A Few Questions On Sexual Ethics

[fix]

Thank you, fix, for the response that you offered, but why can’t homosexual couplings include a mutual value for the person of the other? Because vaginal intercourse between two members of the same sex is an impossibility?

Certainly two people may value each other and love each other. But why would we think sexual acts are acceptable? Would you think it is morally acceptable for a parent and child to engage in sexual acts? Or two brothers? Or a sister and brother?

Granted, the complementarity- and I mean that in the physical sense- of male and female genitals is no accident; our species couldn’t reproduce without it, and the propagation of human life is an indispensable good. But to reiterate: I don’t see the moral relevance of this biological necessity (the shape of the genitals, not reproduction).

As I said we are both body and soul. If you read the link I gave I think some place in there he talks about the gift of fertility being a personal good, not an instrumental good. The marital act has a moral significance and physical significance.

"contraceptive intercourse is faulted, not on account of this further
‘intention’ [to avoid a pregnancy for legitimate reasons], but because of
the kind of intentional act you are doing. The action is not left by you as
the kind of act by which human life is transmitted, but is purposely * rendered infertile, and so changed to another sort of act
altogether."19*So, it seems by altering the act as God intended we are changing the very nature of the act. It is no longer ordered correctly.

Please forgive me if I misinterpret anything you’ve said, because I’m unclear on this bit of your post. You seem to be implying that heterosexuals have a sexual orientation positively blessed and ordained by Almighty God, but that He seems to “pass over” those that ultimately turn out homosexual (similar to the notion of passive reprobation, I suppose).

As I said God ordained man and woman. He ordained the gift of fertility. We live in a fallen world. All types of problems happen. Some folks are born blind. I do not take such problems to mean God desires we be blind. In fact, medicine works to improve such things. Some people are born with certain heart defects. I do not take that to mean we are to have defective hearts.

Moreover, you appear to think of homosexuality as a sort of bundle of temptations to unchastity, a particularly strong species of concupiscence- as indicated by the line about disordered desires- whereas many homosexuals indicate that it is more than a simple inclination to behave lustfully with members of the same sex; it includes a strong affectional and emotional element, just as heterosexuality does. Could you please explain?

It all goes back to how things are to be ordered to God. If we speak of lust that is not ordered toward God. If we speak of inclinations to unjust anger that is not ordered toward God.

You mention emotional draws and affection I assume to prove that because people claim they have these feelings that means it is moral to engage in homosexual acts. Simply feeling some inclination cannot mean any particular act is moral or consistent with what God wills.

Back to my example of a brother and sister. If they calim such affection would it be moral to act on it?

If you claim homosexual attraction is ordered to God please show us. Thanks.

 

[JimG]

I’m sorry, but I fear that we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the physical nature of sexual complementarity. I can find no reason to believe that this particular aspect of the body’s structure has any bearing on moral questions.

Yes, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, for the physical nature of sexual complementarity underlies all of Christian sexual ethics. We are all male and female persons, and that underlies our sexuality.

Any genital expression, whether heterosexual or homosexual, must be ordered to the fulfillment of the marital act in order to be moral. That requires a man and a woman, it also requires marriage, it also requires that nothing prevent the act from being “marital.” So a heterosexual couple engaging in non-marital genital relations outside the marital act would also be wrong.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I think that this is an excellent way of reflecting on the nature of marital sexuality. The analogy isn’t perfect, though: for example, in order for God to grant life in the physical sense He requires no assistance (unlike we do), and He does not act as agent of spiritual life without the cooperation of the patient. For that reason, I don’t think this can be used as an argument (with all due respect).

So many posts for you to answer!

I didn’t quite follow you response to my post. Would you mind clarifying the part I bolded above?

I believe there is a difference between sterility and infertility. Sterility seems to imply the complete inability of an act to reproduce while infertility seems to refer to the present natural inability of a person to reproduce with a future possibility, however slight. I’ve known more than one couple who were told by medical professionals that they would never have their own children, which is exactly what they went on to do. I would say they were experiencing infertility rather than sterility.

Once a woman reaches menopause, she is infertile but not sterile.

A couple who contracept are hoping for sterility but not necessarily infertility.

Do you see the subtle difference? I think it’s an important factor in answering some of your questions.

