• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W: #211] What do you know about sex, pregnancy, and childbirth?

Lursa said:
Then I'm pretty sure the intent is that sex is for procreation only and that in order to keep members, they've watered that dogma down 'in practice" but that's just hypocrisy.

It's not just the Catholic Church, most Christian churches for example, teach that sex before marriage is wrong. But it's the Catholic Church that's the worst with its violent, coercive, repressive history that focuses so much on weakening efforts for individuals to control their own reproduction.

I dont expect people to agree with my opinion, my disgust with the RCC is mine personally and has a strong foundation in it's horrific history and the repressive legacy that lingers today.
Click to expand...
Well, I've just Googled again, and you are mistaken. If you are genuinely curious about what the RCC teaches, I'd suggest that you do the same.
 
nota bene said:
Well, I've just Googled again, and you are mistaken. If you are genuinely curious about what the RCC teaches, I'd suggest that you do the same.
Click to expand...

Can you be specific on what I'm wrong about so I can google effectively?
 
nota bene said:
Well, I've just Googled again, and you are mistaken. If you are genuinely curious about what the RCC teaches, I'd suggest that you do the same.
Click to expand...

What is Lursa mistaken about?

All churches teach sex before marriage is a sin because the Bible explicitly says so, but Roman Catholics specifically have a long history of verbally and physically abusing people who do it. They still do it today.
 
Lursa said:
No, if I was specifically wrong about something, I want to know about it. What did you google to show I was wrong?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to play this game with you. You can just as easily Google what the RCC teaching is on sex as anybody else. You don't want to, and my guess is that you would prefer to hold onto your mistaken opinion.
 
nota bene said:
I'm not going to play this game with you. You can just as easily Google what the RCC teaching is on sex as anybody else. You don't want to, and my guess is that you would prefer to hold onto your mistaken opinion.
Click to expand...

So then my posts remain correct instead of otherwise. I'm fine with that. You are the one playing some cryptic game.
 
Lursa said:
Can you be specific on what I'm wrong about so I can google effectively?
Click to expand...
Let me help with this. The RCC teaches that sex belongs within the union of marriage. They teach that sex is a SACRAMENT. It isn't only for procreation...you simply are not allowed to artificially prevent said procreation..with a few exceptions(people who have had genetically deficient children that have died and will continue to have the same problem) or someone who has a serious health issue and would die if they procreate. You are never told that it is a sin to have sex when not wanting to get pregnant...they use a natural method of birth control....following your cycle and knowing when you are fertile is one of those ways. They believe that sex is an essential part of marriage per the RCC
 
ClaraD said:
Let me help with this. The RCC teaches that sex belongs within the union of marriage. They teach that sex is a SACRAMENT. It isn't only for procreation...you simply are not allowed to artificially prevent said procreation..with a few exceptions(people who have had genetically deficient children that have died and will continue to have the same problem) or someone who has a serious health issue and would die if they procreate. You are never told that it is a sin to have sex when not wanting to get pregnant...they use a natural method of birth control....following your cycle and knowing when you are fertile is one of those ways.
Click to expand...

My understanding as a non-Catholic that has done my reading, is that it is for procreation since aside from the rhythm method which rarely works, Catholics must accept any pregnancies that occur...so all procreation is indeed for that purpose. It's not always what's stated, it's also about what isnt...and that's that the RCC in the past demanded people get married and procreate so that there were more worshippers, e.g., more hands to put $$ in offering plates. I'm sure they'd say it was 'more worshippers for God's Glory.'

The RCC never historically taught sex was about 'unitive love,' but they did promote advantageous ones, politically and financially. Everything else is just lipstick on a pig. And yes, that is my opinion. For God's sake, they support marital rape. If they dont 'teach' that now it was certainly the male's prerogative historically.
 
Lursa said:
My understanding as a non-Catholic that has done my reading, is that it is for procreation since aside from the rhythm method which rarely works, Catholics must accept any pregnancies that occur...so all procreation is indeed for that purpose. It's not always what's stated, it's also about what isnt...and that's that the RCC in the past demanded people get married and procreate so that there were more worshippers, e.g., more hands to put $$ in offering plates. I'm sure they'd say it was 'more worshippers for God's Glory.'

The RCC never historically taught sex was about 'unitive love,' but they did promote advantageous ones, politically and financially. Everything else is just lipstick on a pig. And yes, that is my opinion. For God's sake, they support marital rape. If they dont 'teach' that now it was certainly the male's prerogative historically.
Click to expand...
No, not all sexual relations are exclusively for that purpose...there is no prohibition for people who are infertile, pregnant or sterile or even during or after menopause...if it were solely to get pregnant, you would only be allowed to have sex while fertile. The only requirement is that you be married. The church, in fact teaches that sex is essential for a strong foundation in your marriage, regardless of ability to procreate. I am not a non-Catholic...I am Catholic. Your suppositions aren't factual.
 
ClaraD said:
No, not all sexual relations are exclusively for that purpose...there is no prohibition for people who are infertile, pregnant or sterile or even during or after menopause...if it were solely to get pregnant, you would only be allowed to have sex while fertile. The only requirement is that you be married. The church, in fact teaches that sex is essential for a strong foundation in your marriage, regardless of ability to procreate. I am not a non-Catholic...I am Catholic. Your suppositions aren't factual.
Click to expand...

Already addressed this:

"In practice" that's exactly what they taught. Historically they had no way of knowing who was infertile so it applied to all younger people who wed. And IMO they didnt give a crap what older, less/non-fertile people did...there was no reason to invest any energy there. And why would they ban it after menopause unless they wanted to commit to the act "being wrong" at some point for marriage and eternal love? That would have backfired on them. Again, they had no 'investment' in banning it...only promoting it. That's where the "producing more hands to put more $$ in the offering plates" was focused."


See post 218 for more context if desired.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
Abortion is only an option in blue states unless the mother is dying.

Adoption is a totally different topic that deserves its own thread.
Click to expand...
That isn't correct. South Carolina is a red state...abortion is legal here until 20 weeks...yes, I know about all of the stupid attempts of the legislature here, but the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina has slapped them down.

Kansas is also a red state...abortion is legal there.

there are others, but I am not inclined to point them out to you...but both of these state are red and they allow abortions up to 20 weeks.
 
Lursa said:
Already addressed this:

"In practice" that's exactly what they taught. Historically they had no way of knowing who was infertile so it applied to all younger people who wed. And IMO they didnt give a crap what older, less/non-fertile people did...there was no reason to invest any energy there. And why would they ban it after menopause unless they wanted to commit to the act "being wrong" at some point for marriage and eternal love? That would have backfired on them. Again, they had no 'investment' in banning it...only promoting it. That's where the "producing more hands to put more $$ in the offering plates" was focused."


See post 218 for more context if desired.
Click to expand...
If it was only permitted for procreation then it would be a sin to engage in sex during those times....the church has never said it was a sin to have sex when you cannot get pregnant...
 
Patriotic Voter said:
What is Lursa mistaken about?

All churches teach sex before marriage is a sin because the Bible explicitly says so, but Roman Catholics specifically have a long history of verbally and physically abusing people who do it. They still do it today.
Click to expand...
Lursa is claiming that the Church teaches that sex when you cannot get pregnant or for reasons other than pregnancy is a sin....they don't teach that.
 
ClaraD said:
If it was only permitted for procreation then it would be a sin to engage in sex during those times....the church has never said it was a sin to have sex when you cannot get pregnant...
Click to expand...

???? I addressed that. Please read it again. There was no reason to do so...it might actually even prevent an unexpected/unlikely pregnancy. To do so would have placed an unnecessary negativity on having sex...and that wasnt needed...there was no 'cost' to the RCC to discourage sex within marriage.
 
ClaraD said:
Lursa is claiming that the Church teaches that sex when you cannot get pregnant or for reasons other than pregnancy is a sin....they don't teach that.
Click to expand...

Um no. I wrote that the Church believes and teaches that sex is only for procreation. I never wrote it was a sin within marriage...only that birth control is. They paid lip service to the rhythm method when they had to and lord knows that's a very unreliable method. Which they also knew.

When you add it all up: no bc, woman is not allowed to refuse her husband sex (technically neither is), the rhythm method :rolleyes: , etc that's exactly what they were "promoting." There was just no reason for them to teach that it was 'bad' within a marriage, there's no downside to it but everything was indeed towards getting more boots on the ground and more hands to put $$$ in those collection plates.
 
ClaraD said:
If it was only permitted for procreation then it would be a sin to engage in sex during those times....the church has never said it was a sin to have sex when you cannot get pregnant...
Click to expand...

The church has always correctly said it is a sin to have sex outside of wedlock. That is very clear in the Bible, not a weird Catholic dogma.

I never heard or read it is a sin to have sex when you can't get pregnant. However, whether a woman can get pregnant or not, she can get an STD by having sex. That is why I was taught there is no such thing as "safe sex."
 
Lursa said:
???? I addressed that. Please read it again. There was no reason to do so...it might actually even prevent an unexpected/unlikely pregnancy. To do so would have placed an unnecessary negativity on having sex...and that wasnt needed...there was no 'cost' to the RCC to discourage sex within marriage.
Click to expand...
No one cares what was true in 1500 AD. It isn't true now and hasn't been true in our lifetimes. In fact, what was true of the Evangelical Protestants was that slavery was good and necessary....do you still believe they think that?
 
Patriotic Voter said:
The church has always correctly said it is a sin to have sex outside of wedlock. That is very clear in the Bible, not a weird Catholic dogma.

I never heard or read it is a sin to have sex when you can't get pregnant. However, whether a woman can get pregnant or not, she can get an STD by having sex. That is why I was taught there is no such thing as "safe sex."
Click to expand...
You have argued in 2 threads now that ANY sex is bad...and that orgasms are worse....you are wrong.
 
Lursa said:
Um no. I wrote that the Church believes and teaches that sex is only for procreation. I never wrote it was a sin within marriage...only that birth control is. They paid lip service to the rhythm method when they had to and lord knows that's a very unreliable method. Which they also knew.

When you add it all up: no bc, woman is not allowed to refuse her husband sex (technically neither is), the rhythm method :rolleyes: , etc that's exactly what they were "promoting." There was just no reason for them to teach that it was 'bad' within a marriage, there's no downside to it but everything was indeed towards getting more boots on the ground and more hands to put $$$ in those collection plates.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect...they do not teach that it is ONLY for procreation.
 
ClaraD said:
You have argued in 2 threads now that ANY sex is bad...and that orgasms are worse....you are wrong.
Click to expand...

She's said that from what she's heard about orgasms they are "boring". LOL!
 
ClaraD said:
Lursa is claiming that the Church teaches that sex when you cannot get pregnant or for reasons other than pregnancy is a sin....they don't teach that.
Click to expand...

That does not make sense to me either. What matters is whether the sex partners are married to each other or not.

The Catholic Church does still teach all hormonal contraception methods, including estrogen pills that regulate periods, are abortion drugs, which is not true. They hate IUDs too. In their minds a woman is fertile, she must be a mom,
 
ClaraD said:
No, not all sexual relations are exclusively for that purpose...there is no prohibition for people who are infertile, pregnant or sterile or even during or after menopause...if it were solely to get pregnant, you would only be allowed to have sex while fertile. The only requirement is that you be married. The church, in fact teaches that sex is essential for a strong foundation in your marriage, regardless of ability to procreate. I am not a non-Catholic...I am Catholic. Your suppositions aren't factual.
Click to expand...
I posted this link yesterday and will now quote from it:

Question:​

Did the Church ever teach sex was only for procreation ?

Answer:​

No, the Church has never taught conjugal love was only for procreation. If that were the case, the Church would have always banned from marriage those couples capable of engaging in love and yet, for reasons of sterility on the part of either spouse, not able to conceive. In addition, that’s typically something spouses don’t know until they’re married, especially for most of Church history.

In addition, and of greater testimonial weight, if the Church taught conjugal love was only for procreation, the Church would have banned all conjugal love after a wife reaches menopause. But the Church has never taught such.

The Church follows divine revelation, which notes that conjugal love is for a man and a woman to become one in marriage (Gen. 2:23-24), and thus for mutual love and support, and also for the procreation and education of children (Gen. 1:26-27). The Church continues to affirm this teaching (CCC 1643ff.).

www.catholic.com

Did the Church Ever Teach Sex Was Only for Procreation?

The history of Church teachings shows that the Church has always supported conjugal love for more than just procreation, though that is an important part.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com
 
ClaraD said:
No one cares what was true in 1500 AD. It isn't true now and hasn't been true in our lifetimes. In fact, what was true of the Evangelical Protestants was that slavery was good and necessary....do you still believe they think that?
Click to expand...

er...their doctrine is their doctrine. Them making up stuff like Popes is 'real.' They still say birth control is a sin..right? And that sex is a sin outside of marriage? And they dont accept divorce? If they do now...it's still part of their dogma and they are attempting to skirt it to keep members in more modern times.

I already acknowledged other Christian religions had their hypocrisies. But right now we're discussing the granddaddy of torture, greed, coercion, repression and misogyny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom