Gay marriage : who cares?

[larkin31]

One more suggestion. GET A LIFE. Posting on message boards is fine, but to the extent that you “oral/anal sex twins” are posting here, one wonders if you do anything else. GEEZ, you’re getting boring.

It’s real easy to avoid this thread if you are not satisfied. You know where the door is.

 

[SwizzleStick]

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. …

Yes, I noticed that.

…I don’t know what happened to the actual topic of this thread, …

The topic of the thread has wandered here and there since the thread began back in September.

…but you stated the Churches’ position about gay “marriage” very well.

Thank you.

 

[larkin31]

"…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

Thanks, swizzle. Is it fair to assume that these men speak for the RCC in these quoted passages? I will respond to them, but I’d like the answer to this before I begin.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Thanks, swizzle. Is it fair to assume that these men speak for the RCC in these quoted passages? I will respond to them, but I’d like the answer to this before I begin.

Yes, I would say it is fair to assume that, but even so, I’ll try to come up with a more authoritative source to confirm, though I know there are links to Vatican documents in this thread (CradleCath supplied at least three).

 

[larkin31]

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****

 

[larkin31]

The second one is not answering the question either.

 

[John21652]

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)?

Honestly Larkin, you are a case.

It was you and I arguing over the existence of objective Natural Laws which led you to consistently deny that Natural Law even existed and you denied the very existence of Objectivity and Universality. You had to, because Natural Laws have as their foundations Objectivity and Universality…Then, voila, in the midst of your arguments you suddenly remembered Gravity. Gravity is objectively discernable and it is universal. When challenged on your ‘discovery’ you vanished into the ether and refused to concede that the very premise of your argument had been shattered by - you! Now you have the gall to come back here and suggest that because an objective and universal law is in existence it is therefore absurd to suggest that universal moral laws might exist. God knows how many times, here and on other threads, you have had it explained to you that following the discerning of objectively discoverable and knowable universal physical laws, there comes another process whereby mankind’s place in the world is discerned to arrive at certain objectively discoverable attributes which are universal and can be stated as normative.

Does it not occur to you that if an objectively discoverable and universal law such as Gravity exists, that there is a very good chance that other objectively discoverable universal laws might also exist?

I also notice that the sentence of yours which I highlighted contains a little rider. You have given yourself a little ‘out’, as it were. The phrase I refer to is *as far as we know.
*Are you suggesting perhaps that the notion of the universality of gravity might collapse because gravity doesn’t exist in some other possible world? Well, your ‘out’ wont hold up, because the Natural Law pertains to this world and the morality derived from it pertains to mankind’s existence and place in this world and no other.**Your second sentence is just plain . Go look up the dictionary meaning of ‘Natural Science’. I think you will find that Physics is included in the definition.

 

[larkin31]

Honestly Larkin, you are a case.

It was you and I arguing over the existence of objective Natural Laws which led you to consistently deny that Natural Law even existed and you denied the very existence of Objectivity and Universality. You had to, because Natural Laws have as their foundations Objectivity and Universality…Then, voila, in the midst of your arguments you suddenly remembered Gravity. Gravity is objectively discernable and it is universal. When challenged on your ‘discovery’ you vanished into the ether and refused to concede that the very premise of your argument had been shattered by - you! Now you have the gall to come back here and suggest that because an objective and universal law is in existence it is therefore absurd to suggest that universal moral laws might exist. God knows how many times, here and on other threads, you have had it explained to you that following the discerning of objectively discoverable and knowable universal physical laws, there comes another process whereby mankind’s place in the world is discerned to arrive at certain objectively discoverable attributes which are universal and can be stated as normative.

Does it not occur to you that if an objectively discoverable and universal law such as Gravity exists, that there is a very good chance that other objectively discoverable universal laws might also exist?

I also notice that the sentence of yours which I highlighted contains a little rider. You have given yourself a little ‘out’, as it were. The phrase I refer to is *as far as we know.
*Are you suggesting perhaps that the notion of the universality of gravity might collapse because gravity doesn’t exist in some other possible world? Well, your ‘out’ wont hold up, because the Natural Law pertains to this world and the morality derived from it pertains to mankind’s existence and place in this world and no other.**Your second sentence is just plain . Go look up the dictionary meaning of ‘Natural Science’. I think you will find that Physics is included in the definition.

John, who cares here? Start a thread on objective moral law if you want (it has been done before, and I have posted on them from time to time).

