Applying ONLY that logic to rape might lead to the conclusion you fear. But no one applies ONLY that logic to rape.
The usual understanding of this (which is really outside the scope of the thread topic I think) is of making something that is by nature fertile, infertile.
this argument, that sex acts that are not reproductive are sinful, is not a strong one, is my point. No sex act is 100% reproductive, so we are dealing with varying degrees of fertility/infertility.
Well, I happen to believe that Jesus is God. . . .
I am not a Sola Scriptura Protestant. I’d start with Genesis 1:28, but that certainly isn’t a prooftext.
See this article as a counterbalance to your rosy picture of modern couples. I’m not saying that Ms. Loh’s picture of marriage is the whole story either, by the way. But there does seem to be evidence supporting the idea that modern sexual attitudes and habits hurt marriage. Modern people like to despise their ancestors who had arranged marriages or whatever, but perhaps our ancestors were more realistic in certain respects and thus had a greater chance of real happiness. Or more likely we are all sinners and every culture expresses its sinfulness in different ways.
I don’t think “excess” desire is the problem. Disordered desire is the problem. It’s an issue of quality, not quantity.
We know, from the teachings of the Church, that, “God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.” The reason for our being is to know, love, and serve Him in this life, and share His eternal happiness when it ends.
I do not have an overly “rosy” picture of modern couples. I keep trying to make discriminations between loving sex and non-loving sex, and I don’t consider that non-procreative sex is non-loving (by definition).
Is this based on something from Genesis?
I guess my point is that modern “companionate” marriage has a dark side–there’s been a weakening of the whole concept of two people becoming “one flesh.” And I don’t think it’s overly fanciful to suggest that this may have something to do with the increasingly recreational way sex is seen in our culture.
I don’t think it’s disordered to desire union with one’s spouse without explicitly intending to have a child. But I think that the more completely we wall off sexuality from procreation, the less it expresses a genuinely marital love and the closer it becomes to a mutually enjoyable form of recreation.
Not only if it is obviously hurtful and abusive by standards recognizable thoughout our society, no. It is quite possible for two people to have a mutually enjoyable sexual experience in the context of a friendly and even loving relationship, without that sexual experience being rightly ordered as a conjugal act. Certainly that is not anywhere nearly as bad a thing as an abusive sexual act. To use Catholic terminology (albeit reaching a conclusion heretical by Catholic standards), I’d even dare to suggest that such a sexual act may not be a “mortal” sin. But it is not what sex was created for, and insofar as it becomes the norm, so far marriage is weakened and we suffer both individually and as a society.
I think this is the nucleus of the matter.
I think this is to the point - what does it mean when we explicitly try to remove something from it’s purpose?
It is certainly in harmony with Genesis, and flows from it. Remember, unlike many Protestants, Catholics do not hold that Holy Scripture is the only source of Christian truth. But since it is indeed a part of the Deposit of Faith, Church teachings will not contradict it.
Are you suggesting that sex between married couples has not always been recreational at least some of the time? What do you think married couples have been interested in, at least in part? Have you read any old private writings? There is nothing new under the sun.
Yes. It is a matter of degree, for sure. And this is my point, too.
Sex was created for union, to join the flesh of the two first-separated forms, male-female.
Birth control has been around for centuries. There is nothing new under the sun.
Protestants don’t use this “only”. You will have to be more specific about what group you may be making this claim for.
But it has only been approved for use in some Christian congregations since the late 1930’s.
It takes a long time for religions to change, even if it is a change to more openly admit the long-standing reality of actual loving marital practice.
This article is not about sexual mores hurting marriage. It is about the different personality/relationship types and how–when these are mismatched–make permanent marriage a tough road. Only part of this was about sex, and only really about the difficulty when one spouse wants it more than the other (not always the male who wants it more, certainly).
You are totally missing my point. In the 30’s religious restrictions were lisfted, birth control became legitimate in the minds of many, uch more common, and more effective.
Well, it did not produce more homosexuals.
