Gay marriage : who cares?

[larkin31]

Your correct in that Onan’s story is not about marriage. It is about contraception…it is about having sexual relations & subverting it’s purpose.

This, from the context and tenor of the the story, is an improbable and likely false interpretation of the story that attempts to use it more in the lines of a “purity law” or law of sexual morality. Of course, using the reluctant impregnation of a sister-in-law is a rather dubious context to provide the lesson, “Never ejaculate except to impregnate your spouse because contraception in itself angers God.” This interpretation is contextually weak.

 

[Abu]

larkin31
And, clearly, this oral sex, although not completed with orgasm (at least not for the male), is only a secondary function of the mouth for which it is not primarily designed in terms of functionality and as such strictly and consistently viewed is against what persons call “Natural Law.”
So the RCC is picking and choosing its acceptable erotic non-reproductive and “non-natural” behaviors without strict adherence to “Natural Law.”

Totally false.
As is quite clear from post #862: “if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts." (Pope Pius XII).
What the Church teaches is the totality of an act which is directed to procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the formation of children in mutual love and self-giving.

The natural moral law is part of our nature given by God, recognised even by the pagans, and always upheld by Christ’s Church. Here, oral sex, if present, is merely part of the totality of the marital act directed to the procreative and unitive ends of marriage.

In keeping with past diatribes, this poster aims to deliberately misrepresent the natural moral law as well as the teaching of Christ’s Church.

Readers beware!

 

[PassingThru]

Totally false.
As is quite clear from post #862: “if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts." (Pope Pius XII).
What the Church teaches is the totality of an act which is directed to procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the formation of children in mutual love and self-giving.

The natural moral law is part of our nature given by God, recognised even by the pagans, and always upheld by Christ’s Church. Here, oral sex, if present, is merely part of the totality of the marital act directed to the procreative and unitive ends of marriage.

In keeping with past diatribes, this poster aims to deliberately misrepresent the natural moral law as well as the teaching of Christ’s Church.

Readers beware!

Hold on a second there, Abu. Using your information above, we can surely then engage in anal sex as well, so long as it is part of the “totality of the act” as you say.

If not, what it is that separates the two?

Be specific. You are already dancing around the issue of how natural it is to put a penis in a mouth. No long winded quotes. Just answer the question.

 

[larkin31]

Totally false.
As is quite clear from post #862: “if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts." (Pope Pius XII).
What the Church teaches is the totality of an act which is directed to procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the formation of children in mutual love and self-giving.

The natural moral law is part of our nature given by God, recognised even by the pagans, and always upheld by Christ’s Church. Here, oral sex, if present, is merely part of the totality of the marital act directed to the procreative and unitive ends of marriage.

In keeping with past diatribes, this poster aims to deliberately misrepresent the natural moral law as well as the teaching of Christ’s Church.

Readers beware!

Dude, you agreed with me, just in different words.

So answer: can married couples engage in anal sex as long as it is part of the totality of unitive sex?

 

[larkin31]

Totally false.

What? The mouth is designed, primarily, for sex?

 

[Abu]

larkin31
The mouth is designed, primarily, for sex?

Your continued inanities, not Christ’s Church.

larkin31
can married couples engage in anal sex as long as it is part of the totality of unitive sex?
PassingThru
Using your information above, we can surely then engage in anal sex as well, so long as it is part of the “totality of the act” as you say

Puerile. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” (Sir Walter Scott).
The anus is in no way associated with the procreative or unitive aspects of marriage. The natural moral law reveals this.
You know already: refer post #580:
“Fr Harvey (Op. cit. p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:

1. The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
2. Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.
   Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.

To equate with marriage, acts which are impossible of fulfilling the procreation and balanced formation of children is the height of insanity.”

 

[PassingThru]

Your continued inanities, not Christ’s Church.

Puerile. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” (Sir Walter Scott).
The anus is in no way associated with the procreative or unitive aspects of marriage. The natural moral law reveals this.
You know already: refer post #580:
“Fr Harvey (Op. cit. p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:

1. The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
2. Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.
   Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.

To equate with marriage, acts which are impossible of fulfilling the procreation and balanced formation of children is the height of insanity.”

Abu, you are a trip. You definitely make me laugh sometimes.

I asked for a straight answer, with no long winded quotes. All you did was give us more quotes! Good show!

You JUST said above:

“The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.”

OK, great. Again we are asking you to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO. You just pointed out that BOTH are “holes in the gastrointestinal track”. Well yay, you just told us they are the same. Which is what I (and others) are telling you.

You also said:

“Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.
Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.”

Again, what is your point. Newsflash: Having sex with your mouth “cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.” HOW DOES THIS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO!?!?!

You opened with:

“The anus is in no way associated with the procreative or unitive aspects of marriage. The natural moral law reveals this.”

Let me change one word, and you tell me why it is now wrong:

“The *mouth *is in no way associated with the procreative or unitive aspects of marriage. The natural moral law reveals this.”

Now, you of course can kiss with your mouth, but it is a far stretch to then say “you can kiss with your mouth, therefore it is OK to insert genitalia into it.” I really hope that is not your defense.

Your entire post was a complete non-answer. Did you even make a single distinguishing point?

Again, we are NOT trying to convince you that homosexual sex is OK, or that it is the same. What we are trying to get you to answer is why is oral sex, according to you, natural, while anal sex is not. Neither to completion if it helps your answer.

Can you try and answer this?

 

[Abu]

The persistent attempts to denigrate the Sacred Scriptures and Christ’s Church have no basis.

Onanism is against the natural moral law as affirmed by Pope Pius IX in a decision of the Holy Office in 1856.[Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 371].

Pope Pius XI quoted St Augustine in Casti Connubii, the 1930 encyclical in which he reaffirmed the Christian Tradition shortly after the bishops of the Church of England accepted marital contraception.

Under the Levirate law at the time, Onan was asked to marry his bother’s widow, Tamar, in order to procreate offspring in his brother’s name. Onan married her but when he had intercourse, he went through the motions, then spilled his seed on the ground. Onan was not killed because he did not want to marry Tamar. The punishment for not marrying Tamar (see Deut 25) was not death. If he chose not to marry Tamar, she could remove his sandal and spit in his face publicly, thereby humiliating him. [See www.godsplanforlife.org ].

As CradleCath has explained, “The Leverite law called for public humiliation for a man who refused to impregnate his dead brother’s wife.” Thus God killed Onan for his misuse of the marital act.

The puerile “I can’t imagine Jesus ever caring one iota where a husband ejaculates. But the RCC does!” from larkin31, displays the intrinsic ignorance of the fact that Jesus was God, and gave us His Church to lead us to all truth and told us that not heeding His truth is to be worse than the perverts of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[larkin31]

Your continued inanities, not Christ’s Church.

Now you are resorting to insults. PassingThru and I have been asking simple, sincere questions, and you are refusing to answer what we are clearly getting at, and now resorting to calling my questions a derogatory remark. If you are going to continue in this vein with me, I will return the lack of courtesy back at you and treat you as you are treating me.

Puerile. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” (Sir Walter Scott).
The anus is in no way associated with the procreative or unitive aspects of marriage. The natural moral law reveals this.

On what logical grounds do you make this distinction? All you are doing is making a declaration.

You know already: refer post #580:
“Fr Harvey (Op. cit. p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:

1. The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
2. Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.
   Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.

The mouth is the entrance to the alimentary tract. Your reasoning in #2 shows irrational and religious prejudice because after the explanation of #1, clearly and logically, oral sex must also be, “ipso facto unnatural.”

To equate with marriage, acts which are impossible of fulfilling the procreation and balanced formation of children is the height of insanity.”

Then why does the RCC permit and explicitly condone oral sex, when it has no procreative purpose and involves the entrance to the alimentary tract? This gentleman that you have quoted has smeared his own church with the label “insane.” You need to pick your supporting quotes more wisely.

 

[larkin31]

The puerile “I can’t imagine Jesus ever caring one iota where a husband ejaculates. But the RCC does!” from larkin31, displays the intrinsic ignorance of the fact that Jesus was God, and gave us His Church to lead us to all truth and told us that not heeding His truth is to be worse than the perverts of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I, for one, do not believe in any actual mass killing in Sodom and Gomorah. Many many Christians have moved past the crude belief system that actually thinks that a god wiped out entire cities of men, women, and children for sexual wrongs being done by a few. Similarly, many Christians also no longer believe that a god ever flooded the planet and killed all but two of every species as a form of punishment (or for any divine reason).

Invoking these things has no effect on me. Even when I was Christian (I am a minister’s son), I never believed these things literally, nor were they taught this way in my household or my church.

 

[Abu]

PassingThru
Now, you of course can kiss with your mouth, but it is a far stretch to then say “you can kiss with your mouth, therefore it is OK to insert genitalia into it.” Having sex with your mouth “cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.”

If you can find anywhere, in Christ’s Church, where “having sex with your mouth” is taught, show me.

Just as a mother may kiss her child’s arm, if it has been hurt, and express her love that it may make it “better”, the tongue and lips may be so used sexually. “Oral” pertains to the tongue and lips as part of the mouth, as the non-perverts know.

Attempts to denigrate and misrepresent Christ’s Church, and the natural moral law, is what homomania is all about, because there is never any other explanation offered.

 

[larkin31]

If you can find anywhere, in Christ’s Church, where “having sex with your mouth” is taught, show me.

Just as a mother may kiss her child’s arm, if it has been hurt, and express her love that it may make it “better”, the tongue and lips may be so used sexually. “Oral” pertains to the tongue and lips as part of the mouth, as the non-perverts know.

Attempts to denigrate and misrepresent Christ’s Church, and the natural moral law, is what homomania is all about, because there is never any other explanation offered.

I’ll let Passingthru have first crack at this reply.

 

[CradleCath]

You left out the disobeying God part. God kills Onan, not the local constabulary.

Please reread my post!!! (& you might want to check out the structure of the second sentence above. )

What I’ve learned most in this thread, is not about gay “marriage”, not about homosexuality/heterosexuality…it’s how little the non-Catholics **in this thread ** (I’m not speaking of all non-Catholics) know about philosophy in general. Niether of the two “pro gay marriage people” who have posted here, seem to have a great deal of depth in their thinking.
Do you believe in a Creator?? If so, have you ever questioned WHY He created you, why He created mankind at all? Do you think He needed us? Have you ever searched for the meaning of life, period? Have you ever wondered what your Creator (if you believe in one) expects of you? I can’t help but wonder if you’ve ever questioned the status quo. Your posts seem very shallow to me. You ask the same questions over & over & OVER again…questions that have been answered many times.

I will grant that Charlemagne was mistaken when he said that one cannot find pleasure in disordered sex. Some must, or they wouldn’t be so anxious to call it “normal”. Other than that, neither of you have made on intelligent argument, through this whole discussion. As for Seeker, I don’t think he has really done much seeking.

I’m outta’ here!

 

[Seeker2010]

Have you ever considered that the proper end of the process of getting the food and satisfying the hunger is human survival?

I assure you, most chocolate cake that is consumed is not necessary for the survival of the eater. Eating, like sex, can be done solely for pleasure.

That is the proper end of sex.

Says you. Others disagree. That’s okay, they’re allowed to regardless of what you think about it.

Maybe the man doing the inserting might fine a certain ‘pleasure’ in the act, but I can’t see how the one on the receiving end can gain any pleasure from it!!

I can’t see it either, but it doesn’t matter what you or I think about it. If they tell me they enjoy it, then I say go for it. Who in the hell am I to object, so long as they’re not forcing me to participate.

 

[larkin31]

Please reread my post!!! (& you might want to check out the structure of the second sentence above. )

What I’ve learned most in this thread, is not about gay “marriage”, not about homosexuality/heterosexuality…it’s how little the non-Catholics **in this thread ** (I’m not speaking of all non-Catholics) know about philosophy in general. Niether of the two “pro gay marriage people” who have posted here, seem to have a great deal of depth in their thinking.
Do you believe in a Creator?? If so, have you ever questioned WHY He created you, why He created mankind at all? Do you think He needed us? Have you ever searched for the meaning of life, period? Have you ever wondered what your Creator (if you believe in one) expects of you? I can’t help but wonder if you’ve ever questioned the status quo. Your posts seem very shallow to me. You ask the same questions over & over & OVER again…questions that have been answered many times.

I will grant that Charlemagne was mistaken when he said that one cannot find pleasure in disordered sex. Some must, or they wouldn’t be so anxious to call it “normal”. Other than that, neither of you have made on intelligent argument, through this whole discussion. As for Seeker, I don’t think he has really done much seeking.

I’m outta’ here!

This does nothing but label “unintelligent” and “shallow” those who disagree with you. And this you do in a parting shot.

To presume that we have never wondered about divinity or asked questions about our purpose on the planet is simply incredibly erroneous. I grew up in a minister’s household, and am fully confirmed, and even had a transformative “awakening” experience. I have expressed respect and sympathy for many positions of faith, and continually read in the bible and ask persons of faith questions about their thinking. I am married to a Catholic and was married in a Catholic church.

And then you simply call us shallow and unintelligent and exit out the door.

 

[PassingThru]

If you can find anywhere, in Christ’s Church, where “having sex with your mouth” is taught, show me.

Just as a mother may kiss her child’s arm, if it has been hurt, and express her love that it may make it “better”, the tongue and lips may be so used sexually. “Oral” pertains to the tongue and lips as part of the mouth, as the non-perverts know.

Attempts to denigrate and misrepresent Christ’s Church, and the natural moral law, is what homomania is all about, because there is never any other explanation offered.

Answer the question Abu. It is simple. You are smart. Answer it.

BTW “Having sex with your mouth” is oral sex. You JUST posted earlier how the church condones it within the bounds of marital sex.

Did you get infected with Charlamagnes “complete disconnect from reality” sickness? How does everyone keep getting so conveniently confused when asked such incredibly simple questions. Even question about a point that person just made?

Answer the question Abu.

Answer the question Abu.

Answer the question Abu.

Answer the question Abu.

Answer the question Abu.

Answer the question Abu.

 

[PassingThru]

Niether of the two “pro gay marriage people” who have posted here, seem to have a great deal of depth in their thinking.
Do you believe in a Creator?? If so, have you ever questioned WHY He created you, why He created mankind at all? Do you think He needed us? Have you ever searched for the meaning of life, period? Have you ever wondered what your Creator (if you believe in one) expects of you? I can’t help but wonder if you’ve ever questioned the status quo. Your posts seem very shallow to me. You ask the same questions over & over & OVER again…questions that have been answered many times.

Don’t try and change the subject.

People have made some pretty odd assertions. The current one we are on, is that Oral sex is “Natural” while anal sex is not. Us “pro gay marriage people”, as you say, did not say this! When asked to simply explain why this is, the “anti gay marriage” people are throwing a mini-tantrum, distracting us away from this simple question, or just running away. You just did all three at the same time.

Why?

You JUST SAID the question has been answered. Fine. Simply type or copy it here for us to read? I assume you support the idea being proposed that oral sex is natural, but anal sex is not. Please support it, or stop complaining about us asking A SIMPLE QUESTION.

I will grant that Charlemagne was mistaken when he said that one cannot find pleasure in disordered sex. Some must, or they wouldn’t be so anxious to call it “normal”.

Thank you. Really. It is good for at least one person to acknowledge that the entire “I don’t see pleasure, therefor it does not exist” line of thinking is irrational. Its actually idiotic, but regardless, thank you for owning that. (It wasnt you, I know.)

Other than that, neither of you have made on intelligent argument, through this whole discussion.

Maybe you missed it, but as it pertains to this discussion, it is mainly because we aren’t making blanket statements that need defending. We just covered the idiocy of “What I deem pleasurable is pleasurable”. We didnt assert that. We are now on to this whole oral sex/anal sex point, which again, is a point we did not make.

You have seen me ask over and over for a simple answer. You know it is being dodged.

I’m outta’ here!

If that is true, that is too bad. Just about the 4th person to simply hide rather than answer a direct question.

 

[karoleck]

This Thread needs a reality check–perhaps some personal stories of real people who had the guts and courage to confront their SSA ----there are others as well–worth the effort

couragerc.net/TestimoniesMark.html

Jesus,I trust in You.

Eternal Father,I offer You the Body and Blood,Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son,Our Lord Jesus Christ for our sins and those of the whole world;for the sake of His sorrowful Passion,have mercy on us.

 

[Abu]

Great stuff, karolec. Sanity prevails.

 

[larkin31]

Great stuff, karolec. Sanity prevails.

are you refusing to answer the questions last asked of you?