General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnly Valid Sex Is When The Woman Is Fertile. And Marriage Is ONLY For Procreation.
The reason that the religious right is so adamant against everything LGBT is that it violates "natural law". The real bottom line on all this kerfuffle about LGBT rights and contraception is that sexual activity is ONLY for procreation religiously speaking. If you follow the logic to its very end my OP is what the whole argument is all about. And the religious will never never relent on that belief.
Egg and semen are sacred are it is sacrilege to waste it. That is another dogma that comes from the concept of "natural law". And the idea of natural law comes from the Greek philosophical tradition that was adopted by the early Catholic Church. And the fundamentalists essentially carry that same belief.
The rest of the dogmatic argument is that all LGBT sex is wrong because same sex partners cannot of themselves conceive a child. So it is forbidden.
I spent 16 1/2 years in the Catholic school system with enough Catholic theology for numerous lifetimes. The official dogma is that marriage is solely for procreation. And the Church goes even further in saying on the subject of sex in marriage that essentially a couple can engage in sex only when the woman is fertile. Even though such a dictum is not directly said it is implied in the dogma around the purpose of marriage. In the end the ONLY way you can control the size of your family is "abstinence" during a period of high fertility. And in a way there is a contradiction in the dogma itself.
I doubt the teaching has changed much from the time of my youth. And this aforementioned dogma was just pounded away endlessly. And young Catholics were hounded and intimidated about even having sexual ideas in their head at puberty. It was just as suppressive as radical Islam.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,593 posts)And it's really an idiotic message.
My husband and I are in our seventies. We are obviously infertile............yet, we still do it. Yes, that.
Sex that the couple enjoys really helps a marriage be a happy one, provided that they still enjoy it.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Peggy you are a jewel!
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,593 posts) Glassunion
(10,201 posts)It'd cut down on the laundry.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,593 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)He told me once that the reason the Church in against gay marriage is because gay sex is unnatural. I told him wearing clothes is also unnatural since we are born naked. Should the Church be against wearing clothes.
Crickets.
My sister in law and her partner got married almost two years ago. They were visiting my wife while I visited my brother.
At a party of some of my brother's flock, I was asked why my wife did not come with me. I told them that my wife's sister and her wife are visiting my wife. Again crickets.
I told them they got married a year ago and one person replied that they thought I had made a mistake.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)my teachers, but I had the distinct feeling that the implication was that sex, basically,
was evil. It was tolerated by the Church because it was the only way for the continuation
of the human species.
As little as 200 years ago, the Church did not allow the people to have sex on Fridays,
Sundays and another day of the week. Why Fridays? Jesus died on a Friday. Why
Sundays? Possibly because Jesus rose on a Sunday.
So, sex was permitted 4 days a week. This was only for the common people, of course. The
rich and powerful nobility had their mistresses. But the nobility were religious - after a
fashion: They had a chaplain living right on the grounds, just in case the nobleman should
happen to become seriously ill. In such a case the chaplain was right there, so the nobleman
could confess his sins and avoid hell.
I have also read of a case of an 18-year-old young man who joined the priesthood. He was
immediately made an archbishop. And why? His father was a prince. A royal. This happened
during the Middle Ages.
I admire Pope Francis for trying to change some of this. He does have courage. But don't
expect him to make any attempt to change basic Catholic doctrines. He couldn't do that
even if he should want to. And I don't think he would want to. But, for a pope, he is quite
a liberal.
cloudbase
(5,513 posts)Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth, and you should save it for someone you love.
-Butch Hancock
Cal33
(7,018 posts)has grown up hearing the above all during one's formative years, it becomes engraved
in one's mind and becomes a permanent fixture that's hard (if not impossible) to change.
And the few that do succeed in changing will likely still have to deal with the years of fear
and guilt before they finally find inner peace again.
nruthie
(466 posts)
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Most of the evangelicals don't really care what the Pope says. This might be the reason why Catholics, or more correctly the extremely tiny minority who actually believe the nonsense coming out the Vatican are against marriage equality but most Christian churches don't teach sex is only for procreation or that sex is evil. Then again many in the religious right don't need a reason. It is just bigotry with the facts made to fit the scenario after the fact. A hundred years ago the same people would have been against interracial marriage. Still it is unfair to paint all Christians with the same brush.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
62% of Mainline Protestants support marriage equality and you would even be surprised to see 57% of Catholics do as well (reinforcing the fact that a lot of Catholics don't really care what rules the Pope insists God told him). Support among Black Protestants and Evangelicals are still a minority but even the later has shown a rise from 10% in the last decade. I really don't get why support among Black Protestants seems flat I mean at this rate even support among Evangelicals in another decade will be higher.
To paint with a broad brush undermines the efforts by many who have strived to reform the church from within such as the internal struggle in the Presbyterian Church USA over the last few years to formally change the church's definition of marriage.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It is the Catholic attitude towards sex. Though they are often related, the two are not beholden to one another, as is evidenced here: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/09/02/u-s-catholics-open-to-non-traditional-families
Catholics are generally supportive of gay marriage, yet roughly half of them believe gay marriages are inferior to straight marriages, and are split on the issue of whether or not gay sex is a "sin".
Things might be looking up, but they're far from peachy.
Xolodno
(6,390 posts)...baffles me.
Constantine's union of Church and State...is what eventually led to the tyrannical Church of the Dark Ages, who did everything to stamp out free thought, speech, etc. And create a reality they wanted. Hence the arcane "sex laws" that exist today. The "Church" at the time had a standing interest in having a larger populace, one being more troops (to fight a possible war against the Orthodox, who also recognized that need and outside possible enemies, such as Islam), two, people who could refill the coffers after the Black Plague wiped out a bunch of donors.
The sex laws of the Bible weren't their for "morality", they were about property rights. And the laws were modified to change with the times. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about "Gays" is was about them not helping the poor (according to Ezekiel).
I've talked to very devout Christians who are dogmatized. Despite showing historical context, cross referencing other verses that support the historical context or even point out verses in full context that defeat the dogma...they still cling to dogma.
I firmly believe in God, I'm just glad I live in a place and time I won't be burned, beheaded, imprisoned, etc. for not conforming to "dogma".
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)For some reason, you seem to be posting much more extreme theories than any real-life Catholics are actually peddling.
Sam_Fields
(305 posts)
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)The dogma is extrapolated from early Greek philosophy and the idea of the essence of "natural law" and the essence of sexuality as understood in the 1st century. The essence of sexuality is procreation and the Catholic notion is you cannot interfere with it in any unnatural way that violates its essence. The Catholic Church adapted that philosophy outside of the confines of Biblical contexts. It is a rather refined argument that they use to declare morality or immorality in that context.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Sounds like you're attending the wrong church.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)All parochial schools may not have taught same courses. High School, Jr. College and College was where more advanced courses were taught. Had to take one theology or religion course every semester. Included such courses as Metaphysics, Moral Theology, Ethics, Catholic Marriage, et al. Also included familiarization with Cosmology & Ontology & advanced philosophy. Had enough college hours to actually have a major in theology or philosophy.
The philosophical and theological issues around Catholic marriage were repeated ad nausea. And the dogma was unmistakable.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Only my mother.
My families current church is the most laid back of all those I've ever attended. No whining about politics, abortion, sex before marriage, evolution or any of that other crap that would make me switch.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Went to parochial schools and everything. And I was never taught any of those things.
Very strange.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I don't fucking give a shit what their religion does or does not say.
I don't believe that way and the religious right has no right to force their views on me or anyone else who does not believe that way.
And that is the real point. The right is full of reactionary theonomists who want to regress this country back in time to the dark ages and force their religious views on everyone. [/font]
harrose
(380 posts)... older couples clearly past fertility to marry.
Can you cite any modern instance of a priest refusing to marry an older couple because they're going to have sex despite the lack of fertility?
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)The dogma does not mean that there would be a refusal to marry even couples who cannot have children. The dogma has more to do with the interpretation of "natural law" as it applies to sexuality and marriage. Without going into the details the dogmatic premises about marriage and sexuality in the Catholic Church comes out of very sophisticated philosophical and theological concepts. Much of this argument occurs within the clergy and theologians.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Fuck em !!!!!!!!!!!! 
Tree-Hugger
(3,370 posts)I spent my grade school, high school, and college years in Catholic schools.
While artificial birth control was poo-poo'd, utilizing what is known as the Fertility Awareness Method (aka "natural family planning ) was 100% supported. Please note, FAM is *not* what is known as the rhythm method and it is utilized by non-Catholics as well. The Catholic Church ties religion into their teaching of the method, but the method itself is just plain science and awareness of your body.
It was never taught in my schools that sex was procreation only. It was taught that you cannot use artificial birth control methods or withdrawal (every sperm is sacred, so you can't just whip it out and go for the money shot), but you can use FAM to either avoid pregnancy or attempt to get pregnant.
Many Catholic churches hold FAM/NFP workshops where women and their partners learning how to properly track fertility in order to achieve or avoid pregnancy.
Not defending the Catholic church as I have many problems with it (though I do still attend Mass now and then), but just noting that this is how things are taught now.
Additionally, I know more non-Catholic Christians who believe sex for pleasure is evil and that anything done without procreation in mind will damn your soul. I know some who explicitly will *not* allow their daughters to learn FAM/NFP because they believe it gives women too much power over their bodies and that proper education about their cycles will make them have naughty pre-marital sex.
