Thanks for bringing some levity to an overheated conversation.”

You’re welcome, Christopher Benson. Speaking of overheated, has it been your observation that if someone were to chew gum really fast and/or have sex really fast, they then become overheated?

But let’s not get into the purposes of sweating and the “contradictions” thereof.

How about folks who chew gum while having contraceptive sex? ;-)

Thanks for bringing some levity to an overheated conversation.

Isn’t it possible for all Christians to agree that “sex is meant to unite two people, it is meant to lead to children, and it is meant to recall, and even reenact, the promise that God makes to us and that we make to one another in the marriage vow––that is, we promise one another fidelity, and God’s Spirit promises a presence that will uphold us in our radical and crazy pledge of lifelong faithfulness” (qtd. from Lauren Winner, Real Sex)?

the thought occurs to me that your choice of such a trivial activity as chewing gum as your comparison to the act of sexual intimacy may reveal unintentionally more of your attitude toward the sacramental union of husband and wife than you intended to reveal.

You do well to qualify you claim about what the analogy reveals about my “attitude toward the sacramental union of husband and wife.” As an Evangelical professor, you must know enough about the parables of Jesus to know that, in interpreting an analogy, one ought to try to focus on the actual point of the analogy.

But if you have arguments addressing the point of the analogy, please proceed.

You sound ever so much like a liberal Protestant with your impatience with Tradition and your insistence that sex is easily reduced to a pleasurable experience – like taking a bath or eating a good meal or even, dare I say, like chewing gum.

Dave has not availed himself of all the arguments that stand arrayed against your position, but I agree with him that you would greatly benefit from a close reading of John Paul II’s Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body.

As an Evangelical professor, I find my students resonate with the high view of human sexuality found in this work much more than they do with the “It’s no big deal – just like taking a drink of water” view of the dominant culture.

In the face of a challenging thought, he jumps to embrace any idea that seems to reconfirm–conserve–his old beliefs, without making the slightest effort to consider the obvious rejoinders. His mind seems controlled by a powerful impulse, not to think about challenges, but to dismiss them as threats. It’s a propensity, a mode of thought. Here we have it on striking display.

Gum isn’t meant to be digested. Nor does it affect one’s ability to digest food.

Just like condoms aren’t meant to transmit semen. Nor do they affect one’s ability to procreate.

I chew gum usually to change the tast in my mouth. In terms of the capacity of my teeth to chew food, my gum-chewing habit does not conflict with my food-chewing. In other words, these two uses of my teeth can be fulfilled separately because the purposes do not occur simultaneously.

I have contraceptive sex usually to enjoy the sex. In terms of the capacity of procreative organs to procreate, my contraceptive sex habit does not conflict with my procreation. In other words, these two uses of my procreative organs can be fulfilled separately because the purposes need not occur simultaneously.

In sex, however, the unitive and procreative meanings exist simultaneously in the very structure of the act, as God created it. Utilizing one without the other contradicts the integral nature of the act itself.

In chewing, however, the chewing and digestive meanings exist simultaneously in the very structure of the act, as God created it. Utilizing one without the other contradicts the integral nature of the act itself.

You may want to read Humanae Vitae, which constantly appeals to the inextricable nature of the two aspects of intercourse. My point above is that chewing for pleasure and chewing for nutrition are not inextricable as are unity and procreation in sex.

You may want to think. My point above is that chewing for pleasure and chewing for nutrition are just as extricable (or just as inextricable) as are sex for pleasure and sex for procreation.

I chew gum usually to change the tast in my mouth. In terms of the capacity of my teeth to chew food, my gum-chewing habit does not conflict with my food-chewing. In other words, these two usues of my teeth can be fulfilled separately because the purposes do not occur simultaneously.

In sex, however, the unitive and procreative meanings exist simultaneously in the very structure of the act, as God created it. Utilizing one without the other contradicts the integral nature of the act itself.

If you can’t see the clear [parallels] between the two, and thus the faulty logic in your [various objections], then there is nothing more I can say.

Why do you insist that chewing must be accompanied by swallowing?

Well, why do you insist that intercourse be accompanied by “the emission of seed into the vagina”?

You can chew for other purposes which do not hinder or frustrate one’s capacity to digest food.

You can likewise have sex for other purposes which do not hinder or frustrate one’s capacity to procreate.

The natural purpose of sex is procreation. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t other purposes, nor does it mean that you must intend to procreate each time.

So likewise, the natural purpose of chewing is digestive. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t other purposes, nor does it mean that you must intend to digest each time.

But it does mean that artificially making the act infertile is irrational in a similar way that chewing something that’s [non-digestible] to the body…would be.

you still need to address the argument that God created the link between unity and procreation and so we have no right to separate it

And you still need to address the argument that God created the link between chewing and digestion and so we have no right to separate it.

We need to prove that contraceptive sex is moral rather than assuming it is innocent until proven guilty

Likewise, we need to prove that gum chewing is moral rather than assuming it is innocent until proven guilty.

I think it also counts as good exercise. So, four-fold.

Contraceptive sex is diffferent. The natural purpose of sex is procreation. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t other purposes, nor does it mean that you must intend to procreate each time. But it does mean that artificially making the act infertile is irrational in a similar way that chewing something that’s harmful to the body’s digestive system would be.

You say that this is exactly what gum does. But gum is not meant to be ingested. The fact that it prevents one from digesting itself makes sense because gum isn’t food! Now if gum imparied your ability to digest food, like smoking impairs you ability to breathe, then yes, chewing gum would be immoral.

You seem to think that after comparing sex to chewing you have an airtight case againt the Catholic position. But regardless of what comparison we are using, you still need to address the argument that God created the link between unity and procreation and so we have no right to separate it. We need to prove that contraceptive sex is moral rather than assuming it is innocent until proven guilty. This is the way Christians approached the topic until modernity prevailed in the 1930s.

;-)