scripture and homosexuality

[revelations]

are you saying the hedonistic orgiastic spring break rituals is about heterosexual bonding? then no wionder the 50% divorce rate.

No not at all, their sin is just as bad as the sin of homosexuals which is just as bad as my own selfish sexual sins.

It’s all in the same pot.

 

[feetxxxl]

QUOTE=D M;3751654]I think you misunderstand: the rhythm method does not give licence for couple’s to pursue sex for personal pleasure. When a man and a woman are joined in wedlock the sex they have is supposed to be in fact sacred and is truly a form of love between each other. The same is not true of sex between homosexual persons in which there is no true loving or sexual complentarity, and in which sex is always done for pleasure.

you are saying that what is within is dictated from without. by what scripture and by what reasoning do you say that?

Now it is possible (and certanly occurs) for married couple’s to pursue sex for personal pleasure and this remains wrong; and if you think I am making up this part of catholic teaching I will quote Pope and doctor of the church St Gregory on exactly this issue:

The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of pleasure.
[Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii]

<sexual intimacy by regulation by a celibate person. what are the rules for touching ones pardner’s anus, or anal area which is an erroganeous zone(wikipedia). is there a hands above the waist rule?

<do you not see how grounded this is in the old covenant and completely ignores pauls words we have died to the law, and now are led and serve of the spirit.

I’m pleased to see you quoting scripture in your arguments, please keep it up, it is welcome sign from others who would argue against church teaching on this issue from a purely secular perspective

As catholics we hold that the papacy is the continuance of the mission of Simon Peter on this Earth, unto whom the Lord said:

Matthew 16:17-19 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now if this Peter person was given these powers by Christ, do you not think that your argument that we are simply to rely on what the Spirit says to only us as individuals is in contradiction with this? For why would Christ tell us that upon Peter this church and built and has been given this power of binding and loosing (ie. the teaching authority of the church) when we were in fact not supposed to look for any other authority but what we think and feel?

<there is no question that thru church christ manifests authority. but that doesnt assume everything done in the church is done in christ.
read the letters to the churches revelation2 and 3

CONTINUED

 

[feetxxxl]

But even so… allow me to humour your teaching about relying only on what the Spirit says within me and show you why you are incorrect:

I am a christian. I call Jesus my Lord and I know that I am not lieing, and according to scripture I can only do this by the power of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I want you to undertsand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit

Now if this Spirit dwells in me, and I am to follow what my heart, moved by this Spirit thinks and feels I therefore say the following: In my heart I do not believe sex between homosexual persons is a true form of love or charity (which you correctly appear to have stated is what the law requires); rather I think it is a selfish lustful pastime by a number of men and women who seek their own personal pleasure against the dictates of charity.

2 words “think” and “believe” both centered around the concept of "I ". yes the spirit of christ lives in you but he doesnt violate your free will.

im sure you know the scripture “seek and you will find and knock and it will it will be opened to you”

so if you wish to see what is of christ you have only to witness thru felowship, where “i” is not the center, but rather the spirit of christ.

“that which wehave looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched”

im still waiting for someone to say, i have carried their burdens(sermon on the mount), walked in their shoes (fellowshipped), worshipped and prayed with them, and after having done so this is what i have witnessed in the spirit of christ that lives in me…!

“if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another.”

1 Corinthians 13:4-5 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful

Love cannot ever be selfish, but in my heart, moved by the Spirit I think that homosexual activity is selfish and therefore is contrary to love.

Now… I have done just as you say, to listen to the Spirit of one who dwells in me…are you now proposing that I should not listen to this Spirit but instead let myself be trumped by an external authority such as yourself?

<you know thru scripture that christ’s spirit lives in you. christ said to those who cast out spirits in his name …“i did not know you.”

<do you know his spirit that lives in you?

<the know used in matt 7 is the know used in how a husband knows his wife thru sexual intimacy.

 

[D_M]

2 words “think” and “believe” both centered around the concept of "I ". yes the spirit of christ lives in you but he doesnt violate your free will.

What I am saying is that is what is within, the selfish desire in the heart, is where the sinfulness lies.

