Is "Onanism" Masturbation?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by greenmtnboy, Feb 8, 2020.

  1. greenmtnboy

    greenmtnboy Fapstronaut

    150
    136
    43
    I agree that these "musts" centered around marriage are really unhelpful and coercive. Some parents and cultures have promoted that. Though it is good to have children, due to a lot of factors many marriages don't result in offspring.

    And back to the original topic, Onan was "guilty" of coitus interruptus. The big bad judgment was centered around being given a fairly easy task of consummation of the natural sex act. What was his problem to not do that?

    A lot of people "fool around" with sex for years before being willing to have a baby. Personally I think that abuse in marriage is the big problem, not giving each partner a voice in decisions making. Unnatural and disrespectful actions in marriage undermines the relationship.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  2. Well, not quite. The problem was disobedience of God. We don't know whether or not his wife agreed with his decision. But that's not relevant. Even if they both agreed to disobey God, that would still be wrong. The problem in this story wasn't abuse in the relationship. It was disobeying God.

    But if you're just speaking generally, not about this specific event, then yeah, of course abuse and not giving each party a say in decision making is a problem for sure. Unless God tells you to do something, then it doesn't really matter if you and your spouse both agree to disobey Him. That would still be wrong.
     
  3. randomname3

    randomname3 Fapstronaut

    129
    147
    43
    Nature bears witness to the fact marriage is needed, meaning the institution whereby children have the right to be raised by their mother and father. We want children by intuition, and simply to need more people to secure the future of our society.
    So, we name the institution promoting and enforcing that natural right "marriage."
    If you want to make up some roommate fuck buddy institution that doesn't put mothering and fathering children at the forefront, first you've got to demonstrate why you deserve special privileges for such an institution, then you've got to come up with your own name that doesn't sound laughably bad.
     
  4. Actually, I don't have to do or prove anything for you, dude. There is no law written in stone that says marriage is only for having babies. That's your opinion, not a law.
     
  5. randomname3

    randomname3 Fapstronaut

    129
    147
    43
    Well, clearly you have no good reason to support what you believe. Whereas marriage is derived from natural law, not my opinion.
     
  6. I literally already gave you several reasons, but you're too close minded to listen to anything. So there's no point in trying to reason with you.
     
  7. randomname3

    randomname3 Fapstronaut

    129
    147
    43
    So far you've just denied marriage derived from natural law by calling it "opinion" over and over again, and implied the rare existence of proven completely infertile people ought to superceed that natural law. There's just no connection there. And you called marriage "dumb." But that's only three reasons total.

    I'll sum up the natural law bit real quick just in case. Humans are a sexually reproducing species. Humans are highly k-selected, to the point babies die without an enormous amount of care. Humans require inculturation into a society to thrive. All evidence and rational thought indicates the mother and father who made the child are supposed to be the ones who raise it, even though that's a massive responsibility and drain on their time and resources. Yet a society needs to have more children for its health and future.
    As a result of all those facts of our nature, we need to supply privileges to the men and women who commit to have children and stay together to care for and enculturate them. That's what role the marriage privilege is intended for, according to natural law, not opinion.
    If those conditions aren't at least plausibly going to be met, the eunick and nun, or woman and cat, or horse and boy, or whatever, fail to meet the needs for which we institute marriage. That's cheating.
     
  8. I absolute did not ever call marriage dumb. I value marriage greatly. So clearly you haven't understood anything I've said if you think I called it dumb.

    Yeah, no freaking shit. I never claimed any of that was not true. You're not listening to anything I'm saying, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over.
     
  9. randomname3

    randomname3 Fapstronaut

    129
    147
    43
    You did call it dumb. At least, you called it dumb to actually keep marriage what marriage is according to natural. But even if you didn't, that means now you're down to only two measly reasons that you've given to violate natural law. Please don't repeat yourself, but actually give one new and good reason to violate natural law.
     
  10. quit@porn

    [email protected] Fapstronaut

    326
    8,581
    123
  11. Lol omg dude. What a ridiculous stretch. Yes, I think your idea that infertile people aren't allowed to get married is dumb as hell. I freely admit that, and I'm not sorry about it.

    I haven't "violated" any natural laws. You are absurd. I've already repeatedly stated that there is NO law that states that marriage is solely meant for having children. You cannot prove that that's anything more than your opinion.

    I'm not gonna go in and on about this. You're just conflating opinions with facts, misunderstanding everything I'm saying and putting words in my mouth that I never said, and it's ridiuclous.

    I do not believe the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. I'm allowed to not believe that, because it's just your opinion, not a "natural law." You're conflating the fact that we need people to stay together and raise children together in order for the human race to continue (which is a natural law) with your opinion that that's the sole purpose of the institution called marriage (which is not a natural law, and very much just your opinion). You're reversing cause and effect and using one to prove the other, which you can't do. But since you can't even understand the different between me saying that your opinion is dumb and me saying that marriage is dumb, I highly doubt you'll understand anything else I just said.
     
  12. If you want to know what I DO believe, i believe that God created marriage to make us more holy. To grow us, challenge us, and to be a reflection of Christ and the Church (the Bible refers to the Church as "the Bride of Christ" and refers to him as our "husband" many times).

    That's what I believe marriage was created for. If kids are a part of that, great! I fully believe that if you have a child with someone, you should be married to them, and you should raise children in a home with a mother and father who are fully committed to one another. But I do not believe that is the only purpose of marriage, and that if anyone gets married and doesn't have kids they are doing something wrong. Or "cheating" as you call it.

    Which by the way, I don't know why you care so much. Why does it bother you so much if a man and woman get married and never have a child? What gives you the right to call them "cheaters"? There is nothing written that says married couples must procreate, or they aren't allowed to be married. You made that up, and now you're calling it a "natural law" and saying nobody can ever disagree with your made up rule. How can you not see how arrogant and silly that is?
     
  13. randomname3

    randomname3 Fapstronaut

    129
    147
    43
    I don't see any good reason or why our marriage with Christ in heaven ought to be impotent. I don't think sex as we know it will be a thing, but reckon there'll be some far superior creationive stuff.

    Yet again, you still haven't shown how a eunick and nun, or a woman and dog, or a horse and boy, meet the same value that warrants the privileged status of marriage (or a man and a tran, etc.). Natural law is the demonstration a man and woman with some plausible chance of procreation earn their privileged status.
     
  14. You're taking the metaphor too far. And again, you're conflating Parenthood with marriage, as if they are one in the same and inseparable, which they are not.

    I've already said I have nothing to prove to you. You haven't proven anything either, so what do I have to disprove? All you've said is your opinion that since natural law shows us that men and women must be married to properly raise a family (which I already said I don't disagree with), that means that's the only purpose of marriage and nobody else can get married. That's your opinion. You've proven nothing, so there is nothing for me to disprove. All I can do is share my own opposing opinion. I can't disprove an opinion. All I can say is that I disagree with it.

    This conversation is over on my end. It's going nowhere. You just keep saying the same thing over and over, and thinking you're making some kind of point. All you're doing is repeatedly stating your opinion, and I'm saying I disagree with it. There's nothing more to it.
     
  15. randomname3

    randomname3 Fapstronaut

    129
    147
    43
    I certainly don't think we're taking the metaphor too far. Marriage on earth is a mere dim reflection of the marriage in heaven, the same as good things generally. Thus, marriage with Christ, though I know not how, must be far more intimate and creative than an earth marriage.

    Since you refuse to listen to reason or accept natural law on this issue, I'll at least end by presenting what Jesus Christ said about marriage according to Matthew 19:3-12. In particular pay attention to verse 12, where it says eunicks are fit for heaven but are not fit for marriage.
     
  16. I'm not going to continue this conversation. I really don't think that verse means what you are trying to make it mean, but you have made up your kind at this point. So there's nothing left to say.

    I've already stated the fact-- yes, biblically proven fact -- that there I'd much more to marriage than just having kids. That is not the only purpose of marriage. The Bible speaks of many other purposes of marriage, as does basic common sense. If you want to deny that, go right ahead, but I'm not going to join you in that denial.
     
  17. Here. I found a well-researched article that sums up exactly what I've been saying this whole time. I'll leave you with this.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2pqG5XQcpYGUwbq3FMC0XS
     
  18. Actually, I'll leave you with this, because it's still bothering me.

    I have a friend, married to a wonderful man. They have both grown in the Lord so much together, as a couple. I've been able to see, as I've been growing alongside them, all of the wonderful ways the Lord uses each of them to challenge and grow the other.

    They are both very different people, who see God very differently, and because of that, they have each learned how to see Him in a new way. They've learned together what aspects of their spirituality are important to agree on, and which ones are permissible to have different opinions on.

    The point is, they have been following God so closely, and I've been walking alongside them in that in my own marriage, as they've put together a group of fellow young married couples from our church to do a bi-weekly Bible study. We've been doing this for a few years now. We've shared stories on all the ways God has grown us in patience, forgiveness, self control, understanding, selfless love, etc. through our marriages.

    Now here's the thing. This couple has not been on birth control for years. They want a child, and in all these years have not yet conceived. For whatever reason, God has not given them a child.

    So... what do you say about this couple? Are they "cheating" and doing something wrong by being married, even though they are a far better and stronger unit together than they were in their single lives? They are doing incredible good works for the Kingdom of God, and are each growing more in the Lord because of each other, but since they don't have a child, none of that matters? I just don't see how your perspective can account for couples like them. I don't see how you can look at a couple like that and think they are doing something wrong by being married. It's not Biblical at all. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us children are a requirement of marriage.
     
  19. grebeni1111

    grebeni1111 New Fapstronaut

    2
    3
    3
    I think that masturbation is very benefic for a human.
     

Share This Page