When I say every conception involves supernatural intervention, I’m simply refering to the fact that it is God who opens and closes the womb. Whether a couple is thought to be infertile and conceives a “miracle” baby or a couple experiences consistent fertility and conceives, God’s intervention is involved just the same.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I strongly agree that sexual complementarity should be understood beyond the genitalia, but could you elaborate on the bit about masculine and feminine personalities?

I wish I could, but I gave you a disclaimer in my post, remember?

Seriously, I’m just beginning to look into some of this stuff myself. If you’re really interested, you could start a new thread to attract some of the more knowledgeable posters. It’s one of the themes discussed in Theology of the Body (sorry I can’t narrow it down a bit more than that) and Peter Kreeft tackles an interesting variation on this theme in Women and the Priesthood.

For now, I prefer to leave this topic to the experts.

 

[LittleDeb]

Okay JimmyJazz,
You ask some great questions. Honestly, they are some of the best I’ve seen. The answers you have already received have been superior. I do recognize the one hitch that seems to be at the root of your other questions on homosexual relationships. Please allow me to attempt to address it.

You use the term “monogamous homosexual relationships” without a definition. It is not nearly as clear as it might appear. As you attempt to define your term I would ask you to consider a question. The question is, “Why two?”

I am aware that many people believe that homosexuals are couples because that is how they are naturally inclined. But, why two? Why not 3 men, or four women? They are “couples” because they are using the model of complementarity. I have heard speakers in the homosexual community encourage homosexuals to “break free from the heterosexual model” and to “embrace and affirm more than one conjugal partner.”

It is a tough topic to address because many will try to say, “Oh no that is not the way it is. You are trying to paint everyone with a broad brush of sexual deviancy.” Am I? Or is there something absolutely intrinsic to complementarity?

So let’s ask the tough questions. What does it really mean to be a “couple?” Are polygamists couples? Men with multiple wives are doing the same thing. They are following a model of complementarity. They engage in serial complementary acts. The homosexual individual who engages is a sexual act with one other person of the same sex is said to be a “couple.” Yet the one who engages with more than one (at a time) is said to be involved in a more deviant behavior. Even some people within the homosexual community call it that.

So why two? What is inherent to that act that defines it as TWO become one?

 

[LittleDeb]

Oh and one other thing for clarification.

Sterile and infertile are not synonyms. I have struggled with infertility, but I have never struggled with sterility.

Sexual intercourse and the marital act are also not necessarily synonymous either. “The marital act” is actually a more precise term. I was involved in a lot of sexual intercourse during my very checkered past. I did not participate in the marital act until (and since) April of 2002.

Someone with a better understanding of the mathematical term of subsets can explain those definitions better than I.

 

[JimmyJazz]

I didn’t quite follow you response to my post. Would you mind clarifying the part I bolded above?

Of course not; I’d be happy to explain. What I meant was that we have the capacity to accept or refuse an opportunity for God to infuse grace in the soul. This in contrast to a child, who can neither agree to nor refuse his own conception.

I believe there is a difference between sterility and infertility. Sterility seems to imply the complete inability of an act to reproduce while infertility seems to refer to the present natural inability of a person to reproduce with a future possibility, however slight. I’ve known more than one couple who were told by medical professionals that they would never have their own children, which is exactly what they went on to do. I would say they were experiencing infertility rather than sterility. Once a woman reaches menopause, she is infertile but not sterile. A couple who contracept are hoping for sterility but not necessarily infertility. Do you see the subtle difference? I think it’s an important factor in answering some of your questions.

Yes, I see what you mean by the two words now; I apologize for the miscommunication earlier.

When I say every conception involves supernatural intervention, I’m simply refering to the fact that it is God who opens and closes the womb. Whether a couple is thought to be infertile and conceives a “miracle” baby or a couple experiences consistent fertility and conceives, God’s intervention is involved just the same.

Hmmm…I personally don’t believe that the Almighty exerts this much influence over every individual conception, but thank you for clarifying.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Seriously, I’m just beginning to look into some of this stuff myself. If you’re really interested, you could start a new thread to attract some of the more knowledgeable posters. It’s one of the themes discussed in Theology of the Body (sorry I can’t narrow it down a bit more than that) and Peter Kreeft tackles an interesting variation on this theme in Women and the Priesthood.

For now, I prefer to leave this topic to the experts.

I’m not sure that I want to pursue the topic in a new thread, but thanks for recommending the Kreeft article; I’ll be sure to look into it.

 

[JimmyJazz]

You use the term “monogamous homosexual relationships” without a definition. It is not nearly as clear as it might appear.

My apologies for the ambiguity. By a monogamous homosexual relationship, I mean a long-term, exclusive relationship between two members of the same sex, based on a romantic affection that the two hold uniquely for one another.

As you attempt to define your term I would ask you to consider a question. The question is, “Why two?” I am aware that many people believe that homosexuals are couples because that is how they are naturally inclined. But, why two? Why not 3 men, or four women?

Because this relationship would not be based on the type of exclusive love that (so far as I can tell) is the reason that sex is unitive. That is, assuming for the moment that homosexual couplings aren’t inherently evil.

They are “couples” because they are using the model of complementarity.

I’m sorry; I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that homosexuals acknowledge the importance of interpersonal complementarity just as much as heterosexuals do?

I have heard speakers in the homosexual community encourage homosexuals to “break free from the heterosexual model” and to “embrace and affirm more than one conjugal partner.”

Whatever the ethical status of homosexuality qua homosexuality, promiscuity is an incontrovertible evil if for no other reason than its inherently exploitative nature. The same goes for polygamy (permitted though it was under the Mosaic Law), a sin against the exclusivity proper to sexual relations.

So let’s ask the tough questions. What does it really mean to be a “couple?” Are polygamists couples? Men with multiple wives are doing the same thing.

A couple- in this context- is a pair of people bound by romantic affection- married or unmarried, chaste or unchaste. Thus polygamists by definition don’t form couples.

Incidentally: I use the terms “love” and “affection” interchangeably here- and in general- in case anyone was unclear.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Oh and one other thing for clarification.

Sterile and infertile are not synonyms. I have struggled with infertility, but I have never struggled with sterility.

I’m really, genuinely sorry to hear that. Please forgive me if I’ve been at all insensitive throughout the course of this thread.

Sexual intercourse and the marital act are also not necessarily synonymous either. “The marital act” is actually a more precise term. I was involved in a lot of sexual intercourse during my very checkered past. I did not participate in the marital act until (and since) April of 2002.

I’m fairly sure that I haven’t used the phrase “marital act” to refer to any sex outside of the context, but if I have then I apologize for misspeaking.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Christ came so that we may have life. He wasn’t talking in the physical sense, he was talking about eternal life. Technically, he probably didn’t have to do anything to give us life, but you cannot forget that he died so that we may have life. He gave his all, so that we may have life. He didn’t hold anything back, so that we may have life. He loved us, so that we may have life with Him in heaven! Our love MUST image His love, because His love is authentic love…Authentic love ends in a union. God loves us so much, He wants to be in complete union with us. Did Christ hold anything back on the cross? If he did, would we be able to be in union with him?

Again, I find that this is a very beautiful way of thinking about sex, as a human reflection of the divine love. But I don’t think that it can really be used as an argument, despite its devotionary value.

I don’t see how there can be an authentic love and union without the potential for procreation. What kind of union is there if the act itself tells me “I give you everything! But my fatherhood/motherhood!” There is no holding back in love, and this kind of holding back really goes against fundamentally who we are.

I agree that certain uses of contraception are selfish. But, there are a few things that I can’t see: first, why it is that each specific act must be procreative- viz., there must be no interference by the participants in the possible fertility of the act- if (1) the contraception is used for a grave reason; (2) the totality of sexual acts performed by the couple are procreative; and (3) the couple is prepared to take responsibility for the child should the contraception fail (as it sometimes does). Second, I can’t see how it is that any single use of artificial means of birth control is at least objectively selfish while natural methods aren’t; I’ll grant for the sake of argument that contraception is equivalent to saying, “I give you everything but my fertility,” but couldn’t NFP be interpreted as saying, for example, on the husband’s part, “Because I’m only having sex with you at certain times, I’m accepting everything about you but your fertility”? True, NFP is a negative method of birth control, while condoms, diaphragms, etc. are positive, but with an openness to life, unselfish motivations, and the procreative aspect (considered on a greater scale of marriage in its entirety) behind either one, what’s the real difference?

We were made to be fathers and mothers. It’s stamped right into our bodies. Even if we cannot have physical children, we are all called to have spiritual children.

I suppose this is true. But two people whose married life is generally procreative become mothers and fathers, and two homosexuals can have a spiritual paternity/maternity just as celibates can (I’m not referring to adoption necessarily; they could be fathers/mothers in this sense as individuals).

