Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Spud]

Why should people have to abstain?

I've just said something heretical, apparently!!
CANON VIII. "If anyone says that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 24th Session, On the Sacrament of Matrimony)

Maybe the thing is that a couple should not do NFP for the purpose of not having any children at all, ever.

If they are doing NFP for the purpose of spacing out the kids, then they retain the procreative significance of their sexual acts (sorry wigginhall if that sounds ponsey)

Shaker, abstaining for a period of time enhances 'marital chastity' 

[Shaker]

Spud

This may shock you, but the RCC has no mandate over sexuality - the can simply be ignored you know.

On sexual morality they're ignored by most Catholics never mind anybody else.

[Shaker]

I've just said something heretical, apparently!!

Good for you. Keep it up.

Shaker, abstaining for a period of time enhances 'marital chastity'

And that is what, exactly, and why does it require scare quotes?

[Gordon]

I've just said something heretical, apparently!!
CANON VIII. "If anyone says that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 24th Session, On the Sacrament of Matrimony)

Maybe the thing is that a couple should not do NFP for the purpose of not having any children at all, ever.

If they are doing NFP for the purpose of spacing out the kids, then they retain the procreative significance of their sexual acts (sorry wigginhall if that sounds ponsey)

Shaker, abstaining for a period of time enhances 'marital chastity'

I've no idea what 'ponsey' means (I assume it is a term used in England) but I'd have to say, Spud, that the serial guff from the RCC you are quoting just isn't binding: you are advancing a fallacious argument from authority, so why not just think it through for yourself?

On the 'marital chastity' front - I take it you are qualified, maritally speaking, to comment from experience.

[Bubbles]

Good for you. Keep it up.And that is what, exactly, and why does it require scare quotes?

I know why it's in "scare quotes" it's scary , what puzzles me is why people think it's the way to go 

[Bubbles]

I've no idea what 'ponsey' means (I assume it is a term used in England) but I'd have to say, Spud, that the serial guff from the RCC you are quoting just isn't binding: you are advancing a fallacious argument from authority, so why not just think it through for yourself?

On the 'marital chastity' front - I take it you are qualified, maritally speaking, to comment from experience.

poncey (ˈpɒnsɪ) or poncy
adj, -cier or -ciest
derogatory slang chiefly Brit ostentatious, pretentious, or effeminate


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poncey

If you said someone was a bit ponsey, it could be taken as a bit gay 

[Bubbles]

Only a bunch of celibate males could talk about "marital chastity" 

[Brownie]

You do know of course that there's a special term for couples who follow natural family planning - "mum and dad."

Oy!  That's an old one Shaker.  However there are ovulation predictors nowadays, often 3 for 2 in Boots.  Simple and effective.

''Marital chastisy'', from what I remember being told, or read, means mutually desired sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

[Shaker]

"Marital chastisy'', from what I remember being told, or read, means mutually desired sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

Right - and who doesn't practice that already?

[Rhiannon]

Right - and who doesn't practice that already?

Well, men who expect their wives to obey for a start.

I remember when I was around twenty or so watching a debate on daytime tv as to whether the law should be changed so that a man could be charged with raping his wife. The female lawyer on the programme said no, charging him with assault was adequate.

[Brownie]

Exactly Rhiannon!  I well remember the subject of marital rape being aired with many people aghast, as if there was no such thing.  However I do believe that a lot had absolutely no idea about rape, the domination and violence of it,  so they couldn't imagine it in marriage.

Shaker, decent, caring and respectful couples practice marital chastisy without even having to think about it.

[Rhiannon]

What I remember taking from the debate was that the belief was if you'd agreed to spend your life with someone and had sex with them, then if that person then raped you it didn't quite count as rape in some way.

[Brownie]

Yes I remember people saying stuff like that.  It was so unjust, if you think about it a wife would find it quite difficult to rape her husband, not that she would want to.  There was also a lot said about the couple being obliged to have sex with eachother if either wanted it;  again that would be difficult if a wife wanted sex and her husband wasn't up to it.

Later, when people were prepared to actually talk about it in detail, it became apparent how terrifyingly violent marital rape was so gradually opinion changed, and the law.  Thank goodness.

[floo]

For pleasure (that is to say, its unifying significance). I'm not convinced that the morality of natural family planning is what the Catholics say it is. One is still depriving a sexual act of its openness to transmission of life. It would surely be morally 'better' to abstain completely until such time as you are open to the possibility of conception?

Spud your comments are silly, sex is also for PLEASURE, what on earth is wrong with that, providing you are in an adult, in a consensual relationship, not cheating on a partner and taking sensible precautions?

[floo]

Exactly Rhiannon!  I well remember the subject of marital rape being aired with many people aghast, as if there was no such thing.  However I do believe that a lot had absolutely no idea about rape, the domination and violence of it,  so they couldn't imagine it in marriage.

Shaker, decent, caring and respectful couples practice marital chastisy without even having to think about it.

No one should be forced to have sex if they don't wish to have it, even if married.

[Spud]

Spud your comments are silly, sex is also for PLEASURE, what on earth is wrong with that, providing you are in an adult, in a consensual relationship, not cheating on a partner and taking sensible precautions?

I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.

This bit of the thread started because L-J said that a man having sex with a man he loves is no different from a man and his wife. 

Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book 3, Chapter 122:

"... every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible"

"...(say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) ... man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded."

You can love someone without having sex with them.

And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).

Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example) homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.

[Stranger]

I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.

Good grief Spud, you're getting more and more ridiculous. Here you seem to be claiming that marriage is permanent consent - hence martial rape is impossible!

Is there no depth you will not sink to, in order to defend the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion?

[Shaker]

I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.

Firstly this assumes that marital rape is impossible, which is a self-evident nonsense.

Secondly, although there are certainly some open marriages/swingers, most couples have sex in private, with nobody in attendance making sure that fully informed consent has been sought and given. This is the case with or without marriage. Do married couples draft in an independent third party plus biro, clipboard and consent forms to ensure consent in this manner?

You really do appear not to have thought any of this through in any way at all.

Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas

You can, and indeed did, but so what? Why do we need to take his opinion into account, this being a man ignorant even of the existence of spermatozoa and ova? Why are we supposed to lend this individual's opinion any credence?

You can love someone without having sex with them.

And vice versa. What of it?

And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).

Bullshit. It causes no harm and furthermore causes a positive and active good.

Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example)

Of course it does - theft involves depriving some agent of their property.

homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.

This assumes that the preservation of mankind is a good to be striven for, for one thing. Many people do not.

For another, do you see the preservation of mankind as under threat due to low population?

[floo]

I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.

This bit of the thread started because L-J said that a man having sex with a man he loves is no different from a man and his wife. 

Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book 3, Chapter 122:

"... every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible"

"...(say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) ... man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded."

You can love someone without having sex with them.

And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).

Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example) homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.

Your posts get more and more ridiculous.

[Gordon]

I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.

This bit of the thread started because L-J said that a man having sex with a man he loves is no different from a man and his wife. 

Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book 3, Chapter 122:

"... every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible"

"...(say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) ... man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded."

You can love someone without having sex with them.

And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).

Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example) homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.

Spud

Aquinus died in 1274 - views have moved on a tad since then, as has knowledge.

[Hope]

Good grief Spud, you're getting more and more ridiculous. Here you seem to be claiming that marriage is permanent consent - hence martial rape is impossible!

Martial rape - you mean like the rape the two soldiers were recently acquitted of?   

Is there no depth you will not sink to, in order to defend the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion?

Oddly enough, SKoS, marriage is something that crosses religious and even non-religious boundaries.  As such it would appear to be a cultural prejudice, as opposed to a religious one.

[Shaker]

Oddly enough, SKoS, marriage is something that crosses religious and even non-religious boundaries.  As such it would appear to be a cultural prejudice, as opposed to a religious one.

England and Wales managed to unshackle marriage from religion a smidgin under a hundred and eighty years ago; there are still plenty of places in the world where that process hasn't taken place.

[Hope]

Why should people have to abstain?

I can think of people who have had to abstain for medical, even psychological reasons.  In fact, before I was discharged from hospital after my angina attack and angioplasty, one of the nurses suggested that I abstain for at least a week.

[Shaker]

I can think of people who have had to abstain for medical, even psychological reasons.  In fact, before I was discharged from hospital after my angina attack and angioplasty, one of the nurses suggested that I abstain for at least a week.

Was abstaining for medical reasons what Spud was referring to?

[Stranger]

Oddly enough, SKoS, marriage is something that crosses religious and even non-religious boundaries.  As such it would appear to be a cultural prejudice, as opposed to a religious one.

Nothing like addressing the point. Do you agree with what Spud appeared to be saying: that marriage was consent - the implication being that marital rape was impossible.