Gay marriage : who cares?

[PassingThru]

Nice to see you around, John21652. The confused, irrelevant and illogical opinions still exist – like a bad penny they can be counted on appearing, but they can do nothing to counter the reality of the natural moral law and conscience.
BTW, you may have noticed by now the hackneyed attempt to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic, as though the Church is irrelevant as well as contradictory in confirming and condemning anal intercourse as unnatural, and therefore immoral – the usual inability to see the wood for the trees. This despite the clear distinction between the two – like chalk to cheese.

Eureka Abu! You have at least started to directly address our issue! You did it like a 12 year old child by talking around me to John. But, I will ignore it for the sake of actual progress.

Now, you played a good game by changing the rules a bit. We have said a few times now, that neither instance of anal or oral sex was to completion, and both were in due course of normal marital relations. Now, you have turned into a bold face liar, so I can see you instead typed:

BTW, you may have noticed by now the hackneyed attempt to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic

which, of course is not what I said. But, regardless, you actually came close, so, a cookie for you.

Since I seem to have your attention, will you do me the honor of answering the following:

If a married couple participated in either anal or oral sex, not to completion, as part of marital sex, what is the status of both instances as it relates to its natural-ness, or its moral state?

My take is that you have waffled on this one. Please answer as clearly as possible.

Thanks
PT

 

[Seeker2010]

Please answer as clearly as possible.

Too bad this board doesn’t have a popcorn eating emoticon. If it did, I would have put it here. Pretend I did.

 

[karoleck]

Too bad this board doesn’t have a popcorn eating emoticon. If it did, I would have put it here. Pretend I did.

 

[karoleck]

Nice to see you around, John21652. The confused, irrelevant and illogical opinions still exist – like a bad penny they can be counted on appearing, but they can do nothing to counter the reality of the natural moral law and conscience.
BTW, you may have noticed by now the hackneyed attempt to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic, as though the Church is irrelevant as well as contradictory in confirming and condemning anal intercourse as unnatural, and therefore immoral – the usual inability to see the wood for the trees. This despite the clear distinction between the two – like chalk to cheese.

But how would vice persist without being fantasized as virtue?

To the scoffer, God means nothing when He proclaims the immorality of homosexual activity – and he is blind to Christ: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).
The mantra that deifies feeling is in stark contrast to the Mother of Jesus who said; “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2:5). Christ has the answer to all of those following their own opinion: “Whoever denies Me before men, him also will I deny before My Father.” (Mt 10:33).
In *Veritatis Splendor *the Holy Father emphasizes: “It is a question of the decision of faith, of the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16.26) 'by which man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering “the full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals.” “Feelings” cannot make truth.
Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).

The myth that homosexual relationships in general are qualitatively the same as heterosexual relationships — a myth that is crucial to the current push for legalization of same-sex “marriage” — is simply not borne out by the evidence.

You have a logical mind and something more than popcornopcornlike that "seeker " of perversion) to back up your arguements.I wonder why you even try to answer some of the weird and kinky ideas that some of the posters are trying to force into this thread.

Sexual perverts I suspect “get off” on talking dirty;degrading what God in His Creative goodness has made holy.A marriage (between one man and one woman) is a Sacrament giviing graces and it can be blessed with new human life (a person) that will live forever.

Larkin whilst "assing through"is introducing into this thread ,exual perversions more in keeping with a porn site.

.As the saying goes–"too much information,Larkin!!–are you sure you have the right forum here,Larkin–look up sex maniacs!!–if the cap fits,wear it:tiphat:.I started offering up today my Rosaries for you & your friends who support filth under the pretext of debate.

St.Michael,The ArchAngel,be our safeguard against the malice and snares of the devil.Amen.

 

[karoleck]

PassingThru, I have only had cursory glances at this thread, as my time has been limited. However, I did have enough of a look to notice how Larkin will denigrate someone when he *thinks *he may have spotted a weakness in their argument and he does it with no grace. What you describe as the irony in my ‘tirade’ is true to a point. However, you’ve only been here five minutes and you seem to have missed Larkin’s propensity to avoid the hard issues by various means, his propensity to prevarication and the disingenuousness of his debating. He has been called on this a number of times, here and on other threads, yet he persists. My attempts at getting him to come clean on his attacks against the objectivity of certain natural laws and then suddenly admitting that gravity was indeed one is a case in point. He walked away from this and yet when he thinks he can get away with it, he will once again launch into illogical diatribes and in the process shove into the faces of others his hedonistic, morally vaccuous lifestyle. Even you have become caught up in it, which is why you question Abu’s sincerity without addressing his arguments. Abu is nothing, if not very sincere. Once you wake up to this, maybe you will be able to drop the (ish) off your Lutheranism.

Cheers.

Having re read previous postings towards the beginning of this thread,I can see how annoyed you must be when dealing with people who pretend to have knowledge and a rational mind;yet at the same time cannot even grasp a simple concept as natural law–let alone super-natural (God given–such as the Ten Commandments and their fullfilment in the coming into this word,A Saviour Jesus Christ
Any father or mother will tell you that you cannot reason with a baby until they reach “the age of reason” at about six/seven years.I suspect some posters have not developed the higher faculties of the human soul which as you know are the intellect and the will.These posters never have got past thinking about what is in between their leggs–even as adults.“none so blind as those who REFUSE to see” .

I have re read your postings and have seen that for the most part you have given a logical arguement against adopting a “gay” lifestyle" marriage".I saw a poster recently in an office were a lady worked–she comes from Texas–the sign says “Don’t mess with Texas”
I think perhaps your sign should say “Don’t mess with an Aussie”!!:knight2:

Keep up your good work,your great logic is an inspiration to me.Don’t let the devil drag you into his gutter arguements!!God Bless.

 

[karoleck]

If that’s all you got from my post, well…I’m disappointed. The fact is there is a natural moral law, that transcends all religions. A mental & emotionally normal person would know that murder of another, simply because one doesn’t like this other person, is inherently wrong. If we struck these laws from our socity, we would have anarchy. A thief causes an imbalance within a society where people work for a living. Some are working hard, others not…while they both enjoy the same lifestyle. If we struck the laws against stealing, again…we’d have a disordered society.

This Natural Moral Law is called by some…just basic common sense. I call it the Law that is written on the hearts of men. It is not something that must be taught…by a Church, by the Bible, etc. We are capable of KNOWING. Natural Law tells us, as regards the two sexes that man & woman complete one another, are capable of generating life, thus they are able to create a unit that we call a family & our communities & nations have grown from the basic unit. Homosexuals do not have that ability. You may say that they can adopt, be artificially inseminated, etc., etc. & that again defies Moral Law. Two gay men (or Lesbian women) are not because of their disordered sexuality to **create **a natural family. (reasons against gays adopting…later.)

Read Immanuel Kant’s “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”.

If one is going to change a law that has been in existence for centuries…one has to be able to show that it will benefit the MAJORITY. Please show me how changing the laws on marriage to include homosexuals…will benefit society. This proof has to come from the small minority who want to do the changing. The burden of proof is on them.

I have kept my religious beliefs, which are Catholic of course, out of this in answer to the posters who say that bowing to religions while changing a law won’t work. There are many secular, societal reasons, which need to be looked at also.

This is a good posting on Natural Law–I liked the reference to “good common sense”–is just logical Watson/sorry Larkin seeking to be passing through–not assing through(typing error-sorry about that cheef!!–worth restating!!

 

[larkin31]

Since I seem to have your attention, will you do me the honor of answering the following:

If a married couple participated in either anal or oral sex, not to completion, as part of marital sex, what is the status of both instances as it relates to its natural-ness, or its moral state?

npatrol:

Roger.

Still looking for an honest reply to the specific question.

Abu: To be honest, you must assume that both acts in the married couple are used as part of the overall unitive act of sexual intercourse which is completed vaginally. Which we have said about 10 times by now.

 

[larkin31]

This is a good posting on Natural Law–I liked the reference to “good common sense”–is just logical Watson/sorry Larkin seeking to be passing through–not assing through(typing error-sorry about that cheef!!–worth restating!!

All you two are stating is, basically, ad hominem. You call a fool anyone who refuses your basic premise. That is, of course, terrible argument on your part. That premise is exactly what is IN DEBATE. Neither party, to be honest and effective, can assume that the premise is true; you must DEMONSTRATE that it is true. And simply to quote church dogma or early philosophers is NOT persuasive argument.

And to suggest that because gravity, as far as we know, is a universal force means that some moral laws are also universal is absurd. Morality and physics and their universality are investigated and argued in entirely different terms and through different methods.

So, save your snide remarks and, if you want to be taken seriously, actually answer the question in this thread on the topic of moral legitimacy of certain types of sex between humans:

If non-procreative sex is morally forbidden, and if the primary reason for barring some forms of sex is is that it is against the natural order of procreation, then WHY does the RCC permit non-procreative oral sex between married couples but not non-procreative anal sex (and please assume that both acts are not to completion, but are rather part of the unitive act of sex that has completion vaginally)?

 

[larkin31]

You have a logical mind and something more than popcornopcornlike that "seeker " of perversion) to back up your arguements.I wonder why you even try to answer some of the weird and kinky ideas that some of the posters are trying to force into this thread.

Sexual perverts I suspect “get off” on talking dirty;degrading what God in His Creative goodness has made holy.A marriage (between one man and one woman) is a Sacrament giviing graces and it can be blessed with new human life (a person) that will live forever.

Larkin whilst "assing through"is introducing into this thread ,exual perversions more in keeping with a porn site.

.As the saying goes–"too much information,Larkin!!–are you sure you have the right forum here,Larkin–look up sex maniacs!!–if the cap fits,wear it:tiphat:.I started offering up today my Rosaries for you & your friends who support filth under the pretext of debate.

St.Michael,The ArchAngel,be our safeguard against the malice and snares of the devil.Amen.

Again, nothing more here than ad hominem slander, couched in the piously false terms of caring about the people you slander.

 

[PassingThru]

Karoleck-

Yes, you and your friends are brilliant. They are masters of logic and Church morality. And you are a beacon for repeatedly jumping in and tellings us, over and over, how wonderful they are.

You just wasted 3 or 4 posts tellings us how great they are. You almost dislocated your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

…Unfortunately neither you nor your other-worldly intelligent friends actually made a point that relates to our current discussion.

And as Larkin said, it makes no sense to just assume the Church position as the de-facto standard. Its idiotic, as that is the point of the discussion. Nowhere am I assuming I am right, or you are right. I am asking one, specific question. And you are one of many who will not answer it.

So, by all means, keep pattering on while not addressing us directly.

Honestly, I think you have posted over a dozen times, and said nothing relevant. Its quite astonishing, actually.

 

[CradleCath]

Eureka Abu! You have at least started to directly address our issue! You did it like a 12 year old child by talking around me to John. But, I will ignore it for the sake of actual progress.

Now, you played a good game by changing the rules a bit. We have said a few times now, that neither instance of anal or oral sex was to completion, and both were in due course of normal marital relations. Now, you have turned into a bold face liar, so I can see you instead typed:

 

[PassingThru]

Either you want to get into the bedrooms of Catholics, or you are getting such…shall we say… “satisfaction” from constantly typing the words “oral or anal sex”…OR, you’re just playing the gotcha’ game. Don’t be so lazy. If you are so desparate to know the sexual details re Catholic marriage, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF****

 

[SwizzleStick]

Some heterosexuals may choose to engage in unnatural (oral, anal) and/or illicit (outside marriage) sex acts at times. But, they may also choose to engage in natural (intercourse) and licit (sex with spouse) sex acts. The same is not true for homosexuals who engage in sex acts with someone of the same sex, because in those cases, they cannot EVER choose to engage in natural or licit sex with someone of the same sex. All sex acts with a same-sex partner are unnatural and illicit.

So, heterosexuals sometimes engage in unnatural sex. Homosexuals ALWAYS engage in unnatural sex. In addition, homosexuals always engage in disordered sex acts, because the natural order of sex is procreation, according to the natural law. Any sex acts homosexuals engage in cannot EVER result in procreation, so their sex acts are disordered in additon to being unnatural and illicit.

If one cannot engage in natural sex (intercourse) EVER, one cannot get married. In the Catholic Church, that applies to heterosexual couples as well.

"WHAT IS NATURAL SEX, UNNATURAL SEX?

According to ancient Greek and Roman Stoic philosophers (300 B.C.E. to 300 C.E.), sexual passion distorted a man’s reason. The sole moral justification for sexual relations, in their view, was procreation. This view of the nature of sex was adopted by early Christian thinkers, particularly by Augustine of Hippo (c. 300 C.E.). Medieval Christian theologians extended this early view classifying sexual acts as either natural or unnatural. Fornication, rape, incest, and adultery were considered natural but illicit indulgences in sexual pleasure, because they occurred outside marriage and did not provide for the rearing of offspring. These potentially procreative acts were “natural sins.” In this philosophical view, masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex were more serious violations of the natural order because they were both unnatural (non-procreative) and illicit (outside marriage). This distinction between natural and unnatural sex pops up in most debates today about the morality of homosexuality."

Source: www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/catholic.htm#WHAT

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Should Disordered Appetites be Civil Rights?

The Catholic Church will not change its position on the nature of marriage because it cannot. Truth is not up for grabs.

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) – The news is filled with efforts through legislation or the use of the courts to undermine marriage by expanding its definition to somehow include homosexual partnerships. Anyone who questions whether such efforts serve the common good are increasingly dismissed as “homophobic” and intolerant.

However, namecalling will not change our position on this matter nor will it make us go away. At the forefront of the movement to protect marriage are Catholics who believe what the Church teaches. Our insisting that marriage remain what it has always been is adding to our precarious place in the culture these days. However, make no mistake; the Catholic Church will not change its position on the nature of marriage because it cannot. Truth is not up for grabs, no matter what the growing “dictatorship of relativism” throws our way. "…

Entire article: catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33750

 

[PassingThru]

Some heterosexuals may choose to engage in unnatural (oral, anal) and/or illicit (outside marriage) sex acts at times. But, they may also choose to engage in natural (intercourse) and licit (sex with spouse) sex acts. The same is not true for homosexuals who engage in sex acts with someone of the same sex, because in those cases, they cannot EVER choose to engage in natural or licit sex with someone of the same sex. All sex acts with a same-sex partner are unnatural and illicit.

So, heterosexuals sometimes engage in unnatural sex. Homosexuals ALWAYS engage in unnatural sex. In addition, homosexuals always engage in disordered sex acts, because the natural order of sex is procreation, according to the natural law. Any sex acts homosexuals engage in cannot EVER result in procreation, so their sex acts are disordered in additon to being unnatural and illicit.

If one cannot engage in natural sex (intercourse) EVER, one cannot get married. In the Catholic Church, that applies to heterosexual couples as well.

"WHAT IS NATURAL SEX, UNNATURAL SEX?

According to ancient Greek and Roman Stoic philosophers (300 B.C.E. to 300 C.E.), sexual passion distorted a man’s reason. The sole moral justification for sexual relations, in their view, was procreation. This view of the nature of sex was adopted by early Christian thinkers, particularly by Augustine of Hippo (c. 300 C.E.). Medieval Christian theologians extended this early view classifying sexual acts as either natural or unnatural. Fornication, rape, incest, and adultery were considered natural but illicit indulgences in sexual pleasure, because they occurred outside marriage and did not provide for the rearing of offspring. These potentially procreative acts were “natural sins.” In this philosophical view, masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex were more serious violations of the natural order because they were both unnatural (non-procreative) and illicit (outside marriage). This distinction between natural and unnatural sex pops up in most debates today about the morality of homosexuality."

Source: www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/catholic.htm#WHAT

Thank you swizzle, for an honest answer.

Here would be my question. If oral sex is unnatural, why is it condoned by the Church within the bounds of marital sex? Can you explain this contradiction?

I will concede the rest of your points, as they are further down the road toward an argument for gay marriage. I just want to understand this seemly obvious contradiction.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Thank you swizzle, for an honest answer.

I try, but I recognize that I don’t articulate very well.

…Here would be my question. If oral sex is unnatural, why is it condoned by the Church within the bounds of marital sex? Can you explain this contradiction? …

I’m not sure it is actually “condoned” by the Church, but perhaps what married couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms on their way to, or as part of, a unitive and procreative (or at least open to life) marital embrace is between them and God and maybe their confessors. To be honest, I feel a bit just thinking about what other married couples may or may not choose to do because it is none of my business.

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;7239530:

1. Kettle, meet black. I don’t think so.

1. You have over 2000 posts.Yes, I’ve been posting here for 3 yrs.
2. I sleep in the bedroom of Catholics every night. Well, I sleep in the bedroom with ONE Catholic every night.
3. I didn’t make the assertion. What assertion? That no one cares about gay marriage?
4. You are here for the same reason I am, else you would just “read the books” and “get a life” and we would not be having this discussion. Oh no, I don’t do gotcha’. Even is I did, I sure wouldn’t go to this much trouble

Maybe it is a bit of a gotcha. If that is the case, why can no one say “you are correct, neither is considered natural, however…” or “I miss-spoke, one is only considered natural because…”. Better yet, are you not capable of looking it up yourself? I gave you links to 3 Encylicals on the subject of Catholic marriage. Are you unable to read well?..or maybe you’re just lazy?? I don’t see how you can claim that Abu was wrong (or right) without being able to post the truth.

And, again, this is a point made by Catholics here in this thread, not by me or Larkin or anyone else. Right. & you’re contesting it. Perhaps Abu was right, perhaps he was wrong. Find out!! If you can’t even find out what is allowed between a Catholic man & his wife, I have to question whether you should be posting in this thread. IOW., do you have the skills necessary to “philosophize”??? or…are you a fraud.

 

[CradleCath]

i try, but i recognize that i don’t articulate very well.

I’m not sure it is actually “condoned” by the church, but perhaps what married couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms on their way to, or as part of, a unitive and procreative (or at least open to life) marital embrace** is between them and god and maybe their confessors**. To be honest, i feel a bit Just thinking about what other married couples may or may not choose to do because it is none of my business.

Agreed!! However, we have a couple (& once in a while a third) of posters here who seem to be getting off on physical details re the marriage act. I don’t know what happened to the actual topic of this thread, but you stated the Churches’ position about gay “marriage” very well.

 

[SwizzleStick]

The important thing to remember is that chastity is something all people must strive for, married or unmarried.

"…Naturally, one would first look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a definitive answer to the question. (After all, it seems to talk about everything else Catholics should and should not do…) The Catechism does not speak of oral sex by name, but it talks about offenses against chastity and names lust and masturbation as two of these offenses. The Catechism states that lust “is [a] disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[1] Secondly, the Catechism states: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘…[M]asturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’”[2] Once again, even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not specifically name oral sex, one may describe it as a deliberate stimulation of the genitals in order to experience pleasure. Masturbation is not limited to self-initiation. From this specific definition, coupled with the definition of lust, it follows that if a married couple engages in oral sex and this act results in orgasm, then the act is immoral by its very nature.

        The preceding information may be both new and surprising to married couples.  However, they should realize that they are not alone.  Christopher West, a contemporary educator in the area of Catholic sexual ethics, admits that many people have an incorrect understanding about sexuality within marriage.  When a couple enters the sacrament of marriage, that does not give them the freedom to do whatever they can imagine or desire in the way of sexual actions.  Such an understanding of marriage and freedom is incorrect. Christopher West believes that the meaning of chastity is often confused with abstinence, and this misunderstanding is the root of the problem.  The Church calls all unmarried persons to abstinence… but chastity is a lifelong virtue—not just one that applies to single people and those in religious life.  In other words, chastity within a marriage is very important.  According to the Catechism, “[t]he virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.”[3]  According to West, chastity “is the virtue that frees all our sexual thoughts, desires, and behaviors from self-seeking and orders them toward the truth of authentic love.  So if spouses are truly to love one another, the virtue of chastity isn’t an option—it’s an absolute requirement.”[4]

        So, thus far, I have argued that the Church clearly teaches that oral sex is wrong when a couple chooses to separate the act from sexual intercourse and merely achieve orgasm(s).  However, what happens when a married couple wishes to use oral sex as a means of foreplay?  This is where language and wording becomes tricky… for would this action be called oral sex, or oral stimulation?  In the case of foreplay before sexual intercourse, the act is more properly called oral stimulation.  By engaging in this activity, the couple wishes to promote orgasm during the intercourse that follows.  As Christopher West points out, this is morally acceptable:

        The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and                 good.  But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal                 intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed.                  Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never                 intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina.  Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily                   linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of                 intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would                 happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples.  In                 fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would     be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).[5]"...

Excerpted from: nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm

Continued in next post.

 

[SwizzleStick]

"…Christopher West is not the only theologian who writes on this topic. Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, expresses the following thoughts concerning the legitimacy of oral sex (or stimulation) as a means of foreplay:

        According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to                 seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be                 continued to the point of orgasm…  Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration…                 On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance.  Should it happen that she fails                 to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to                 the Church’s teaching, to seek and         achieve orgasm by other means.[6]

Just like West, Genovesi acknowledges that male orgasm ordinarily may occur before female orgasm. Ideally, both should happen at the same time, and couples should strive for this goal. However, if the male should reach orgasm before his spouse, it is morally acceptable to help the spouse reach orgasm as a completion of intercourse. Nicholas Halligan, author of the series, The Ministry of the Celebration of the Sacraments, comments: “Although a woman is not obliged to do so, she may immediately after her husband’s ejaculation in the vagina or immediately after his withdrawal upon ejaculation obtain her own complete satisfaction through her own or her spouse’s efforts performed by means of touches or in some other manner.”[7] In other words, as long as the oral stimulation serves an honorable purpose, namely, to help both of the spouses reach sexual climax through normal intercourse, it is permissible.

As mentioned above, the importance of language cannot be downplayed. There is a clear difference between the phrases ‘oral sex’ and ‘oral stimulation’. It may be helpful to point out that oral sex (within itself, isolated) never denotes the full reality of a true sexual union. According to West, the term ‘oral sex’ most often refers “to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples…”[8]"…

Excerpted from: nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm