Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Peter_Plato]

If you think that subjugation is being denied the priviledge of chatting online because you acquiesced to your wife’s request, then you need a dictionary definition of subjugation as well. The irony is that you would find your situation comparable to that of a woman in a patriarchal society. We ALL sacrifice our little pleasures from time to time.It’s not the same as being denied rights.

Again, you seem to think the only alternative to patriarchy is violent, abusive woman running rampant (incidentally, do you think your wife would have smashed your face into the computer if you had refused her request for olive oil, and only your strong manliness keeps her wild rage in check in the face of - apparently - our recklessly matriarchal society?). Again, I do not see why you think the opposite of subjugation is… subjugation.

So, it is your claim that throughout MOST of history women in general, and in the MAJORITY, have been subjugated by men using tactics such as “smashing faces,” physical abuse and violence?

The problem, it would seem, is that subjugation means many things to many people. An expectation of providing care to children or doing without a closet full of clothes for the sake of keeping family finances under control might be regarded as subjugation by some. The word has simply lost its meaning and validity by the fact that claims of subjugation rely so little on actual and real circumstances and much more on guilt by designation.

 

[JimG]

Maybe I have misinterpreted but my impression is that you disagree with the labeling of people by what they are doing with their genitals at the particular time. If so I agree, if not maybe you can explain the “invention” of homosexuality and heterosexuality as you phrased it. I think the desire to label persons based on their current sexual expression is mostly an effort to carve out special rights based on an artificial construct.

This post was a response to Joie’s idea of heterosexuality and homosexuality as social constructs. I recently came across this article by a man who is attracted to other men and who does not act on that attraction. Nevertheless, he rejects the label of gay, and also the notion of “gay celibacy.” He seems to agree that the notion of sexual orientation is indeed a social construct which ought not to be embraced as a personal identifier. It made a great deal of sense to me.

The Strange Notion of Gay Celibacy

 

[Peter_Plato]

Those, I think, are everyone’s responsibilities - regardless of their pelvic region or their romantic orientation.

Sure, but you seem to be living under the delusion that “everyone’s responsibilities” means that those responsibilities, to be fair, must entail doing the same things as men at the same time.

So, for example, for much of human history women cared for children and generally managed and administered households while men went out and “brought home the bacon.” At some point, it was decided that women carrying out those “homebound” responsibilities constituted the abject subjugation of women by males. At which time, liberation became the byword for whatever was required by women in order for them to be free from the home and getting on with doing the same activities as men.

That is, unless women were doing the very same things as men outside of the home for the same remuneration as men, any difference was, from that time forward, to be understood as subjugation. It wasn’t that the activities that women did were any more difficult, demeaning or time consuming than what men did, merely that women somehow came to understand that they no longer wanted to do THOSE activities and it was clearly subjugation to expect them to do those things.

Sure, to make a case, actual instances of abuse were dredged up and pointed to as examples of the horror in the way some women may have been treated by some men, but whether such instances actually exemplified the typical way of things was never brought up. Men simply went along with it, largely to please women, whether or not any subjugation actually existed or not. Subjugation of women in modern western societies is largely a myth promoted by “some” women who simply did not want to do what maintaining the family life required and bought into by others who convinced themselves that “it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

You think women are subjugated in modern western societies? Think about this…

Women are the only class of human beings who are permitted, with full approval of many – if not most – free societies, to kill other innocent human beings who pose not any real or potential threat to their well-being but solely for whatever inconvenience the woman cares to cite.

Speaking of privilege – THAT, my friend, is privilege! Bestowed unequivocally and absolutely by the majority of society, including most men, along with the legal and medical system on women. The rights of volcanoes is not very figurative.

Is this a distortion of reality? Sure. But no more a distortion than your view vis a vis subjugation.

 

[LisaA]

This post was a response to Joie’s idea of heterosexuality and homosexuality as social constructs. I recently came across this article by a man who is attracted to other men and who does not act on that attraction. Nevertheless, he rejects the label of gay, and also the notion of “gay celibacy.” He seems to agree that the notion of sexual orientation is indeed a social construct which ought not to be embraced as a personal identifier. It made a great deal of sense to me.