Thank you for your post, though; you brought up a good point about parenthood.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Certainly two people may value each other and love each other. But why would we think sexual acts are acceptable? Would you think it is morally acceptable for a parent and child to engage in sexual acts? Or two brothers? Or a sister and brother?

No; incest confuses the species of love proper to family members with that which is proper to a spouse, prospective spouse, etc. It occurred to me that sexual acts might be permissible in monogamous homosexual contexts (cf. post #69 for my definition of “monogamous homosexual relationship”) because the participants cannot be accused of malice for isolating the sexual act from procreation, and that further these kinds of relationships are at least theoretically loving.

As I said we are both body and soul. If you read the link I gave I think some place in there he talks about the gift of fertility being a personal good, not an instrumental good. The marital act has a moral significance and physical significance.

I’ll have to go back and re-read the article, but I think that this is similar to arguing that if one uses contraception, he withholds something of himself from his wife. I don’t see how one can look at artificial birth control this way, but not NFP (seeing as, in both cases, it is possible to use the method with grave reasons and be open to the possibility of conception- low though it may be).

So, it seems by altering the act as God intended we are changing the very nature of the act. It is no longer ordered correctly.

Granted, but why could it not be that God designed sex as something that could be altered within reasonable limits? Earlier I asked why the limited degree of dominion we have over own bodies does not permit contraception; again, I ask why artificial means of birth control are acts of violence against the divine plan, given that we may change other things about our bodies with no (or little) fear of mortal sin (such as getting a tattoo)?

All types of problems happen. Some folks are born blind. I do not take such problems to mean God desires we be blind. In fact, medicine works to improve such things. Some people are born with certain heart defects. I do not take that to mean we are to have defective hearts.

Well by definition a heart defect is a bad thing, and blindness is a deprivation of the proper function of the sense organs. I agree that God would not will such conditions on anyone from birth. This is not only because of my belief in the divine benevolence, but also because I don’t believe that God specifically plans and ordains the characteristics of each body (this includes the physical aspects of sexual orientation, and I’m open to the idea that the psychological aspects are very largely influenced by the physical ones). I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear before.

It all goes back to how things are to be ordered to God. If we speak of lust that is not ordered toward God. If we speak of inclinations to unjust anger that is not ordered toward God. You mention emotional draws and affection I assume to prove that because people claim they have these feelings that means it is moral to engage in homosexual acts. Simply feeling some inclination cannot mean any particular act is moral or consistent with what God wills.

Yes, I know; it’s quite puerile argue that merely because one desires to do something, it is moral to do it. I was responding to a part of your post that seemed to imply that homosexuality was mostly- if not entirely- a collection of powerful temptations experienced over most of a given individual’s lifetime by bringing up an aspect that occurs among many of those who experience it.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What I meant was that we have the capacity to accept or refuse an opportunity for God to infuse grace in the soul.

I agree. Our response to God’s gift, whether acceptance or refusal, doesn’t change the fact that God’s love itself is always life-giving. It’s that love that we are called to image.

Hmmm…I personally don’t believe that the Almighty exerts this much influence over every individual conception, but thank you for clarifying.

Do you think some conceptions require more of Him than others? I personally believe any conception to God is but a perfect, loving thought (no matter how miraculous or impossible it might seem to us).

 

[bugz2007]

Hmmm…I personally don’t believe that the Almighty exerts this much influence over every individual conception, but thank you for clarifying.

The book of Jeremiah tells us that God knows us even before we are formed in the womb. And if the Almighty knows all we do and think after we are born, and cares about our actions, why wouldn’t he exert his influence and care about how each and every one of us is brought into this world? I cannot fathom a God who would care about what we do if he wasn’t even a part of our conception.

And Acts tells us that God ordained the times of our existence, and even where we would live.

 

[fix]

No; incest confuses the species of love proper to family members with that which is proper to a spouse, prospective spouse, etc.

How do you know that is ordered as you claim?

It occurred to me that sexual acts might be permissible in monogamous homosexual contexts (cf. post #69 for my definition of “monogamous homosexual relationship”) because the participants cannot be accused of malice for isolating the sexual act from procreation, and that further these kinds of relationships are at least theoretically loving.

I cannot see how that makes any sense? Why would monogamy, alone, make a sexual act good? How can two same sex people engage in a procreative act?

I’ll have to go back and re-read the article, but I think that this is similar to arguing that if one uses contraception, he withholds something of himself from his wife. I don’t see how one can look at artificial birth control this way, but not NFP (seeing as, in both cases, it is possible to use the method with grave reasons and be open to the possibility of conception- low though it may be).

