martial sex

[kelvinf]

Do you agree with the theology of body of John-Paul II? Do you know his theology?

His theology is not the same like the theology of West if that’s where you are driving to. People have made lots of baseless claims about what JP II supposedly said but no one can quote him.

 

[Kelfa28]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

Why are you arguing only subjectively?

If that is your opinion then that is fine. To the typically married couple…oral stimulation is not “nasty” at all. Even to the devote Catholic married couple. It’s just a form of foreplay.

Oral sex is sinful. I fail to see how anyone can justify that oral stimulation is as well…as long as it’s in context of the marital act.

 

[ahs]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

“Nasty” is a subjective opinion. Unless you can show how one’s opinion that something is “nasty” determines sinfullness…then all you have is your own opinion. If you want to call something a sin, you must do so objectively.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9919667&postcount=541

If you want me to ramble down a bunny-trail with you (I believe this is the purpose of your response with subjective reasoning)…then please tell me if it is sinful for a spouse to kiss his/her spouse’s hand. And explain why/why not.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

How do you tell if it’s “nasty”? Very subjective. I would say, no, it’s not nasty.

I also don’t think it’s appropriate to compare oral sex to oral stimulation. Oral sex deliberately interferes with one of the two ends of sex which is pro-creation. Oral stimulation does not, and can even be an aide to that end.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Yes…and this is where some people miss the mark. ““x” is a sin because it’s a homosexual act.” Yet they fail to understand what is wrong with a homosexual act. It’s not wrong because part of the skin is touching the wrong part of other skin. It’s wrong because

1. it is not ordered to unification (of spouses…in the proper understanding of marriage…man and woman in the image and likeness of God) and
2. it is not ordered toward procreation (a sterile act, inherently sterile no matter what).

A homosexual act is one that is between same-sex persons…resulting in an act closed to the gift of life and does not proceed from a genuine and affective sexual complementarity. Any mention of “homosexual” within a debate about a heterosexual married couple is a strawman…has no place in the debate at all.

Thank you for making this understood. It is so important to truly understand what the Church actually teaches about this. It is especially important because homosexuality is so rampant today, and we must remember more than anything God’s love for each and every one of these. I think its important to understand exactly why the acts are wrong.

And I need to go off on a tangent here a bit. I just want to say that many homosexuals are well-intentioned people seeking to love another, and they feel that same-sex is the only way they can express one-to-one love. To imply that all that they do as a couple is disgusting is unkind and untrue. (For example, some are faithful friends to each other.) I think the good of their intention should be acknowledged.

Considering that same sex attraction is their innate bent - for whatever reason - we should consider that our own acts against chastity are perhaps more disgusting to God the we think theirs are to Him. Especially in the case of those of us who are doing what we are quite sure God does not want, and those of us who have knowledge of and access to the Sacraments that help us to live what God calls us to live and we don’t. In this way, our sins are worse, in God’s eyes. Instead, its often human nature to look at other’s sins and think they are worse. Especially if we do not have the homosexual bent, how arrogant to think “At least I am not doing that!” And gay people are the target of that kind of arrogance all the time. God hates a proud look! So He must be especially incensed at that kind of treatment of gay people.

A gay acquaintance, in spite of his unchaste behaviors, may be truly loving their gay lover with more true Christian charity than we are loving our Catholic spouse or those whom God has placed in our lives. We never know; God does, though. Even if they are not Catholic, they might be more “Catholic” than us, in the most important thing: love. That’s even though we know that their sex is wrong since they are same sex. But a married person might be having wrong sex, too, because he is not loving his spouse but using her in lust, for example, so his sex might be wrong too, only we don’t know that generally.

I am not naive, I know there is a lot of lust and promiscuity in the gay lifestyle. But we need to consider that a person may be doing the best he can in his circumstances.

Well, I am off-topic, I am sorry! I just feel in this cultural war we are having, often revolving around gays, we need to be absolutely sure we are loving as Christ would have us love, and be sure we are not representing God in a wrong way. And that is off-topic, sorry, I just wanted to say it.

 

[ahs]

Oh Charlotte,

Yes, that;s off-topic. But, you do makes some good points and it’s a good post. I think you did put plenty in there to swing it back to the topic at hand though, and the manner of debating it. Indeed, to say “that’s nasty” or “disgusting” behavior is not helpful at all. And one is not going to convince any person (homosexual or heterosexual) that what they do is wrong on the simple basis that someone finds it “nasty”. To them it ISN’T nasty…otherwise they would not be doing it. We need to argue objectively.

Which brings us right back on topic to at least 3 participants here pointing out Kelvinf’s subjective reasoning…so Kelvinf:

“Nasty” is a subjective opinion. Unless you can show how one’s opinion that something is “nasty” determines sinfullness…then all you have is your own opinion. If you want to call something a sin, you must do so objectively.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9919667&postcount=541

If you want me to ramble down a bunny-trail with you (I believe this is the purpose of your response with subjective reasoning)…then please tell me if it is sinful for a spouse to kiss his/her spouse’s hand. And explain why/why not.

 

[LightBound]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

How old are you? The reason I ask (and I don’t really need to know the answer) is because you continually use the word “nasty”. I find that quite juvenile, especially as we are discussing a very adult theme. Perhaps you can reach into your “big people” vocabulary bag and use words such as “unappealing” or “unhygienic” if you find that idea of mouth-to-clean genital contact distasteful.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Oh Charlotte,

Yes, that’s off-topic. But, you do makes some good points and it’s a good post. I think you did put plenty in there to swing it back to the topic at hand though, and the manner of debating it. Indeed, to say “that’s nasty” or “disgusting” behavior is not helpful at all. And one is not going to convince any person (homosexual or heterosexual) that what they do is wrong on the simple basis that someone finds it “nasty”. To them it ISN’T nasty…otherwise they would not be doing it. We need to argue objectively.

Excellent point! Yes. I agree. Something is very much “off” about Kelvin making his point about how married persons, when sexually loving each other, must not make contact between mouth and genitals, otherwise, its “nasty”. Hmm. Also I suppose its nasty when kissing your spouse when he is brewing a mess of cold or flu germs for those three days before symptoms show up…nasty! Spouses share a lot of nasty things, like holding their nasty hand and wiping your face… Well, I am sure someone who is paranoid about germs could tell you some stories. Caring for a sick or aging spouse can get pretty nasty too. Good point about birth being rather nasty. So true.

I think its nasty and totally disgusting to have sex with multiple partners. Nastier still is to hear some man brag about it.

I would also prefer not to view other people’s graphic sex in movies. I prefer it, when it’s part of the story, when it’s implied rather than displayed. Because I think its a private act. A sacred act.

I think what contributes to people thinking certain sex acts are nasty is that this culture has stolen these acts and made them nasty, as a big part of porn, for example. Who wants to be associated with that stuff. That is nasty!

But I think the porn industry has perverted what is good. Loving acts between one man and one woman together for life are a good thing, and the evil one always takes good things and perverts them. And I can see how people would not want to be associated with something perverted.

 

[fpt]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

Could define nasty?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nasty

disgustingly filthy???
physically repugnant ???
indecent, obscene ???
mean tawdry ???
extremely hazardous or harmful ???
causing severe pain or suffering ???
sharply unpleasant ???
difficult to understand or deal with ???
psychologically unsettling ???
lacking in courtesy or sportsmanship ???

Which definition?

 

[fpt]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

Time for making love, per se : morally good, yes or morally evil (wrong), no?

Quiz on the natural moral order of marital act, in function of the official catholic doctrine, in order to know if catholic lay persons are aware of their mentalities, their false ideas…etc. What type of catholic are we? What mentality? What knowledge? What false ideas…etc?
I am waiting your answer: moral, immoral, per se; moral under very special conditions??? Your comments are possible, of course.

During wife’s periods (menstruations):
During pregnancy:
Days before the childbirth:
After the childbirth: how many days after, the norm:
During breastfeeding:
During menopause:
After menopause:
During fertile times of woman:
During infertile times of woman:

Before Sunday Mass, without Communion:
Before Sunday Mass, with Holy Communion :
After Sunday Mass, without Holy Communion :
After Sunday Mass, with Holy Communion:
Before Mass, without Holy Communion:
Before Mass, with Holy Communion:
After Mass, without Holy Communion:
After Mass, with Holy Communion:
Before Holy Communion, without Mass:
After Holy Communion, without Mass:
After confession:
Before confession:

The age of each Spouse for marriage, thus for practicing the marital act if and only if there is a marriage:
From 14 years for the female until her death (see the canon law, the universality of rule):
From 16 years for the male until his death (see the canon law, the universality of rule): :

Morally speaking about wife:
Can she wear a trousers?
Can she wear lingerie?
Can she go to the beach?
Can she wear bikini on the beach?

 

[ValPal]

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.

Where did this concept of “nastiness = sin” come from? Which authoritative source are you referring to?

Babies be born is “nasty.” Are you arguing that a baby being born is sinful?

 

[fpt]

Marital act is a gift, a present, a donation coming from God and wanted by God.
It is an act of love, a language, a prayer, a communion, a liturgy for each spouse; but also a right, a duty and an obligation, a debt for each member of couple. Indeed, the obligations of state of marriage are moral obligations from the natural contract and the sacramental contract (marriage is a contract, a deal, an agreement with interpersonal relationships and a personalist philosophical approach) and from the natural institution and the sacramental institution.

The body of the husband is the body of his wife, and the body of the wife is the body of her husband (it is a mutual donation of bodies for the marital act “ unity and potential procreativity ”): the body of wife is the body of husband, and the body of husband is the body of wife (total equality and reciprocity and total equity in function of each gender).

Conjugal sex is not nasty. Sexual pleasures in the marriage are not nasty. The conjugal orgasms are not nasty. **The fact of making one flesh, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation, is not nasty. **

In the context of marital act, the sexed kisses are not nasty, the sexual caresses are not nasty, the sexual kisses are not nasty.

 

[fpt]

The thoughts, the cultures, the intellectual approaches, the mentalities, the beliefs, the reason, the reasonnings, the opinions have to be purified by the moral theology and by the moral philosophy (Faith and Reason, Reason and Faith). Purification from the exterior, and Purification from the interior.

Theology is coming from the Anthropology of the Holy Bible and the Philosophy is coming from the constat of the natural state of human beings (natural moral law). Both work together. They are on the same line.