Why artificial birth contol is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

distracted

Guest
I’ve been celibate so long i kinda forget how Church teachings on sexuality… um… work or whatever… I’v never believed in birth control but… just wondering what to tell people who say there is nothing wrong with it… whether catholic or o/wise.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

i went to this site and got the following:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by **Onan **to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him…(Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found… explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore,*** if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20). ***

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. ***Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. ***Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. **Martin Luther **said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

wow… never thought Luther would say such things…

but anyhow… just wondering what to tell non-catholics (or catholics) who don’t believe artif brth conrol is wrong…
 
First of all, that’s a well researched post there, thank you.

Secondly, i’d say it depends on what kind of non-Catholics you’re talking to: if they’re non-Catholic Christians, appealing to the Bible might be the most useful way to go about it, or appealing to the fact that only in the 1930s did their churches change their minds about contraception (both of which lines of thought you seem to know well). If the people with whom you’re speaking have some other faith that does still teach “right” and “wrong”, you can point out the harms of contraception to marriages, maybe using stats that show divorce, child abuse, and abortion all go up in societies practicing contraception. Christopher West has some great things to say about the secular world’s reaction to the acceptance of contraception by the non-Catholic Christian churches, including Ghandi, the Washington Post, etc (Ghandi said something to the effect of contraception making it that much easier for men to use women).

If you’re talking, however, to secular humanists, the idea that anything is morally “wrong” might not be useful here, because you’ll be slapped in the face with relativism (“well it might be wrong for you, but not for me”, etc). So perhaps again, showing how contraception contributes to things that are harmful could be useful. For example: the Pill is carcinogenic and is contributing to the destruction of fish populations because the excess hormones are getting into bodies of water and causing male fish to lose their virility and exhibit female characteristics; condoms are not very effective, they have to be manufactured and thrown away, creating waste, pollution, etc, and they’re a biohazard that people just throw in the regular trash or leave all over the place (shudder shudder); things like Mirena and other IUDs can puncture the uterus and do damage to other internal organs. ETC. I like to use the current “green” fad: NFP is the most environmentally friendly form of birth spacing there is: all you need is a thermometer (digital, so no mercury), and a way to keep track of your data (recycled pen and paper?).

My husband’s angle is this: what kind of a guy asks his wife to sterilize herself, put herself at risk for cancer or internal organ damage, or otherwise mutilate her body for his sexual convenience?

Or the common sense angle, which is what i used to tell my teens when I was a youth minister: they’re called reproductive organs because they’re for reproducing. Sex makes babies. Just look at the failure rates of contraceptives: “nature” finds a way. 54% of abortions are in cases in which at least one type of contraceptive was used. If you’re not ready for babies, you’re not ready for sex (and if you’re not ready marriage, you’re not ready for sex or babies, but that’s another issue)

Also, why would you pop a pill, insert a device, or cover a body part in order to keep it from doing what it’s SUPPOSED to do? Sometimes people will say, “well, are you against heart transplants and other medical wonders?” No, but all other medical interventions are to help your body do what it’s supposed to do, not hinder it. You gotta think twice about pumping your body full of chemicals to avoid ovulating. You’re supposed to ovulate, you’re supposed to create that uterine lining every month. Four periods a year? Usually people go to the doctor to fix that, not cause it.

Something I like about our celibate male hierarchy is that they’re the only ones (well, I believe Greek Orthodox and other orthodox churches teach against contraception as well actually) who are standing up for women’s real rights by standing against contraception. The Catholic Church essentially demands that men respect the fertility of women and sets women free from having to hurt ourselves in order to meet men’s demands. Sex without shame, coercion, fear, drugs, or mechanical barriers? Sounds good to us and our two well-spaced children (did I mention NFP actually works when you need to space?). Sounds worth waiting until marriage for, and waiting within marriage for if you have to.

Sorry for the long post. I just really dig NFP.😃
 
You realize the major problem with Onin was not that he was spilling his seed but that he was subverting his duty to his dead brother, right?
 
distracted said:
I’ve been celibate so long i kinda forget how Church teachings on sexuality… um… work or whatever… I’v never believed in birth control but… just wondering what to tell people who say there is nothing wrong with it… whether catholic or o/wise.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

i went to this site and got the following:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by **Onan **to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him…(Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found… explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore,*** if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20). ***

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. ***Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. ***Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. **Martin Luther **said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

wow… never thought Luther would say such things…

but anyhow… just wondering what to tell non-catholics (or catholics) who don’t believe artif brth conrol is wrong…
Click to expand...
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
 
distracted said:
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by **Onan **to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him…(Gen. 38:8–10).
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the above verses, can someone please explain them to me? I don’t understand why Onan “knew the offspring would not be his”. I don’t get it, was she already pregnant with her widow’s child? I thought Onan was supposed to get her pregnant, “on behalf of his brother”, which again, I don’t understand. If Onan takes his brother’s wife, as his own, and gets her pregnant, are not the resulting offspring in fact Onan’s?

Also, didn’t Henry VIII petition for an anulment from Catherine of Aragorn, his first wife, on the grounds that God forbids one to marry his brother’s wife?

I don’t understand these contradictions. Can someone please explain them to me?
 
Rence said:
I don’t understand the above verses, can someone please explain them to me? I don’t understand why Onan “knew the offspring would not be his”. I don’t get it, was she already pregnant with her widow’s child? I thought Onan was supposed to get her pregnant, “on behalf of his brother”, which again, I don’t understand. If Onan takes his brother’s wife, as his own, and gets her pregnant, are not the resulting offspring in fact Onan’s?

Also, didn’t Henry VIII petition for an anulment from Catherine of Aragorn, his first wife, on the grounds that God forbids one to marry his brother’s wife?

I don’t understand these contradictions. Can someone please explain them to me?
Click to expand...
Insofar as inheritance is concerned the offspring would be, according to Mosaic law, Onan’s brother’s son and would bear said brother’s name. This is actually why the Law requires a man to take his brother’s widow, that the brother’s name not perish from the earth.
 
ThomasToo said:
You realize the major problem with Onin was not that he was spilling his seed but that he was subverting his duty to his dead brother, right?
Click to expand...
You’re wrong. There was already a punishment for refusing to fulfill that particular levirate law and it wasn’t the death penalty. He did fail to perform his duty to his brother but he did something else which required a harsher punishment.

Deuteronomy 25
When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. 6 The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. 7 If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ 8 Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ 9 4 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ 10 And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’
 
tijeras said:
First of all, that’s a well researched post there, thank you.

Secondly, i’d say it depends on what kind of non-Catholics you’re talking to: if they’re non-Catholic Christians, appealing to the Bible might be the most useful way to go about it, or appealing to the fact that only in the 1930s did their churches change their minds about contraception (both of which lines of thought you seem to know well). If the people with whom you’re speaking have some other faith that does still teach “right” and “wrong”, you can point out the harms of contraception to marriages, maybe using stats that show divorce, child abuse, and abortion all go up in societies practicing contraception. Christopher West has some great things to say about the secular world’s reaction to the acceptance of contraception by the non-Catholic Christian churches, including Ghandi, the Washington Post, etc (Ghandi said something to the effect of contraception making it that much easier for men to use women).

If you’re talking, however, to secular humanists, the idea that anything is morally “wrong” might not be useful here, because you’ll be slapped in the face with relativism (“well it might be wrong for you, but not for me”, etc). So perhaps again, showing how contraception contributes to things that are harmful could be useful. For example: ***the Pill is carcinogenic and is contributing to the destruction of fish populations because the excess hormones are getting into bodies of water and causing male fish to lose their virility and exhibit female characteristics; condoms are not very effective, they have to be manufactured and thrown away, creating waste, pollution, etc, and they’re a biohazard that people just throw in the regular trash or leave all over the place (shudder shudder); things like Mirena and other IUDs can puncture the uterus and do damage to other internal organs. ETC. I like to use the current “green” fad: NFP is the most environmentally friendly form of birth spacing there is: all you need is a thermometer ***(digital, so no mercury), and a way to keep track of your data (recycled pen and paper?).

My husband’s angle is this: what kind of a guy asks his wife to sterilize herself, put herself at risk for cancer or internal organ damage, or otherwise mutilate her body for his sexual convenience?

Or the common sense angle, which is what i used to tell my teens when I was a youth minister: they’re called reproductive organs because they’re for reproducing. Sex makes babies. Just look at the failure rates of contraceptives: “nature” finds a way. ***54% of abortions are in cases in which at least one type of contraceptive was used. ***If you’re not ready for babies, you’re not ready for sex (and if you’re not ready marriage, you’re not ready for sex or babies, but that’s another issue)

Also, why would you pop a pill, insert a device, or cover a body part in order to keep it from doing what it’s SUPPOSED to do? Sometimes people will say, ***“well, are you against heart transplants and other medical wonders?” No, but all other medical interventions are to help your body do what it’s supposed to do, not hinder it. You gotta think twice about pumping your body full of chemicals to avoid ovulating. ***You’re supposed to ovulate, you’re supposed to create that uterine lining every month. Four periods a year? Usually people go to the doctor to fix that, not cause it.

Something I like about our celibate male hierarchy is that they’re the only ones (well, I believe Greek Orthodox and other orthodox churches teach against contraception as well actually) who are standing up for women’s real rights by standing against contraception. The Catholic Church essentially demands that men respect the fertility of women and sets women free from having to hurt ourselves in order to meet men’s demands. Sex without shame, coercion, fear, drugs, or mechanical barriers? Sounds good to us and our two well-spaced children (did I mention NFP actually works when you need to space?). Sounds worth waiting until marriage for, and waiting within marriage for if you have to.

Sorry for the long post. I just really dig NFP.😃
Click to expand...
I’m not the least bit sorry for your long post - i didn’t know all those stats… ***very ***interesting

but what if a co. invented some natural birth control method that… wasn’t so harmful to someone’s health? what would you tell people about the moral wrong-ness of abc?
 
ThomasToo said:
You realize the major problem with Onin was not that he was spilling his seed but that he was subverting his duty to his dead brother, right?
Click to expand...
i was thinking disobedience to God…

but if God got rid of Onan because of that…

we’d all be history 😃
 
Rence said:
I don’t understand the above verses, can someone please explain them to me? I don’t understand why Onan “knew the offspring would not be his”. I don’t get it, was she already pregnant with her widow’s child? I thought Onan was supposed to get her pregnant, “on behalf of his brother”, which again, I don’t understand. If Onan takes his brother’s wife, as his own, and gets her pregnant, are not the resulting offspring in fact Onan’s?

Also, didn’t Henry VIII petition for an anulment from Catherine of Aragorn, his first wife, on the grounds that God forbids one to marry his brother’s wife?

I don’t understand these contradictions. Can someone please explain them to me?
Click to expand...
King Henry the 8th got a dispensation from the pope to marry Catherine… If that was rightfully done and we presume it was… since it was the pope… then the pope could hardly be expected to reverse himself and later grant him an anulment
 
Seatuck said:
You’re wrong. There was already a punishment for refusing to fulfill that particular levirate law and it wasn’t the death penalty. He did fail to perform his duty to his brother but he did something else which required a harsher punishment.

Deuteronomy 25
When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. 6 The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. 7 If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ 8 Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ 9 4 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ 10 And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’
Click to expand...
thats really bizarre… I wouldn’t want to marry someone i was not in love with… so this seems to be forcing someone to marry someone w/o love…

but i guess in those days men had more than one wife…

wel, i can see why pepole reject the Old T… :confused:
 
distracted said:
I’ve been celibate so long i kinda forget how Church teachings on sexuality… um… work or whatever… I’v never believed in birth control but… **just wondering what to tell people who say there is nothing wrong with it… whether catholic or o/wise. **

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

i went to this site and got the following:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by **Onan **to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him…(Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found… explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore,*** if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20). ***

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. ***Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. ***Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. **Martin Luther **said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

wow… never thought Luther would say such things…

but anyhow… just wondering what to tell non-catholics (or catholics) who don’t believe artif brth conrol is wrong…
Click to expand...
I am a bit perplexed by the OP. Is the topic of birth control one that is discussed in everyday conversations? For me, the topic of birth control has never been discussed in person with anyone other than my wife - not other family members, not with friends, not with colleagues at work, not with fellow parishioners, etc. For couples this is an intensely private conversation. Maybe I’m the odd one here, but is birth control really a topic that is discussed ‘openly’ with others?
 
distracted said:
King Henry the 8th got a dispensation from the pope to marry Catherine… If that was rightfully done and we presume it was… since it was the pope… then the pope could hardly be expected to reverse himself and later grant him an anulment
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that the pope gave King Henry VIII dispensation to marry Catherine. But why then was the King referring to verses in the Bible that said that one would be 'infertile" if they married their brother’s wife, and used this as justification for wanting an annulment later? The fact that the Pope gave dispensation to marry Catherine on these grounds means that there is a contradiction somewhere: one verse requires a man to take his brother’s widow and raise his children and other verse later forbids it. I don’t understand why.
 
artificial contraception is to fertility control as bulimia is to dieting …

NFP is to fertility control as moderate eating is to dieting
 
Christopher68 said:
I am a bit perplexed by the OP. Is the topic of birth control one that is discussed in everyday conversations? For me, the topic of birth control has never been discussed in person with anyone other than my wife - not other family members, not with friends, not with colleagues at work, not with fellow parishioners, etc. For couples this is an intensely private conversation. Maybe I’m the odd one here, but is birth control really a topic that is discussed ‘openly’ with others?
Click to expand...
In my circle of friends it is discussed openly among the girls. But not usually in mixed (men and women) groups. I can’t speak for anyone else because I don’t know what others’ experiences are.
 
distracted said:
thats really bizarre… I wouldn’t want to marry someone i was not in love with… so this seems to be forcing someone to marry someone w/o love…

but i guess in those days men had more than one wife…

wel, i can see why pepole reject the Old T… :confused:
Click to expand...
The whole idea of marrying someone you are “in love” with is relatively new in history. Marriages are contracted and have always been contracted for a variety of reasons. Not only this idea of romantic love which has been popularized through media etc. Love doesn’t have to come before the vows. It can legitimately come after.
 
Seatuck said:
The whole idea of marrying someone you are “in love” with is relatively new in history. Marriages are contracted and have always been contracted for a variety of reasons. Not only this idea of romantic love which has been popularized through media etc. Love doesn’t have to come before the vows. It can legitimately come after.
Click to expand...
If marrying the person you are ‘in love’ with is relatively new in history, then that is a change for the better. I couldn’t imagine it any other way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top