"Consenting adults"

[Pallas_Athene]

I just want to clarify one thing here, the Church does not call it “intrinsically evil.” The Church calls these acts, “Intrinsically DISORDERED.” There is a difference.

The difference is mostly semantics. Engaging in a “disordered” activity, when knowing that it is “disordered” would be a mortal sin… and as such it would be evil.

Your example of bulimia is imprecise. The correct analogy would be a zero-calorie Coke. Enjoying the taste, without the calories. Is that a “drinking disorder”?

Where you differ from the Church is your belief that this same system is ordered first and foremost for pleasure. The Church teaches pleasure is a side benefit, but not the primary purpose.

First of all, it is not “ordered”. Let’s be precise, about 95% pleasure and 5% procreation. Just because sex is necessary for procreation, the reverse is not true. But the church says that even if the act cannot result in conception, the participants must PRETEND that it can happen.

 

[Rohzek]

Well, you managed to avoid the gist of the article.

I never said straight people don’t get AIDS. But you have some 'splainin to do as to why homosexuals and bisexuals are the main point of the article.

And enough of your own arrogance in claiming to know God’s will and condemning others as not really Christian. I’m guessing you also claim St. Paul was not Christian enough for you.

Why would I say Paul was not Christian enough for me? You seem to think that just because I understand where Pallas is coming from and how someone should respond to her/his points (using empirical evidence rather than “because the Bible says so”) that I somehow believe the exact same things as her/him. This is simply not the case. However, I do probably understand his/her position far better than you do.

As for why homosexuals and bisexuals have AIDS at a higher rate, the answer is rather simple. I’ll discuss the more technical notion first. First, any STD is far more easily contracted through anal intercourse than vaginal intercourse. The reason being that the “skin” of the intestines/rectum is far more porous and absorbent of things than the vagina. Suppositories exist solely because the rectum is highly absorbent. So if one person has an STD and they engage in anal sex, they are much more likely to give it to their partner than if they would having sex via other means.

The second reason why is because homosexual sex was much more promiscuous initially, or so it seems to me. However, as homosexuality is becoming more and more socially accepted, people can begin to be openly gay. The end result is and has been, in fact, that homosexuals are increasingly engaging in monogamous and long-term relationships without the fear of harsh repercussions. This helps to explain the proportionality of AIDS victims within the homosexual community actually decreasing over the past several decades. I might disagree with their choices, but I actually think we’ve made moral progress as a society to be more accepting of them.

AIDS started with the Homosexuals and had now spread to every part of humanity. Did you forget the early 80’s? Scripture tells us that homosexuality is unnatural, Romans 1, 24-32. and 1 Corinth, 9-11.
“Thousands” of other “species” are not accountable before God, they can’t sin. Man can. Makes me wonder where you came up with that “thousands” anyway. God Bless, Memaw

I disagree with your position on animals’ moral culpability, but that is a topic for another discussion in another thread perhaps. And yes, I know full well the early 80’s. But the disproportionate affect upon the gay community was not due to them being gay. It was due to secondary factors.

Furthermore, I never denied Romans 1:24-32 or 1 Corinthians 9-11. I am merely pointing out that those aren’t sufficient arguments for Pallas, who rejects the authority of scripture. If you want to make your case to Pallas, you have to make it on his/her terms, which are empirical. If you can’t do that, then you can’t have an honest discussion with her/him.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If God did that then what are we left to do? It is our job to help our brothers and sisters; to heal the sick, feed the hungry, et al. God made it pretty clear it was our job and we do have the means to do so.

We do NOT have the means to do it. But let’s suppose that we do our best to fix the problems. And we are successful - say - 90% of the time. What about the remaining 10%, when we are simply unable to do what needs to be done, even with the best intents and efforts? Does God help the trapped miners or lets them slowly die?

How should God stop a war? Use his freeze ray, and relocate the combatants to their homes with some kind of drug to mitigate agitation and anger? No; because we have free will. Should he smite those in the wrong? That last one might have some interesting and unwanted results.

There are lots of ways. This hang-up on “free will” is getting tedious. There is no need for “unbridled free will”. It would be enough to give us the freedom to worship God, or not. Those who worship would be rewarded in heaven, those do not can be thrown into the eternal fire… if that is what God wants (which I don’t believe).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am merely pointing out that those aren’t sufficient arguments for Pallas, who rejects the authority of scripture. If you want to make your case to Pallas, you have to make it on his/her terms, which are empirical. If you can’t do that, then you can’t have an honest discussion with her/him.

Thank you very much. It is very refreshing to see that some people understand my points.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Your example of bulimia is imprecise. The correct analogy would be a zero-calorie Coke. Enjoying the taste, without the calories. Is that a “drinking disorder”?

No it is not a drinking disorder. You are still using the digestive system for it’s intended purpose. Bulimia is a more precise example because it specifically uses the digestive system in a way it was not intended or designed.

First of all, it is not “ordered”. Let’s be precise, about 95% pleasure and 5% procreation. Just because sex is necessary for procreation, the reverse is not true. But the church says that even if the act cannot result in conception, the participants must PRETEND that it can happen.

Sex is not necessary for pleasure. It is necessary for procreation. So which would you say is it’s intended purpose?

Let’s apply your philosophy back to the digestive system. Eating is necessary for sustaining physical health, but it can still be pleasurable. If we eat for pleasure, and ignore the intended purpose, we also face an eating disorder. Most often this manifests itself with children refusing to eat their vegetables until mom and/or dad tell them they can’t have ice cream unless they do.

In other words, just because a necessary activity is pleasurable doesn’t mean pleasure is it’s primary purpose.

 

[clem456]

Love is supposed to be the central theme of Christianity.

Yet you label this LOVE to be intrinsically evil when it is non-procreative.

Don’t you realize that such a phrase takes away your credibility? “Intrinsically evil LOVE”? What kind of oxymoron is that?

Give us a citation please, that details how we believe non procreative love is evil.

Making false claims about what others believe can be a mistake, repeatedly making them is slander or calumny, take your pick. I’m sure you do not mean to slander Christians.

 

[Rohzek]

No it is not a drinking disorder. You are still using the digestive system for it’s intended purpose. Bulimia is a more precise example because it specifically uses the digestive system in a way it was not intended or designed.

Sex is not necessary for pleasure. It is necessary for procreation. So which would you say is it’s intended purpose?

Let’s apply your philosophy back to the digestive system. Eating is necessary for sustaining physical health, but it can still be pleasurable. If we eat for pleasure, and ignore the intended purpose, we also face an eating disorder. Most often this manifests itself with children refusing to eat their vegetables until mom and/or dad tell them they can’t have ice cream unless they do.

In other words, just because a necessary activity is pleasurable doesn’t mean pleasure is it’s primary purpose.

I would counter this argument that sex is more about the unitive aspect than it is about the procreative aspect. This unitive aspect, of course, includes pleasure. Since sex doesn’t always result in procreation, it is safe to say that procreation isn’t not necessarily always an important aspect. However, the failure to procreate does not in any way take away from what occurred during the sex act.

 

[Rohzek]

Give us a citation please, that details how we believe non procreative love is evil.

Making false claims about what others believe can be a mistake, repeatedly making them is slander or calumny, take your pick. I’m sure you do not mean to slander Christians.

Have you read the Humanae Vitae? It clearly says the following:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

Source: Section 11 - w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

Hence if sex doesn’t fit this criteria, then it is against God’s purpose. If it is against God’s purpose, then of course it is sinful. What is sinful is also evil, unless you would like to argue that sin itself is not evil (which would be an odd position for any Christian to hold).

 

[Memaw]

We do have short memories but that doesn’t change the facts. God Bless, Memaw

 

[clem456]

Have you read the Humanae Vitae? It clearly says the following:

Source: Section 11 - w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

Hence if sex doesn’t fit this criteria, then it is against God’s purpose. If it is against God’s purpose, then of course it is sinful. What is sinful is also evil, unless you would like to argue that sin itself is not evil (which would be an odd position for any Christian to hold).

Thanks for posting the Church’s teaching on the proper order of sexuality.

That’s not the issue. Can you see the difference between what the Church teaches on the properly ordered sex act, and what the poster is claiming the Church teaches?

Can you see the difference?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I would counter this argument that sex is more about the unitive aspect than it is about the procreative aspect. This unitive aspect, of course, includes pleasure. Since sex doesn’t always result in procreation, it is safe to say that procreation isn’t not necessarily always an important aspect. However, the failure to procreate does not in any way take away from what occurred during the sex act.

I agree that sex is unitive, but why? Because it is also procreative. The two are linked. Sex is PRIMARILY about procreation. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have other purposes. It means that we have to look at those purposes in light of the ultimate. You’re right that failure to procreate does not take away from what occurred, but it would be wrong to assume that this makes sexual acts which are not open to the possibility of life acceptable.

 

[Bradski]

Good grief, you guys kill me. You really do. We could be having a discussion about donuts and it would degenerate into an argument about anal sex. What on earth is wrong with you people! Post after post after post with nothing but male on male homosexual sex. ‘But I didn’t start it! It wasn’t me! I have no interest in the matter except that…’.

Well, except for the fact that it seems to be impossible to discuss a topic such as ‘Consenting Adults’ (remember the OP anyone?) without someone wanting to describe their abhorrence of what that might entail.

The question in the OP was asking if you consider it to be any of your business what people do in private, as long as it harms no-one. It seems the only way you can answer that is to say: ‘Well, I’ll bet they’re doing something wrong! And hey, I’ll bet it’s two men having anal sex! Yes, that’s wrong so it must be my business!’.

Pathetic.

 

[Rohzek]

Thanks for posting the Church’s teaching on the proper order of sexuality.

That’s not the issue. Can you see the difference between what the Church teaches on the properly ordered sex act, and what the poster is claiming the Church teaches?

Can you see the difference?

No, actually I can’t. And unless you provide a clear reason as to why they are different then your argument is nonsense.

I agree that sex is unitive, but why? Because it is also procreative. The two are linked. Sex is PRIMARILY about procreation. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have other purposes. It means that we have to look at those purposes in light of the ultimate. You’re right that failure to procreate does not take away from what occurred, but it would be wrong to assume that this makes sexual acts which are not open to the possibility of life acceptable.

I disagree. Procreation can certainly add to it, but it is not the cause. A couple can be sterile and raise an adopted child, while also enhancing their relationship through sex. Furthermore, being open to sexual experimentation in the bedroom can further the understanding and intimacy of the couple. Oral sex, breast-sex (couldn’t use the alternative and more common term due to censorship), hand-jobs, and fingering, etc. all fulfill the requirements of intimacy, which is necessary for the unitive aspect.

All that being said, I think I should further clarify my own position. The above-said are all good in my book, but I think a couple should eventually either have a child or adopt a child. Some form of a family must follow a marriage, in general.

 

[clem456]

No, actually I can’t. And unless you provide a clear reason as to why they are different then your argument is nonsense.

Let me see if I understand.
You don’t know the difference between the Church’s teaching on what love is, and the Church’s teaching on the proper order of the sex act?

True, they are related and intertwined. But not remotely in the way the poster slanders us with.

Really, you don’t know the difference?

 

[Rohzek]

Let me see if I understand.
You don’t know the difference between the Church’s teaching on what love is, and the Church’s teaching on the proper order of the sex act?

True, they are related and intertwined. But not remotely in the way the poster slanders us with.

Really, you don’t know the difference?

I think you misunderstand what Pallas initially said. She/he has regarded sex as an expression of love, which is generally the case. Okay, so when you add further criteria on what is or isn’t proper love, then the natural conclusion of this case is that non-procreative sex (which Pallas reasonably labels as love) is evil/sinful.

 

[clem456]

I think you misunderstand what Pallas initially said. She/he has regarded sex as an expression of love, which is generally the case. Okay, so when you add further criteria on what is or isn’t proper love, then the natural conclusion of this case is that non-procreative sex (which Pallas reasonably labels as love) is evil/sinful.

Geez.

She/he has regarded sex as an expression of love,

So is a pastoral visit to a nursing home. That’s not a procreative act, but it’s an expression of love.
This is his/her pretense as to what the Church teaches:.

Love is supposed to be the central theme of Christianity.

Yet you label this LOVE to be intrinsically evil when it is non-procreative.

Don’t you realize that such a phrase takes away your credibility? “Intrinsically evil LOVE”? What kind of oxymoron is that?

We clearly do not believe or teach that non-procreative love is evil. If that were the case we would proclaim that feeding the hungry is intrinsically evil, or that the love between 2 gay persons is intrinsically evil (it is not, and we don’t teach that). His/her statement misrepresents the Christian conception of love, and is inflammatory to the conversation.

Can you see the difference?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Geez.

So is a pastoral visit to a nursing home. That’s not a procreative act, but it’s an expression of love.
This is his/her pretense as to what the Church teaches:.

We clearly do not believe or teach that non-procreative love is evil. If that were the case we would proclaim that feeding the hungry is intrinsically evil, or that the love between 2 gay persons is intrinsically evil (it is not, and we don’t teach that). His/her statement misrepresents the Christian conception of love, and is inflammatory to the conversation.

Can you see the difference?

Geez it is. If you do not see that I was NOT talking about filial love, or storge, or agape, or the love of a good ice cream, then you have a cognition problem. Maybe you just wanted to twist the words to create an argument, who knows? If so, it was not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

To clarify: I was ONLY talking about eros between two people. These two people love and like each other, they are friends with each other, and also prefer to express their love in sexual fashion. That is the ONLY kind of love I was talking about among the myriads other meanings of “love”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If we eat for pleasure, and ignore the intended purpose, we also face an eating disorder.

You contradict yourself. Drinking a zero calorie drink for the joy of experiencing the taste is the exact equivalent of having sex for the pleasurable aspect of it.

In other words, just because a necessary activity is pleasurable doesn’t mean pleasure is it’s primary purpose.

And just because the primary purpose is thwarted in this case it does not make the secondary purpose “disordered” or “evil”.

The whole irrationality of your side becomes obvious when a sterile couple is required to PRETEND that conception is possible, and they are required to act as if it could lead to procreation. God’s miraculous power notwithstanding the woman cannot conceive if her ovaries are missing, if she does not have the uterus to carry a nonexistent pregnancy to term. This game of PRETENDING can only described as: “hypocrisy” or maybe “lying to yourself”.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

You contradict yourself. Drinking a zero calorie drink for the joy of experiencing the taste is the exact equivalent of having sex for the pleasurable aspect of it.

You’re going to have to explain that one. How is using something for the purpose it was ordered for the same as using something for a purpose it was NOT ordered for?

 

[Debbie_Keefe]

In response to the original OP:
Every thought, every act each of us does influences ourselves in small or big ways. We carry that influence (conviction) out from behind our bedroom doors, out of our homes and consistently influence others in small or big ways by what we say, what we do, what we believe, what we champion.
So, even if you (or I) sin all by yourself (myself) we still affect others through our beliefs. Our sins and our good deeds or thoughts have rippling effects. They touch untold lives, really. We are either part of the problem, or part of the solution in every thought, act, big or small.
No man is an Island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the Main. If clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a Promontorie were as well as if a Manor of thy friends, or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind. And therefore, never send to know for Whom the bell tolls,; It tolls for the. - John Donne