The Strange Notion of Gay Celibacy

Marvelous and insightful article. I hope everyone reads it for a viewpoint that suggests we are more than our feelings and impulses. To believe you must accept the label “gay” because of an attraction to males rather than females is as absurd as accepting the label resulting from other emotions.

Regardless of what my feelings might tell me, my body reveals to me the truth that I am not gay, but rather a male made for a female

Or as his father advised him in childhood, feelings are nice but they don’t always tell the truth. Our culture has abandoned reason, rational thought and long term happiness to indulge in “whatever turns you on…” whether it’s sex, drugs or rock n roll.

 

[LisaA]

Marrying for love being considered a reasonable idea was thought to be symptomatic of a diseased mind before the 18th century, it all changed with Rousseau’s Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse which introduced the idea to wide sections of Europeans. Before that marriage was a rationally driven thing, driven by producing stable households, taking care of parents, productions and rearing of children. Marriage was orderly, it very much contributed to the stability of society, it was the bedrock upon which society stood. Unlike what most people think, marriage was not something done in the early teens, it was instead done in the 20s, west of the Hajnal Line you were often looking at 23 for women and 25 for men, not much of an age gap. The age of marriage was usually linked to prosperity, prosperous families married earlier, less prosperous ones later, this is the result of them waiting to acquire sufficient assets to be able to form a viable household as opposed to a whirlwind creation from a torrid love affair. Once “love” displaces progeny for the central part of marriage it becomes east for children to become optional, contracepting becomes permissible, once that happens then if a woman is pregnant if the offspring were to hinder the love of the couple then terminate it. Once marriage is wholly about love with children an accessory though a common one, why not permit even those couples who are wholly incapable of reproducing together be married? After all their love is just as real and children aren’t essential, if they decide they want that accessory they can always acquire one through adoption.

tl;dr marrying for love is a terrible 18th century idea that inevitably leads to gay marriage (along with contraception, abortion and infanticide).

This post probably makes clear my abysmal writing skills.

Interesting post and I wanted to re-read and think about it a bit more. I think it’s rather simplistic to say people didn’t marry for love until the 18th Century. In reading history and biographies predating that time, it seems that human nature hasn’t changed much and that marriage was preceded by some sort of physical attraction. Of course people didn’t have the internet to the number of potential mates was limited and of course society was stratified so that the rich rarely if ever married the poor, royalty married within its caste and all. But I don’t think marriages were contracted as if they were potential breedings of top race horses, cold eyed with a focus on how hard the wife could work, keep the home, bear and raise the children and how well hubby could support the family whether a farmer or tradesman.

However I do see how marriage changed drastically and much more recently with the development of contraception (apparently the father of the Birth Control pill died today) Thus as you said marriage became less about children (an accessory and a noisy one at that) and more about entertainment, self fulfillment and not about self giving. As you said why not gay “marriage” if they entertain each other and they can always adopt or obtain a child through technology.

It’s kind of a depressing outlook though and the passivity with which the majority of Americans are allowing the death spiral to spin out of control is truly demoralizing. Again until your ox is gored, you don’t look up from Dancing with the Stars or whatever inane program is currently a must see.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Systemic injustice and subjugation! Another topic for you and the Deacon to discuss prior to RCIA?

Indeed! I started last Sunday. It’s going quite well so far.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

So, it is your claim that throughout MOST of history women in general, and in the MAJORITY, have been subjugated by men using tactics such as “smashing faces,” physical abuse and violence?

I don’t believe you read any such words from me. To whom are you corresponding? You seem to be filling in my responses with a lot of your own suppositions. I suggest caution. We cannot have a conversation if you will only talk to yourself.

Sure, but you seem to be living under the delusion that “everyone’s responsibilities” means that those responsibilities, to be fair, must entail doing the same things as men at the same time.

Again, I wonder who it is you are railing against. I think perhaps you have created a caricature in your head that you are now doing battle with. If you find that entertaining go ahead, but it is rather dull from the sidelines. You may recall, I objected to the concept of God validating patriarchy. You then accused me of using the word incorrectly, but have not provided an alternate definition. Now you seem to be passionately objecting to… What? Women voting? Making medical decisions for themselves (not referring to abortions here, just medical decisions in general)? Representation in government? Pay equity?

Subjugation of women in modern western societies is largely a myth promoted by “some” women who simply did not want to do what maintaining the family life required and bought into by others who convinced themselves that “it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

So men are not also responsible for the quality of family life then?

You think women are subjugated in modern western societies? Think about this…

Women are the only class of human beings who are permitted, with full approval of many – if not most – free societies, to kill other innocent human beings who pose not any real or potential threat to their well-being but solely for whatever inconvenience the woman cares to cite.

Speaking of privilege – THAT, my friend, is privilege! Bestowed unequivocally and absolutely by the majority of society, including most men, along with the legal and medical system on women. The rights of volcanoes is not very figurative.

Is this a distortion of reality? Sure. But no more a distortion than your view vis a vis subjugation.

So just to be clear, your position is that the only alternative to patriarchy is free-for-all abortions? And the only thing stopping all woman from killing babies with the detached rage of a volcano is the men?
Do you really feel women are that despicable?

 

[Rau]

This thread seems to have abandoned the Topic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So just to be clear, your position is that the only alternative to patriarchy is free-for-all abortions? And the only thing stopping all woman from killing babies with the detached rage of a volcano is the men?
Do you really feel women are that despicable?

I suppose if you can take away that impression from my post it now makes perfect sense how you came to formulate your notions on patriarchal societies.

'Nuff said.

Back to pre-abandoned topic.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yes, of course, no true hetero cis white man (like no true Scotsman) has ever been screwed over by any other true hetero cis white man (or anyone else for that matter.). Hetero cis white man is a privileged class of beings that is entirely impervious to all attacks merely by virtue of membership in that club.

Throw in “patriarch” and we have ultimate unassailability – no true hetero cis white patriarch has ever victimized at any time in all past history. Now THAT is a privileged class!

I was referring to them as a class, not to individuals ones.

While, say, considering some “children of God” being ontologically “White gay men” or “privileged,” or considering oneself to be gay or lesbian is NOT deserving of a :tsktsk:

I was actually engaging in parody. I was pointing out how silly it is to chastise someone for saying something ontologically when it is very likely they didn’t mean it ontologically.

Haven’t you seen those pride marches? I have yet to see heterosexuals doing the equivalent.

Haven’t you seen those civil rights marches? I have yet to see white people doing the same.

Note, I believe gay marriage and gay sex are wrong, I was merely pointing out your argument is terrible.

Interesting post and I wanted to re-read and think about it a bit more. I think it’s rather simplistic to say people didn’t marry for love until the 18th Century. In reading history and biographies predating that time, it seems that human nature hasn’t changed much and that marriage was preceded by some sort of physical attraction. Of course people didn’t have the internet to the number of potential mates was limited and of course society was stratified so that the rich rarely if ever married the poor, royalty married within its caste and all. But I don’t think marriages were contracted as if they were potential breedings of top race horses, cold eyed with a focus on how hard the wife could work, keep the home, bear and raise the children and how well hubby could support the family whether a farmer or tradesman.

Oh people did, the poor people, the fools, those who reckless engaged in sex out of wedlock.

They weren’t contracted like potential breedings, but they were done often by carefully looking at things like seeing whose dowry would be suitable fittings for the grooms home. They did actually look at things like a man’s ability to provide for the family. Many eschewed marriage altogether for various reasons. The world they inhabited is quite alien to the world today, one where a peasant girl led armies into battle, male brides of Christ, large numbers of people eschewing marriage (in some cases up to 20%), where poor people built great edifices to God, celibacy being placed over marriage, same sex friendship placed above “marital love”, erotic views on man’s relationship with Jesus, a world where honor and duty reigned supreme, a time when faith and reason were inextricably linked, a world where death was ever present, a world where godparents were truly considered family, a world which bore little resemblance to our own.

However I do see how marriage changed drastically and much more recently with the development of contraception (apparently the father of the Birth Control pill died today) Thus as you said marriage became less about children (an accessory and a noisy one at that) and more about entertainment, self fulfillment and not about self giving. As you said why not gay “marriage” if they entertain each other and they can always adopt or obtain a child through technology.

