Using condoms if you're married?

[HazyRigby]

All people have a biological urge, which can be repressed by material goods.

No, all people do not have that urge. And my childlessness has nothing to do with material goods. I simply do not enjoy the company of children. I enjoy the company of my spouse.

In fact, by most people's standards, I'm as poor as a church mouse (for lack of a better term). I honestly don't see that changing, kids or no kids (and at least if I had them, I could pay fewer taxes!). And I couldn't possibly care less about my lack of material goods.

 

[stray bullet]

Stray...

You really have no right to say "well thats unnatural". People arent completely bound by instinct. Besides...my post said

"many do, a few don't"(have the inborn desire to have children)
Some people just want romance.

I see, so rebelling against 500+ miliion years of biology and evolution is perfectly natural then?

 

[Chrono Traveler]

Stray Bullet thinks I'm certifiably insane. Well, that's hardly surprising.

I'm another person who finds this "radical feminism" idea laughable. I've always been this way, even before I watched television or had the vocabulary to understand feminism at all. Face it, Bullet. Your idea isn't supported by anyone in the psychiatric community. You've taken your personal viewpoint--that you can't believe that someone wouldn't want to have kids--and made it into an illness. Well, I can't believe that anyone would believe in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that I think you're all crazy!

I'm married. I don't want kids. I love my husband more than my own life, and I want to spend my time with him. I don't want to waste the years I have with him changing diapers, waking up at three a.m. for feedings, and arguing over the proper way to discipline little junior. I want to take trips with my beloved when I want to and make love on the kitchen floor if I so desire. It's my life, and who are you to call me crazy for wanting to live it as I choose?

Well, I was gonna give you rep. for that post.... but seems I cant..anyway, good point.

 

[Chrono Traveler]

I see, so rebelling against 500+ miliion years of biology and evolution is perfectly natural then?

Yup...it just means we have evolved more.

 

[The Gregorian]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Just have to point out:

1 Corinthians 7:4

The wife has not power over her body, but the husband; and in the same way the husband has not power over his body, but the wife. 5 Do not keep back from one another what is right, but only for a short time, and by agreement, so that you may give yourselves to prayer, and come together again; so that Satan may not get the better of you through your loss of self-control.

[/font]This is saying that, in order to serve God, husbands and wives should have sex regularly. Not only that, but the bible tells you not to "keep back" except for a short time, and even then, only if you both agree. Couples who have sex regularly are usually more emotionally attached. Sex is healthy... but it they don't want kids, I don't see anything in the bible even suggesting against having sex without the goal of making more babies.

Point #2: Condoms are one form of birth control... but the most effective is abstainance. If wearing a condom during sex is bad, then so is abstanance. If Condoms are bad, so is abstaining from sex. But Sex in marriage is suggested in the bible

I wrote that a couple times and deleted and rewrote and such, so it might be a little scattered, but I was trying to get the point across that people aren't required to pop out babies every single year.... so using a condom to withold your 'seed' is no better than just not having sex. Since 1 corinthians 7 says you SHOULD have sex to be spiritually healthy, it makes sense that sex isn't only for reproduction, but also for spiritual, and emotional health... therefore, condoms are OK.
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/font]

 

[stray bullet]

Stray Bullet thinks I'm certifiably insane.

That's not what I said, at all. But, thanks for misrepresenting everything I've said here.

Well, that's hardly surprising.[/quote[

Oh? Why is that? I'd love to know

I'm another person who finds this "radical feminism" idea laughable. I've always been this way, even before I watched television or had the vocabulary to understand feminism at all. Face it, Bullet. Your idea isn't supported by anyone in the psychiatric community. You've taken your personal viewpoint--that you can't believe that someone wouldn't want to have kids--and made it into an illness. Well, I can't believe that anyone would believe in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that I think you're all crazy!

It is not my personal viewpoint, but the application of reason and my knowledge of biology to the issue.

There is no way people can not have an instinctual desire to have and raise children. That would be reversing HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of YEARS of biology.

The only way to say you don't have that is by denial or psychological issues.

The psychiatric community has continually showed a lack of biological reference to their field, they'll say whatever is fashionable and politically correct.

What I am saying, however, is backed up by all of biology. No one can say that reproduction is not an instinutal desire of higher forms of Animalia, vertebrates and especially mammals.

 

[HazyRigby]

I see, so rebelling against 500+ miliion years of biology and evolution is perfectly natural then?

Why not? We're the only animals with the mental capacity to determine when or if we should have children. Why shouldn't we use our reasoning?

There are plenty of ways that traditional Christianity offsets evolutionary success.

