tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38893560.post8610245964446680969..comments2023-10-08T12:11:52.993+13:00Comments on New Zealand Conservative: Sex - Recreation Or Creation?Lucia Mariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10485990994973953860noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38893560.post-1462621393278373072010-11-28T08:18:22.159+13:002010-11-28T08:18:22.159+13:00Well said and the Pope does hit it on the head.
N...Well said and the Pope does hit it on the head.<br /><br />No wonder so many hate him with such passion, he won't bless their need to screw around with wild abandon.MathewKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14385674205383405783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38893560.post-13311194293870644922010-11-25T11:03:23.998+13:002010-11-25T11:03:23.998+13:00Francis, I actually took great pains to say (so th...Francis, I actually took great pains to say (so that nobody would be confused) - <br /><br /><i>, but one of the main reasons is procreation - babies. I'm not saying that babies are the only reason for sex - it is also to draw man and wife closer together in unity, for their enjoyment, and to nourish their relationship</i><br /><br />I even highlighted "main" in bold. I guess there was bound to be someone who misunderstood what I was trying to say though, which was that today's society treats sex as a 'Friday night drug' simply for pleasure. As Zen said, I was not trying to say <i>this</i> is the reason for sex and not <i>that</i>, I was pointing out what society now sees as the main reason for sex to the exclusion of all other reasons.<br /><br />I was not making comment on what the Church believes about sex, although again, "it is also to draw man and wife closer together in unity, for their enjoyment, and to nourish their relationship" seems to me to be a fairly accurate presentation, although perhaps I should have put "to draw man and wife closer together in unity <i>with God</i>", because marriage is a sacrament and humans cannot <i>create</i>. It is only through God that new life is created in partnership with the act of love.I.M Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221772173209860714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38893560.post-9042258887212316662010-11-25T08:50:52.858+13:002010-11-25T08:50:52.858+13:00You assume that sex, which fulfills several functi...<em>You assume that sex, which fulfills several functions, must be "meant for" one of them at the exclusion of the others. </em><br /><br />Hi Francis, I don't think Fletch assumes that at all. He used words like "predominantly" and phrases like "can be abused".<br /><br />It seems to me Fletch acknowledges there are several reasons, not just one, but suggests a hierarchy of importance. Putting pleasure at the top (almost as if that is what it is meant for, to the exclusion of others) is ultimately detrimental.<br /><br />Indeed, the meaning from the post I get is that it is that the issue has flipped to the way you discuss it - sex is being promoted as "meant for" fun and pleasure almost to the exclusion of the actual function - creating babies, and all that implies. <br /><br />Thus contraception, and then abortion, to ensure such functions do not interfere with the "predominate" reason of pleasure.<br /><br />The post, to me, simply outlines that there are dangers when pleasure becomes the "main reason", to the point where relationships are irrelevant, STD's are considered an unavoidable fact of life and we implicitly endorse overly promiscuous behaviour in our young adults, rather than trying to teach or model more beneficial values.<br /><br />I also think that taking this view, whilst counter-culture, isn't necessarily prudish. It can seem that way, because making a point against the danger of imbalance can imply an opposite, yet this need not be the case. I got a much clearer understanding of the balance and acceptance of the "many reasons" for sex through reading the Theology of the Body.<br /><br />I don't disagree with your argument in substance, but I also think the argument you make doesn't directly speak to the points I thought Fletch was making.ZenTigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07888629207437612884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38893560.post-50766671432579627692010-11-24T23:35:30.510+13:002010-11-24T23:35:30.510+13:00You assume that sex, which fulfills several functi...You assume that sex, which fulfills several functions, must be "meant for" one of them at the exclusion of the others. Your "logically and scientifically" nonsense would really only make sense if there were <b><i>no God;</i></b> that is, if sex were the blind product of an evolutionary dynamic propelled by survival-as-species-vindication.<br /><br />Sex is "for pleasure."<br />Sex is "for bonding."<br />Sex is "for the expression of love."<br />Sex is "for procreation."<br /><br />None of these excludes the others in any way.<br /><br />What orthodox Catholics have been told over the centuries -- that sex is "for procreation," and that pleasure, etc. are merely useful adjuncts to that end -- amounts to a disparagement of one of God's greatest gifts to Mankind.<br /><br />I'm a Catholic. And I'm quite aware of Church teaching on the subject. But do please remember that Church doctrine about sex <b><i>is primarily rooted in the teachings of Saint Paul,</i></b> not in the words of Christ. Before his "road to Samascus" conversion, Saint Paul was an ascetic Pharisee. Afterward, he attempted to import as much of the Levitical covenant into Christianity as he could. He begrudged his approval <b><i>even to marriage.</i></b> Ponder the implications of that for a while.<br /><br />I'll be writing more about this at <b><i>Eternity Road.</i></b> The time has come.Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.com