contraception

[God Conquers]

I don't think that's what she's talking about...

AFTER consent has been given, it's in the interests of justice that both people come to an equal experience in the act.

Also, sex is not a 100%-in-all-cases required part of marriage.... but it is if you're not called to radical married celibacy. You must be open to children in marriage... I think part of that is having sex once in a while...

Who doesn't want to have sex in their marriage?

[Semalsia]

[quote]You must be open to children in marriage[/quote]

So is it required to have children if married? Or put in another way... if your husband/wife really wants (or demands) to have a child, would it be okay for you to say no?


[quote]Who doesn't want to have sex in their marriage?[/quote]

Some might dislike it. You can hardly force it on anyone.

[God Conquers]

Well, you can't FORCE it... but why get married?

It would be wrong to say no to having a child... in fact it would be grounds for an annulment.

[Semalsia]

[quote]but why get married?[/quote]

Well, there is always love and the desire to bond and to spend the rest of your life with your dearest.

[quote]It would be wrong to say no to having a child... in fact it would be grounds for an annulment.[/quote]


Only fair I suppose since the spouse didn't get what he wanted from the marriage: sex and offspring.

I was sort of hoping for some sin hopping in there, but I guess that would really make no sense.

[scardella]

if you weren't planning on having children, then, what would be the point of getting married? You can share your life with someone forever without getting married. People do it all the time.

If there's nothing for marriage's covenant to safeguard, then it's purely a formality. In your case it doesn't seem to provide many benefits.

However, in the case of children, the covenant nature of marriage makes total sense (civil law set aside here). As many studies have proved conventional wisdom, children need 2 parents, a mother and a father. Children from broken homes are at a huge disadvantage, psychologically/developmentally, financially, etc.)

Additionally,
-if you love someone completely, wouldn't you want more persons like that to exist?
-what better sign of union than a child? He's a union of you and your spouse's dna, etc.

[aloha918]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:21 AM'] The purpose of eating is to sustain the body. Yet we like to eat foods that taste good and please our taste bud. We derive pleasure from eating.  Ssomething that is meant for the simple purpose of sustaining the body. We dont need to be satisfied with the taste of a food to have it sustain our body. Sex is no different.  It is meant to create humans,  yet much pleasure can be derived from it. Its alot like desert. I prolly wont get much nutritional value from eating a desert, I mainly eat desert for the pleasing taste. Sex for pleasure is not wrong and its actually very wonderful. Maybe contraceptives prevents you from unifying with your loved one, but not for me and many millions of people around the world. [/quote]
this is true, but it has self interest.....sex is all about giving yourself completely to the other person....with contraception you are severly holding back love.....so really instead of "making love".....you are essentially becoming the "master of your domain" with another person present ............and how sick is that?

Edited March 31, 2005 by aloha918

[aloha918]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:50 AM'] Just a note: the word procreate means beget offspring. There is no word "pro create" -- and if there were it would require a hyphen.

That said, contraception in no way reduces the "unity" of partners. Perhaps an argument could be made that prophilactics can reduce the actual physical contact, but that's not saying much as to the "unity".

Additionally, my catholic friend has told me repeatedly that within marriage, sex is supposed to bring pleasure. A man has a duty to please his wife just as a woman has a duty to please her husband. So, yes, sex can be about procreation and "unity" but it is also about pleasure. Thus, contraceptives do not remove the entire purpose of sex. [/quote]
thanks for the grammatical correction.........haha

anywho....physically it does seperate the unity....buy it does also emotionally....you are not willing to give all of yourself...your holding back

sex brings communication into a relationship, and of course pleasure...i do not disagree with your statement at all.......but the "pleasure" of it, if holding back, will be in pure self interest, and not love.....

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Mar 29 2005, 07:28 PM']
I wish I had my tract on this, but I don't right now. That's okay.

NFP is not contraceptive, if used for the right reasons. NFP must only be used in a state of necessity, and one must look at it as a way of working with nature, with the cycle of the woman, rather than against nature. Also, you cannot just deny the good of kids, but be open to life were it to happen. [/quote]
It doesn't matter why one uses it or in what state (grave reasons or what have you) as long as you are using NFP to prevent pregnancy it is contraceptive.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Mar 31 2005, 08:21 AM'] [quote name='Burnsspivey']A man has a duty to please his wife just as a woman has a duty to please her husband.[/quote]

Duty? What duty? What are you talking about? Sex should never be something you [i]have to[/i] do. If someone doesn't want have sex, then that decision should be respected. Sex isn't a required part of marriage or any other relationship. [/quote]
*clears throat* There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. When referring to sex, it is the duty of those involved in the sex to please each other. It is [i]not[/i] the duty of a spouse to have sex with the other spouse any time said spouse wants.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Mar 31 2005, 02:48 PM'] this is true, but it has self interest.....sex is all about giving yourself completely to the other person....with contraception you are severly holding back love.....so really instead of "making love".....you are essentially becoming the "master of your domain" with another person present ............and how sick is that? [/quote]
Uh...I'm sorry that you find mutual masturbation "sick" especially if you ever have to pleasure your spouse manually. Poor, poor spouse.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Mar 31 2005, 02:55 PM'] thanks for the grammatical correction.........haha

anywho....physically it does seperate the unity....buy it does also emotionally....you are not willing to give all of yourself...your holding back

sex brings communication into a relationship, and of course pleasure...i do not disagree with your statement at all.......but the "pleasure" of it, if holding back, will be in pure self interest, and not love..... [/quote]
But that's exactly my point -- I'm not holding anything back emotionally. I'm giving all of my emotional self in that situation, but not when contraception isn't invovled. In fact, sex doesn't occur unless contraception is involved. Hard to be less giving than that. *laugh* And it isn't pure self interest -- it's also interest for my partner who is also unready and unwilling to have children.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 31 2005, 02:51 PM'] It doesn't matter why one uses it or in what state (grave reasons or what have you) as long as you are using NFP to prevent pregnancy it is contraceptive. [/quote]
One doesn't contracept while using NFP.

Contraception = Contra (against) + Conception.

Sex during the infertile times is not against conception. Conception, naturally, at this time is simply unavailable.

You can't be against something that isn't there! All hardware is used and functions according to how it was made.

Condoms and other contraceptives are against conception. That is there function. Regardless of whether the woman is fertile or infertile, the function of the contraceptive is to be contra (against) conception. One is contracepting who tries to prevent conception whether it is possible or not.

One who avoids conception via NFP is not contracepting even if they are illicitly using NFP. At that point they are simply being selfish, having a contraceptive mentality. The sin of an NFPer will never objectively be due to the intrinsic evil of contraception - because they are still using all the hardware according to it's natural purpose (though they themselves mentally may be against conception - the hardware isn't preventing conception... it just isn't available).

I hope that makes it more clear. Contraception is a hardware issue. The software (being our mentality, desires or intent) is a different story.

In a nutshell: An NFPer may have a contraceptive mentality - causing them to sin through selfishness, but they can not contracept.

I can have a bannana in my hand and intend on shooting someone (like with a gun), but since the hardware for my intent isn't there - my sin will be wishing I could kill someone... not actually doing it.

Edit to add (for absolute clarity): If I actually have a gun in my hand and I'm seeing double (haha - for whatever reason) and I attempt to shoot someone, though I may miss (because the person wasn't actually where I was shooting... unavailable for the kill, so to speak) I am still guilty of attempted murder. Same with one who contracepts while a woman is infertile. Though the conception was unavailable, the hardware was in place for contraception, and the mentality was to contracept. One could say that this person was guilty of attempted contraception (but then only God really knows if it was actually unavailable or not...)

Edited March 31, 2005 by Jake Huether

[aloha918]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:10 PM'] But that's exactly my point -- I'm not holding anything back emotionally.  I'm giving all of my emotional self in that situation, but not when contraception isn't invovled.  In fact, sex doesn't occur unless contraception is involved.  Hard to be less giving than that. *laugh*  And it isn't pure self interest -- it's also interest for my partner who is also unready and unwilling to have children. [/quote]
yes you are holding back.....you are not open to all of what sex has to offer......you arent including everything.....you are not "open"...to children that is

Edited April 1, 2005 by aloha918

[aloha918]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:06 PM'] Uh...I'm sorry that you find mutual masturbation "sick" especially if you ever have to pleasure your spouse manually.  Poor, poor spouse. [/quote]
yeah i dont have a spouse...and my girlfriend and i try to live out a pure relationship......anywho.....masturbation is lying to yourself that you are having sex......it is derived strickly out of pleasure and no other person.....it is not a life giving action.......and that is sick.......

Edited April 1, 2005 by aloha918

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:18 PM'] One doesn't contracept while using NFP.

Contraception = Contra (against) + Conception.

Sex during the infertile times is not against conception. Conception, naturally, at this time is simply unavailable.

You can't be against something that isn't there! All hardware is used and functions according to how it was made. [/quote]
Monitoring your cycle for the purpose of knowing when you are infertile in order to not get pregnant is taking action against conception. Thus, NFP [b]is[/b] contraception. You can deny it all you want, but the fact that you (plural, referring to this community) constantly refer to its 98-99% [i]effectiveness[/i] rate indicates that it is used as contraception.

[quote]One who avoids conception via NFP is not contracepting even if they are illicitly using NFP.  At that point they are simply being selfish, having a contraceptive mentality.  The sin of an NFPer will never objectively be due to the intrinsic evil of contraception - because they are still using all the hardware according to it's natural purpose (though they themselves mentally may be against conception - the hardware isn't preventing conception... it just isn't available).[/quote]

If it isn't possible to get pregnant during infertile periods then the hardware (the body is the hardware, contraceptives are the software) is preventing conception with the aid of the software -- i.e., the knowledge that it's okay to have sex because the woman is infertile. If a woman was not using NFP then she might not know whether she was fertile. Having sex in that state is not contraceptive regardless of fertility/infertility. Monitoring the cycles for the express purpose of having sex only when infertile for the express purpose of preventing pregnancy is contraceptive.

[quote]I hope that makes it more clear.  Contraception is a hardware issue.  The software (being our mentality, desires or intent) is a different story.

In a nutshell:  An NFPer may have a contraceptive mentality - causing them to sin through selfishness, but they can not contracept.[/quote]

In a nutshell: any action taken for the express purpose of preventing pregnancy is contraceptive. Remaining abstinent for the express purpose of not getting pregnant is contra-ceptive (as you defined it: against conception).

[quote]Edit to add (for absolute clarity):  If I actually have a gun in my hand and I'm seeing double (haha - for whatever reason) and I attempt to shoot someone, though I may miss (because the person wasn't actually where I was shooting... unavailable for the kill, so to speak) I am still guilty of attempted murder.  Same with one who contracepts while a woman is infertile.  Though the conception was unavailable, the hardware was in place for contraception, and the mentality was to contracept.  One could say that this person was guilty of attempted contraception (but then only God really knows if it was actually unavailable or not...)[/quote]

Ah, see, this is the negative (like film) of my argument. If you feel that this is true, I don't understand how the positive could be untrue.