Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

A married couple deeply in love would know what is right and wrong in their bedroom.

If that’s true, then why not say that a gay couple deeply in love knows what’s right and wrong in their bedroom?

Erotic love is not a reliable guide to action. It doesn’t matter what your state in life is. It’s never a reliable guide.

 

[Sean_St_Jude]

Dear Jaaa, You need to consider taking the RCIA courses which are starting or about to start around the country. Even if you’ve already been confirmed, you would benefit from the classes. Just let the instructor know that you come with a few loaded questions. Sadly, somewhere along the line, like me at one time, you’ve been led astray.

 

[Thinking10]

If that’s true, then why not say that a gay couple deeply in love knows what’s right and wrong in their bedroom?

Erotic love is not a reliable guide to action. It doesn’t matter what your state in life is. It’s never a reliable guide.

It would be more beneficial to married couples, families, and the church in general, if we spent more time focusing on the role of married couple in the church and society, and their duties to each other and their children.

I think it would be helpful to emphasize the need for a couple to reproduce and care for their children, rather than spending so much time trying to ensure that each and every sex act has to be done in a very specific way.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It would be more beneficial to married couples, families, and the church in general, if we spent more time focusing on the role of married couple in the church and society, and their duties to each other and their children.

I think it would be helpful to emphasize the need for a couple to reproduce and care for their children, rather than spending so much time trying to ensure that each and every sex act has to be done in a very specific way.

You make me laugh. We’re not talking about sex positions here. We’re talking about orifices. I hope you can distinguish the two.

A person who sticks it in the wrong place and tries to thrust is either (a) aiming wrongly or (b) not following Catholic teaching. When we watch animals stick it the wrong place, or go around humping things hopefully, we find this funny. When we watch humans do it, we ask whether they’re married, and endorse it if they are? Come on.

 

[Thinking10]

I am talking about any sexual activity that is done outside the framework set up by the church. Not any one kind in particular.

Tell me what other bodily function we use only for its utilitarian purpose? Eating, Drinking, etc. If you are going to say that all but one way of having sex are always off limits because those ways are not the primary function of sex, what reason is there not to apply this same logic to eating or drinking? Don’t go to the extreme of “well, yes, eating and drinking can be a bad thing if you make yourself throw up so can eat more food” almost no one does that, and it is way out of proportion to the comparison with limited contraceptive use by a married couple.

St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote the following when explaining gluttony:

"Pope Innocent XI has condemned the proposition which asserts that it is not a sin to eat or to drink from the sole motive of satisfying the palate. However, it is not a fault to feel pleasure in eating: for it is, generally speaking, impossible to eat without experiencing the delight which food naturally produces. But it is a defect to eat, like beasts, through the sole motive of sensual gratification, and without any reasonable object. Hence, the most delicious meats may be eaten without sin, if the motive be good and worthy of a rational creature; and, in taking the coarsest food through attachment to pleasure, there may be a fault."

If the problem is that artificial contraception is an artificial method of doing something our bodies already can do, we shouldn’t be using cars either. We have a natural method of transportation, walking, but we have no problem substituting this natural method of transportation with man made alternate means of getting around.

If the problem is that artificial contraceptive deliberately avoids pregnancy, well so does NFP (and if NFP is not deliberately avoiding pregnancy, then what is it doing? If you weren’t trying to avoid pregnancy, why do you spend so much time charting and planning when to have sex?)

 

[Thinking10]

In regard to homosexuality, the best argument against homosexuality that the church can make is that it can define the purpose of married couples. Focus on making a positive case for marriage. Marriage naturally precludes homosexual unions.

The primary reason for marriage, of course, is procreation. Instead of focusing on restricting a married couple’s sexual activity to a particular act, focus on marriage as a whole, and what couples should be doing.

There is much more to marriage than conceiving. Even openness to life is so much more than accepting a conception if it occurs. Openness to life isn’t just about accepting a conception, it is about the couple’s attitude toward raising their children even long after they are born.

 

[Jaaanosik]

If that’s true, then why not say that a gay couple deeply in love knows what’s right and wrong in their bedroom?

Erotic love is not a reliable guide to action. It doesn’t matter what your state in life is. It’s never a reliable guide.

You missed my point in the post #207:

There is no issue.
It’s a revealed law.
Sex is OK in the marriage - man and woman.
Full stop!!!
Everything else is just a noise.

Let me say it in a different way.
The homosexual couples DO NOT have a marriage.
They have unions, partnerships, … but it’s not the marriage. The marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Church should not have let to devalue the definition of the marriage.
The Church should use all its authority to protect the true definition of the marriage.
… then any sex outside of the marriage is not good.
Full stop!

That should be so simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You missed my point in the post #207:

Let me say it in a different way.
The homosexual couples DO NOT have a marriage.
They have unions, partnerships, … but it’s not the marriage. The marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Church should not have let to devalue the definition of the marriage.
The Church should use all its authority to protect the true definition of the marriage.
… then any sex outside of the marriage is not good.
Full stop!

That should be so simple.

Here’s my point, then:

Sodomy between spouses is not sex in a marriage. If sodomy between the spouses is OK, it is NOT because sex in a marriage is OK. Thus, the reason sodomy between the spouses would be OK (pleasure? unity?) would apply equally to gay people.

This is why, in order to be consistent, one must say that sodomy is wrong, no matter whether the people engaging in it are married or not.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here’s my point, then:

Sodomy between spouses is not sex in a marriage. If sodomy between the spouses is OK, it is NOT because sex in a marriage is OK. Thus, the reason sodomy between the spouses would be OK (pleasure? unity?) would apply equally to gay people.

This is why, in order to be consistent, one must say that sodomy is wrong, no matter whether the people engaging in it are married or not.

I think you are correct. Probably that goes for oral sex too.

 

[Thinking10]

What matters more than how you have sex is who you are having sex with. I think we can reasonably expect married couples to have procreative sex. Why not focus on limiting sex to within marriage rather than putting the focus on how that sex is done within marriage?

Married couples should be expected to have sex procreatively, and should be encouraged to do so. What matters is that they are procreating. Is there any consequence for not procreating between times when they procreate? Whether they are engaging in sexual activity or abstaining, the result is the same. No one but the couple knows what happens in their bedroom, so sex is a private matter.

Whether they use NFP or ABC, what difference does it make if they are accepting of an unplanned pregnancy, and they are not using birth control excessively? It is the relationship that is tied to openness to life and procreation, not just the sex act. In the arguments about how to have sex, it seems that marriage is distanced from children and life. Instead, it seems as if only the sexual act is linked to life.

Overuse of contraception to unnecessarily limit the children produced by a relationship or cutting the relationship off from conception altogether are wrong. What are the consequences or using birth control for serious reasons, for a limited time, whether it is NFP or barriers?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What matters more than how you have sex is who you are having sex with. I think we can reasonably expect married couples to have procreative sex. Why not focus on limiting sex to within marriage rather than putting the focus on how that sex is done within marriage?

Married couples should be expected to have sex procreatively, and should be encouraged to do so. What matters is that they are procreating. Is there any consequence for not procreating between times when they procreate? Whether they are engaging in sexual activity or abstaining, the result is the same. No one but the couple knows what happens in their bedroom, so sex is a private matter.

No one denies that sex is a private matter. That’s why we’re not talking about making sodomy illegal. We’re just saying it’s wrong.

As for “the results being the same”, that’s not the point at all. If a lesbian uses a turkey baster to become pregnant, the results are the same as in marriage – that doesn’t make it OK.

You did not respond to the central point I was making, so let me put it in the form of a question. Since anal sex / oral sex is not procreative sex, please tell me what good it promotes? Unity? Pleasure?

If the goal is unity, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy promotes unity too, so it should be allowed.

If the goal is pleasure, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy is pleasurable too, so it should be allowed.

In the end, whatever justifies marital sodomy can be used to justify non-marital sodomy.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Here’s my point, then:

Sodomy between spouses is not sex in a marriage. If sodomy between the spouses is OK, it is NOT because sex in a marriage is OK. Thus, the reason sodomy between the spouses would be OK (pleasure? unity?) would apply equally to gay people.

This is why, in order to be consistent, one must say that sodomy is wrong, no matter whether the people engaging in it are married or not.

Yes, sodomy is not natural. Do you think a married couple in love would not know it?
Why anybody would like to control what they do in their bedroom.

The big picture is more important.

 

[Thinking10]

No one denies that sex is a private matter. That’s why we’re not talking about making sodomy illegal. We’re just saying it’s wrong.

As for “the results being the same”, that’s not the point at all. If a lesbian uses a turkey baster to become pregnant, the results are the same as in marriage – that doesn’t make it OK.

You did not respond to the central point I was making, so let me put it in the form of a question. Since anal sex / oral sex is not procreative sex, please tell me what good it promotes? Unity? Pleasure?

If the goal is unity, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy promotes unity too, so it should be allowed.

If the goal is pleasure, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy is pleasurable too, so it should be allowed.

In the end, whatever justifies marital sodomy can be used to justify non-marital sodomy.

Let’s say that I am talking about condoms, not anal or oral.

As for the turkey baster analogy, The whole point I was trying to make is that it is marriage that we must connect with procreation, not just sex acts. Since the lesbian is conceiving outside a marriage, denying her children a relationship with their father, and depriving them of their father’s support, this is not a right way to conceive.

“If the goal is pleasure, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy is pleasurable too, so it should be allowed.”

The purpose of a marriage is procreation. Pleasurable sex can occur within a procreative relationship, but only because it may be for the good of the couple’s relationship, which is already procreative. I would argue that a couple with a good relationship, who provides their children with a good upbringing, and sometimes uses contraception is more open to life than a couple who begrudgingly has many children that they cannot care for.

I think promotion of marriage and procreative relationships would go much more smoothly if we promoted healthy relationships between married couples and their children rather than spending most of our efforts directed toward marriage on opposing condom use.

 

[Thinking10]

The big picture is more important.

Exactly. It is the big picture that is what matters. If this is what we were focused on, we wouldn’t be arguing over the particulars of marital sex while losing sight of every other part of marriage.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No one denies that sex is a private matter. That’s why we’re not talking about making sodomy illegal. We’re just saying it’s wrong.

As for “the results being the same”, that’s not the point at all. If a lesbian uses a turkey baster to become pregnant, the results are the same as in marriage – that doesn’t make it OK.

You did not respond to the central point I was making, so let me put it in the form of a question. Since anal sex / oral sex is not procreative sex, please tell me what good it promotes? Unity? Pleasure?

If the goal is unity, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy promotes unity too, so it should be allowed.

If the goal is pleasure, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy is pleasurable too, so it should be allowed.

In the end, whatever justifies marital sodomy can be used to justify non-marital sodomy.

It appears to me that the unity is the only thing that is supposed be present at the marital act all the time.
Procreation as conception intent does not have to be present all the time. That’s from HV.
Procreation as how to have sex is demanded to be there by the HV.

The question is why the Church cares so much about the procreation - how to have sex and not so much about procreation as the conception.

 

[Amandil]

The purpose of a marriage is procreation.

That’s not correct. The purpose of marriage is the preservation of virtue, the growth of love, as well as the generation of children. None of these can be considered mutually exclusive.

Pleasurable sex can occur within a procreative relationship, but only because it may be for the good of the couple’s relationship, which is already procreative. I would argue that a couple with a good relationship, who provides their children with a good upbringing, and sometimes uses contraception is more open to life than a couple who begrudgingly has many children that they cannot care for.

This doesn’t follow. The procreation of children is not exclusively the right of the married couple. They do not have the right to deny God His prerogative to create through artificial means His creative act.

And no couple with sound faith in God would “begrudgingly” have children because they necessarily believe that God will provide the means for them to support their children.

I think promotion of marriage and procreative relationships would go much more smoothly if we promoted healthy relationships between married couples and their children rather than spending most of our efforts directed toward marriage on opposing condom use.

Why the “either-or” approach?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, sodomy is not natural. Do you think a married couple in love would not know it?

Sure. Handbooks on Catholic moral theology – like those by Christopher West – say that certain sodomitical acts are fine within marriage, as long as they don’t end in ejaculation.

Why anybody would like to control what they do in their bedroom.

Red herring.

 

[Thinking10]

That’s not correct. The purpose of marriage is the preservation of virtue, the growth of love, as well as the generation of children. None of these can be considered mutually exclusive.

Aren’t all people called to live with virtue and love? What sets marriage apart from all other relationships is the generation of children.

This doesn’t follow. The procreation of children is not exclusively the right of the married couple. They do not have the right to deny God His prerogative to create through artificial means His creative act.

It isn’t the right of the married couple, it is their duty. If they have five children, who are you to say they haven’t had enough? Does it matter whether they use artificial means or NFP? They are having sex with the same intentions, for the same purpose whether they use NFP or a condom.

Why are any medical rpcedures allowed? They all modify function of our bodies from the way they were intended to work.

And no couple with sound faith in God would “begrudgingly” have children because they necessarily believe that God will provide the means for them to support their children.

Why the “either-or” approach?

What do you mean, “either-or?” There is time to procreate, and a time to focus on nurturing the children you have procreated. At some point, you have had as many children as you can care for, but your relationship with your spouse must remain strong so you can take care of your children.

 

[LongingSoul]

Exactly. It is the big picture that is what matters. If this is what we were focused on, we wouldn’t be arguing over the particulars of marital sex while losing sight of every other part of marriage.

But the big picture is made up of all the little pieces of the jigsaw. We can’t just put anything anywhere and think that the picture will magically turn out. Each part has its proper and right place and can’t be altered by our whims.

 

[Thinking10]

But the big picture is made up of all the little pieces of the jigsaw. We can’t just put anything anywhere and think that the picture will magically turn out. Each part has its proper and right place and can’t be altered by our whims.

There is no negative consequence to individual uses of a condom by a married couple. Nothing harmful has been done to anyone. It does not take away from the procreativity of their relationship any more than does abstinence.

Sexual deprivation may be harmful to a married couple. Read through the threads on this website posted by people whose marriages were harmed by sexual deprivation. It may be healthier for the couple, and their children if they are permitted to maintain their sexual relationship without having another child, since they are already taking care of several children who need their support.

Shouldn’t the focus be on the well being of the married couple and their children, rather than whether they are having sex, as specifically defined by the church, every time they have sex?