pregnant, often her reaction is “I didn’t think it would happen to me.”

If it’s rebellion against parental control why are so many teens horrified at the prospect of telling their parents they are sexually active and/or pregnant? I think most believe their parents will kill them if they find out. Teens are rebellious but they also fear their parents and I believe most love them at the same time. Being rebellious is necessary (IMO) because they are growing up and will eventually leave home and need to learn how to make their own decisions. It’s the consequences they don’t understand. And to be rebellious and fearful and loving, all at the same time, is awfully confusing and frustrating to them.

How does that old joke go? The one where the teen thinks his father is so stupid but a few years later is amazed at how much his father has learned during that time?

 

[Wardog]

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10960

I thought this was an interesting article; The author’s thesis is the Magisterium is unwilling to change teachings as it may undermine current authority.
But I was interested in the discussions and arguments both pro and con about artificial birth control from within the hierarchy; I was unaware that there was any internal dissent that ABC is inherently evil.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Because it’s harmful to your kids.

I’ll be interested to hear from you in ten years, after you’ve had a few daughters.

Anyway, best wishes to you.

My best friend for so many years (unfortunately we lost touch after I moved out of state and we haven’t found each other yet, but I still love her so much) used to be promiscuous to the extreme (this was before I knew her). When she met the man she eventually married she had sexual relations with him five minutes after they met. She picked up men in bars, even when the Hillside Strangler was killing in the very area those bars were located. She was proud of her “achievements.” She had STDs often and eventually had an abortion.

After her marriage she had two daughters who, of course, eventually became teenagers. I asked her when she would allow them to date. She said “when they’re 30” and she wasn’t really kidding. She loved her daughters and wanted to protect them. What *she *did when she was a teenager and young adult was suddenly wrong. Very, very wrong.

She was horrified to think that her daughters might act in the way she had. You’re right - having daughters changes everything.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I participated in several threads dealing with the catholic concept of “proper sexuality”. The posters uniformly said that any sex 1) outside marriage and 2) inside marriage, but not “open” to procreation is “gravely disordered, sinful, etc…”. I understand that this is the official catholic position, and I do not wish to argue against it - if that position is based only on religious grounds. You believe what you believe. It is no skin off my nose. Just keep your opinion to yourself. An example would be: the religious person believes that those practices endanger the practitioner’s “immortal soul”. Even in that case they are not welcome to give that opinion unless specifically asked for it.

The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. They say that masturbation, sex outside marriage or sex inside marriage but not open to procreation (active contraception or extra-vaginal ejaculation) are harmful either to the person(s) involved or to some third parties. Of course what is “harmful” is debatable. Simply not liking what other people do is not “harm”. Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business.

If they can show that such practices harmfully affect some third parties, in that case they can legitimately express their concern, even when not asked for it. But I have never seen a valid argument along those lines. Some posters say that the general acceptance of masturbation, of homosexual sex, of contraception, of extravaginal ejaculation are “harmful” to society. How are they harmful? Is there any physical harm? In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation

1. will lead to blindness, or
2. causes to grow hair on the palms of your hands
3. leads to mental illness
4. permanently reduces libido, desire, and/or sexual performance
5. permanently reduces the quantity or quality of semen
   which are, of course shameless lies.

What “harm” can possibly come out of having two people express their love and commitment to each other in a proscribed manner by the church in the privacy of their home? Some people say that the acceptance of these practices will lead to the destruction of marriage, and it will lead to the destruction of society. They say that openly accepted gay sex will lead to adolescents to accept that lifestyle (we all know that being around tall people will also cause you to become tall ). Or that openly accepted promisculity will lead to less stable marriages… etc… what nonsense.

When I see these “concerns” I am wondering just what society did these posters come from? Is it possible that they were born in some ideal world, where children never touched their own genitals to learn that it is a rather pleasant experience, where adolescents never masturbated, where everyone waited until their wedding night for their first experience, where there was no divorce, no adultery? When every act of sex was performed with being “open” to procreation? Which planet is that?

Surely it cannot be Earth, where people practised some type of contraception since times immemorial, where the “oldest profession” was sex for money, where the prototypes of those beautiful Greek statues practiced the highest form of brotherly love - called gay sex these days. Where adultery was rampant in every age, though not always admitted, where males kept mistresses, and women had fun with the gardeners and with each other (island of Lesbos, anyone?).

And despite (or maybe because of) these activities society did not crumble into nothingness. Indeed it is more “open” these days, but also from time immemorial the conservatives were complaining and moaning about the deteriorating “morals” - in each and every generation; remember Cicero’s “O tempora, o mores?”. The members of the older generation are not able to practise sex any more, so they spend their energy complaining about what the younger ones can do. Sheer jealousy. And sheer misconception (maybe not so immaculate) about their own era - when people did the same things, but also practised the worst kind of “sin” of all, the hypocrisy of silence.

