M
Because I'm not convinced that any intrinsically immoral act is ever justified, even if it were to potentially save someone's life, but that speaks nothing to whether or not I value human life. But also, I don't believe that there is any sitiuation in which a human would be forced by moral necessity to make such a decision. There is always a 'third option'.
But our conscience must be informed; it is not omniscient, neither is it infallible. For example, there are things I have done in the past for which I felt no guilt. However, more recently I have learned that such things are wrong, so the same actions would now cause me guilt.
If you've been following my train of thought, I expect you already know that I would understand such a thing as a grave evil.
Not sure what you mean here.
Every married couple should be open to the possibility of new life, of which God is the author. If God chooses to bless them with children they should be ready to receive it, rather than actively taking measures to frustrate it.
Everyone who uses it is committing a moral evil. It's not the populist answer, I know, but there's no need for me to pull my punches here is there?
No, but neither is it the hedonistic need to be close to someone as you're postulating.
Yes, and we should be open to receiving them.
When I said that the primary end of sex was reproduction, I was referring to the act itself, regardless of the participants' intentions. One need not enter into marriage with the specific intention of having children, all that is required is that one remains open, in spirit and in practice, to the possibility.
You've thrown me on this one, because, at face value, I agree with this statement. You're understanding of what this entails in practice must differ significantly from mine, I assume, so feel free to explain what you mean.
But our conscience must be informed; it is not omniscient, neither is it infallible. For example, there are things I have done in the past for which I felt no guilt. However, more recently I have learned that such things are wrong, so the same actions would now cause me guilt.
If you've been following my train of thought, I expect you already know that I would understand such a thing as a grave evil.
Pair bonding is about a family, and it's better to have a loving family then anything else. 
So what about people who want to get married but not to have kids? Not everyone wants kids, and there are a lot of straight couples who never have kids. Should they then just not be together? Children are a blessing however they aren't the solution to a family, you have a family first which is made out of love.
Everyone who uses it is committing a moral evil. It's not the populist answer, I know, but there's no need for me to pull my punches here is there?
No, but neither is it the hedonistic need to be close to someone as you're postulating.
Yes, and we should be open to receiving them.
When I said that the primary end of sex was reproduction, I was referring to the act itself, regardless of the participants' intentions. One need not enter into marriage with the specific intention of having children, all that is required is that one remains open, in spirit and in practice, to the possibility.
You've thrown me on this one, because, at face value, I agree with this statement. You're understanding of what this entails in practice must differ significantly from mine, I assume, so feel free to explain what you mean.
Last edited by a moderator:
