Gay marriage : who cares?

[Abu]

Thank you, BlueShadow. Actually the cloning and IVF are also condemned by the Catholic Church which gives us clear doctrine rather than views.

In the Bible we are taught “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

Actually, Jesus wrote nothing and it is His Church which gave us the Bible as the inspired Word of God with ALL of the inspired books. In there we also see that Jesus founded His Church on Peter:

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[larkin31]

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.

Are you even married?

 

[davidv]

Understood.

The question we are now trying to actually hammer down is the assertion that Oral sex is natural, and anal sex is not. For simplicity, neither to completion, both as part of a completed marital act. Abu has straddled the fence and supported both sides (and attacked those who disagreed, on both sides. very confusing) We have multiple people attacking anal sex as unnatural. We have some denying that oral sex is at least condoned by the Church. If cornered, they will say it is natural, or dodge the question with insults.

So, no one will actually approach the topic in a straightforward way. Why is one natural and one unnatural.

The frustration lies at people actively participating until faced with supporting a simple assertion. We saw it earlier with people asserting that “what I find pleasurable, is what others find pleasurable.” Basically, they somehow universally decided what pleasure is derived from. Which is dumb. When faced to support this idea, people get more and more irritable, until they eventually make up some excuse, and then run away. We are perilously close to that here, where many have said anal sex is unnatural, oral is not, but when asked to explain, get very violent.

Its a trend.

Because of the ambiguity of the meaning “natural”, I believe any attempt to declare either case natural, or not, will be quite fruitless. For those who reject objective morality, it (natural v. unnatural) is just fluff meant to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

 

[larkin31]

Because of the ambiguity of the meaning “natural”, I believe any attempt to declare either case natural, or not, will be quite fruitless. For those who reject objective morality, it (natural v. unnatural) is just fluff meant to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

You are free to define the term as clearly as you would like. The question is, why does the RCC discriminate between the two practices morally?

 

[davidv]

You are free to define the term as clearly as you would like. The question is, why does the RCC discriminate between the two practices morally?

First you must justify your statement that the Church “condones oral sex”. Which I don’t believe she does. Second what do you mean by that phrase, and is it the same meaning that that Church uses?

 

[larkin31]

First you must justify your statement that the Church “condones oral sex”. Which I don’t believe she does. Second what do you mean by that phrase, and is it the same meaning that that Church uses?

Well, I asked if Richard West’s publications and quotations posted above and a few others by various priests or Cardinals stood for the RCC. I was told, basically, that they do. So that is my basis for assuming that they do accept oral sex as a part of legitimate unitive sex–because those various quotes above all said such–and very explicitly. If you would like to argue that West and these others are in error and are teaching against RCC thinking, then please do say so and then show where there is contrary RCC material or commentary. I am not going to quote from above what has already been posted on and read and commented on by several of us.

 

[davidv]

Well, I asked if Richard West’s publications and quotations posted above and a few others by various priests or Cardinals stood for the RCC. I was told, basically, that they do. So that is my basis for assuming that they do accept oral sex as a part of legitimate unitive sex–because those various quotes above all said such–and very explicitly. If you would like to argue that West and these others are in error and are teaching against RCC thinking, then please do say so and then show where there is contrary RCC material or commentary. I am not going to quote from above what has already been posted on and read and commented on by several of us.

Sorry, this does not clarify anything. Christopher West has no official standing in defining Church doctrine. Have you read any of his material? And, I still think that you use a different meaning for “oral sex” than what West uses, and draw the wrong conclusion because of it.

 

[John21652]

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.

I care! So do a lot of others.

You simply wont answer any of the questions directed towards you regarding the objective moral basis of Catholic doctrine, will you Larkin. You can’t. Your own arguments to the contrary were shattered by you!