So, do you have a comment on oral vs anal sex and the consistency of the application of of a logical moral standard? Or not? At lest Cradle Cath posted some Vatican document links. Although, after I read them (2 of 3 anyway), it became clear that they were not answering our question here either.

I will later respond to the Richard West material posted above. This, at least, was partly on topic.

 

[larkin31]

Again, thanks to Swizzle for posting on topic. I have read all of his postings in blue. This information on the acceptance of oral sex between married couples as a part of untive sex is clear and well known by us who have read on this.

The problem is, and our question is, why does not this same reasoning apply to anal sex between married couples? Are couples, who use anal sex in a stimulating and intimate fashion, then leading to complete unitive sex, sinning? The West material here does not address any other sex except oral activities. Our question, however, goes beyond this. Will no Catholic writer or theologian address the issue in married couples? And if not, WHY not?

I have my own answer, but I am REALLY trying to encourage Catholics here to answer for themselves. Swizzle at least is getting us some of the way there…

 

[CradleCath]

Have you read these? The first one alone has 130 paragraphs, and much of it is not on the questions we are asking.

Of COURSE I’ve read them, I’m a Catholic.

I have browsed the entirety of this first link, and I see nothing about our question. There does seem to be an indirect condemnation of bringing a “third party” into the relationship. But we are not asking that question.

One doesn’t “BROWSE” an encyclical. One reads it. Especially one who is as desparate as you are to find what goes on
in Catholic bedrooms. npatrol:

 

[SwizzleStick]

Again, thanks to Swizzle for posting on topic. I have read all of his postings in blue. This information on the acceptance of oral sex between married couples as a part of untive sex is clear and well known by us who have read on this.

“His postings” is not correct, since I am female.

…The problem is, and our question is, why does not this same reasoning apply to anal sex between married couples? Are couples, who use anal sex in a stimulating and intimate fashion, then leading to complete unitive sex, sinning? The West material here does not address any other sex except oral activities. Our question, however, goes beyond this. Will no Catholic writer or theologian address the issue in married couples? And if not, WHY not? …

I have been unable to find any Church documentation that addresses so specifically that practice between married couples. Though it will likely not suffice since it is not a Church document, I did find the page at the link below. Since I am in agreement with it and it is my understanding of Church teachings, I will post the link (and some very brief excerpts from it).

Also at that page is the statement that no Magisterial documents exist that specifically address anal sex between married couples. It also indicates that Christopher West, the author I quoted earlier in the thread, discourages the practice.

"Is anal sex ok between a married Christian couple as foreplay?

…“back door” penetration is out of bounds, even when limited to foreplay between straight married couples, and even when the climax is saved for normal intercourse: …

1. It’s unhealthy
   …
2. It breaks Natural Law
   …
3. Violates dignity of the person
   …
4. Speeds up male climax
   …
5. Bible forbids it
   …
6. It’s counterfeit sex
   …
   Does the Vatican say it’s wrong?
   There is no Magisterial document discussing anal penetration foreplay between married couples, nor does there need to be. …
   The Magisterium (Pope and the Bishops) doesn’t have to spell out every type of forbidden sexual behaviour l…
   The Bible, Natural Law, biology and common sense clearly indicate anal sex is not OK. … Christopher West discourages this kind of foreplay, and rightly so.

Source: davidmacd.com/catholic/is_anal_sex_ok_for%20married_couples_as_foreplay_catholics.htm

 

[Abu]

John21652
I see that you have been accused of being “judgmental”

[PassingThru, post #931: “I remember your support of being judgmental. You can keep judging. Ill try my best to avoid it.”]

Join the elect.

Such a grave error is a sure sign of incompetence, or unconcern and dissent on morality.

It seems that there is no end to the deconstruction of Christ and his Church, but so that others may not be misled similarly, Jesus and His Church have made it quiet clear for us here also through Her Sacred Scriptures.
Christ commanded us to
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

And St Paul, following the Master:
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).
“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).
“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

That is precisely why we judge actions, speech, writing against true teaching to determine what is good and what is evil.

The hackneyed attempt, ad nauseam, to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic, tries to portray the Church as 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 that’s what homomania is about in attempts to promote homosexual “marriage”.

 

[PassingThru]

John21652
I see that you have been accused of being “judgmental”
Join the elect.

Such a grave error is a sure sign of incompetence, or unconcern and dissent on morality.

It seems that there is no end to the deconstruction of Christ and his Church, but so that others may not be misled similarly, Jesus and His Church have made it quiet clear for us here also through Her Sacred Scriptures.
Christ commanded us to
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

And St Paul, following the Master:
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).
“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).
“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

That is precisely why we judge actions, speech, writing against true teaching to determine what is good and what is evil.

The hackneyed attempt, ad nauseam, to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic, tries to portray the Church as 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 that’s what homomania is about in attempts to promote homosexual “marriage”.

Look above, Swizzle has done a wonderful job of actually engaging our question. How many times can you say “he hackneyed attempt, ad nauseam, to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic”? No one is saying that. I have been busy today, and will likely tomorrow. No one needs to answer your lack of comprehension.

Honestly, look at Swizzles posts. He is actually engaging the question. Larkin has responded, and without a single issue. See how honest dialog can move a conversation forward? Ill leave this to others for now, will be back later.

 

[PassingThru]

“His postings” is not correct, since I am female.

I have been unable to find any Church documentation that addresses so specifically that practice between married couples. Though it will likely not suffice since it is not a Church document, I did find the page at the link below. Since I am in agreement with it and it is my understanding of Church teachings, I will post the link (and some very brief excerpts from it).

Also at that page is the statement that no Magisterial documents exist that specifically address anal sex between married couples. It also indicates that Christopher West, the author I quoted earlier in the thread, discourages the practice.

"Is anal sex ok between a married Christian couple as foreplay?

…“back door” penetration is out of bounds, even when limited to foreplay between straight married couples, and even when the climax is saved for normal intercourse: …

1. It’s unhealthy
   …
2. It breaks Natural Law
   …
3. Violates dignity of the person
   …
4. Speeds up male climax
   …
5. Bible forbids it
   …
6. It’s counterfeit sex
   …
   Does the Vatican say it’s wrong?
   There is no Magisterial document discussing anal penetration foreplay between married couples, nor does there need to be. …
   The Magisterium (Pope and the Bishops) doesn’t have to spell out every type of forbidden sexual behaviour l…
   The Bible, Natural Law, biology and common sense clearly indicate anal sex is not OK. … Christopher West discourages this kind of foreplay, and rightly so.

Source: davidmacd.com/catholic/is_anal_sex_ok_for%20married_couples_as_foreplay_catholics.htm

Thanks for the info. It still seems like splitting hairs. Or, more precisely like selective application. The list you provided above applies almost down the line for oral sex as well. The exception would be “its unhealthy”, which I would imagine anal sex is technically the least healthy. But I think 2-6 apply equally to both.

Regardless, I would say both are “unnatural”.

Thank you again for directly and honestly addressing the question. When I have more time I will review again.

 

[Abu]

SwizzleStick
To the ad nauseam mantra “If oral sex is unnatural, why is it condoned by the Church” – you said” I’m not sure it is actually “condoned” by the Church.

Actually in Post #862 the late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN was shown to answer this very concisely
“Between a husband and wife, is oral sex a sin if it is performed as part of foreplay and culminates in intercourse?”:
“…the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse” and quoting Pope Pius XII “if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts."

So your “one may describe it as a deliberate stimulation of the genitals in order to experience pleasure…in the case of foreplay before sexual intercourse, the act is more properly called oral stimulation” is quite correct.
Quoting Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia that “Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration” is once again fully in tune with what has been offered.
BTW, WordWeb differentiates as faithful Catholics always do:
Anal sex = sexual intercourse in the anus
Oral sex = oral stimulation of the genitals

Those activists promoting homosexual perversions have done their best to confuse the issue, but have failed.

A comparison of marriage versus homosexual linkages in a 2005 study in the journal Sex Roles found that “40.3% of homosexual men in civil unions and 49.3% of homosexual men not in civil unions had ‘discussed and decided it is ok under some circumstances’ to have sex outside of the relationship. By comparison, only 3.5% of heterosexual married men and their wives agreed that sex outside of the relationship was acceptable.” Sondra E. Solomon, Esther D. Rothblum, and Kimberly F. Balsam, “Money, Housework, Sex, and Conflict: Same-Sex Couples in Civil Unions, Those Not in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Siblings,” Sex Roles 52 (May 2005): 569

 

[BlueShadow123]

People care because god says its wrong…

and whatever god says is wrong, is what the majority of people have a problem with.

Its kinda common sense…

However if you’re talking about the lack of caring, that is because people these days aren’t necessarily into other business as much as they were back in the day. Everybody lives their life and does their own thing and shouldn’t have to worry about others butting in on what they are doing in their bedroom. People have became much more accepting to what the bible considers a ‘sin’. Its 2010, look around. You’ll see what I mean.