Likelihood of conception is not what makes the act open to life. The act itself, unaltered, is always open to life if it takes place within a marriage.

Granted, but why could it not be that God designed sex as something that could be altered within reasonable limits?

Because it is a personal good. It would be like altering truth, or some such thing, for some desired goal. It is not meant to be altered.

Earlier I asked why the limited degree of dominion we have over own bodies does not permit contraception; again, I ask why artificial means of birth control are acts of violence against the divine plan, given that we may change other things about our bodies with no (or little) fear of mortal sin (such as getting a tattoo)?

Again it is a personal good, not an instrumental good.

Well by definition a heart defect is a bad thing, and blindness is a deprivation of the proper function of the sense organs.

Exactly. God ordered us in a certain way.

I agree that God would not will such conditions on anyone from birth. This is not only because of my belief in the divine benevolence, but also because I don’t believe that God specifically plans and ordains the characteristics of each body (this includes the physical aspects of sexual orientation, and I’m open to the idea that the psychological aspects are very largely influenced by the physical ones). I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear before.

God ordained man and woman, right? Where did He ordain homosexuality?

Yes, I know; it’s quite puerile argue that merely because one desires to do something, it is moral to do it. I was responding to a part of your post that seemed to imply that homosexuality was mostly- if not entirely- a collection of powerful temptations experienced over most of a given individual’s lifetime by bringing up an aspect that occurs among many of those who experience it.

You have to show how God ordered same sex attraction. That some thing is found in* nature* does not mean such a thing is natural as in ordered by God to its proper end.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I agree that certain uses of contraception are selfish. But, there are a few things that I can’t see: first, why it is that each specific act must be procreative- viz., there must be no interference by the participants in the possible fertility of the act- if (1) the contraception is used for a grave reason; (2) the totality of sexual acts performed by the couple are procreative; and (3) the couple is prepared to take responsibility for the child should the contraception fail (as it sometimes does).

Regarding what’s in bold:

Would you agree that our love is supposed to image God’s love?

Would you agree that God’s love does not have a GPP (as you define it in post #12) but is always procreative?

Second, I can’t see how it is that any single use of artificial means of birth control is at least objectively selfish while natural methods aren’t; I’ll grant for the sake of argument that contraception is equivalent to saying, “I give you everything but my fertility,” but couldn’t NFP be interpreted as saying, for example, on the husband’s part, “Because I’m only having sex with you at certain times, I’m accepting everything about you but your fertility”? True, NFP is a negative method of birth control, while condoms, diaphragms, etc. are positive, but with an openness to life, unselfish motivations, and the procreative aspect (considered on a greater scale of marriage in its entirety) behind either one, what’s the real difference?

In post #28, you asked about pleasure being a part of the unitive aspect of sex. The two purposes of sexual love are procreation and unity. Pleasure is a separate, wonderful by-product. In other words, we are meant to image God with sexual love that is procreative and unitive and enjoy the pleasure that it gives us.

Couples contracept because, understandably, they value pleasure above all else. Yes, NFP can be used to put pleasure first, but the big difference with NFP is that, with the right understanding and intentions, a couple may use it to postpone pregnancy while keeping sexual love properly ordered (procreation and unity intact, pleasure secondary). That is something contracepting will never enable them to do.

 

[JimmyJazz]

How do you know that is ordered as you claim?

Aquinas argues against incest (among other ways, but I find this his most convincing offering) by saying that the love “of a common origin” is improperly admixed with marital affections (Summa Contra Gentiles 3:125, implicit in his treatment of lust in the Summa Theologiae). Initially, this seems like sort of a circular argument, but the point is ultimately that these two types of love exist independently of one another.

I cannot see how that makes any sense? Why would monogamy, alone, make a sexual act good?

Monogamy isn’t the only thing that makes a sexual act moral, as your incest counterexample proves. I mention it in conjunction with homosexuality so that the ideas that I’ve had and heard (but again, not necessarily hold) on the subject won’t be mistaken for arguments excusing gay libertinism.

How can two same sex people engage in a procreative act?

I apologize for being unclear. The issue is not whether homosexual acts are procreative (in the biological sense, not the sense used elsewhere in this thread), but how those that practice them are guilty of maliciously separating sex and procreation.

Likelihood of conception is not what makes the act open to life. The act itself, unaltered, is always open to life if it takes place within a marriage.

Am I correct in understanding this to mean that the openness to life essentially boils down to having vaginal sex sans positive means of preventing conception?

Because it is a personal good. It would be like altering truth, or some such thing, for some desired goal. It is not meant to be altered.

Perhaps I should re-phrase my question: why is the potential fertility of a given sexual act a personal good, while so many things about the body aren’t?

God ordained man and woman, right? Where did He ordain homosexuality?..You have to show how God ordered same sex attraction.

I never claimed- nor would I ever claim- that God ordained homosexuality. As I said in post #72, I don’t believe that He ordains the sexual orientation of anyone, homosexual or otherwise. I believe that homosexuality is the result of genetic variation in our species, not anything directly created by God.

That some thing is found in* nature* does not mean such a thing is natural as in ordered by God to its proper end.

I don’t think that I’ve used this argument or asked any question related to it, but if I have then please forgive me for introducing a non sequitur.

 

[JimmyJazz]

I agree. Our response to God’s gift, whether acceptance or refusal, doesn’t change the fact that God’s love itself is always life-giving.

Agreed. What I meant to say, though, is that the analogy between God as Lifegiver and a married couple having children suffers from certain deficiencies. One of these is that when the Former bestows life on someone, He acts only when His patient is willing, whereas parents don’t wait to ask a nonexistent child whether they may conceive him.

It’s that love that we are called to image.

Certainly. But in light of the concept of spiritual parenthood, could it not be argued that it is in this respect that our love best resembles His? Not only does this take into account the fact that our bodies are not made in God’s Image (seeing as He is a Spirit), it can also be predicated of all types of love and not merely the sexual (we can confer a sort of nonliteral life on friends, family members, or a suffering neighbor on the road to Jericho, even if it doesn’t quite make us “parents”).

Do you think some conceptions require more of Him than others? I personally believe any conception to God is but a perfect, loving thought (no matter how miraculous or impossible it might seem to us).

I think that God has been involved in one way or another in a few conceptions throughout history- those of Christ and His Mother come immediately to mind- but this is the exception. Of course, I would agree that all conceptions have some place in general providence.

 

[JimmyJazz]

The book of Jeremiah tells us that God knows us even before we are formed in the womb.

I interpret this as a reference primarily to Jeremiah’s vocation- and Jeremiah’s alone- and secondarily to divine omniscience and omnitemporal foreknowledge.

And if the Almighty knows all we do and think after we are born, and cares about our actions, why wouldn’t he exert his influence and care about how each and every one of us is brought into this world? I cannot fathom a God who would care about what we do if he wasn’t even a part of our conception.

I’m sorry, but I can’t see why God has to be intimately involved in conception (other than informing the matter of the zygote with its form, the soul) to care whether rational beings have a moral sense on which they act. I believe that God, in His infinite Wisdom, created the universe to run pretty much on its own and produce great good without His direct intervention, right down to conception (yes, I know, it sounds like Deism ). That’s not to discount revelation, the occurrence of some miracles, His action on individual souls, and certainly not the existence of Providence; on the contrary, I believe strongly in all of these things. What I don’t believe in is divine micromanagement.

Of course, since you’re in good faith and this isn’t a question of orthodoxy, I don’t want to “evangelize” you or anything; I’m just explaining the roots of my beliefs on divine intervention in conception.

And Acts tells us that God ordained the times of our existence, and even where we would live.

Could you please provide the a chapter:verse citation?

 

[JimmyJazz]

Would you agree that our love is supposed to image God’s love?

Yes.

Would you agree that God’s love does not have a GPP (as you define it in post #12) but is always procreative?

Yes, I would say that the GPP cannot be applied to divine love, but cf. post #78.

In post #28, you asked about pleasure being a part of the unitive aspect of sex. The two purposes of sexual love are procreation and unity. Pleasure is a separate, wonderful by-product. In other words, we are meant to image God with sexual love that is procreative and unitive and enjoy the pleasure that it gives us.

Thank you for addressing that issue.

Couples contracept because, understandably, they value pleasure above all else.

Some do, others don’t. Some contracept because they sincerely believe themselves incapable of handling the abstinence necessary to naturally prevent pregnancy; some contracept because they are unaware of NFP or how to successfully practice it; some contracept because they need to space their children and they don’t believe that artificial methods of birth control are immoral; there are myriads of reasons that couples use contraception. How is it that all of them can be ultimately traced back to a desire for pleasure above all else?