To my knowledge there has not been a formal catechism made to date on how exactly to conduct sex, and perhaps you have a point in that a celibate clergy has certain shortcomings in taking action in this regard, but I would state that I know it is taught sex for pleasure is wrong, and furthermore that even though I do not know the existence of a formal catechism, I do know that catholic theologians will tell you that anal and oral sex are banned by what the church teaches. Now if heterosexual couples could not do these things, why do you suppose homosexual couples should be able?

I don’t see the catholic church teaching me the old covenant. I eat shellfish, wear clothing made from different fabrics and I do not keep the passover, and I have yet to meet a priest who told me to do these things either. The church guides our conscience so that we may best be able to know how to do His will and act in true charity. It says that all homosexual practice is wrong because it is always against charity, and Christ told us to love.

I’m in no disagreement that there are things in the church against God’s will. And those verses in revelations are true to that point.

As an example I could cite the existence of the 17th century spiritualists and ranters in England who supposedly taught that we are all led by the Spirit and that we are no longer confined to rules that stopped them from sexual promiscuity, public nudity and fanaticism. One of them once reportedly claimed after stealing something that: ‘it was not I who sinned but sin that dwelt within me’.

Now in terms of the Spirit, let me show you what St Paul said when he was (as I am here) answering a question on the nature of marital relationships:

1 Corinthians 7:39-40: A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.

You seem to take issue with the words ‘think’ and ‘believe’, and am I mistaken in pointing out that you have just found folly with St Paul upon whom your arguments are based?

St Augustine taught that we cannot truly be certain if we are in God’s grace or not, and as such (contrary to what many protestants claim) we cannot truly be certain ourselves if we are part of the elect, because this has not been revealed to us. We may think that we are, but to have certainty is something which is beyond our knowledge.

I have not been in any homosexual relationships myself (and thus cannot have claimed to having walked in their shoes), although I have met them, worked with them, prayed for them, and I believe His Spirit dwells in me.

 

[feetxxxl]

(niv)40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

paul is not declaring a certainty but only what he thinks

you are being very unrevealing on your interactions with gays. surely you understand the concept of fellowship…fellowship with those who support homosexuality.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Now it is possible (and certanly occurs) for married couple’s to pursue sex for personal pleasure and this remains wrong; and if you think I am making up this part of catholic teaching I will quote Pope and doctor of the church St Gregory on exactly this issue:

The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of pleasure.
[Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii]

I find it highly inappropriate that the church (made up of unmarried men) somehow think themselves qualified to give marriage guidance. That’s like a vegetarian giving a carnivore dietary advice.

It is a fact that humans and dolphins are the only two species on the planet that have sex for pleasure, and there is nothing wrong with that, it is perfectly natural. To reduce sex to purely procreation and not a means that a man and woman strengthen their bond is not something that I would expect an unmarried priest to understand. The fact that children can result is an added bonus.

It is only in mankind’s recent history that all those so-called taboos have come about. We managed as a species long before the church came onto the scene, and I don’t doubt that we’ll manage long after it’s gone

 

[justinthemartyr]

I find it highly inappropriate that the church (made up of unmarried men) somehow think themselves qualified to give marriage guidance. That’s like a vegetarian giving a carnivore dietary advice.

It is a fact that humans and dolphins are the only two species on the planet that have sex for pleasure, and there is nothing wrong with that, it is perfectly natural. To reduce sex to purely procreation and not a means that a man and woman strengthen their bond is not something that I would expect an unmarried priest to understand. The fact that children can result is an added bonus.

It is only in mankind’s recent history that all those so-called taboos have come about. We managed as a species long before the church came onto the scene, and I don’t doubt that we’ll manage long after it’s gone

On the contrary, all world religions have always considered homosexual acts to be against the natural law and therefore an offense. This is not merely a Christian thing.

They are unnatural, and science has confirmed this. Just read the former surgeon general’s writings(c everett koop) concerning these acts in his document on AIDs.