And to whoever is going to respond to me saying “Well, that doesn’t make homosexuality right”…

I am not trying to justify the act of homosexuality. I was simply answering the OP’s question. So before anybody jumps on my tail, just know that I’m not trying to justify ANY sin.

 

[Abu]

BlueShadow123
People have became much more accepting to what the bible considers a ‘sin’

An interesting remark – have you ever wondered how Jesus of Nazareth left us to decide on the many issues that are not in the Bible such as many grave issues like contraception, euthanasia, remarriage, capital punishment, IVF, embryonic stem cell research, cloning?

 

[BlueShadow123]

An interesting remark – have you ever wondered how Jesus of Nazareth left us to decide on the many issues that are not in the Bible such as many grave issues like contraception, euthanasia, remarriage, capital punishment, IVF, embryonic stem cell research, cloning?

Lol. I don’t know if you noticed, but the end times prophecies all note that people will stray away from god. Society seeing things as the ‘norm’ rather than sins are a great example of what god fore-told of what would happen. To answer your question though: I never thought the bible gave all the answers. It surely does not. If it did, we would know all and have answers to everything, even the question you just asked. However much of what you listed in the question god is obviously against. Well according to the catholic church, contraception is a sin. So is euthanasia because that is killing another person ( or yourself if requested), and remarriage is a sin unless the partner died. Marriage is till death, unless something requires a divorce like heavy abuse or something. Stem cell research is obviously a sin because it kills the unborn. However I’m just stating some protestant and most catholic views on the things you listed.

 

[larkin31]

“His postings” is not correct, since I am female.

My bad. “Her postings.”

I have been unable to find any Church documentation that addresses so specifically that practice between married couples. Though it will likely not suffice since it is not a Church document, I did find the page at the link below. Since I am in agreement with it and it is my understanding of Church teachings, I will post the link (and some very brief excerpts from it).

Also at that page is the statement that no Magisterial documents exist that specifically address anal sex between married couples. It also indicates that Christopher West, the author I quoted earlier in the thread, discourages the practice.

"Is anal sex ok between a married Christian couple as foreplay?

…“back door” penetration is out of bounds, even when limited to foreplay between straight married couples, and even when the climax is saved for normal intercourse: …

1. It’s unhealthy
   …
2. It breaks Natural Law
   …
3. Violates dignity of the person
   …
4. Speeds up male climax
   …
5. Bible forbids it
   …
6. It’s counterfeit sex
   …
   Does the Vatican say it’s wrong?
   There is no Magisterial document discussing anal penetration foreplay between married couples, nor does there need to be. …
   The Magisterium (Pope and the Bishops) doesn’t have to spell out every type of forbidden sexual behaviour l…
   The Bible, Natural Law, biology and common sense clearly indicate anal sex is not OK. … Christopher West discourages this kind of foreplay, and rightly so.

Source: davidmacd.com/catholic/is_anal_sex_ok_for%20married_couples_as_foreplay_catholics.htm

Thanks. Clearly, the RCC (and many other folks) consider anal sex simply to be degrading. Oral sex was once seen this way, and still is called a form of “sodomy” in certain circles. Oral sex, however, is no longer considered so much this way, and Catholic teachings directly address it and accept it within bounds. Anal sex is not accepted this same way, although with 40% of hetero couples trying it (according to the CDC), we may well see a similar shift over time regarding it.

But as Passing Thru said, much of this list applies equally to anal sex as to oral sex.

 

[karoleck]

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 for this wonderful and informed posting as well as the next one.As a Catholic,I personally find the posters who are promoting their narcissistic self interested “gay marriage” lifestyle rather pathetic.They insult my intelligence and show a contempt for their own bodies and are slaves and prisoners to their base fallen nature.

They also insult good people with a same sex attraction who are struggling to live chaste lives.The good thing that does come out of this thread are informative postings as yourself ,cradle catholic,John and other persons of good will.

I wonder what man worthy of his nature would even think of debasing his wife in the manner that has been put forward here.Or for that matter what woman who values her body(a potential mother of a child who will live forever) would even allow herself to be degraded this way.
Thank you again for all those links and I personally appreciate the time and effort that you put into it.I as a pupil sit at your feet of knowledge–God Bless.

St.Michael the ArchAngel,protect us from the malice,traps and snares of the devil.Amen.