Here we go again, Christians imposing "their" laws on all of humanity. You had better pick up the sword Christian, because it won't happen naturally.
'Married' sex doesn't exist outside the kingdom of the homo sapiens. 'Vowed' sex may or may not occur, but it is always broken when it no longer serves useful in the animal kindom...much like our idea of divorce.
Well, as a male and a heterosexual person, I cannot speak on that subject, but if you ask the homosexuals, they can probably advise you on that issue.
OMG...the evil roving pestilence that attacks from the shadows...PREGNANCY?! THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try reading the Bible. Seriously, if you think Jesus was never asked about sexuality then you are daft.
That is why I used the term covenant - are you done spinning things in a desperate attempt to not be wrong. It is a covenant made BEFORE God - not in God's name. Silly strawmen and ignorance - but of course, our self appointed resident prophet is apparently unaware of both the warnings about sexuality and the covenants made in the Bible - one that he has read many times At least some people are at least trying to practice their religion, rather than just claiming it and then using ignorance to try and use legitimate faith as a weapon against others.
I always find unprotected sex the best. I don't like condoms and the pill just does not do a thing for me or the woman is taking it (by woman I mean my wife). There is something about orgasms when they can produce offspring that is just so much better. Unfortunately my wife's uterus grew to her stomach muscles after a C-Section and her uterus had to be removed. Nothing else she has no hormonal issues, still has her eggs and sex drive but it is just not the same. I am sending out troops on suicide missions. It is better unprotected with a fertile woman and women like sex unprotected with a strong fertile male that is going to take care of the brood.
Gosh, Felicity, no offense, but maybe it's time you and the Pope got a reality check. Most women will agree that getting pregnant and having a child is a wonderful thing. Actually I just had a woman crying her eyes out in my arms because she had a miscarriage. But very few women, not even married Catholic ones, will want to conceive every time they have sexual intercourse with their partner. It's hard enough to look after, house, feed, clothe and send to College two or three children. Having more would probably turn even those of us who have a reasonable income into welfare cases.
The ancient world provided for many ways for a man to satisfy his excess urges. Multiple wives, concubines, prostitutes all provided for a man to get his jollies without committing what they would have considered adultery. Women had no such outlets, of course, because they were essentially chattel at the time. Another thing that colors the New Testament attitudes, like Christ and Paul both suggesting you should not get married, ideally, and remain celibate, is both were apocalyptics, thinking that the end of the world was imminent and you wouldn't have to maintain the discipline for a lifetime.
How about instead of being a slut or man whore people have sex with only those that they care for? Best of both worlds.
Part of it is accountability. In the days when religion got started it took two to take care of a child and marriage was instituted so that the offspring would be taken care of. In those days numbers were important because of the struggle for land. Our modern society has done a great dis-service to human kind.
Society has done a diservice in quite a few ways. The "tag and run" view of sex is one of them. That is something I am just not able to do... there is a price to be paid for that. However, it seems to have a pay off.
That's probably a minimum moral standard we both could agree on. Looking back on my life I must say that the times that I did not adhere to it constituted what I would define as "sinful": they were hurtful to my and/or the other persons emotional well-being. The orgasms I may have gotten out of such encounters certainly weren't worth it. I guess I had to learn this the hard way.
The reality check is your problem and not the problem of Pope Benedict and Felicity: Family planning is completly normal under catholcis - but in a natural ways and not in artificial ways. To kill a human being while growing in the own mother is for example a completelly impossible way of family planing as it is also an impossible way to give parents the right to shoot their children down if they make mistakes in mathematics in school. I don't know in the moment why a condom has some moral problems - but I'm not even interested to find this out, because someone who makes family planning with condoms is an idiot. Condoms are not reliable. But there are also other methods what are not in conflict with moral. Again: Conception control is completly normal within the catholic church. In don't know why so many people don't have any idea about the catholic church and they are always speaking onmly nonsense about her. The keyword is "responsibility": If a behavior is responsible it's not a problem. It makes no sense to let 10 children die of hunger while 2 children are able to grow up without problems. The problems with family planning are by the way problems of secularism and industrialization and not problems of the catholic church or the christian religion. In the middle ages for example the most families in the middle of Europe had 1-3 children - without condoms and abortions. http://youtu.be/bN7lZy2fvPo
The irony that I enjoy is that there are people who claim to be Christians, claim to "know" Jesus, yet give me the "hit it and run" line when it comes to the wild and whacky world of women. The irony is that they claim to subscribe to a moral code that prohibits such behavior, yet advocate and practice it. I do not subscribe to that sole moral code, and I do not practice such behavior. My having standards comes at a price, however it is worth it. Another irony, I do not subscribe to Christianity as a sole source for ethics and purpose, yet those who do practice what I see as right and moral happen to be Christians. Which I suppose is another issue that I have discovered, my gf and I come from different places as a moral and ethical foundation, however most of what we see as right and wrong are manifested in the same way. I think that she is having a more difficult time accepting that possibility than I do.