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you. Can you prove me wrong? Can you show that the natural practice of sex is somehow harmful to you? After all you are a memebr of the society, if it is harmful to you - personally, then maybe it is harmful to society as well. But if it is not harmful to you, you have no right or reason to complain and disparage they practice. It is simply none of your business.

How can anyone answer any of your questions or respond to any of your statements when you have made it clear that we are to keep our opinions to ourselves? Why is it acceptable to start a thread with an OP full of your opinions and then cut off all attempts at communication?

Is this a discussion? A debate? Or is it simply a means for you to post your opinion and then gag everyone who disagrees with you?

If you wish to discuss what you have written in the OP I will be happy to do so. But I will NOT be gagged. So, in the interests of charity, I will not participate in this thread any longer.

Edit: Thank you for the apology you have posted, concerning your OP. I’ll read the entire thread and then respond if I feel I can add anything to it. But I have to say that, having read your post on how you feel this thread has been derailed, I still wonder if you will attack me because I am not following the stringent parameters you are requiring for anyone who posts.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I participated in several threads dealing with the catholic concept of “proper sexuality”. The posters uniformly said that any sex 1) outside marriage and 2) inside marriage, but not “open” to procreation is “gravely disordered, sinful, etc…”. I understand that this is the official catholic position, and I do not wish to argue against it - if that position is based only on religious grounds. You believe what you believe. It is no skin off my nose. Just keep your opinion to yourself. An example would be: the religious person believes that those practices endanger the practitioner’s “immortal soul”. Even in that case they are not welcome to give that opinion unless specifically asked for it.

The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. They say that masturbation, sex outside marriage or sex inside marriage but not open to procreation (active contraception or extra-vaginal ejaculation) are harmful either to the person(s) involved or to some third parties. Of course what is “harmful” is debatable. Simply not liking what other people do is not “harm”. Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business.

If they can show that such practices harmfully affect some third parties, in that case they can legitimately express their concern, even when not asked for it. But I have never seen a valid argument along those lines. Some posters say that the general acceptance of masturbation, of homosexual sex, of contraception, of extravaginal ejaculation are “harmful” to society. How are they harmful? Is there any physical harm? In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation

1. will lead to blindness, or
2. causes to grow hair on the palms of your hands
3. leads to mental illness
4. permanently reduces libido, desire, and/or sexual performance
5. permanently reduces the quantity or quality of semen
   which are, of course shameless lies.

You’re forgetting something important Spock.
Catholicism (and Christianity in general) judges people not just on their sexual feelings but also their thoughts and emotions.

The Catholic Church disapproves of any sex act unless its within the context of marriage, open to life (e.g. no contraception), and the people involved have the right motivation (e.g. no lust).

This means that if a man or woman becomes lustful when having sex with their spouse, the Church considers the activitiy sinful. The Church only approves of a very very narrowly defined kind of sex.

Here’s a Catholic definition of Lust (source: newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) for a bit of context:
The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

Apparently you’re not supposed to crave or indulge when it comes to sex. If that’s true it appears that good Catholic sex is a non-pleasurable, joyless activity. The* problem *is that for the marital act to occur at all, base (e.g. instinctive) male arousal is (at the very least) required

 

[LittleSoldier]

It means only that negative consequences MIGHT exist. Nothing more.

Why do you view the world in black and white? Sometimes a child is very much a negative outcome. Other times it is very positive. The woman might have a condition where a new pregnancy is very likely fatal for her, leaving the existing children in jeopardy.

A child is ***never ***a negative outcome. You write of seeing the world in black and white. What I see here is that you are doing exactly that. You have no idea of the possible effects of an unplanned child. Even if a child dies before birth that child has had a life here on earth and her life may have resulted in great good. Perhaps seeing the mother in a state of pregnancy stopped another pregnant woman from having the abortion she was considering. You don’t know and neither do I but I don’t believe that God creates children as “negative outcomes.” And if a woman loses her child while attempts are being made to save her life, that is not a direct abortion; the death of the child is a tragic consequence of those attempts. The mother’s life is just as important as the life of her unborn child (although I believe that most women would gladly forfeit their own lives if doing so would let their unborn children live).

And if something is not moral, it does make it immoral either. Again, the simplification of everything to be black or white.

Quite true. It could be neutral.

I am not here to be convinced or not. I am simply interested in the types of arguments that are brought up. Of course we can always declare a stalemate, and part on amicable terms.

I’m assuming this means that your mind is closed to arguments that could actually change the minds of many people? I get this picture in my mind of a person with his hands over his ears saying “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” - *after *he has posted his own opinion.

There will never be a stalemate although it is possible that you and others can part on amicable terms.