Using a wrong metaphore?

[LongJohnSilver]

So I was debating the immorality of artificial contraception with a protestant friend, and to make my point I compared sexuality with eating, saying that just as the goal of eating is nourishing the body which should not be detached from eating itself by excessive eating, so the goal of sexuality is propagation which should not be detached from sexuality itself by having it solely for the feelings of pleasure.

He then told me that this metaphore proved his point instead of mine, arguing that since we can morally enjoy a snack which is not eaten for the nourishing of our body, so we can sometimes enjoy sexuality as pleasure between man and woman without the need for propagation.

I didn’t really know what to answer. Was I wrong to use this metaphore? Is it a bad one? What can I reply to him?

 

[Spirithound]

Sorry, bad metaphor.

Specifically because eating is necessary for continued health, while sexual intercourse is not a necessity.

 

[broconsul]

Respond that your metaphor is a bad one. I can’t think of a good metaphor for this issue.

Read this for some insight. It addresses scriptural basis for the teaching, which your friend might be receptive to.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[Bluegoat]

These kinds of illustrations are always limited. I think in this case he is wrong though - the snack does of course contribute to your nutrition, or hydration, even if that is not your primary reason to eat it. What would be a sin is something like a vomitorium, where you eat and then vomit so you can eat more without getting any nutritional value.

 

[ignatius777]

So I was debating the immorality of artificial contraception with a protestant friend, and to make my point I compared sexuality with eating, saying that just as the goal of eating is nourishing the body which should not be detached from eating itself by excessive eating, so the goal of sexuality is propagation which should not be detached from sexuality itself by having it solely for the feelings of pleasure.

He then told me that this metaphore proved his point instead of mine, arguing that since we can morally enjoy a snack which is not eaten for the nourishing of our body, so we can sometimes enjoy sexuality as pleasure between man and woman without the need for propagation.

I didn’t really know what to answer. Was I wrong to use this metaphore? Is it a bad one? What can I reply to him?

The analogy is not a bad one in and of itself but the point is lost though. The goal of marital sex is a renewal of the marriage covenant and the churchs stance is that every act of marital love should be open to the creation of life. Contraception seeks to block the transmission of life so it can not renew the marriage covenant. Throughout church history there have been debates about he goal or purpose of sex.For a time it was ONLY to procreate and NOT pleasure. The church no longer believes sex can not be enjoyed for pleasure as long as it is open to the transmison of life between married couples

 

[LongJohnSilver]

OK, thanks guys, I’ll have to come up with a better metaphore. Thanks again!

 

[Brighitte]

Actually I think the metaphor is fine,
You explain that you CAN eat a snack for pleasure, but it’s still nourishing the body. Throwing up the food afterward is more like contraception, because you get the pleasure but not its intended effect, which is nourishment.