Great. Then we should limit ourselves to oral sex. It is ten times safer then traditional sex. Right?
Who said it was, exactly?
Charlemagne, sometimes you just gotta laugh. Passing Through thinks it’s ‘odd’ that I should find an ‘odd’ practice very, very, well… ‘odd’.
I would have to ask around. I know its in that “Sex and Marriage” book they hand out at Pre-Cana classes. And our priest, deacon and Pre-Cana teachers all said as much. Many of the more respected members here also have asserted as much. Maybe someone can give a specific link…PassingThru
On that note, it seems the Catholic Church has signed off on oral sex as long as it is part of a “completed sex act”. Nothing natural, in any way, shape, or form about oral sex, yet many find it quite pleasurable, and it gets a Church thumbs up. How can this be?
Please cite your source. Thank you.
So, am I to understand that your personal opinion on sexual satisfaction is what determines what a) others derive pleasure from and b) its morality (in some fashion)?Charlemagne, sometimes you just gotta laugh. Passing Through thinks it’s ‘odd’ that I should find an ‘odd’ practice very, very, well… ‘odd’.
Simple. We are commanded to judge all actions, speech, writing, against the truth which we can know from right reason through the natural moral law and proclaimed by Christ Himself through His Church. This applies to all pleasure.
So you now presume to pontificate on what is “natural”! What a laugh.
You have summarized the Catholic “position” on oral sex exactly right: sexual stimulation of various kinds is fully permissible as long as it is between a married couple and each encounter results in vaginal sex with ejaculation inside the vagina.
I didn’t really say what I mean to say with that sentence. What it should say is something along the lines of:
Nice dodge. Then you answer the question: Is oral sex natural or un-natural?
Indeed. The degree of prescription and proscription over the human sexual act is, frankly, embarrassing to me. Who actually writes these things and does not blush over the degree of intimate “involvement” in the lives of others that it entails? Honestly, I can’t imagine Jesus ever caring one iota where a husband ejaculates. But the RCC does!
My set of rules? Who said anything about my set of rules? You sure did miss it. My focus was on ‘hedonism’, or can’t you read properly?I think all he was saying was that if pleasure was your goal, then homosexual sex can achieve that goal. Which is certainly true. I don’t he said anything about it being morally appropriate by your set of rules. Maybe I missed it.
And why in the world are you passing judgment on what others are to derive sexual pleasure from? It seems like a very foolish thing to delve into. Are you really trying to say that, since you do not see pleasure in an act, it therefor cannot be pleasurable? I am sure you see the folly in this thinking.
On that note, it seems the Catholic Church has signed off on oral sex as long as it is part of a “completed sex act”. Nothing natural, in any way, shape, or form about oral sex, yet many find it quite pleasurable, and it gets a Church thumbs up. How can this be?
You seem to have a strange issue with anal sex, which is odd, because it is a theme on these threads. Lots of issues with the sex. And “bums”. Its all very concerning.
Oh, and medically, it think there are lots of stimulating nerves in the “bum” as you say. I know that is how they get sperm to help in breeding for endangered animals and such. So, medically, I think you are incorrect on your whole “bum” theory. Have to get some (name removed by moderator)ut from a more experienced witness on that one, however.
I am not too concerned with how you feel on the gay marriage issue. I just find it an error in judgement to use your personal opinion on what would and would not pleasure you to decide on the morality, so to speak, of anothers sex act. Odd indeed.
It isn’t I who has a strange issue with anal sex. It is those who practice it that have the strange issues. And why shouldn’t it be an issue on these threads, because, after all, it is what homosexual practice entails. Or didn’t you know that? That’s half the trouble with this issue; the reality of it is swept under the table. Love of one man for another is one thing, but to attempt to portray that ‘love’ sexually via anal sex is completely disordered. Those who think otherwise are accepting abnormal behaviour as somehow being normal. That acceptance is abnormal in itself.
You really need to do some research on this topic. In animal breeding stimulation of the prostate gland through the anal wall is sometimes used. The stimulating nerves are not in the bum, as you suggest, but in the prostate gland. In cattle, the bull needs to be securely crushed or else he’s gone like the wind. I know because for many years I farmed and have watched vets do it. In humans, it can be very painful and anaethesia is usually required. If you doubt me, go ask your doctor for a digital examination! Please come back and inform us just how much your eyes watered. So, if you think that somehow anal penetration by another man’s penis is pleasurable, think again. The nerves you refer to are designed to let you know how your bowel movements are progressing. Or not.
You have shifted the goal posts on the issue with this statement, haven’t you. Lose your focus maybe?
It is the disorderedness and unnaturallness of homosexuality that is the problem, not heterosexual sex. It is typical of the hedonistic gay and lesbian lobby , not to mention swingers, to try and find fault with everyone else in an attempt at taking the spotlight off their own behaviours. Amongst right thinking people, those who know and understand the proper ends of things, it wont work.
How strange when you’ve just been shown precisely why and how we judge all actions. (Post #840).
Are you exempting heterosexual sins from those that the RCC proscribes? All I did was include a reference to the explicit dogma that the RCC has concerning even heterosexual sex between husband and wife. Are you denying this?
The topic of this thread is “Gay Marriage - who cares”. The topic is the disordered and unnatural nature of homosexuality and by extension the disordered and unnatural notion of “gay marriage”. Yet you attempt to take the debate into one being against Natural Law and Catholic teachings on this and other matters. Do you not?
I didn’t ask about those, but thanks. I did figure this much.
No, not at all. I did not even start the debate here about types of non-reproductive pleasure. Please see above. I believe that you were in that discussion prior to my being there, no?
Naturally. No wonder there is so much inanity around! We don’t reason from cause to effect with “imagination”, we do it with the brain that God gave us for that purpose. Now you want to condemn Jesus of Nazareth Himself! It is His Church with His authority that you try to deny. You won’t find His teaching anywhere else without it having come from Her.
Wow, do you misread. I was sparing Jesus the indignity of dwelling on the private sexual practices of happily married and loving couples. If you, on the contrary, wish to claim that either he DID comment on this or that he by his nature WOULD be interested in the private sexual practices between married couples, then–please–by all means tell us about it.
Yes, I do disagree with the RCC on matters of private sexual practices between happily married couples. I find it perverse the degree to which both the acts of penetration and the occasions for pleasure and ejaculation are proscribed by a group of unmarried men sworn to celibacy.
What Onan is killed for is debated among theologians. Shall we actually discuss this, or do you consider the matter decided and closed to discussion?
First, I miss-spoke, as I mentioned. I meant how you can decide for others what is pleasurable and what is not. Re-read your posts, you did, blatantly, lay this out. You know it makes no sense. I could no sooner tell you what kind of ice cream you like as I could tell what is pleasurable to you. I know you are convinced that you are right, and EVERY gay man and straight woman that likes anal sex is lying, all the millions of them, and of course YOU are right. Apparently you are the anal sex expert.
No, I just made a counter point, that so far, everyone is avoiding. You, as is YOU, even in this post, have brought up “natural” as a point of measure, as well as “Natural Law”. Go read your posts. Now, I have no problem that gay sex is in no way natural. But, oral sex is also in no way natural, yet it is accepted by the Church. My only point in this was to point out that a) people derive pleasure from un-natural acts and b) the Church allows it. You, Abu, and others claim this is a distraction. Well boo-hoo. Its a simple point that refutes what you said. Please keep avoiding it.
I really don’t care too. There are super traditionalists in the church that would prefer you have sex through a hole in a sheet. Others say everything (almost) goes. I have read in books given by my Church (“Sex and Marriage” i think) and from others as I posted above. If you want to say the Church forbids oral sex, by all means, you can show me.