Erm, becomes?

(June 19, 2015 at 9:25 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't hope to cut through everything that's going on here, so I'm not even going to try! All I can say is it's very interesting to read. Much of Catholic doctrine is absolutely shocking to me.

I will say that "waiting to have to have sex until you're married" achieves nothing regarding reducing pregnancy at all. Even worse, it may cause people to get married earlier than they otherwise would (or at all) so they can have sex. Again, the marriage is irrelevant. It's an abstract social contract, which itself bears no more actual weight on the sexual behaviour of the people involved than an unmarried couple. It's legal aspects are mainly financial and to do with children and so on. It does nothing and says nothing about having children. It would be no different than telling someone to wait until they find their life partner.

So the less people have sex, the less children are had, yes. But telling people to wait until marriage (a) generally doesn't work (b) can lead to deceit, secret affairs and having to lie to those close to you and © can cause marriage just to have sex (d) telling people they can't do something under any circumstances, without giving them a demonstrable reason why, can just cause rebellion and for them to do exactly that. These are all serious problems. To be blunt, it's an incredible naive and demonstrably bad way to achieve the professed goal. However, contraception does reduce the number of pregnancies, and therefor the number of unwanted pregnancies, by a staggering amount. And this applies to marriage and outside marriage. It applies to people who have been told to wait until marriage but aren't going to. Classing this as immoral is a hugely damaging thought process all round, and highlights the danger of theologically dictated doctrines with no bearing on reality. It is strange you would support this (and other it seems) messages from the Old Testament which you so readily dismiss. I would be very interested to hear what exactly all the horrific stories in the OT are allegory for.

Sex is great.  It is part of being the kind of animal we are, a very pleasant part.  I recommend it albeit with appropriate caveats regarding STD's and pregnancy.  Not desiring to have kids (and not being Catholic) I quite rationally used birth control back when that was an issue.  Now that the missus is impregnable we just let it fly and that's even more fun.

Whatever else or more we humans may be we are also and will always be mammals.  This isn't a bad thing.  I like animals in general.  Each kind is as special in its own way as we are.  I have no desire to be 'elevated' above our 'bestial' nature.  Why not embrace everything that we are?

(June 19, 2015 at 10:41 am)whateverist Wrote: I have no desire to be 'elevated' above our 'bestial' nature.  Why not embrace everything that we are?

It's also this human grandeur illusion that leads to the destruction of the environment and many of the species surrounding us. To be fair it's not only religion doing that, but the bible passage about subduing the earth and all it's creatures didn't help.

(June 18, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Incorrect.

I'm referring to the atheists on this forum collectively as "hypocrites"

Then do not quote my post when remonstrating them, Dipshit. Make your case using the words of the person you think is the hypocrite.

I think I'll start answering your posts by quoting Westboro Baptist Church arguments. Idiot.

(June 19, 2015 at 10:50 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Incorrect.

I'm referring to the atheists on this forum collectively as "hypocrites"

Then do not quote my post when remonstrating them, Dipshit. Make your case using the words of the person you think is the hypocrite.

I think I'll start answering your posts by quoting Westboro Baptist Church arguments.  Idiot.

I think he is trying to tell you that he lumps us all together without careful reading or reflection.  When you have the word of god who needs our words?

[

(June 18, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You hypocrites came out of the woodwork to defend a homosexual (Harvey Milk) having sex with an underage teen, I wonder why you guys can't seem to get behind the homosexuals in the Catholic church.....

When did we have a thread about Harvey Milk? I don't remember that.

Also, people on this thread have said repeatedly that they are upset that the Catholic Church tried to cover up the action of  PEDOPHILES. I am not bothered by homosexuals serving as priests

What is it we all did? We all supported a rapist or something? I'd love to see the proof of that. What a heap of shit.

Wrist: You bet! Sex is great, and is obviously largely about pleasure (loving or otherwise). More about pleasure than anything else, in reality. If you took the amount of times people have had sex over the years and worked out what percentage of those times were primarily concerned with conceiving, what do you think it would be? 1%? If that? All the sex I've ever had, and will have, has been entirely unconnected to conceiving. I've always used contraception, and now I've had the snip so I never have to worry about it again. The church can tell people sex is primarily about conception, but they are wrong. It's not even the only evolutionary reason.

It just so happens that we're consciously aware that sex can lead to pregnancy. We're probably the only animal aware of this, so clearly all the other animals aren't doing it for that reason except in an evolutionary sense. They do it because they like doing it.

(June 19, 2015 at 11:03 am)Nope Wrote: Also, people on this thread have said repeatedly that they are upset that the Catholic Church tried to cover up the action of  PEDOPHILES. I  am not bothered by homosexuals serving as priests

And that's also why the actual percentage of pedophile priests doesn't interest. The coverup was/is systemic and reaches into the high ranks of the hierarchy. And by shipping around known offenders they offered them opportunities to continue their crimes.

(June 19, 2015 at 3:50 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 3:41 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: We believe so because it is *the* act that brings new life into the word. And we believe life is sacred.

Note: (since I know it will come up) I am in no way saying that the only purpose for sex is procreation.

But you very directly contradict yourself with those two statements, along with the foundational views which you continue to back (ie. contraception, homosexuality)... how do you not see this?

No contradiction.

Even though sex serves other purposes besides procreation, it is still *the* means by which we procreate. It is still the act that brings new life into the world. For that reason, we hold it to a high regard.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding something I said?

It isn't the only way we procreate, though. We have other methods now.