Is this really what you want? Sex without the danger of pregnancy? I think there is a fundamental disconnect that many people, espcially the younger of us, seem to miss. Sex is not the point of a relationship, it is a part of a larger relationship. Stop and think about those people that are most important to you. Your best freind, what makes him or her so important and so valuable? Do you need to have sex with your best friend to value him? What about parents and siblings? Is sex a requirement for those relationships? Mentors? Teachers? Business associates? And take a look at the alternate. Do you really just want to be having sex with someone? Someone who has no real affection for you, or you them? Someone you cannot talk to and comunicate with? Someone who wants to have sex with you but does not want to commit to you in affection in honor? Someone who will walk out when he or she is bored and someone else will spread their legs for them? Or do you want someone who cares about you? Who respects you? Who values you first and foremost as human being, who cherishes your character, your honor, your intellect, your heart, and who makes love to you out of genuine affection and love? Well, the thing about free agency is that we are free to choose any path we wish. But, the science is as clear about the promiscuous path and its ultimate emptiness as is the Word and Warning of God, and yet you are free to choose. The question is why would you choose self indulgence and a lack of love for the paltry sensation of sex? Is it a lack of faith that you will find someone who genuinely cares about you? And is sex a real solution to that worry?
Reality check for you, perhaps: A woman is only fertile a few days a month. Also--a woman is not fertile when she is already pregnant (9.5 months) or when exclusively breast feeding (reasonably infertile for 2 years). Woman CAN'T conceive "every time they have sexual intercourse." I have 6 kids--I did all that AND work full time as an educator. I am comfortably middle class. You can do what you put your mind to.
Well, first let me get one thing clear: I'm talking about contraception here. Not abortion. Two entirely different subjects. And as a woman who has enjoyed the benefits of basic information on contraception let me tell you: Just like you I find it hard to understand why using a condom should be immoral and just like you I don't consider condoms to be the safest choice when it comes to contraception. But I'd trust a condom, the pill, a contraceptive coil over Knaus-Ogino any time. The latter may be a great method to find out when you ought to have intercourse if you actually want to conceive, its reliability as a method of contraception (finding out when to have intercourse if you don't want to conceive) is extremely low. Why it is that the Catholic Church declared Knaus-Ogino/similar methods to be the only methods of contaception that are acceptable in its eyes (a part of the humanae vitae by the way that at the time contradicted the suggestions of most of the Bishops involved in the commission who saw no problems with other forms of contraception) is beyond me. It seems rather illogical, because basically the intended effect ought to be the same: sperm is sent on a hopefully futile journey. The only reason the Popes prefered it is probably because it involves periods of abstinence and because it actually is not safe. If you and your partner want to rely on this method for religious reasons, that's fine with me. Be aware though that it's called "Roman Roulette" for a reason. Coming from a rural mostly Catholic part of Germany, where women inevitably met at the one gynacologist and in one of the two pharmacies in town, I know that - while being rather pious - most of the Catholic women there don't want to take that risk and don't obey the Pope in matters of contraception. And apparently this disobedience is not just a local phenomenon: "Today, polls show that Catholics, at least in the West, dissent from the teaching on birth control, often by majorities exceeding 80 percent." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/opinion/28iht-edallen.1.14831868.html As indicated above any responsible doctor will tell you that calendar and temperature based contraception methods are not reliable and that breast-feeding while having an impact on your fertility does not necessarily prevent you from getting pregnant. I tip my hat to you and if we lived in the same country I'd be happy for my tax-money to go into your child-benefits. (No irony here whatshowever - I love children and think they ought to be supported!) You will have to accept though, that most people would find it rather hard to cope with that many children, let alone more. I hope to be able to do what I put my mind to, because if my wish to get one or two children ever comes true, being a self-employed woman even just that number would already be tough enough to get and raise.
Mucus methods are AS reliable as artificial methods--the problem is human LAZINESS!!! Bull--Exclusive breast-feeding is indeed as effective as any BC. Those are the FACTS. Perhaps they would find it EASIER if their foundational role in society were respected more. Mothers have a tough job, and GOOD mothers have an even tougher job! It's about time their JOB was respected for the EXTREMELY important role they play in society. Perhaps you underestimate the ability of women--and YOUR ability. I support you in mothering--I DO NOT support medicating healthy bodily functions (medicating to avoid pregnancy)--nor do I support killing conceived human beings.
I have read the Bible many times. Enough to know that you do not know what you are talking about. You are making claims that you do not support. Show us where Jesus says that promiscuity is bad ?
