Isn't is reasonable to presume that Mary "would" have sex? [NO, MARY DIDN'T HAVE SEX. MARY'S VIRGINITY IS PERPETUAL]

[JohnStrachan]

God did say in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. So why the aversion to Mary having sex with Joseph, enjoying it and bearing more children. Why should their marriage be any different than all the others? I think it stems from the RC churches preoccupation with sex as being impure, unclean and enjoyable.

 

[Cruciferi]

I think it stems from the RC churches preoccupation with sex as being impure, unclean and enjoyable.

Instead of making inflammatory statements, I would suggest reading up on the subject.

The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity | Catholic Answers Magazine

What the Early Church Believed: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary | Catholic Answers Tract

Some believe that Joseph was a virgin too. Though this cannot be definitively proven.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

God did say in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. So why the aversion to Mary having sex with Joseph, enjoying it and bearing more children. Why should their marriage be any different than all the others? I think it stems from the RC churches preoccupation with sex as being impure, unclean and enjoyable.

I don’t think it’s crazy to assume that God had a particular plan for Mary apart from the general rule, considering He, you know, became incarnate in her womb.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I don’t think it’s an offensive question necessarily. I mean, if you accept that sex within a marriage isn’t anything dirty or shameful, it’s not crazy for people to wonder whether the Virgin Mary and Joseph had a normal married life after Jesus was born.

I’m not saying I think they did, just that wondering about it doesn’t strike me as some kind of insult to Our Lady.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Has it? I genuinely don’t remember seeing a lot of these threads but maybe I’ve just missed them.

 

[Cruciferi]

Yeah, they’ve appeared before. Questioning the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is rather popular. Some are more subtle than others.

 

[humilityseeker]

No it is not reasonable, given we have strong teachings in the church.
The RC Church does not consider intimate relations between married couples as

impure, unclean

The RC Church is all for enjoyable relations within marriage.

Outside marriage sin is still sin.

Tradition has it Mary was living at the Temple and in training there, Joseph an aged man at the time of their marriage.
Their marriage was not and is not unique. Except in that they are the Holy Family.

 

[stpurl]

The Bible does not support that Mary had sex. A check of the names associated with ‘the brothers of Jesus’ (absolutely none of whom were called “Son of Mary”) have shown that every one of them had a mother who was NOT the Virgin Mary and/or a father who was not St. Joseph.

Evidence in oral (and in written) form calling Mary a perpetual Virgin dates back to the SubTuum (a prayer to the Virgin) from the 3rd century AD. (Yes, well before Constantine), accepted by the Fathers of the Church and indeed by all Christians, of the Latin/West and the East (Orthodox) ‘from the beginning’ and indeed by the first Protestant leaders.

So one rather asks, is it not UNreasonable to disregard Scripture and consistent Christian teachings over centuries in order to put forth a private interpretation and a ‘teaching of men’ over the authentic Christian teaching of Mary’s perpetual Virginity?

 

[Anicette]

The Bible say that Mary did not have relations or didn’t have relations until the birth of Jesus… But don’t say she had relations after…!

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the Marriage of Mary and Joseph was different from the other. it’s not reasonable to conclude from the Bible that the holy couples had relations. The argument to be fruitful and multiply does not seems convincing. We all have plans that cannot be realized.