--In evolutionary history, the most successful males were those who spread their seed widely to as many females as possible. The most successful females were the ones who received the seed of the dominant (more likely to survive) males and got support in raising children. So, at least from a male perspective, monogamy is not the biologically successful way to go.
--When there was competition for a food source, our ancestors often resorted to murder of those less genetically related (i.e., those outside of the "tribe") in order to insure the success of the beings most closely related to oneself. in more recent days, murder--especially murder due to race--is generally frowned upon.

What I'm trying to say is that just because we came from animals doesn't mean we should behave like them. Some primates throw feces, but I wouldn't suggest that we're not mentally sound if we don't do so, as well.

 

[praying]

Stray,

Please address:

All animals have a biological need to mate, not all human animals are right for parenting. In the animal world all offspring are treated the same by each species, meaning there are no purposefully abusive animal parents. Also animals only mate when the biological urge to reproduce is present, I don't know of any animals besides humans that have sex for pleasure, a big big difference

 

[Chrono Traveler]

Well, that's hardly surprising.

Oh? Why is that? I'd love to know



It is not my personal viewpoint, but the application of reason and my knowledge of biology to the issue.

There is no way people can not have an instinctual desire to have and raise children. That would be reversing HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of YEARS of biology.

The only way to say you don't have that is by denial or psychological issues.

The psychiatric community has continually showed a lack of biological reference to their field, they'll say whatever is fashionable and politically correct.

What I am saying, however, is backed up by all of biology. No one can say that reproduction is not an instinutal desire of higher forms of Animalia, vertebrates and especially mammals.

So what if it goes aginst biology? Like I said, maybe we all have just evolved more.

lets see, 2 people here already don't really want kids..You can add a 3rd to the list. I really don't think I care for kids too much now that I think about it.


I have neurofibromatosis anyway. And I myself would rather travel the world and have all my nights filled with romance.
=p

 

[Chajara]

Well, we've also evolved intelligence. And with intelligence comes problem solving and the ability to make an informed decision. So, if someone decides "Kids aren't for me, I'd be doing them a favor by not having them" then I'd say that's backed up by biology too.

Edit: Beaten like an unwanted... er, nevermind.

 

[Evee]

Is it okie for a Christian married couple to use condoms to help plan out when they want to have kids?

I would believe that to be sensible.

 

[stray bullet]

Yup...it just means we have evolved more.

Within Western Culture, within the last 100 years? Hardly.

 

[HazyRigby]

That's not what I said, at all. But, thanks for misrepresenting everything I've said here.

You mean, such as a person who gets married, wants to have sex and never have children? I'd have just as much concern for mental health of such a person as I would someone who didn't want to ever go out in the Sun again, or ever talk to people.

For a person to say they have no such desire shows the have something psychologically interfering with their natural instincts and underlying biological desires.
They don't need birth control, they need a psychologist.

Oh? Why is that? I'd love to know.

Just a feeling. You're a Christian. I'm an atheist. Goes with the territory.

It is not my personal viewpoint, but the application of reason and my knowledge of biology to the issue.

No, it's your opinion.

There is no way people can not have an instinctual desire to have and raise children. That would be reversing HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of YEARS of biology.

So you're denying the existence of monogamy? Homosexuality?

The only way to say you don't have that is by denial or psychological issues.

I don't have it. I'm not in denial. I don't have psychological issues--in fact, if you met me, you'd probably think I was the happiest person you'd ever known. Do you know me better than I know myself, Dr. Freud?

The psychiatric community has continually showed a lack of biological reference to their field, they'll say whatever is fashionable and politically correct.

Reference, please.

What I am saying, however, is backed up by all of biology. No one can say that reproduction is not an instinutal desire of higher forms of Animalia, vertebrates and especially mammals.

All I can say is what's true for me.

 

[Evee]

Stray Bullet thinks I'm certifiably insane. Well, that's hardly surprising.

I'm another person who finds this "radical feminism" idea laughable. I've always been this way, even before I watched television or had the vocabulary to understand feminism at all. Face it, Bullet. Your idea isn't supported by anyone in the psychiatric community. You've taken your personal viewpoint--that you can't believe that someone wouldn't want to have kids--and made it into an illness. Well, I can't believe that anyone would believe in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that I think you're all crazy!

I'm married. I don't want kids. I love my husband more than my own life, and I want to spend my time with him. I don't want to waste the years I have with him changing diapers, waking up at three a.m. for feedings, and arguing over the proper way to discipline little junior. I want to take trips with my beloved when I want to and make love on the kitchen floor if I so desire. It's my life, and who are you to call me crazy for wanting to live it as I choose?