When I say “why not gay marriage” I mean it in the same sense as “why not infanticide”, both are logically derivable by widespread societal views existing today, it is not supporting the ideas, it is expressing disdain towards the axioms that society uses today which make those things logically derivable. We must remove the axioms if we are to succeed in defeating them. If we are not willing to remove it at the root, by attacking the debasement of marriage by heterosexuals, then trying to defeat gay marriage is an exercise in futility. A pox upon the Democratic and Republican parties for they are both Jacobin filth and democracy has terror for its means and totalitarianism for its end

It’s kind of a depressing outlook though and the passivity with which the majority of Americans are allowing the death spiral to spin out of control is truly demoralizing. Again until your ox is gored, you don’t look up from Dancing with the Stars or whatever inane program is currently a must see.

The Gospels and the Communist Manifesto are on the wane; the world’s future lies in the power of Coca-Cola and pornography
-Don Colacho

The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, without restraint, without respite until the consummation of the world, the extinction of evil, the death of death.
-Joseph De Maistre

 

[James82]

It seems to me that homosexual acts are not against the Natural Law.

The argument to the contrary usually goes as follows:

1. God created the universe and everything in it not haphazardly but with purpose.
2. We can discover God’s intention by analyzing his design of the universe and everything in it.
3. The male reproductive system and the female female reproductive system are designed for each other.
4. Therefore, God’s plan for human sexuality involves opposite sex relations.
5. The male reproductive system is not designed for another the male reproductive system. The same is true for the female reproductive systems.
6. Therefore, same sex relations are not part of God’s plan.

The problem is that this argument focuses on the external design of the body while ignoring the internal design. Although we don’t fully understand the causes of homosexuality at this time, it has become increasingly clear that some people are simply designed to have same-sex attraction. If so, then God was the designer.

Now why would God design some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior life? I have no idea. But it doesn’t really matter. If God designed it that way, then who am I to judge?

So if we want to respect the Natural Law, then we have to accept same-sex relations because it seems to be the case that God himself designed some people that way on the inside even if not on the outside. To put it crudely, even if the exterior parts don’t fit, the interior ones sure do.

Hi there,

The CCC says something along the lines of “…the genesis of homosexuality remains largely unknown…” Someone correct me if I’m wrong. However, to me this seems to be too clever by half, or at worst a disingenuous insert. If we are to call something ‘objectively disordered’ then it’s ‘genesis’ cannot be God. It’s root must be sin; in as much as the rest of the litany of ‘objectively disordered’ actions are sin.

I highly suggest you read Romans 1:24-32. St. Paul makes no bones about the root and nature of unnatural lust. I often wonder why otherwise (not necessarily you) well meaning Christians want to turn this into a deep philosophical argument…the answers are right in Sacred Scripture, and quite literal!..

 

[Rau]

Hi there,

The CCC says something along the lines of “…the genesis of homosexuality remains largely unknown…” Someone correct me if I’m wrong. However, to me this seems to be too clever by half, or at worst a disingenuous insert. If we are to call something ‘objectively disordered’ then it’s ‘genesis’ cannot be God. It’s root must be sin; in as much as the rest of the litany of ‘objectively disordered’ actions are sin.

I highly suggest you read Romans 1:24-32. St. Paul makes no bones about the root and nature of unnatural lust. I often wonder why otherwise (not necessarily you) well meaning Christians want to turn this into a deep philosophical argument…the answers are right in Sacred Scripture, and quite literal!..

Name another use of the term “objectively disordered” in Catholic Theology! That which is “objectively disordered” in connection with homosexuality is not itself a sin at all, and there is no basis to assert that the “root” of homosexual inclinations is sin. The CCC declares the homosexual sexual Acts are “intrinsically disordered”, like many other sins.

 

[PinkGnomie13]

Look I’m not going to bother posting anything more because most people are making objections that ignore what I’ve already said.

If you want to say that blindness, being born with no arms, and being born in a vegetative state are somehow comparable to being born with same-sex attraction, then you have to explain the similarity. Quite frankly, I don’t think there is one.

The question I’ve been asking from the beginning is whether same sex relationships are compatible with God’s design and therefore in tune with the Natural Law. The more we learn about same-sex attraction, the more reason we have to believe that some people are simply designed that way. And same-sex relationships, if they are consensual, loving, and committed aren’t harmful in the way that blindness is harmful, or being born with no arms, or being born in a vegetative state, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or incest, or whatever silly examples people might bring up.

