bad for the health

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
tonydev		#61	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1442 05/02/09 17:28:57 Camper	Are we really? Try taking your delight with a child sometime or in a public park on Sunday afternoon. Society puts many restrictions on our freedom to delight in what makes us human. Some are illegal and some merely frowned upon, but they are limits nonetheless. In Catholic society the limit is sex within marriage. I would suggest that you are making a leap in order to sustain your point. The use of animal skills in ways beyond the need for survival, so too, the use of reason surpasses the animal instinct for immediate response. The suggestion that an enjoyment of sexuality expressed in child abuse is a distortion of reason. Indeed, it is closer to the lower animal instinct to copulate for its own sake. Much like a dog that humps your leg. Yes, we have a primordial need to procreate. We also have a primordial need for protein. But we also create the finest cream desserts. We don't need them to survive.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#62	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4691 05/02/09 17:54:35 Camper	Hi Tony, > I would suggest that you are making a leap in order to sustain your point. Actually you missed the point. I was addressing Gary's assertion that we are freed to delight in what makes us human. Part of the ongoing discussion has been about the inability of people to control their sexual urges making the pope's objection to condoms unrealistic. In is that context that I anwsered his post. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#63	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3927 05/02/09 20:55:25 Camper	Hi Bob, > The tragedy of the Catholic church's attitude to sex is that it fails to account for the richness and the humanity of the act. Not true, the Church considers sex within marriage as a sacred act in which a couple express their love for one another in the most intimate way. To take the analogy one step further the church's attitude is like insisting that good music can only be played in concert halls. By insisting that sex be "open to conception" it reduces the act to a mechanistic child creating process and attempts to deny people the ability to write their own symphonies. Our tongues evolved to taste and differentiate food from non-food. We now use them to talk, sing and communicate but they have not lost the ability to differentiate food from non-food. There is nothing wrong with extending the function of "survival equipment" for other purposes - in fact, it is what has made us human. > As Tony implies, our senses, behaviour and intellects have evolved uses far beyond their essential survival functions - we are freed to delight in what makes us human. Are we really? Try taking your delight with a child sometime or in a public park on Sunday afternoon. Why do you concentrate on the baser levels of human behaviour? Taking delight with children has not only take place in public parks on Sunday afternoons but also behind the pulpit on Sunday mornings. The fact that most humans are able to delight in a higher sexual function than procreation should not be sullied by the behaviour of a few perverts. Society puts many restrictions on our freedom to delight in what makes us human. Of course. Because part of the responsibility of being a social animal, as humans are, is to restrict some personal freedoms for the betterment of the group. That some people shout and abuse others is no reason for all of us us to forfeit the ability to speak. While there is a human component in sex for the sheer pleasure of it, we are driven there by our animal instinct. Whether you like to admit it or not, it is a primordial instinct to procreate that is the engine that drives the train. No one says differently. But as I implied before, while tongues retain their basic functionality they have evolved far beyond their basic survival function. It is this pushing of the barriers of our organs and instincts beyond their basic animal functions that makes us human. If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God. Last Edited By: Argy Lacedom 05/03/09 04:28:27. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#64	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3928 05/02/09 20:59:14 Camper	Hi Bob, Part of the ongoing discussion has been about the inability of people to control their sexual urges making the pope's objection to condoms unrealistic. The reason condoms are effective is that they do compensate for people's inability to consistently control their sexual urges. This is a fact that applies to people regardless of religion, race, wealth or position. I object to the catholic church's position that sex not done in strict accord with its instructions is a perversion. If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God. Last Edited By: Argy Lacedom 05/02/09 21:06:10. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
tonydev	what makes us human	#65	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1443 05/03/09 01:47:39 Camper	Actually you missed the point. I was addressing Gary's assertion that we are freed to delight in what makes us human. What makes us human is also reason. I did not miss the point. Sex, like any other drive or appetite, has many uses beyond the functional. That use, however, as with any other, must be disciplined by reason - our ultimate capacity.