There is never any life that comes out of them, ever, no exceptions. Unlike heterosexual acts which are procreative in nature and that there are some exceptions when people cannot reproduce. The exception does not make the norm, the norm always makes the rule. The norm is that heterosexual acts are compatible and complimentary, naturally and scientifically speaking. They are therefore moral.

 

[feetxxxl]

On the contrary, all world religions have always considered homosexual acts to be against the natural law and therefore an offense. This is not merely a Christian thing.

They are unnatural, and science has confirmed this. Just read the former surgeon general’s writings(c everett koop) concerning these acts in his document on AIDs.

There is never any life that comes out of them, ever, no exceptions. Unlike heterosexual acts which are procreative in nature and that there are some exceptions when people cannot reproduce. The exception does not make the norm, the norm always makes the rule. The norm is that heterosexual acts are compatible and complimentary, naturally and scientifically speaking. They are therefore moral.

i thought it was common knowledge that heterosexual sex and aids contributed to 30 million orphans being in africa.

ill have to agree. it is the misconception among humans that the more taboos they create the more moral they are. without considerations of spirit i think the reverse is true.

there is the belief that regulation takes the place of having to deal with spirit. it doesnt.

 

[revelations]

i thought it was common knowledge that heterosexual sex and aids contributed to 30 million orphans being in africa.

So are you saying that if they had instead been homosexuals, who cannot procreate, they simply would have just killed themselves off?

Man this is getting ridiculous. Do you seriously believe and uphold the things your are writing, or is this simply an exercise in debating?

My friend you say you do not speak of the same spirit of the scriptures. I have read books on the lives of the saints, read some of their works, read scriptures, and I can say honestly you don’t speak with the same spirit that they did.

I have many homosexual friends. I pray for them, i hope for their salvation. I have nothing against them, they are good people, and they are sinful like the rest of us. This is not to say I like their sin, or that i must try to justify it. Their sin is as ugly as mine is.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. But NEVER confirm someone in their sin. And that is what you are advocating. When Jesus saved the adulterous woman from the crowd that wanted to stone her, he told her later “repent and never do that again”, not “it’s ok if you do that, you have my spirit in you”

 

[feetxxxl]

So are you saying that if they had instead been homosexuals, who cannot procreate, they simply would have just killed themselves off?

Man this is getting ridiculous. Do you seriously believe and uphold the things your are writing, or is this simply an exercise in debating?

My friend you say you do not speak of the same spirit of the scriptures. I have read books on the lives of the saints, read some of their works, read scriptures, and I can say honestly you don’t speak with the same spirit that they did.

I have many homosexual friends. I pray for them, i hope for their salvation. I have nothing against them, they are good people, and they are sinful like the rest of us. This is not to say I like their sin, or that i must try to justify it. Their sin is as ugly as mine is.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. But NEVER confirm someone in their sin. And that is what you are advocating. When Jesus saved the adulterous woman from the crowd that wanted to stone her, he told her later “repent and never do that again”, not “it’s ok if you do that, you have my spirit in you”

then why dont you clearly say how homosexuality comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself.

paul said the the things of the sin nature are obvious, and of their own essence are self explanatory…murder, theft,etc.

it cant be about health because that is solved thru safe sex practices.

it cant be thru the law because that deals witrh regulation and does not answer the question on how its essence is against the essence of love.

 

[Rocky]

Not all love is to be expressed genitally. The love of one man for one woman, expressed genitally, in a very deep way models the life of the Trinity. This love is not just for unitive purposes but equally important is the creative act. No matter how old a man and a woman get, in marriage the creative act is possible (while oftentimes in old age not very probable). Love expressed genitally between two people of the same sex has no possibility of being creative. It is just not possible for two people of the same sex to model the life of the Trinity. So expressing their love genitally is sinful. For a man and a woman to express their love genitally while wilfully holding back the possibility of bringing new life into the world by using contraception or aborting a conceived baby is also just as sinful because it does not model the life of the Trinity.

 

[feetxxxl]

Not all love is to be expressed genitally. The love of one man for one woman, expressed genitally, in a very deep way models the life of the Trinity. This love is not just for unitive purposes but equally important is the creative act. No matter how old a man and a woman get, in marriage the creative act is possible (while oftentimes in old age not very probable). Love expressed genitally between two people of the same sex has no possibility of being creative. It is just not possible for two people of the same sex to model the life of the Trinity. So expressing their love genitally is sinful. For a man and a woman to express their love genitally while wilfully holding back the possibility of bringing new life into the world by using contraception or aborting a conceived baby is also just as sinful because it does not model the life of the Trinity.

what you are speaking is pure regulation that paralells the prohibitions against eating shellfish and doing household chores on the sabbath. that is the relationship of the old covenant to regulation. in romans paul says we no longer have the old relationship to the written code, but instead are led by and serve of the spirit.

1cor13:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

what spirt is there in homosexuality that would make it come against loving ones neighbor as oneself…like in the spirit that is in murder or theft?

 

[LittleDeb]

I find it highly inappropriate that the church (made up of unmarried men) somehow think themselves qualified to give marriage guidance. That’s like a vegetarian giving a carnivore dietary advice.

It is a fact that humans and dolphins are the only two species on the planet that have sex for pleasure, and there is nothing wrong with that, it is perfectly natural. To reduce sex to purely procreation and not a means that a man and woman strengthen their bond is not something that I would expect an unmarried priest to understand. The fact that children can result is an added bonus.

It is only in mankind’s recent history that all those so-called taboos have come about. We managed as a species long before the church came onto the scene, and I don’t doubt that we’ll manage long after it’s gone

From this post I am guessing that you haven’t read the book, Love and Responsibility, by our late Holy Father. That wonderful man knew a WHOLE lot about marital love. Many, many married men have said that they learned more about having a fabulous marital life from Pope John Paul the Great, than from any other place. He had an absolutely amazing understanding of marital love. Pick up Theology of the Body, too. Your life will never be the same again.

You are showing a deep misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on marital love here. You boldly claim that dolphins have sex for pleasure yet you do not define how they KNOW that it will be pleasurable. Same goes for humans. We have sex that IS pleasurable. We don’t have sex FOR pleasure. There is a difference.

To illustrate: Let’s take a virgin dolphin and his dolphin brain. Why does he have sex in the first place? Is there some underwater network of dolphins elbowing each other (Ok a flip of the fin) saying, “Have sex. It feels good?” Of course not! The virgin dolphin has sex because he has an instinct to procreate. He doesn’t know why he has that instinct and the underwater network isn’t telling.

Pleasure is the result, not the purpose. Procreation is the primary purpose and bonding is the secondary purpose. To eat for the purpose of pleasure is gluttony. To sleep for the purpose of pleasure is sloth. We eat, sleep, and have sex for their primary purposes (nutrition, restoration, and procreation.) Pleasure results from doing those things right!

In fact many of us here who used to be on a secular path will attest that procreative sex is a million times more pleasurable then sex sought for the purpose of pleasure. Homosexual sex is merely a mutual masturbation. It is sought for pleasure alone. That is lust.

 

[feetxxxl]

From this post I am guessing that you haven’t read the book, Love and Responsibility, by our late Holy Father. That wonderful man knew a WHOLE lot about marital love. Many, many married men have said that they learned more about having a fabulous marital life from Pope John Paul the Great, than from any other place. He had an absolutely amazing understanding of marital love. Pick up Theology of the Body, too. Your life will never be the same again.

You are showing a deep misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on marital love here. You boldly claim that dolphins have sex for pleasure yet you do not define how they KNOW that it will be pleasurable. Same goes for humans. We have sex that IS pleasurable. We don’t have sex FOR pleasure. There is a difference.

everytime a married couple indulges in sex thru the rythym method of contraception, they are saying “we are indulging in sex for anything other than procreation”…the essence is the same as ii they were taking the pill, using a sponge or using a morning after pill.
the method doesnt change the essence of why and how they are indulging sexual intimacy.

wasnt jesus teaching about adultry not about action, but about what was in a man’s heart.

how does a married couple having sexual intimacy for pleasure, or for one person to pleasure another, come against loving ones neighbor as oneself.

 

[LittleDeb]

everytime a married couple indulges in sex thru the rythym method contraception they are saying “we are indulging in sex for anything other than procreation”…the essence is the same as in taking the pill, using a sponge or using a morning after pill.
the method doesnt change the essence of why and how they are indulging sexual intimacy.

wasnt jesus teaching about adultry not about action, but about what was in a man’s heart.

what do your rules have to do with the three commandments of love?

And now you have just proven that you have no understanding of marital love. Do you even understand the difference between procreation and reproduction? It doesn’t sound like it. Also “the rhythm method” is NOT contraception. (Plus no one in their right mind currently uses the rhythm method unless they are clockwork 28 day cycles.) It hasn’t been taught since the 60’s. You are at least 40 years out of date in your terminology.

For contraception to occur a sexual act must be taking place. A person walking around holding a condom is not contracepting. He is holding a contraceptive device. A person abstaining from sex is not contracepting. That you started this thread trying to justify homosexual acts from scripture AND are trying to condemn periodic abstinence which is FOUND in scripture is the height of irony.

Are you trying to tell me that every time I engaged in sex while I was infertile due to breast-feeding that I was contracepting? WOW. First irony, now arrogance. You are batting a thousand in one post! Infertile sex is procreative. It is not, however, reproductive. It is built into the design. If you have a problem with the design, please take that up with The Designer.

Oh yeah which reminds me, the design: A man and woman come together and become ONE FLESH. You tried to explain that men become one flesh rectally and truagape came and shot down the theory that homosexual men engage in sex that way. You have YET to explain how two men or two women can become ONE FLESH. That is what Christ himself said marriage is. Anything else is not marriage. So says the second person of the Trinity, God Himself.

 

[R_McGeddon]

From this post I am guessing that you haven’t read the book, Love and Responsibility, by our late Holy Father. That wonderful man knew a WHOLE lot about marital love. Many, many married men have said that they learned more about having a fabulous marital life from Pope John Paul the Great, than from any other place. He had an absolutely amazing understanding of marital love. Pick up Theology of the Body, too. Your life will never be the same again.

How does a man come to have an amazing understanding of something he never experienced?

You are showing a deep misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on marital love here.

I don’t see the church as qualified to teach on marital love. Their part is to perform the marriage ceremony, the rest is up to the married couple from then on.

You boldly claim that dolphins have sex for pleasure

It’s not my claim, I just repeated something that I’ve heard on numerous occasions.

We don’t have sex FOR pleasure.

What a bleak outlook.

To illustrate: Let’s take a virgin dolphin and his dolphin brain. Why does he have sex in the first place? Is there some underwater network of dolphins elbowing each other (Ok a flip of the fin) saying, “Have sex. It feels good?” Of course not!

Can you categorically state that you know this to be the case for a 100% fact?

 

[feetxxxl]

And now you have just proven that you have no understanding of marital love. Do you even understand the difference between procreation and reproduction? It doesn’t sound like it. Also “the rhythm method” is NOT contraception. (Plus no one in their right mind currently uses the rhythm method unless they are clockwork 28 day cycles.) It hasn’t been taught since the 60’s. You are at least 40 years out of date in your terminology.

For contraception to occur a sexual act must be taking place. A person walking around holding a condom is not contracepting. He is holding a contraceptive device. A person abstaining from sex is not contracepting. That you started this thread trying to justify homosexual acts from scripture AND are trying to condemn periodic abstinence which is FOUND in scripture is the height of irony.

Are you trying to tell me that every time I engaged in sex while I was infertile due to breast-feeding that I was contracepting? WOW. First irony, now arrogance. You are batting a thousand in one post! Infertile sex is procreative. It is not, however, reproductive. It is built into the design. If you have a problem with the design, please take that up with The Designer.

Oh yeah which reminds me, the design: A man and woman come together and become ONE FLESH. You tried to explain that men become one flesh rectally and truagape came and shot down the theory that homosexual men engage in sex that way. You have YET to explain how two men or two women can become ONE FLESH. That is what Christ himself said marriage is. Anything else is not marriage. So says the second person of the Trinity, God Himself.

my apologies i thought you were saying sexual intimacy done without the possiblity of procreation was a sin. or that sexual intimacy purely for pleasue was a sin.

i dont know what the problem is. one flesh is an energy exchange, which is not limited to a particular method of intercourse leading to orgasm. it can be done orally or anally. and actually, there are a number of women who have more intense orgasms anally(with anal stimulation) and orally than they do solely vaginally.

 

[LilyM]

How does a man come to have an amazing understanding of something he never experienced?
I don’t see the church as qualified to teach on marital love. Their part is to perform the marriage ceremony, the rest is up to the married couple from then on.

By this illogic, the Holy Father can’t speak out against murder if he’s never killed someone, agaisnt theft if he’s never stolen anything and so on. For that matter you can’t tell me not to kill unless you’ve killed or not to steal unless you’ve stolen.

Look, I don’t need to go stick my hand in a pot of boiling water to be qualified to tell you it’s going to scald you, neither do I need to throw myself in front of a bus to be qualified to tell you it’s going to hurt. It’s one of the advantages of having a rational brain that humans can learn from the experience and observations of others and we don’t NEED to experience absolutely everything as individuals. All I need do to be qualified to teach on a behaviour is observe the consequences for others who HAVE indulged in it.

I observe that lots of other people have done certain things and pain and injury are the inevitabe result, so I can quite justifiably tell you not to do them. Same with adultery and homosexuality. I don’t need to do it to know that it’s bad, nor do I need to do it to tell YOU it’s bad. I just need to know that others have done it and been incredibly damaged by it.

 

[LittleDeb]

my apologies i thought you were saying sexual intimacy done without the possiblity of procreation was a sin. or that sexual intimacy purely for pleasue was a sin.

I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt during this whole thread, but now I am starting to wonder…are you intentionally misrepresenting and misunderstanding? You STILL have it wrong here! Every act of vaginal intercourse where something hasn’t been done to change the act IS procreative. It might not be reproductive. So YES every sexual act that is not procreative is a sin. You don’t know the difference do you? Why are you seeking to change that which you don’t even understand?

Pleasure is the result of sex, NOT the purpose. Those who seek the pleasure do so at the expense of their spouse. Marital love is first about giving. It is about the subject of your affection (the spouse,) NOT about the object (the orgasm.) The orgasm is a result of sex, not a beginning. You engage with a person not an orgasm. Orgasm is a good thing, don’t get me wrong there, but it is not the purpose of sex.

I mean think about it even from an objective viewpoint. Who is the one doing God’s will? Is the one who says, “I want an orgasm” or the one who says “I want to renew my marriage?”

i dont know what the problem is. one flesh is an energy exchange, which is not limited to a particular method of intercourse leading to orgasm. it can be done orally or anally. and actually, there are a number of women who have more intense orgasms anally(with anal stimulation) and orally than they do solely vaginally.

That you STILL don’t understand the above explains why you give such a strange answer here. “Energy exchange” is more spiritual, not one flesh. There is one act that makes babies. That one act is the act that makes a couple ONE FLESH. Nothing else makes a couple one flesh. The marital vows are not considered complete until consummation takes place.

Your total obsession with orgasm only reinforces your deep misunderstanding of marriage. Orgasm is a happy side effect. That you don’t understand that is sad.

 

[LittleDeb]

What a bleak outlook.

All that I typed about sex being pleasurable and that is your response? Bleak? You’re right though, I don’t tend to seek pleasure JUST for the sake of pleasure. I seek activities that bring pleasure as their natural result.

When I first met my chef husband I did eat his wonderful food for the sake of pleasure. Guess what? I got fat. Now I seek his food for the nutritious portions and let the pleasure be the result. I’m getting much healthier now, thank you!

Can you categorically state that you know this to be the case for a 100% fact?

K. You got me there. I don’t speak dolphin. But when the movie “The Blue Lagoon” came out in the 80s no one was surprised that they figured out how to have sex. I don’t know. Maybe the dolphins told them.