Homosexuality (Nature v Natural)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManuelDiaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So are you implying anal sex is permissible within heterosexual couples as long as they finish with the marital act?

If yes, aren’t you then suggesting sodomy is “permissible” unless you finish with the marital act. But isn’t the act of sodomy immoral regardless of what’s done before or after that act?
 
ManuelDiaz said:
So are you implying anal sex is permissible within heterosexual couples as long as they finish with the marital act?
Click to expand...
I have seen this said about including that activity in foreplay with an important footnote:
-that it can lead to some bacterial unpleasantness especially for the woman to go from doing that one thing to finishing “properly.” So the reason not to becomes more medical.

Note: I wasn’t researching it. It doesn’t appeal to me in any way. My guess is it was either a discussion here or some Christopher West Q and A type of material.
 
Last edited:
There is an overemphasis on parts over faculty. Misuse of the sexual faculty goes as far as frustrating the end of that faculty and indeed an end of the person. A more proper comparison would be a human being intentionally eating poison instead of something with any nutritional value.

Regarding other acts that may occur in a conjugal union, the better comparison is (again) not kissing, but a comparison of lust to gluttony. A lack of temperance and prudence, indulging in excess of the faculty. I’m not going to attempt to draw the line where that is.
 
Last edited:
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that about other cultures. I appreciate the references. I don’t know quite yet if anyone has actually responded to my concern. Atleast thats how I feel.
 
I did see what you posted but I didn’t understand how that response to my concern. Let me ask you this. Questions maybe will help.

Why is sodomy immoral? I don’t want a religious response or argument. Or maybe I should reframe the question. What’s the naturalistic argument on why sodomy is wrong?
 
ManuelDiaz said:
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that about other cultures. I appreciate the references. I don’t know quite yet if anyone has actually responded to my concern. Atleast thats how I feel.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think you could make a similar argument against kissing, but for various reasons, it’s of lesser consequence. Let’s just say, kissing doesn’t physically damage body parts the way that the other behavior might.
 
I knew deep down that an argument could be used against kissing. I understand that certain behaviors and actions have more literal medical consequences. Lets suppose (though) that sodomy didn’t have any negative consequences. Would it still be immoral? I say lets assume nothing happens as a consequence of sodomy because it sounds like the argument: don’t have sex before marriage because you can get an std. I don’t think thats a strong argument because maybe in the future we will have something that will prevent stds, yet this of course wouldn’t make it immoral because the factor of getting sick doesn’t apply. Fornication is still wrong regardless of what whether you may or may not get an std. do you see what I mean?
 
I think it would still be immoral (obviously because of Church teaching), but also just because it’s dealing with an act that is “disordered”, to coin a phrase. 😆
 
Last edited:
ManuelDiaz said:
I did see what you posted but I didn’t understand how that response to my concern. Let me ask you this. Questions maybe will help.

Why is sodomy immoral? I don’t want a religious response or argument. Or maybe I should reframe the question. What’s the naturalistic argument on why sodomy is wrong?
Click to expand...
As I noted, you seem to be putting too much emphasis on parts rather than the faculty overall. If that type of sex is wrong even as foreplay between a husband and wife, it would be so because it involves lust.
 
I believe the churches stance on it. I’m Catholic, I’m just trying to find a way to reconcile the arguments I’m making. There has to be an explanation. If somebody that’s nonreligious asks me this I cannot bring up church teaching. Lol
 
Lust is a sensation that facilitates procreation in the heterosexual relationship between wife & husband. However how do we view heterosexual married couples that continue to have sex without the possibility of ever conceiving, especially the elderly?

We seem to have changed the description from the “act of conceiving” to the “act of marriage” both seem to be different. Such as an ordinary married catholic couple may be unable to conceive, but continue to have sex. As far as i know & the extent of my catholic upbringing I understand that sex was solely for procreation & was perfectly acceptable once in the union of marriage.

@ManuelDiaz I don’t think you can ever escape the religious argument in this regard as the act of sex, all types, same sex or not, can only be explained as the act of procreation. This seems to be what separates the right from wrong, that is, any other type of sex that has no possibility of conception is simply wrong in the eyes of god. It shouldn’t matter whether non religious views come into play, it only matters what you yourself think is right in the eyes of god.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top