This is a non-sequitur, for it doesn’t answer my question. Why should I believe that penis-vagina sex between **permanently **sterile couples is “objectively procreative?”Because there is no other way to procreate sexually.
And another good point to remember is that not every act results in a pregnancy even with fertile married (one man and one woman) couples who don’t use any kind of contraception. But every act is ordered toward procreation.
But he never explained what’s procreative about sex that cannot ever result in procreation. Why isn’t accurate to characterize sex between permanently sterile couples as non-procreative sex?
Exactly! And the Church cannot change God’s word with regard to homosexuality. Meanwhile, She will always promote the idea that homosexuals (and all sinners) should be treated with dignity and respect.
I appreciate the dialogue, Sarah!
“Infertile” heterosexual couples often later have babies through fertility treatment or by a miracle of God. The only kind of relationship that is absolutely guaranteed to never result in procreation is homosexual relations.
How can sex between permanently sterile couples - where procreation is impossible - be “ordered towards procreation?”
And sexual relations between permanently sterile couples.
Because there is no other way–unless you know of one?–that a baby can be made sexually.
This doesn’t explain why it’s accurate to characterize penis-vagina sex between **permanently **sterile couples as “objectively procreative,” as opposed to “objectively nonprocreative.”
You aren’t getting it so let me make it as simple as possible. Penis is made for vagina.
Right.so there is only one act that makes a baby and two people of the same sex can not do it. Never ever ever?
Because the act they’re doing is the ONLY way to procreate.
You’re right – I’m not getting it. I don’t get how sex between permanently sterile couples can be “ordered towards procreation,” since procreation for them is impossible.
But the act - between permanently sterile couples - cannot result in procreation at all. Why isn’t that act objectively non-procreative?
Let’s just call it normal sex. Normal sex is by design ordered to unity and procreation. Abnormal sex is not.
Penis is made for vagina.
But what they’re doing is absolutely no different from what a husband and wife do on a day when it’s impossible for them to conceive.
This doesn’t explain why it’s accurate to characterize “normal sex” between permanently sterile couples as being ordered towards procreation, since procreation for them is impossible.
Huh? I’m talking about permanently sterile couples – couples for whom procreation is biologically impossible. When procreation is biologically impossible, how can the act be “objectively procreative?”
It’s the same way that sex between a husband and wife is ordered towards procreation when they engage in the marital act on, say, day 23 of her cycle when she ovulated on day 12. **It’s absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for her to conceive, **but the act that she and her husband have done is still ordered towards procreation.