Good post it is a shame many don't think as you.
There are so many that have children and didn't want them.
I believe couples should plan as you.... then be lot less abortions or unwanted Children.

 

[stray bullet]

Why not? We're the only animals with the mental capacity to determine when or if we should have children. Why shouldn't we use our reasoning?

There are plenty of ways that traditional Christianity offsets evolutionary success.

No, it promotes life.

--In evolutionary history, the most successful males were those who spread their seed widely to as many females as possible. The most successful females were the ones who received the seed of the dominant (more likely to survive) males and got support in raising children. So, at least from a male perspective, monogamy is not the biologically successful way to go.

Not at all. It depends on the environment actually. In some species, female domination is better. Check out primate date on social structure, dominance, grouping and sexuality, they are actually very varied.

--When there was competition for a food source, our ancestors often resorted to murder of those less genetically related (i.e., those outside of the "tribe") in order to insure the success of the beings most closely related to oneself. in more recent days, murder--especially murder due to race--is generally frowned upon.

What I'm trying to say is that just because we came from animals doesn't mean we should behave like them. Some primates throw feces, but I wouldn't suggest that we're not mentally sound if we don't do so, as well.

Individual animalistic behaviors should never justify similar behaviors in humans.
However, in this case, this is an instinctual behavior shared by Animalia over hundreds of millions of years and for millions of years in Homo sapiens. To pretend it just went away with the introduction of birth control and materialism is, frankly, absurd.

 

[stray bullet]

All animals have a biological need to mate, not all human animals are right for parenting. In the animal world all offspring are treated the same by each species, meaning there are no purposefully abusive animal parents. Also animals only mate when the biological urge to reproduce is present, I don't know of any animals besides humans that have sex for pleasure, a big big difference

All humans have the instinctual capacity for successful reproduction. The only inhibiting factor of that are psychological factors introduced by perverted cultures. You can take animals perfectly capable of reproduction in the wild and make them unable to successful reproduce in captivity.

As for sex for pleasure, this actually came up in a lecture (for a biology class, as you might have guessed, I studied biology in college) and the professor commented that actually, that's a big part of why animals reproduce.

They don't copulate thinking, "I'm going to increase the frequency of my genes in our population". All they are thinking is how great it feels and they are fulfilling their biological need/desire to reproduce.

 

[Lokisdottir]

There is no way people can not have an instinctual desire to have and raise children.

Uh, the very existence of people like me proves you wrong. I'm not in denial and I have no psychological issues that would impair my ability to decide to have children, and I deeply resent the accusation that I do.

That would be reversing HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of YEARS of biology.

Since when must everything we do be rooted in biology? Are we defined solely by the fact that we are mammals? Must everything we do be provably "mammalian"?

The psychiatric community has continually showed a lack of biological reference to their field, they'll say whatever is fashionable and politically correct.

Regardless, does this so-called mental illness really impair me in any way? Am I the worse for having it (disregarding such frivolous things as "Your genes will die out!")? I'm a perfectly happy and well-adjusted person. This "illness" of mine causes me no trauma; in fact, I feel I'll be better off in the long run by not having kids. That doesn't sound like an illness to me.

What I am saying, however, is backed up by all of biology. No one can say that reproduction is not an instinutal desire of higher forms of Animalia, vertebrates and especially mammals.

For the last time, I never said it wasn't!

Just for a laugh, I'll play it your way. Let's assume that not wanting children is, in fact, a psychological disease, a biological fluke that flaunts millions of years of evolution. If that's true... what's the big deal? Why is that such a bad thing? Who is harmed by my not wanting kids? If I'm perfectly happy without kids, why would I want to undergo counseling to "cure" me of this mental illness?

And, finally, what do you have to gain from seeing me conform to the rest of my species?

 

[Chrono Traveler]

Stray, this is getting silly..

3 people here already said they don't need to have kids, and most others agree that we don't have a disease.. =p

I think its time you accept it.

 

[stray bullet]

Stray, this is getting silly..

3 people here already said they don't need to have kids, and most others agree that we don't have a disease.. =p

I think its time you accept it.

You are right.

These three people have been completely unaffected by 500+ million years of evolution. Unlike every other mammalian species, they have no desire to have and raise children.

Wow, that last 100 years really changed our genome, didn't it?

 

[Chrono Traveler]

You are right.

These three people have been completely unaffected by 500+ million years of evolution. Unlike every other mammalian species, they have no desire to have and raise children.

Wow, that last 100 years really changed our genome, didn't it?

Trust me...its not just us 3...

and this would mean we HAVE been affected by evolution.