Sorry but I’m not replying to anything else. I think I’ve said enough…

I was born with an inclination towards depression, and I have battled it for eleven years, including several suicide attempts… Since I was born with that inclination and clearly it expresses itself fully in my life, does that mean God wants me to kill myself?

Or is this just a cross I have to bear, along with countless thousands of others, fighting against what seems to be my natural desires? I’m fully happy when I think about killing myself, and it would make life easier for the people around me. It would be less of a burden for those around me. Yet, it’s still considered wrong. People don’t want that to happen.

Think of this also: LGBT members of the community keep saying that sexual relationships are all they need to be happy, yet their levels of depression continually are reported at higher levels than those of heterosexuals. According to the FDA, the risk of STDs being transmitted by transfusion is higher from homosexuals than heterosexuals (it’s just as likely, but there are statistics showing a higher rate of STDs among homosexuals than heterosexuals… Not bigotry, just saying.) According to one study, transgendered persons who have had ‘corrective’ surgery are 60% more likely to be just as depressed, if not more so, after the surgery than if they do not have the surgery. Is any of this part of God’s plan? Is it possible that, yes, some people are born this way, but it is not God’s design for them to be this way? Perhaps some problem in the world, outside their control, set them on this path?

Then there’s the blind man that Jesus healed. People asked, “What was the sin of his parents, for him to be born this way?” Jesus replied, “He was born this way to display the glory of God.” When we struggle with our sin, when we fight against our nature, God is glorified because we are choosing Him, not our nature… We’re not God. We don’t know what’s best for our lives. It’s best to trust that God does.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Name another use of the term “objectively disordered” in Catholic Theology! That which is “objectively disordered” in connection with homosexuality is not itself a sin at all, and there is no basis to assert that the “root” of homosexual inclinations is sin. The CCC declares the homosexual sexual Acts are “intrinsically disordered”, like many other sins.

There is an issue with “intrinsically disordered” definition.
In order to explain you would have to give me an example of “intrinsically ordered” act.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is an issue with “intrinsically disordered” definition.
In order to explain you would have to give me an example of “intrinsically ordered” act.

Sex is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction. That is, in the very nature of the act and the parts involved, the clearly designed end for both is to replicate combined genetic material into a new human being. That is what the act is ordered to bringing about as an intrinsic aspect of why the sex act is engaged in using the appropriate parts.

Now merely because sex is pleasureable and some have prioritized pleasure over purpose does not mean sex has lost its intrinsic purpose. Throwing in artificial contraception which intentionally thwarts the end result does nothing to disprove the intrinsic ordering of sex towards procreation; just the opposite, in fact. It demonstrates that to prioritize pleasure over purpose it is necessary to artificially disconnect the act from the purpose – abortion is definitive proof of that.

The piano sitting in front of me is intrinsically ordered towards making music. It is designed and constructed towards the production of music. Sure, I can use it as a place to set a drink glass or photograph, but by its very nature it is intrinsically ordered towards making music NOT being an oversized coaster. It has no other intrinsic function because by its very design it functions to make music. If I hollow out the interior, replace some or all of the sides with glass and turn it into a fish tank, I may have repurposed the piano, but that does not change what its intrinsic purpose was. I cannot even claim that the intrinsic purpose of the piano has now become to be a fish tank since being a fish tank was never and could never be “intrinsic” or integral to the design of the piano. Such a claim would fail to explain the keyboard, the soundboard, strings, pedals, etc., that were part of the original piano design and integral to what makes a piano a piano, to begin with.

Sex organs are likewise intrinsically ordered by their very nature to bring about reproduction– that is their function by virtue of their intrinsic nature. If they were designed merely for pleasure, the future existence of the human race would not depend entirely upon their proper use.

Now if you want to argue that the purpose of the piano is merely to give pleasure to its hearers, that does nothing to explain the intrinsic design of the piano nor what it does. There is nothing intrinsic to the piano that necessarily gives pleasure to listeners of music since “pleasure” depends upon the subject – the hearers – and not the piano as an functioning entity.

Frankly, I am not clear why this is even a matter of contention. It is as self-evident as anything possibly could be.

 

[LisaA]

There is an issue with “intrinsically disordered” definition.
In order to explain you would have to give me an example of “intrinsically ordered” act.

The marital embrace where the couple is open to life. It is ordered toward a moral good, a moral good comes of the act and the intention is for the good as well.

From the catechism:
A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together…. (CCC 1755)

 

[truetofaith]

WHY IS THIS TOPIC GOING ON FOR OVER 350 POSTS BUT THE TOPIC OF ADAM & EVE BEING HUMAN IS CLOSED ATER 12 POSTS

No one got out of hand !

 

[Thorolfr]

I highly suggest you read Romans 1:24-32. St. Paul makes no bones about the root and nature of unnatural lust. I often wonder why otherwise (not necessarily you) **well meaning Christians want to turn this into a deep philosophical argument…the answers are right in Sacred Scripture, and quite literal!..:**confused:

Not all Christians believe that everything in the Bible is inerrant or infallible. The seven letters that are widely recognized by most scholars to have been written by Paul are probably only a small part of his correspondence and I highly doubt that when he wrote them, he thought they would end up in a canon of Sacred Scripture. I believe that some of what he writes is his own opinion and reflects the culture he was raised in. He obviously believed, for example, that women are inferior to men and even forbade them to speak in church.

 

[JimG]

Not all Christians believe that everything in the Bible is inerrant or infallible. The seven letters that are widely recognized by most scholars to have been written by Paul are probably only a small part of his correspondence and I highly doubt that when he wrote them, he thought they would end up in a canon of Sacred Scripture. I believe that some of what he writes is his own opinion and reflects the culture he was raised in. He obviously believed, for example, that women are inferior to men and even forbade them to speak in church.

But he does seem to have no doubt that the human race is composed of two sexes, man and woman, which is biological fact, not Christian doctrine.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Sex is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction. That is, in the very nature of the act and the parts involved, the clearly designed end for both is to replicate combined genetic material into a new human being. That is what the act is ordered to bringing about as an intrinsic aspect of why the sex act is engaged in using the appropriate parts.

Now merely because sex is pleasureable and some have prioritized pleasure over purpose does not mean sex has lost its intrinsic purpose. Throwing in artificial contraception which intentionally thwarts the end result does nothing to disprove the intrinsic ordering of sex towards procreation; just the opposite, in fact. It demonstrates that to prioritize pleasure over purpose it is necessary to artificially disconnect the act from the purpose – abortion is definitive proof of that.

The piano sitting in front of me is intrinsically ordered towards making music. It is designed and constructed towards the production of music. Sure, I can use it as a place to set a drink glass or photograph, but by its very nature it is intrinsically ordered towards making music NOT being an oversized coaster. It has no other intrinsic function because by its very design it functions to make music. If I hollow out the interior, replace some or all of the sides with glass and turn it into a fish tank, I may have repurposed the piano, but that does not change what its intrinsic purpose was. I cannot even claim that the intrinsic purpose of the piano has now become to be a fish tank since being a fish tank was never and could never be “intrinsic” or integral to the design of the piano. Such a claim would fail to explain the keyboard, the soundboard, strings, pedals, etc., that were part of the original piano design and integral to what makes a piano a piano, to begin with.

Sex organs are likewise intrinsically ordered by their very nature to bring about reproduction– that is their function by virtue of their intrinsic nature. If they were designed merely for pleasure, the future existence of the human race would not depend entirely upon their proper use.

Now if you want to argue that the purpose of the piano is merely to give pleasure to its hearers, that does nothing to explain the intrinsic design of the piano nor what it does. There is nothing intrinsic to the piano that necessarily gives pleasure to listeners of music since “pleasure” depends upon the subject – the hearers – and not the piano as an functioning entity.

Frankly, I am not clear why this is even a matter of contention. It is as self-evident as anything possibly could be.

You are going against the Church’s teaching.
The Church does not teach that a married couple is supposed to have sex only when they want to reproduce. That’s not the case.
The Church teaches that the marital act has to be done in a specific way but the intention to have baby does not have to be there.
The intention to have a baby/reproduce is decoupled from the marital act.
The intrinsic purpose, as you call it, does not have to be present! That’s what the Church teaches.

Do you know the definition of an intrinsically disordered act?