Oh, so true! Now the hard part… selling the message to the supposedly educated, but very narrow minded, masses.

Maybe the good Doctor (Trussell) could find a pill for that :-)

If the suggested alternative to contraception is abstinence only, that has troubles itself. For one thing, when a person has the sexual urge it doesn’t just go away.  It’s an integral part of humans. Repressing it can’t be good…

The alternative to contraception IS abstinence. If we don’t accept that then we live the"fantasy ideology”. We don’t chew food and then spit it out. We swallow it. That is what we call eating. Likewise, sex has a context and a proper setting: it is open to life and licit within a stable relationship (what we properly call marriage).

The “sexual urge,” as Kaltrosomos called it, may not “go away,” but controlling that urge until such time as one can marry and have a committed relationship in which children are welcome is entirely possible and physically and psychologically the healthiest option.  Animals have sexual urges which they cannot control, but human dignity indicates that we can develop self-mastery suchwise that our genital capacity is ordered to the total gift of self to another.  This kind of permanent relationship reflects a lasting communion of persons marked by that selfless love which has always been manifested in the better part of the human race.

Sylvester, why does sex always have to be about procreation? Sure, intercourse normally has a high chance of creating a baby.  But why does that mean we should throw up our hands and act as though it’s something unchangeable?
Mvm, if the “genital capacity” is supposed to be ordered as a total gift to another, isn’t monogamy a bit selfish then?  Why not share the love with as many as possible, without using any sort of contraception?  limiting your ‘selfless love’ to one person doesn’t seem that selfless.  Not that limiting yourself is bad.  It just conflicts with some of your justifications.  As well, i’m curious.  what makes saving sex until marriage, and never using contraception when you are married, the healthiest option physically and pyschologically?

Kaltrosomos, you write: “..if the “genital capacity” is supposed to be ordered as a total gift to another, isn’t monogamy a bit selfish then?  Why not share the love with as many as possible, without using any sort of contraception?  limiting your ‘selfless love’ to one person doesn’t seem that selfless.”

You have just, albeit unwittingly, given one of the best arguments in favour of monogamy.  It is precisely because polygamy, by definition, cannot involve a total self-giving to another that it is impermissible.  As soon as you “share” yourself with more than one person, you withhold part of yourself from each of them.

Kaltrosomos

“Why does sex always have to be about procreation?” It does not; sex, for human beings, has a dual purpose, procreation and unitive.  Problems start when ones separates one from the other through the use of artificial contraception or IVF.

“intercourse normally has a high chance of creating a baby.” It does not as there are more days in each month when a woman cannot conceive than when she can.

“if the “genital capacity” is supposed to be ordered as a total gift to another, isn’t monogamy a bit selfish then?” You are confusing sex and married love.  By definition married love is monogamous and for life.  There are other types of love, such as the love of friendship, the love of parents for their children which are not restricted to a single person and certainly the more the better of this sort of love

“what makes saving sex until marriage, and never using contraception when you are married, the healthiest option physically and pyschologically?” I think that enough evidence has been provided in this and the two other related articles to prove this point.

To add to Kalostromos’ argument, why is the Pill any different from eyeglasses or ibuprofen for a fever?  Those things “interrupt” natural processes? Why isn’t Viagra prohibited?

Saving yourself for marriage is the best way because that is the way we were designed by our Creator.  But if one doesn’t believe in the Almighty and Living God then he or she believes they are a law unto themselves and whatever feels right is right.  Such a poisonous attitude.  But it sure sounds altruistic, “sharing one’s genital capacity.” How noble!  That particular lawless attitude is also from the Creator, who releases people who reject Hm to the baseness of their appetites:  “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!  Amen.”

Tom Teague, how do you know polygamy can’t involve a total giving of self to each partner? Consider a related situation.  A man marries.  He spends twenty happy years with his wife and family, until one day his wife is killed in a car accident.  He grieves for years.  But then, one day, he meets another woman who really connects with him, and he with her.  Eventually, they get married. 

Has this man, then, been guilty of witholding some of himself from either his first or second wife?  Why or why not?  And if it is possible to give yourself totally to multiple people as in the sort of situation described above, why is it impossible for a polygamist?

Sex does not always have to be about procreation, but that is from a an emotional and physical view. Biologically or evolutionarily speaking that is it’s only purpose.
If we want to lead our lives as best we can I believe we have to respect, for want of a better term, the limitations we have. Actually, we only see them as limitations as our egos simply demand more and more.
Let me offer this example: If you could eat and eat with no physical consequences what-so-ever, and you loved cream-filled donuts, you would find yourself devoting your life to stuffing your face. Could you develop any character, could you give of yourself truly to another? I think not. You would be so self-satisfied as not to care.
As to Karen’s post: Eyeglasses and ibuprofen do not interrupt natural processes, unless you’d like to walk into lamp posts and burn up with fever. I know what you’re trying to say, but if it gets real cold (a natural process) you wear warm clothes and get shelter.

Darren, I never said anything about *not* respecting our limitations. 

I don’t view contraception as a free pass to endless sex. It is a tool. 

Our populations are getting too big.  Our planet is filling with people.  we’re nearing seven billion or so. It doesn’t take a math whiz to see that if even half of our current population was making babies indiscriminately, population levels would soar out of control.

Even if you have an optimistic view on population sizes, you have to realize that eventually we are going to run out of space, and our resources will dry up.  We can limit our population growth, or we can colonize space, or we can keep on growing our populations indiscriminately, until one day we ask so much of the planet that she can’t give it to us, and we start starving, and squabbling over food, and killing each other over turnips or potatoes.

Also, why does the censor keep toying with my posts?  Taking out sections or not even printing one of my comments? What’s so horrible about what I wrote?

Sex is not primarily about creating human embryo’s.  If it was, men would ignore women for most of the time, respond to uncontrollable urges, and then get back to their lives.

The reason that we enjoy sex, and can get up to it most of the time is that we are a high-k species and the parents not only have to be joined up to create the next generation, but they have to stay together long enough to make sure that the next generation can continue the species, or why women live so long after their childbearing years. Men are biologically constructed to hang around the mother of their children for long enough to raise the child.  Sex builds up the bond between parents that allows for the nuclear family.

Kaltrosomos, Your previous posts indicated a recreational view toward sex. “Why not share your love with as many as possible..” you said.
I’m not against contraception. However it has been used to excuse free-for-all sex and allegedly “safe sex”. It should be recognized as a tool or aid but !not! the answer.
For too many years morality has been scoffed at and even demeaned. We’re not perfect, but morality, as in self-control, self-respect and respect for natural consequences is the answer.

Our population is not getting too big; there is plenty of room and plenty of food.  However, because we humans are intrinsically selfish and greedy, we don’t distribute our resources properly, nor do we tend to take care of each other.  A smaller population will not solve our present woes.  Look back at history and you will find shortages in all ages; and this because people didn’t plan ahead and those who had enough chose not to share.  A notable exception was about four thousand years ago when Africa and the Middle East were suffering from a major seven year drought.  Pharaoh was warned and planned ahead and Egypt, under the guidance of Joseph ben Jacob, was able to provide for all the needs.  Take a look around, in most suburbs people spend lots of time, money and energy making sure they have the ideal lawn.  If one of the spouses stayed home and planted a substantial garden, they could grow enough food to feed themselves and a few other families as well.  We are just too selfish to care about or neighbors.  Also consider the statistics surfacing over the past decade, the population increase has slowed down dramatically, even in places like China, which actually has a negative growth, which will become dramatic in ten years or so because there are so few women coming of age, and those that have refuse to marry and have families.  On the other hand, the Muslim community is growing by leaps and bounds because they aren’t afraid to have children.  Contraception is a tool, alright, to abrogate God’s command to have children and to raise them in the admonition and nurture of the Lord.