Yet you attempt to bypass the very foundations of why certain acts are deemed to be wrong according to Church moral teaching and you still attempt to deny the wrongness of those certain actions. Homosexual sodomy is objectively wong. Sodomy is wrong. It is disordered, unnatural and against the moral basis for human right living. Sodomy is sodomy, regardless of whether it is betwen male, or female. Are you capable of grasping that fact? Karoleck wote that such an act defiles a woman, as it does a man and you have the gall to challenge that by questioning his marital status. Normal men, who respect themselves and their wives think as Karoleck does. Sodomy is against the Natural Law as Swizzlestick wrote. Davidv writes in a similar vein. You will attempt a discourse with them, but all the while you avoid the very foundations of why sodomy is wrong. You are again being disengenuous when you try to paint the church as expressing a double standard with regard to oral sex and anal sex. Anal sex is sodomy is wrong. Oral sex is not condoned by the Church, despite certain theologians attempting to portray it as a licit part of sexual stimulation. You misrepresent the thoughts of certain theologians as Church doctrine. Those writings are not.

You should also have it pointed out to you that sodomy between man and woman is not dealt with explicitly because no right thinking man would entertain such a misuse of human sexuality. Until people like you and others came along with a sick variation on sodomy, normally functioning men would seek nothing more than vaginal intercourse with their women. Now, we have a perversion that was historically associated with disordered men now entering the sexaul relations between man and woman. That is nothing more than an extension of a moral perversion which the Church states is morally wrong. End of story.

 

[larkin31]

Sorry, this does not clarify anything. Christopher West has no official standing in defining Church doctrine. Have you read any of his material? And, I still think that you use a different meaning for “oral sex” than what West uses, and draw the wrong conclusion because of it.

We all KNOW that West is not in the Vatican.

Um, I read the material quoted here and read 2 of the 3 links provided. Which I stated in my earlier post.

Are you reading the posts in this thread? I know full well what West and the RCC means by “oral sex” (I was even called a pervert and a worshipper of Satan for being specific, like West was).

A priest or Cardinal of some sort was also quoted here by Abu. Did you read that? It condoned oral sex as part of unitive sex. Quite explicitly. If the RCC does not condone oral sex between married couples, then please say so.

Or are you saying that the RCC makes no comment on specific non-orgasmic acts of any kind? Just what DOES the RCC say if it does not agree with West?

 

[larkin31]

You should also have it pointed out to you that sodomy between man and woman is not dealt with explicitly because no right thinking man would entertain such a misuse of human sexuality. Until people like you and others came along with a sick variation on sodomy, normally functioning men would seek nothing more than vaginal intercourse with their women…

HAHA

Wait.

When do you claim that oral sex was first “entertained”? I am going to say two things, both conjectural:

1. You have never had sex.
2. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the history of human sexuality, nor its outlook toward various forms of erotic pleasure. You are just ********ting here in an attempt to assert some moral superiority over a behavior you do not engage in yourself.

 

[davidv]

HAHA

Wait.

When do you claim that oral sex was first “entertained”? I am going to say two things, both conjectural:

1. You have never had sex.
2. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the history of human sexuality, nor its outlook toward various forms of erotic pleasure. You are just ********ting here in an attempt to assert some moral superiority over a behavior you do not engage in yourself.

This is not responsive to the points made.

 

[larkin31]

This is not responsive to the points made.

Yes, it was.

Your posting was simply a string of moral invective about me and about the sexual practices of married couples through the ages. Which you have no basis for knowing anything about. Unless you want to tell us actually when in history and by whom oral eroticism was first introduced into married life.

So, please. Tell us just just when men first starting degrading their wives (or vice-versa) by having oral sex (one of the forms of “sodomy,” as you put it). Or maybe when people first started engaging in mutual masturbation to climax (another terrible sexual sin that I am surprised you do not attempt to connect to modern questions from folks like myself).

Come on, pony up on this one. You made the claim in a smear of me. So either show that you know what you are talking about or shut up already.

Is that enough on the topic of your “post”?

 

[davidv]

Yes, it was.

