Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Jaaanosik]

You may have a point here. But I am concerned that your point – which addresses one very specific case involving the danger of death – shouldn’t be used as a carte blanche to say that “married couples, in general, can morally use ABC”.

The HV says it’s not moral to use ABC according to the Natural Moral Law.
I have not seen a sufficient explanation of the Natural Moral Law that leads to that conclusion.
Have you? If, yes, then please, explain it to me?
Thanks.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The HV says it’s not moral to use ABC according to the Natural Moral Law.
I have not seen a sufficient explanation of the Natural Moral Law that leads to that conclusion.
Have you? If, yes, then please, explain it to me?
Thanks.

Simple. ABC severs the connection between sex and childbearing.

Please present to me an argument that oral sex to orgasm is impermissible, under the assumption that ABC is permissible. When you try to do that, you should realize why ABC severs the connection between sex and childbearing.

 

[Jaaanosik]

False. The primary end of being in a car is transportation. It does not follow that every moment spent in a car must be spent moving.

A couple who uses NFP to NEVER have children is sinning.

But a couple who uses NFP to inform their responsible decisions about childbearing (while being open to life) is not sinning. It is not a sin to decline to have sex on a certain night.

This is all consistent with your comments about Casti Conubbii.

False. In this case the marital act is not subordinate to the primary end - the conception intent.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Simple. ABC severs the connection between sex and childbearing.

Please present to me an argument that oral sex to orgasm is impermissible, under the assumption that ABC is permissible. When you try to do that, you should realize why ABC severs the connection between sex and childbearing.

Where does the demand for the connection between sex and childbearing at every single act come from?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

False. In this case the marital act is not subordinate to the primary end - the conception intent.

That’s not true. When the couple comes together to have sex, they realize that conception is the natural result of their action, and they submit themselves to the chance of conception. Ovulation sometimes occurs at unexpected times.

Where does the demand for the connection between sex and childbearing at every single act come from?

According to natural law, all actions should be consistent with their primary end, at all times. It is unnatural to chew food and then spit it out without swallowing it, for example.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Please present to me an argument that oral sex to orgasm is impermissible, under the assumption that ABC is permissible. When you try to do that, you should realize why ABC severs the connection between sex and childbearing.

I don’t think the oral sex is impermissible.
Why do you care so much how married couples express their love for each other in their bedroom?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t think the oral sex is impermissible.
Why do you care so much how married couples express their love for each other in their bedroom?

Marital sex aims at procreation, unity, and mutual enjoyment. Obviously oral sex to orgasm isn’t procreative. Therefore, if you say it is permissible, it must manifest unity and mutual enjoyment. Right?

So we must say that – if you are right – oral sex is a manifestation of marital unity. Suppose that is the case.

Now if you say that oral sex manifests marital unity, let’s consider the case of two gay people in a monogamous relationship. They can have oral sex, too. If it manifests unity for two straight people, then it could manifest unity for them, too. In which case, we would have to admit that gay couples are capable of manifesting marital unity. And then we’d have to say that gay marriage is OK.

That’s the logical consequence of your view. You may accept that consequence, and support gay marriage. Or you may reject that consequence, and change your view on oral sex to orgasm.

The third option is to hold a view that *arbitrarily *discriminates against homosexuals. I don’t recommend the third option.

 

[Thinking10]

According to natural law, all actions should be consistent with their primary end, at all times. It is unnatural to chew food and then spit it out without swallowing it, for example.

So chewing gum is sinful too?

 

[Jaaanosik]

That’s not true. When the couple comes together to have sex, they realize that conception is the natural result of their action, and they submit themselves to the chance of conception. Ovulation sometimes occurs at unexpected times.

The CC is clear. Couples should have sex to fulfill the primary end - they should intent to procreate and educate a child.

According to natural law, all actions should be consistent with their primary end, at all times. It is unnatural to chew food and then spit it out without swallowing it, for example.

God created us in such a way that He gave us legs as means for the natural way how to move/transport from point A to point B.
How come it’s OK to move from point A to point B in not natural way - by using human inventions such as motorcycles, cars, planes, …?
Why it’s not demanded that the moving/transportation should be done only in the natural way every single time?

God does not intend to connect sperm and ovum every single time.
The HV says it’s OK for married couples if they don’t intend to connect sperm and ovum every single time.
The HV says how the marital act should be done - in the natural way.
The question is why it’s OK to use human invention car for unnatural way of transportation, but it’s not OK to use human invention condom for unnatural way of having sex.
Why there is the double standard?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So chewing gum is sinful too?

Unnatural, sure. I wouldn’t say sinful. The consequences of chewing gum don’t tend to be bad.

 

[Thinking10]

According to natural law, all actions should be consistent with their primary end, at all times. It is unnatural to chew food and then spit it out without swallowing it, for example.

What about eating empty calories? You are taking in food without taking in nutrients, the purpose of taking in food.

“Currently, many of the foods and beverages Americans eat and drink contain empty calories – calories from solid fats and/or added sugars. Solid fats and added sugars add calories to the food but few or no nutrients. For this reason, the calories from solid fats and added sugars in a food are often called empty calories.”

 

[Thinking10]

Unnatural, sure. I wouldn’t say sinful. The consequences of chewing gum don’t tend to be bad.

Neither do the consequences of using a condom within a marriage.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Marital sex aims at procreation, unity, and mutual enjoyment. Obviously oral sex to orgasm isn’t procreative. Therefore, if you say it is permissible, it must manifest unity and mutual enjoyment. Right?

So we must say that – if you are right – oral sex is a manifestation of marital unity. Suppose that is the case.

Now if you say that oral sex manifests marital unity, let’s consider the case of two gay people in a monogamous relationship. They can have oral sex, too. If it manifests unity for two straight people, then it could manifest unity for them, too. In which case, we would have to admit that gay couples are capable of manifesting marital unity. And then we’d have to say that gay marriage is OK.

That’s the logical consequence of your view. You may accept that consequence, and support gay marriage. Or you may reject that consequence, and change your view on oral sex to orgasm.

The third option is to hold a view that *arbitrarily *discriminates against homosexuals. I don’t recommend the third option.

I’ll say it the third time now.

The homosexual couples do not have a marriage.
The marriage is between man and woman. That was revealed to us by God.

Sex outside of marriage is not OK.

That’s it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The CC is clear. Couples should have sex to fulfill the primary end - they should intent to procreate and educate a child.

Show me a quote where the Church says every sexual act should have the intent to produce a child.

God created us in such a way that He gave us legs as means for the natural way how to move/transport from point A to point B.
How come it’s OK to move from point A to point B in not natural way - by using human inventions such as motorcycles, cars, planes, …?
Why it’s not demanded that the moving/transportation should be done only in the natural way every single time?

All of these arguments support the capacity for gay people to have sex and get married.

God does not intend to connect sperm and ovum every single time.
The HV says it’s OK for married couples if they don’t intend to connect sperm and ovum every single time.
The HV says how the marital act should be done - in the natural way.
The question is why it’s OK to use human invention car for unnatural way of transportation, but it’s not OK to use human invention condom for unnatural way of having sex.
Why there is the double standard?

Your saying that the Church says the marital act should be done in the “natural way” is useless to you, because you yourself claim that oral sex to orgasm is licit.

Aside from that, all of these arguments you’re making support the capacity for gay people to have sex and get married.

You either need to try some new arguments, or change your view on gay marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Neither do the consequences of using a condom within a marriage.

False. The use of condoms has led to the increase of single pregnancies, the increase of sexual promiscuity, the increase of STDs, the increase of divorce, and so on.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ll say it the third time now.

The homosexual couples do not have a marriage.
The marriage is between man and woman. That was revealed to us by God.

Sex outside of marriage is not OK.

That’s it.

But Catholic moral theology IS NOT BASED on divine command theory. Aquinas repudiated that, and pretty much every moral theologian since has repudiated a simplistic divine command theory.

Catholic moral theology claims that God’s commands make sense to the non-Christian rational mind. If the only way you can distinguish gay marriage from Christian marriage is revealed Scripture, you are not in accord with Catholic moral theology.

Saying “gay marriage isn’t marriage” doesn’t make it so. Your argument against gay marriage has to stand up to scrutiny. Just like murder is wrong for an explicable reason, gay marriage is wrong for an explicable reason.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Show me a quote where the Church says every sexual act should have the intent to produce a child.

All of these arguments support the capacity for gay people to have sex and get married.

Your saying that the Church says the marital act should be done in the “natural way” is useless to you, because you yourself claim that oral sex to orgasm is licit.

Aside from that, all of these arguments you’re making support the capacity for gay people to have sex and get married.

You either need to try some new arguments, or change your view on gay marriage.

Please, go to the previous page and check the CC quotes where it talks about the primary end.

… one more time…
Gay people don’t have marriage…
Sex outside of marriage is not good.

There is no need for inventing additional arguments.

 

[Prodigirl]

The Church’s teaching and Sacred Scripture, however, has been explicit and clearly defined that homosexual acts are objectively gravely sinful in any circumstance.

Where does this appear in Scripture?

 

[Jaaanosik]

But Catholic moral theology IS NOT BASED on divine command theory. Aquinas repudiated that, and pretty much every moral theologian since has repudiated a simplistic divine command theory.

Catholic moral theology claims that God’s commands make sense to the non-Christian rational mind. If the only way you can distinguish gay marriage from Christian marriage is revealed Scripture, you are not in accord with Catholic moral theology.

Saying “gay marriage isn’t marriage” doesn’t make it so. Your argument against gay marriage has to stand up to scrutiny. Just like murder is wrong for an explicable reason, gay marriage is wrong for an explicable reason.

That’s false.
What are Ten Commandments?
Why there is the command - do not kill?

People were killing for food, territory, … to survive - it’s ‘natural’. Therefore there is the command - do not kill.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s false.
What are Ten Commandments?
Why there is the command - do not kill?

People were killing for food, territory, … to survive - it’s ‘natural’. Therefore there is the command - do not kill.

Sure. So you tell me: why is there a command not to have sex with (or marry) people of the same sex? Is that command arbitrary, or was there a reason for it?