Forums | MacLife

justine wrote:

depeachmood wrote:

Doesn't the church condone sex for couples who are engaged?

I don't think so. I'm not catholic, but the catholic church being pro fornication would be news.

I ask this question because I was reading Much Ado About Nothing which is set in the 1300s or so, and Claudio shames Hero (they were engaged) for allegedly sleeping with another man before they were married, and then her father remarks that if Claudio, Hero's fiancee, had slept with Hero after they were engaged it would have been okay.

I should ask my mom.  She would know for sure.

robco wrote:

midgetcop wrote:

Well, I know it's kinda a grey area, but think about it: even if it was self-gratification, then doing that in the presence of someone else would be pretty damn intimate. For some people, that's even more intimate than traditional sex itself.

So if a parent or sibling walks in on you and catches you "red handed" then…

knobtwirler wrote:

Absolutely not. That would be called premarital sex, and God doesn't recognize an engagement as being some some sort of holy vow. That anectdote your refer to was written to show the hipocracy of people even in the eyes of God when the whole world is not watching or listening. However, I wouldn't be so sure they were Catholics, but merely Christians.

In one little post, you not only tried to push your beliefs and set of morals and religious theories on everyone, you also insulted the intelligence of the reader, but also dissed all of Christianity ("merely Christians.")



-Tim

yelowpunk wrote:

knobtwirler wrote:

Absolutely not. That would be called premarital sex, and God doesn't recognize an engagement as being some some sort of holy vow. That anectdote your refer to was written to show the hipocracy of people even in the eyes of God when the whole world is not watching or listening. However, I wouldn't be so sure they were Catholics, but merely Christians.

In one little post, you not only tried to push your beliefs and set of morals and religious theories on everyone, you also insulted the intelligence of the reader, but also dissed all of Christianity ("merely Christians.")



-Tim

1) If you're Catholic, other people are merely christians - as opposed to being christian and Catholic. (not the capital 'C'.)
2) He answered the question - that's hardly being pushy.

knobtwirler wrote:

Thank you dvpierce, as everyone here must know already, I worship Satan.

Do you now? That's nice.

dvpierce wrote:

No. Neither debs, nor anyone else, could. But, in case you haven't been paying attention the last 2000 years or so: Church Rules != People's Behavior. Never has, never will. Because if there's one thing Christianity has right, it's that people are inherintly flawed, and never fail to not live up to their loftiest ideals.

I certainly recognize that and that is why I see no need to talk down or be hateful about someone that does make the decision. What I did have a problem with is recommending a behavior that is potentially dangerous to the individuals involved and society as a whole.
If one wishes to take that risk, that is certainly their decision. My issue is with 'recommending' it.

It seems to me that sex is an important part of a relationship, but it can't be the only thing. Failed marriages of the type you seem so disgusted by usually happen because the sex is there, but nothing else is. It takes maturity and foresight to predict what it'll take to make a successful marriage - that is something a lot of people lack, but what the Catholic church, and apparently you, don't get is that the sex is a byproduct of bad judgement, not the source of it.

There are actually many people out there that have gotten tired of sex with their spouse. In some cases, sex with ones spouse is no longer possible and they leave. The above statement seems to contradict the reasoning for having sex behavior marriage... to avoid marritial trouble in the bedroom later on. What you seem to suggest promotes the idea that a heathy marriage requires more to it. It shouldn't be too far to say that a healthy marriage has so much that it can last without sexual intercourse, in the face of less sexual compatibility or infrequent encounters.

The fact is, sexual compatibility was such a issue that the notion of the 'honeymoon' was born- giving mead (honey) to a married couple for a month (moon) so that the alcohol would break down their inhibitions.

NoExit wrote:

well yelowpunk is kind of an idiot so i dont know what the problem is here, unless you didnt know that...

You dropped these:

[sarcasm][/sarcasm]

gradient wrote:

Malkin wrote:

gradient wrote:

I'm talking about couples having sex before marriage, not individuals.

Uhhhhhh

I was talking about couples having sex with each other before marriage. Not the couples having sex with prostitutes, members of the same sex or their slaves.

I'm sure there may have been men that did have sex before marriage. Although what I have been talking about is a couple have sex with each other before marriage.

Dude, you think that this group is the majority?  Wow, you're pretty naive.

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

gradient wrote:

Malkin wrote:

Uhhhhhh

I was talking about couples having sex with each other before marriage. Not the couples having sex with prostitutes, members of the same sex or their slaves.

I'm sure there may have been men that did have sex before marriage. Although what I have been talking about is a couple have sex with each other before marriage.

Dude, you think that this group is the majority?  Wow, you're pretty naive.

Which group? Yes, I believe historically that most couples waited until marriage to have sex with each other.

gradient wrote:

debbiedowner wrote:

No, Gradient. Sex is ultra important. It's actually the last thing to go before a couple gets divorced. I didn't want my kids marrying anyone they hadn't "slept" with, it's that important.  And yes, I know that the Church of which I am a member disagrees vehemently with this and thinks you should be a virgin on your wedding night. I don't.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say, If the sex isn't great, the marriage (in most cases) will not be either.

Can you show me Jesus recommending such a thing?

No, I just said the Church disagrees with my statement.

Especially since birth control wasn't available at the time? What is a person, something to take around for a spin?
What happens if it doesn't work out and the woman is pregnant? That's a lovely situation.

Yeah, that's why you shouldn't (as a woman) have sex with someone you wouldn't marry if you got preg. Same thing for a guy: shouldn't have sex w/ a girl he wouldn't marry if she got preg.

Sleeping with someone you love is none of my business, but saying you don't want your kids to marry as virgins is a bit concerning.

I don't wanat my kids sleeping with people they don't love or whom they wouldn't consider marrying; however, I wouldn't want them to find out after they married that the spouse was awful in bed or hated sex or was sexually weird. It's hard to get out of a marriage. Geeze, you text drive a car before buying. (yeah, i am saying that trite thing, but true it is.)

I find the whole obsession with sex shallow and deeply troubling. I guess if your wife doesn't do it for you anymore, it is time to get a new one? That's such selfish and horrible thinking.

The Roman Catholic Church has an unhealthy obsession with sex. I find that troubling. Sex is good when it's an expression of love and attraction and commitment.

There's lots of single mothers out there whose partners just wanted to take them out for a test drive. Now they spend all their time working to feed the kid, while the kid gets involved in illegal activities.

Sometimes the women only want a "test drive" too. The problems of most single mothers is not their partners' lustiness: it's the lack of money to support the kids.
[quqote]All those orphans and children with AIDS in Africa... is sex more important than them? People only consider themselves.

So give them birth control and the AZT cocktail and condoms!  (Oh, wait: the Church doesn't want that!)

justine wrote:

depeachmood wrote:

Doesn't the church condone sex for couples who are engaged?

I don't think so. I'm not catholic, but the catholic church being pro fornication would be news.

I think it depends on whether or not you're a priest, and whether or not your partner is a young boy. 

debbiedowner wrote:

So give them birth control and the AZT cocktail and condoms!  (Oh, wait: the Church doesn't want that!)

Those don't always work. They also promote a culture of sex which ultimately leads to more unprotected sex.