Contraception: Boon to Humankind or 'Gateway to the Culture of Death'

[Pure]

for lady jeanne,

have a look at

http://www.beliefnet.com/features/chastity_chart.html

which states the positions of religions and Xtian denominations on chastity. although it's not perfect, it's not bad. most Xtian denominations-- Catholics, Baptists, etc. as well as outliers like Mormons --want sex only in marriage.

i would say it's mostly from a reading of St. Paul, who was certainly suspicious of sex and wanting to restrict it. iirc he said, 'flee fornication" which may be interpreted to include all premarital sex:

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." 1 Cor 6:18

Matt at 15:18 mentions evil things that flow from the heart, "murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, ...."

At the same time we know Orthodox Jews and Muslims limit(forbid) premarital sex, so the general idea can't be laid entirely on St. Paul.

[[Added: The Orthodox Jews follow the Torah and have compiled 613 commandments from it; #122 and #123 reads as follows:

122: To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin Deut. 22:13

123: Not to have relations with women not thus married Deut. 23:18



http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_613_Commandments.asp


The Old Testament is filled with fornications and adulteries, including by revered figures like King David; but they didn't make sexual sins the primary and most evil ones as Xtians tend to.

From 'sex only in marriage' it is a short step to 'marital sex for procreation only,' a traditional position the Catholic church is trying to extricate itself from. 'sex only in marriage' combined with 'marital chastity' (avoidance of excess desire and lust) roughly equals 'maritial sex only for procreation.'

This was put on the law books in New England, by the Puritans of Massachusetts. Note that Griswold, the decision providing for privacy and contraceptive devices, is against the State of Connecticut--clearly protestant and not Catholic.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That simplifies it a bit, but has some truth, R. Richard. Pastoral societies tend to be polygamous, for their own reasons. Many wives mean many kids, thus adding to wealth. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be promiscuous, since it benefited not only the woman for reasons that you noted, but the man too, to have many partners. Proving his sexual prowess was a way for a man to achieve leadership, and was a benefit of doing so, a motive, an incentive to power. It fit in with hunting and gathering abilities.

The fact that monogamy has never been more than a legal situation for most people throughout history was also convenient. Quite a few "middle-class" people were products of informal unions. Such a class comes in handy, being neither noble or nor servile. It was generally populated by the children of rich men and their courtesans or slaves. Rome was a clear example of such, as was Egypt. And it rings true even today, with 60% of husbands and 40% of wives admittedly unfaithful. Clearly, some people have found hypocrisy to be useful. Not that I find such deceit admirable. But it is in the bloodstream of humanity.

Now, with no such utility to any particular social construct, we can safely make room for a variety of personalized relationships and lifestyles. Including homosexuality and lesbianism.

And, Colly, I can understand why you find certain things in the Bible appealing. All religions have virtues as well as vices. It is a pity indeed that the vices of Christianity have been the most glaring traits of late, and the leaders tend to drive away many who would otherwise worship the Deity within their own tradition.

As for the gay vs. lesbian thing in the OT, well, I have a theory there that I think some will find offensive. But it has to do with the basic mindset of a lot of straight men. Not a surprising one, if you know what I mean.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you do not understand your own heritage.

The real driving force behind marriage was agriculture. In a hunter/gatherer society it is actually an advantage for a woman to have as many sexual partners as she can reasonably manage. If the male thinks that a woman's child is his, he will usually help feed the kid. In an agricultural society, it becomes very important to know who owns the land. Thus, monagamous marriage is supposed to determine that a child is the product of one specific man and one specific woman and the child will have rights to inherit the family farm.

Just what I have read.

It should also be pointed out that the early chruch consisted of a bruatally persecuted minority. That may explain why any sexual acticity that wasn't leasing to more little christians was verboten.

 

[LadyJeanne]

It's all in where you draw your inferences. All in where you think god really meant that and wehre he was just kidding.

Or if you prefer

It's all about how much you are willing to invest in critical thinking and assessment. The less you are willing to invest, the more you are willing to take on some "learned" person's position. And if you aren't willing to invest any, you'll just take their position hook, line and sinker as being right.