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#66	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4693 05/03/09 11:13:02 Camper	Hi Gary, > To take the analogy one step further the church's attitude is like insisting that good music can only be played in concert halls. I know some music aficionados who would claim that very thing. When it comes to sex the Church would agree. > By insisting that sex be "open to conception" it reduces the act to a mechanistic child creating process and attempts to deny people the ability to write their own symphonies. That it be open to conception does not mean that every sexual act has to be for the purpose of procreation, far from it. Natural family planning has been around in the Church for years and there is a ministry within the Church that teaches it. > Why do you concentrate on the baser levels of human behaviour? I am not. You are the one that has insisted that it is unrealistic to expect people to control there sexual urges, thus the Church's restriction are just that, unrealistic. I am merely pointing out that society has restrictions on acceptable sexual behaviour. The Church's restrictions just happened to be tighter. > Of course. Because part of the responsibility of being a social animal, as humans are, is to restrict some personal freedoms for the betterment of the group. Thank you for making my point. Within the Catholic group its restrictions are meant to do just that. > It is this pushing of the barriers of our organs and instincts beyond their basic animal functions that makes us human. I would agree, but I would also suggest that 99% of casual sexual encounters are purely animal in nature. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#67	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3932 05/03/09 18:37:03 Camper	Hi Bob, Natural family planning has been around in the Church for years and there is a ministry within the Church that teaches it. I have often wondered about this. It seems very schizophrenic. Mechanical and chemical contraceptive is never 100% effective - it is always therefore "open to conception". Proponents of "natural" contraception claim that their method is as effective as condoms and people who use "natural" contraception are doing so in the hope of thwarting conception. It seems to me that there is no difference between the people who use "natural" contraception and those who use other methods and, if ots proponents are correct, there is little difference in effectiveness. Why does the catholic church differentiate between contraceptive techniques? > Of course. Because part of the responsibility of being a social animal, as humans are, is to restrict some personal freedoms for the betterment of the group. Thank you for making my point. Within the Catholic group its restrictions are meant to do just that. On the contrary. Its restrictions are primarily meant to appease God, not to work for the betterment of the group. The rules on sex might (just might) have been appropriate at some stage in the past but society and technology has moved on to the stage where it is able to acknowledge the universality of casual sex and deal more humanely with its consequences. I personally prefer to live in a monogamous marriage and I would like other people to do so, but I recognise that we are not all the same - and moreover, our preferences, attitudes and behaviour in this regard appear to exist beyond the influence of religion. I would agree, but I would also suggest that 99% of casual sexual encounters are purely animal in nature. That depends on the definition you use doesn't it? Why do you think casual sex equates to animal behaviour? Based on the statistics I've given in previous posts I think we can justifiably call it human behaviour also. No? If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#68	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4695 05/04/09 10:18:09 Camper	Hi Gary, > Why does the catholic church differentiate between contraceptive techniques? The thing to remember is that contraception is not a core teaching of the Church. The core teaching is that the marriage must be open to children, but the Church recognizes the right of couples to plan their families. At one time even natural family planning was prohibited. The Church moves extremely slowly in most matters. > On the contrary. Its restrictions are primarily meant to appease God, not to work for the betterment of the group. On the contrary, I would suggest that a monogamous sexual relationship is better for the group, actually any group. Think about, if every person was in a monogamous relationship there would be fewer broken families with the accompanying social problems, fewer STDs, et al. > technology has moved on to the stage where it is able to acknowledge the universality of casual sex and deal more humanely with its consequences. What has technology got to do with casual sex? As for the consequences, well we have a pandemic of STDs, an explosion of single parent families at an enormous cost to society and a general breakdown of relationships. Seems to me, religion aside, that society has an urgent interest in stemming casual sex. > That depends on the definition you use doesn't it? Why do you think casual sex equates to animal behaviour? Based on the statistics I've given in previous posts I think we can justifiably call it human behaviour also. No? I disagree. Most casual sex encounters are just that, casual. One hooks up at a bar or party for the sheer animal pleasure of it. Granted there are affairs that last for long periods, but they usually do not involve multiple partners other than the one being cheated on. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#69	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3935 05/04/09 19:43:44 Camper	Hi Bob, > Why does the catholic church differentiate between contraceptive techniques? The thing to remember is that contraception is not a core teaching of the Church. The core teaching is that the marriage must be open to children, but the Church recognizes the right of couples to plan their families. At one time even natural family planning was prohibited. The Church moves extremely slowly in most matters. That really doesn't answer the question as to why the church differentiates between contraceptive techniques. And it seems a tragedy that adherence to a non-core belief would be preferred over good public health programs. On the contrary, I would suggest that a monogamous sexual relationship is better for the group, actually any group. Think about, if every person was in a monogamous relationship there would be fewer broken families with the accompanying social problems, fewer STDs, et al. My preference is for monogamous marriage, but I am not blinded by it. In an evolutionary sense there are advantages to casual sex - it increases genetic diversity - so in the long run it might be better for the group. And I think as much, or more, damage is done to families by denying the right to divorce or having very restrictive social taboos against it. My aunt was a victim of a damaging marriage and her catholic mother and in-laws prevailed upon her to "stick with it". She died very young and two of my cousins from that marriage remain in a very bad state four decades on. What has technology got to do with casual sex? Chemical and mechanical contraception techniques help avoid some of its consequences. As for the consequences, well we have a pandemic of STDs, an explosion of single parent families STD's have always been "pandemic" as have unmarried mothers. Marriage is an artificial contrivance that has only come into being relatively recently in the evolution of the human species. One of the problems with modern society is that protection and education of children is no longer such a community responsibility as it once was. In village life the nuclear family was nowhere nearly as important as it is in today's society. Seems to me, religion aside, that society has an urgent interest in stemming casual sex. Society will adjust. I disagree. Most casual sex encounters are just that, casual. One hooks up at a bar or party for the sheer animal pleasure of it. Granted there are affairs that last for long periods, but they usually do not involve multiple partners other than the one being cheated on. For some reason you seem to think that animal pleasure (whatever that is) is a bad thing. I get what I call animal pleasure out of screaming support for my football team, hooking a big fish or seeing my kids do well. And, by the way, one doesn't judge the worth of an opera by its duration. If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God. Last Edited By: Argy Lacedom 05/04/09 19:50:20. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#70	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4696 05/05/09 09:17:43 Camper	Hi Gary, > That really doesn't answer the question as to why the church differentiates between contraceptive techniques. One is natural, one is artificial. One disrupts the natural bodily function and the other doesn't. The difference seems pretty obvious. > And it seems a tragedy that adherence to a non-core belief would be preferred over good public health programs. What has contraception got to do with public health programs other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancies? One of the Church's teachings is sex only within marriage. Do you not have any principles over which you would not compromise? > In an evolutionary sense there are advantages to casual sex - it increases genetic diversity - so in the long run it might be better for the group. There are other ways of insuring genetic diversity. Yo cannot marry your sister, for example. In the Iroquois society in pre-European North America the various tribes were broken down in clans and one was not allowed to marry within one's clan. On balance casual sex is destructive in a modern society. The loss of productivity through STDs and single parent families is enormous. Throw in the cost of welfare and health care and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an engineer for that matter to see the serious problem casual sex creates. > And I think as much, or more, damage is done to families by denying the right to divorce or having very restrictive social taboos against it. My aunt was a victim of a damaging marriage and her catholic mother and in-laws prevailed upon her to "stick with it". She died very young and two of my cousins from that marriage remain in a very bad state four decades on. The Church does not insist that a person stay within an abusive marriage. Actually, the Church has no particular objection to civil divorce under those circumstances and a divorced person is considered to be a Catholic in good standing. It also has a process to examine the validity of the sacramental marriage after a civil divorce. The ignorance of your aunt's mother and in-laws is tragic, but does not reflect the position of the Church. > STD's have always been "pandemic" as have unmarried mothers. Really? Australia must be a wild place. When I was in my teens unmarried mothers were very rare. I know of only one within my circle and the baby was given up for adoption at birth. STDs were there, but nowhere near pandemic proportions. > Marriage is an artificial contrivance that has only come into being relatively recently in the evolution of the human species. Revisionist history at its best. Humans have taken mates since prehistory if for no other reason than the well ordering of society. As communities grew from small groups to larger, more complicated entities it became necessary to publicly acknowledge "matings". For example, in aboriginal tribes in our area a man would go to the father of the girl he wished to "marry" with gifts in front of the community. When the father accepted the gifts the deal was done. The man then moved into his bride's longhouse. On the western plains a gift of horses was considered the proper offer of "marriage" and the groom moved his bride into his lodge. > I get what I call animal pleasure out of screaming support for my football team, hooking a big fish or seeing my kids do well. That is actually a very human reaction. Deer do not stand around cheering while two males butt heads over who will have the biggest harem, nor do they take satisfaction when one of their offspring jumps a high fence. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#71	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3937 05/05/09 19:12:38 Camper	Hi Bob, > That really doesn't answer the question as to why the church differentiates between contraceptive techniques. One is natural, one is artificial. One disrupts the natural bodily function and the other doesn't. The difference seems pretty obvious. As far as I know the church's argument is with the openness to conception, not "natural" versus "artificial". It does not, for example, object to the use of drugs or hormones for disease control or mechanical devices such as splints to mend a broken arm on the basis that either of these things are artificial. The church's stance on contraception is clearly inconsistent. On balance casual sex is destructive in a modern society. The loss of productivity through STDs and single parent families is enormous. Throw in the cost of welfare and health care and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an engineer for that matter to see the serious problem casual sex creates. I have no doubt that casual sex has associated costs. But so do many things we take as a given in our society. If one was to measure worth in dollar terms alone we would soon abolish palliative care and medical help to the elderly as these are, by far, the greatest "drain" on the health care system. The ignorance of your aunt's mother and in-laws is tragic, but does not reflect the position of the Church. Well I know that she went to see her priest about it. He put pressure on her to stay in the marriage. > STD's have always been "pandemic" as have unmarried mothers. Really? Australia must be a wild place. No worse than the Pacific must have been when the white missionaries of the 1800's and 1900's infected many islander groups with STD's with devastating results! STD's have been around forever, and not just in human populations. When I was in my teens unmarried mothers were very rare. I know of only one within my circle and the baby was given up for adoption at birth. The social stigma at the time was hardly an inducement for transparency. Back in "our day" adoption was freely available because of the numbers of babies put up for adoption. One of the reasons childless couples are finding it very difficult to adopt these days is because of the lack of supply - due mainly to our broader appreciation of the needs of the mother and child. Let's face it, even God's mother became pregnant by someone other than her husband! If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#72	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4698 05/06/09 08:25:11 Camper	Hi Gary, > As far as I know the church's argument is with the openness to conception, not "natural" versus "artificial". No, the problem with artificial contraception is that it interferes with the natural reproductive cycle, whereas natural family planning does not. > It does not, for example, object to the use of drugs or hormones for disease control or mechanical devices such as splints to mend a broken arm on the basis that either of these things are artificial. With all due respect, you are really reaching now and there isn't even a straw to grasp. > I have no doubt that casual sex has associated costs. No doubt indeed, in North America STD's, HIV and single parent families costs billions. > But so do many things we take as a given in our society. If one was to measure worth in dollar terms alone we would soon abolish palliative care and medical help to the elderly as these are, by far, the greatest "drain" on the health care system. Huge difference, people cannot help getting old and sick, they can control their behaviour, your insistence that they can't notwithstanding. > Well I know that she went to see her priest about it. He put pressure on her to stay in the marriage. Well, there are idiots in every walk of life. > Let's face it, even God's mother became pregnant by someone other than her husband! Ouch! Peace, Last Edited By: Burke 05/06/09 08:41:19. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#73	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3939 05/06/09 22:58:30 Camper	Hi Bob, No, the problem with artificial contraception is that it interferes with the natural reproductive cycle, whereas natural family planning does not. The use of condoms does not interfere with the natural reproductive cycle. The catholic catechism says: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370) Family planning, by this definition, is intrinsically evil because, in anticipation and accomplishing the conjugal act, the couple's aim is to thwart conception. If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#74	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4703 05/08/09 08:41:26 Camper	Hi Gary, > The use of condoms does not interfere with the natural reproductive cycle. Good point. > The catholic catechism says: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370) Family planning, by this definition, is intrinsically evil because, in anticipation and accomplishing the conjugal act, the couple's aim is to thwart conception. One could argue that neither condoms or artificial contraception makes procreation impossible because none of those are 100% effective. Sterilization would fall under that category. This is why the Church in Africa can sanction condoms within an HIV marriage. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#75	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3943 05/08/09 18:50:30 Camper	Hi Bob, One could argue that neither condoms or artificial contraception makes procreation impossible because none of those are 100% effective. Sterilization would fall under that category. This is why the Church in Africa can sanction condoms within an HIV marriage. It would be nice to think that the catholic hierarchy was as amenable to logic and consistency as you are! If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

bad for the health

Quick Reply