Your posting was simply a string of moral invective about me and about the sexual practices of married couples through the ages. Which you have no basis for knowing anything about. Unless you want to tell us actually when in history and by whom oral eroticism was first introduced into married life.

So, please. Tell us just just when men first starting degrading their wives (or vice-versa) by having oral sex (one of the forms of “sodomy,” as you put it). Or maybe when people first started engaging in mutual masturbation to climax (another terrible sexual sin that I am surprised you do not attempt to connect to modern questions from folks like myself).

Come on, pony up on this one. You made the claim in a smear of me. So either show that you know what you are talking about or shut up already.

Is that enough on the topic of your “post”?

Nice strawman. Please address the points of post #982.

What people do is actual irrelevant to whether they “ought” to. So, your question of “…when…?” is irrelevant.

 

[larkin31]

Nice strawman. Please address the points of post #982.

What people do is actual irrelevant to whether they “ought” to. So, your question of “…when…?” is irrelevant.

Your post is not responsive to the challenge I offered you to back up your claim.

Come on. You fully suggested that there was a time when men and women did not engage in sodomy (oral or otherwise). I just want to know when that time was that you are referring to.

Money where your mouth is, and all…if you are going to include me in the smear, anyway.

Then we’ll get back to the part about whether you know anything about erotic practices of married partners.

 

[davidv]

Your post is not responsive to the challenge I offered you to back up your claim.

Come on. You fully suggested that there was a time when men and women did not engage in sodomy (oral or otherwise). I just want to know when that time was that you are referring to.

Money where your mouth is, and all…if you are going to include me in the smear, anyway.

Then we’ll get back to the part about whether you know anything about erotic practices of married partners.

 

[larkin31]

Yes, it was.

Your posting was simply a string of moral invective about me and about the sexual practices of married couples through the ages. Which you have no basis for knowing anything about. Unless you want to tell us actually when in history and by whom oral eroticism was first introduced into married life.

So, please. Tell us just just when men first starting degrading their wives (or vice-versa) by having oral sex (one of the forms of “sodomy,” as you put it). Or maybe when people first started engaging in mutual masturbation to climax (another terrible sexual sin that I am surprised you do not attempt to connect to modern questions from folks like myself).

Come on, pony up on this one. You made the claim in a smear of me. So either show that you know what you are talking about or shut up already.

Is that enough on the topic of your “post”?

david

what are you doing??

You have butted into this exchange.

It’s John whom I replied to and challenged.

 

[davidv]

david

what are you doing??

You have butted into this exchange.

It’s John whom I replied to and challenged.

Is this a public forum?

 

[larkin31]

…Until people like you and others came along with a sick variation on sodomy, normally functioning men would seek nothing more than vaginal intercourse with their women. Now, we have a perversion that was historically associated with disordered men now entering the sexaul relations between man and woman.

see the historical claim about men and women? See how he blames me and others with our “sick variation on sodomy” for changing what “men” want from “women”?

Should we tell him what many very “normal” and loving and good Christian women actually want from their spouses from time to time?

 

[larkin31]

Is this a public forum?

I meant that you confused me and spoke as if in his role.

Of course it is a public forum (quasi-public).

 

[larkin31]

Nice strawman. Please address the points of post #982.

Passibng Thru and I have responded to those points a billion times. All John claims is that “sodomy is wrong”–all kinds.

Yet Abu (and a few others) posted Catholic links to the contrary.

It’s not my fault that you guys can’t get consistent on this. If you also wish to claim straight out here that NO ORAL STIMULATION OF ANY KIND IS MORALLY PERMITTED BETWEEN CATHOLIC MARRIED PARTNERS, then say so here and show us where this dogma is printed. Your own catholic fellows have posted printed passages, used in Catholic adult ed classes, that state the oral sex acts of a certain kind are permissible. If Christopher West is publishing heresy, then say so. My guess is that his books are sold here at CA. Are they?