I wonder, though. The people who don't give it thought and take it on faith the the lines have been drawn in the right place...surely they must experience that deeply intimate sex with their spouse, the kind that makes you feel god, even if you don't believe in God. How do they make sense of what they feel and know and what they're told about god?

It just seems wrong to take find citations to support that view of the role of sex in our lives. Why not celebrate every orgasm as a tribute to god - your own personal fireworks? Why take god out of sex?

 

[cantdog]

I do not get this. God has never been in my sex. I woulda noticed, I think. Right?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I wonder, though. The people who don't give it thought and take it on faith the the lines have been drawn in the right place...surely they must experience that deeply intimate sex with their spouse, the kind that makes you feel god, even if you don't believe in God. How do they make sense of what they feel and know and what they're told about god?

It just seems wrong to take find citations to support that view of the role of sex in our lives. Why not celebrate every orgasm as a tribute to god - your own personal fireworks? Why take god out of sex?

My personal opinion is that it has to do with control and power. In the religious right, you see a great deal of emphasis on those parts of the scripture that would confer power to the priests, pastors, bishops, etc.

The parts that don't offer a route to power, seem to be forgotten or beudhes over, like forgiving your neighbor, or judge not least you be juge or vengence is mine sayeth the lord.

Control of controception, of sex, leads to some serious control over people and their actions. Persecution of "them" allows the ones who designate who them is, to weild extreme power.

Fairly, if Pat Robertson wasn't a man of god, if people didn't think every word out of his mouth was gospel, where would he be? Locked up in a booby hatch, if you take a lot of his recent statements in context. His influence, his power if you like, is intimately tied to his being a religious figure people follow. Take away his following and what is he? Just another nut job, with poor critical thinking skills and chronic foot in moth disease.

 

[Pure]

repression of sex

not to be too cynical, but as colly said, one aspect of religion-- besides all the nice things like a relation to something Transcendent--is as a means of social control. Detailed rules about sex are very common, e.g., among the aboriginals of Australia; the rules cover all kinds of incest.

If sex and aggression are the strongest human impulses, it makes sense that a religion aiming to "improve" mankind --i.e. control them-- is going to fence these things in. Xtianity, for instance, lauds meekness, and 'turning the other cheek.' I.e. don't react to aggression with counter aggression. (Not a bad idea, esp. in a marriage).

PS: Obviously limits on contraception are supposed to hinder premarital and extramarital sex--i.e., raise the stakes. Same for bans of abortions. The implications of any strict abortion ban are extremely invasive and controlling: Though the talk is of 'tiny persons' and 'preborn babies', since these reside in women, and require (for detection) rigorous tests for the first couple months of "life", obviously it's real adult women who are the objects of immediate control; anti abortion laws invade privacy-- hence the importance of Griswold.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I do not get this. God has never been in my sex. I woulda noticed, I think. Right?

Love and nature are the only places I come close to feeling god. And there's a certain kind of sex I can have, if I'm lucky, with a lover I love. Not every time, not whenever, but when it happens it's mindblowing. If there is god, I feel god then.

 

[LadyJeanne]

My personal opinion is that it has to do with control and power. In the religious right, you see a great deal of emphasis on those parts of the scripture that would confer power to the priests, pastors, bishops, etc.

The parts that don't offer a route to power, seem to be forgotten or beudhes over, like forgiving your neighbor, or judge not least you be juge or vengence is mine sayeth the lord.

Control of controception, of sex, leads to some serious control over people and their actions. Persecution of "them" allows the ones who designate who them is, to weild extreme power.

Fairly, if Pat Robertson wasn't a man of god, if people didn't think every word out of his mouth was gospel, where would he be? Locked up in a booby hatch, if you take a lot of his recent statements in context. His influence, his power if you like, is intimately tied to his being a religious figure people follow. Take away his following and what is he? Just another nut job, with poor critical thinking skills and chronic foot in moth disease.

I believe it's about power and contol. No doubt.

It doesn't work, though, if the followers don't just follow the rules. Or if the non-believers don't follow the rules. Hence the sound and fury to make it the law of the land.

 

[SensualMale]

Hats off to contraceptives. Pants off too

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I believe it's about power and contol. No doubt.

It doesn't work, though, if the followers don't just follow the rules. Or if the non-believers don't follow the rules. Hence the sound and fury to make it the law of the land.

Their program is pretty self evident. Theocracy. The temporalpower of the state used to enforce cannon law. The spiritual power of the church lifting ecah decision of the state to holy wirt.

Whether you believe or not is immateiral to them, it's that you dsubmit. Thus they aren't trying to persuade anyone this is the best course, they want the power of law to force you to follow, your beliefs be damned.


ETA: I wouldlike to note that the religious right, in my posts is a particular group who follow a particular ethos. Not all religious concervatives are part of this, just as not all conservative chrisians are.

 

[LadyJeanne]

not to be too cynical, but as colly said, one aspect of religion-- besides all the nice things like a relation to something Transcendent--is as a means of social control. Detailed rules about sex are very common, e.g., among the aboriginals of Australia; the rules cover all kinds of incest.

If sex and aggression are the strongest human impulses, it makes sense that a religion aiming to "improve" mankind --i.e. control him-- is going to fence these things in. Xtianity, for instance, lauds meekness, and 'turning the other cheek.' I.e. don't react to aggression with counter aggression. (Not a bad idea, esp. in a marriage).

PS: Obviously limits on contraception are supposed to hinder premarital and extramarital sex--i.e., raise the stakes. Same for bans of abortions. The implications of any strict abortion ban are extremely invasive and controlling: Though the talk is of 'tiny persons' and 'preborn babies', since these reside in women, and require (for detection) rigorous tests for the first couple months of "life", obviously its real adult women who are the objects of immediate control; anti abortion laws invade privacy-- hence the importance of Griswold.

See, that's the problem, isn't it? It wouldn't matter to me what was being taught in anyone's religion, if they would just stick to providing spiritual and moral guidance to those who believed in the religion. But, no, they are working to force everyone (women) in society to follow their rules by making them laws.

 

[Pure]

are you saying laws should not address immorality? and acts that detract from human dignity? acts that threaten "life"?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

are you saying laws should not address immorality? and acts that detract from human dignity? acts that threaten "life"?

I'll say it.

Morality isn't standard, nor is it rationally defineable. The law shouldn't be coded to suit one person or group's morality.

Obviously, the law does have to deal with morality. It's immoral to murder in most moral/ethical sytems, it's also illegal in most legal codes. There has to be some overlap, as what is moral, in general will line up with laws that protect the population. Thou shalt not kill is a moral value, but it's also neccessary to protect the citizenry. Thou shalt not steal, again a moral precept, but it also protects the population's property.

There has to be a practical limit though. Who wants to see thou shalt not jerk off added to the penal code?

By and large, we have, albeit slowly, removed most of the purely Judeo/christan morality laws from the justice system. Adultry is no longer a crime, nor is fornication, nor oral/anal sex in your own bedroom, nor is marrying outrside your race, nor is working on Sunday, nor is teaching evolution in schools still a crime, but mandantory prayer is, etc. etc.

Some still remain, but they are, in general rarely enforced and quuite often when someone tries to enforce them, they fail judicial review.

The religious right would like to return to the time when morality, specifically their morality, had the weight of law behind it. Theres is a specific moral code, one that does not enjoy the kind of pervasive acceptance that would lead it to be the basis for legislation.

If a moral precept enjoys the support of the vast majority of the citizenry, i.e. price gouging is ehtically wrong, then it can form the basis of a law.

The moral code of the religious right, does not enjoy such support. It's just one moral code, and a very worng headed moral code to many. Many of it's precepyts are actually immoral according to other popularly supported codes.

The law then, has no bussiness being co opted by a minority to push their morality on the population as a whole. No matter how loudly they squall. If their morality were as self evident as they claim, they wouldn't need laws to foster it upon people in the first place.

 

[Pure]

very good points, colly,

here's something to lose sleep over, though.

add together evangelicals (of the type we're describing) and conservative catholics, and what percent of voters do you have? some estimate US evangelicals alone as in the 30s.

 

[R. Richard]

I'll say it.

Morality isn't standard, nor is it rationally defineable. The law shouldn't be coded to suit one person or group's morality.

Right you are Colly!

The pre-European contact polynesians thought it was quite moral for a woman to have sex with whomever she pleased. The reasoning was that the polynesians often lived in small groups on widely separated islands. They faced the constant threat of inbreeding. In order to combat inbreeding, there had to be a pretty much maximum mixing of the gene pool. A polynesian woman would have sex with any man on her island. In addition, male travellers of rank were always given a local woman, also of rank. Since the traveller was of rank, the island needed his genes.

But wait! The polynesians were just stone age savages with no real ability to form moral codes, right? Wrong!

In Europe, there were LOTS of isolated valleys where they had the same kond of inbreeding problem. They didn't let their women screw anyone they wanted to in the valley. No, of course not! What they did was have "temple prostitutes." The temple prostitute would only screw high ranking travellers who could afford her price. That way, the valley got his genes. Once the temple prostitute got knocked up, she was married off to some local boy and he was given some land to farm. What, you say there are few records of such practices? Really? I would assume that the proud citizens of the isolated valleys would proudly proclaim, "Hell yes, my mom got knocked up by the Duke of Earl and I am his bastard son." Then again, maybe not.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

here's something to lose sleep over, though.

add together evangelicals (of the type we're describing) and conservative catholics, and what percent of voters do you have? some estimate US evangelicals alone as in the 30s.

Being an evangelical christina dosen't neccessarily mean you're part o the religious right. My own denomination is evangelical and I'm a conservative, but I have no interest in the religious right's agenda other than to be oposed to it.

So Am I counted in among that figure of evengelicals? I think iprobably am. You have to remember that the religious right, can delvier votes en mass, but if you look carefully, it tailors it's particular message to area. I suspect the huge support they claim is based on a lot of people who don't support their whole platfrom, but rather support some portion of it.

Just as an example, there are a large number of anti-abortion people who do not otherwise buy into the right's agenda, but they end up voting with the right because the religious right is the most vocal and powerful lobby that supports their anti-abortion feelings. I suspect this goes for a lot of capital punisment supporters, as well as people with similar, if less visible axes to grind.

The religious right has become the GOP's grass roots support, just as minorities and Unions used to be the Dem's grass roots. In that position, they wield a good deal of visibility and some power. It's not hard to see that people with serious interest in an issue the right supports would ally themselves with them.

If, for example, you're rabidly pro-life, the religious right has put your issue at the forefront of a major party's platform. So you hold your nose to some of their positions and vote, because your main interest in the political process is being served by them.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Right you are Colly!

The pre-European contact polynesians thought it was quite moral for a woman to have sex with whomever she pleased. The reasoning was that the polynesians often lived in small groups on widely separated islands. They faced the constant threat of inbreeding. In order to combat inbreeding, there had to be a pretty much maximum mixing of the gene pool. A polynesian woman would have sex with any man on her island. In addition, male travellers of rank were always given a local woman, also of rank. Since the traveller was of rank, the island needed his genes.

But wait! The polynesians were just stone age savages with no real ability to form moral codes, right? Wrong!

In Europe, there were LOTS of isolated valleys where they had the same kond of inbreeding problem. They didn't let their women screw anyone they wanted to in the valley. No, of course not! What they did was have "temple prostitutes." The temple prostitute would only screw high ranking travellers who could afford her price. That way, the valley got his genes. Once the temple prostitute got knocked up, she was married off to some local boy and he was given some land to farm. What, you say there are few records of such practices? Really? I would assume that the proud citizens of the isolated valleys would proudly proclaim, "Hell yes, my mom got knocked up by the Duke of Earl and I am his bastard son." Then again, maybe not.

AS far as I can see, morality is malleable. When the germans bombed London and Coventry and when the Japanese bombed nanking, it was morally outageous and depraved. Not so when we bomed Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo. It's morally outragous to dynamite someone's home. But during the chicago fire and the fire's raging after the San Fran eathquake, it was done and no one complained. Cannibalism is moraly horrible, but sailors marooned at sea might do it and return to their villages with no stigma attached.

Malleable conceptions don't make for very good laws. Since morality is, in essence, situational. It only makes a certain kind of sense if you practice an Amicus-like thinking process and assume immutable moral precepts are known by all from conception. Very few moral conceptions hold up att he sharp edge, when survival is at stake, and only a few moralists even try to apply them. So a home owner threatened by an intruder with a gun can kill the intruder, and there is very little moralistic connotation there. Or a starving survior of a plane wreck in the andes can eat human flesh and few demand a moral accounting.

Sex drives moarlists to distraction because it feels so damned good even morally strong people can forget their indoctination. The more intelligent moral codes mimic your polynesians. I'm sure there wasn't a long rational debate, but it does make sense. Since I know folks are going to fuck like bunnies, and I know nothing I do or say is going to keep them from fucknglike bunnies, whay base my code upon regulating something here I know it will fail? Were I planning to set myself up as a demogogue and begin a new religion, I can assure you my religion would say sex is a gift from god, to be enjoyed by us poor humans whenever and where ever we decide it's a good idea. How bout that? amoral precept people will find easy to adhere to.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

My own family is part of the religious right (except my brother, I think). So I know something of their agenda. They seek power, but they don't realize it. They seek to control behavior, but they just think that they are trying to "bring America back to God". They want to ban a lot of stuff, but they are not consistent about it. My family is actually kind of liberal, however, by religious right standards. My mom, for instance, had a tubal ligation. My sister is on the pill (has to be, actually, with her polycysticovarian disease). She just got married. I doubt that she is waiting to consummate her marriage until after she gets off of the pill and can have kids (with proper alternative therapy for POS). However, they do condemn masturbation.

I just learn to be more tolerant of them than they are of me. And be tactful at little events like my sister's recent wedding. They aren't too keen about my shacking up (damn good thing that they aren't fully in the loop). They aren't happy about my brother shacking up, either. I'll live with it. I am not going to live with their ilk passing laws to control my behavior though. It has only been 8 years (if I recall correctly) that Arizona (when I lived there) repealed laws banning adultery, cohabitation, and sodomy. Those laws dated back to 1909, 3 years before Arizona became a state! But they were repealed, despite the resistance of people like my parents. That's a good sign, at least there.

 

[LadyJeanne]

are you saying laws should not address immorality? and acts that detract from human dignity? acts that threaten "life"?

I'm saying laws based on subjective religious morality and faith have no place in our government.

 

[Pure]

well, your morality may be subjective, but mine isn't

 

[LadyJeanne]

well, your morality may be subjective, but mine isn't

Is your morality based on your faith in God and what your religious leaders tell you God thinks is moral/immoral? If so, get out of my penal code!

 

[Pure]

God told Moses "That shalt do no murder."

You want that out?

 

[Xelebes]

Verily, Colly, thou hittest the nail on its flat little head.

The Catholics have a mechanism to update the Message: their Popes. "What thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven..." It gives them a way to pronounce on the new stuff with authority from the Writ. The Mormons have a tradition that Prophets are coming along all the time. They pay a lot of attention to the messages which certain sorts of dreams might be trying to convey. Quakers have a mechanism to invent prophecy anew, as well.

A lot of them have evolved methods to move beyond the static interpretaion of millenially-old texts. I think we need that, some of us.

Vatican astronomer dismisses 6-day creationism as pagan.

 

[LadyJeanne]

God told Moses "That shalt do no murder."

You want that out?

There are other reasons why murder is a bad idea besides 'cuz God sez so'