Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Charlemagne_III]

No, no, no, this doesn’t settle the issue. When my wife touches my genitals as a part of foreplay this is clearly not separated from the unitive and procreative purposes of sex – and yet this doesn’t make babies either – and I don’t think it’s *clear *that some amount of oral stimulation can’t fall in the same category. That’s why this debate is so dicey.

We are not talking about foreplay. We are talking about mutual masturbation in the form of oral and anal sex. Both are ugly and both are unnatural. You can certainly rise to the occasion of orgasm without either.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Before the wedding, a conversation (a talk) between engaged persons (the fiancée and the fiancé) on the modus operandi of the marital act is helpful, useful and very prudential in order to avoid the strong difficulties. As future member of the couple, are we on the same page, morally speaking? The question: are we compatible?

If you are thinking that much, you might as well set the calender now for what days you’ll bump uglies.

People, the point of life isn’t to not sin.

If you spend your life trying not to sin, you miss the point of life.

The point of life is LOVE NEIGHBOR/ENEMY/MANKIND. That word love creates a demonstration/work/manifestation. When you love man, you love God. Matt 25 last parable, done to the least of these… done for me.

God is love.

You can run 359 wrong directions from sin, and miss God. the 360th direction runs to God.

Is it not more productive to run to GOD and disregard the sin and let God handle it?

Paul said, he wasn’t aware of any sins on his conscience but he didn’t care, he ran the race before Him.

You are to learn to love like God loves, and lacking love He’s not in you and you aren’t in Him. That’s one thing, as a protestant, I admire about Rome, is they don’t remove the works aspect of our life with God from the equation as the evangelicals do.

Your job is to run to love. Not away from sin.

The more you love… the less you sin.

And the more you love your neighbors, the more they feel/experience God. And God is going to be the one to stop them from their sinful acts, so your job is to pick them up in the run TO LOVE.

You are making me sad all this pharisitical “what is sin” conversation that runs away from the real point.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Foreplay (kissing, fondling) is one thing.

Masturbation and coming to climax is quite another.

Oral sex is a form of mutual masturbation. Do you not agree?

Advocating masturbation is weird for a Catholic.

I’m arguing on your side too, but I sense a rupture about to come?

perhaps a poor choice of words…

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Perhaps everyone should stay out of everyone’s bedroom. Really now

In Romans 14 one man, one man was sinning if he ate meat.

Another man could eat meat and not sin.

The man that could eat meat had more faith, and thus more liberty.

The lesson to that snippet is they should stay out of each other’s kitchen and not give the other a hard time.

I think, Ms J, you got it right.

What you and your spouse are not convicted on and in good conscience can do, the more liberty you have.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.
It was for freedom He set us free.
blah blah blah

 

[HeteroDoxical]

So you don’t agree with the natural law argument? But that is a teaching of the Church.

By definition homosexual sex is natural.

It happens in nature in nearly every species.

it’s just naturally the smaller option.

Just like red hair is the smaller natural option.

Definition of natural (adj)
Bing Dictionary
nat·u·ral náchərəl ]
of nature: relating to nature
conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature
produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, not artificial or synthetic

 

[ProdglArchitect]

By definition homosexual sex is natural.

It happens in nature in nearly every species.

it’s just naturally the smaller option.

Just like red hair is the smaller natural option.

Definition of natural (adj)
Bing Dictionary
nat·u·ral náchərəl ]
of nature: relating to nature
conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature
produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, not artificial or synthetic

This is committing a logical fallacy: Appeal to Nature

Also, I recently read a study that said that instances of homosexual animals in behavior are driven more by confusion than natural predilection. I’ll hunt it down for you sometime.

My twopence on this: Oral sex as part of foreplay, while masturbation in the technical (and mechanical) sense, is not intended to result in climax in either partner. Since it is the loss of the unitive and procreative aspects of a sexual act which make it immoral, it would not be considered gravely sinful.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

This is committing a logical fallacy: Appeal to Nature

That’s coming from just pure ignorance. I didn’t bring up nature. I’m discussing the meaning of the word. You have to redefine the word “NATURAL” to make your claim. I showed within the definition of the word NATURAL it is by definition natural. You need to buy my crayola font edition of logical fallacies.

DOn’t say something is wet, then redefine wet to mean purpose and say I’m wrong when I say it’s dry. I’m embarrassed for you.

Also, I recently read a study that said that instances of homosexual animals in behavior are driven more by confusion than natural predilection. I’ll hunt it down for you sometime.

Yeah, before you find Doctor Doolittle’s thesis on confused animals tell me how did he determine they were confused? “They have sex with same gender, they must be confused, therefore being confused is why they have sex with the same gender…” It’s called circular reasoning. That’s in my crayola font book too.

Tell me, what do you think NATURAL means. Give me a definition so we can skip the pedantic play and get to the conversation.

OBVIOUSLY it does not mean natural to you. So what twists do you add to it?

My twopence on this: Oral sex as part of foreplay, while masturbation in the technical (and mechanical) sense, is not intended to result in climax in either partner. Since it is the loss of the unitive and procreative aspects of a sexual act which make it immoral, it would not be considered gravely sinful.

So, is it wrong for me to enjoy my work as well, and to work even when I’m not getting paid?

Show me more scripture and less Prodigal Architect. Your tower of logic makes Pisa’s tower look kosher.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Poppies are natural, heroin is not justified because of that. <<<< appeal to nature.

You use the word NATURAL. I define natural and show your application flawed. My argument isn’t of nature, it’s of language.

 

[davidv]

Poppies are natural, heroin is not justified because of that. <<<< appeal to nature.

You use the word NATURAL. I define natural and show your application flawed. My argument isn’t of nature, it’s of language.

Laws of nature do not equal natural law. Your argument includes the logical falacy of equivocation. None of your examples discount the natural law basis for determining the immorality of some act.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ummmm saying ALWAYS is a presumptive reach. I’ve read the church father’s have you? I don’t recall any paragraphs on anal sex. It was so common in those times, they didn’t even mention it.

Ummmm presumption does not a doctrine make.

Ummmmmm, presumption is saying that anal sex does not violate the natural law.

Are you or are you not a Catholic?

Even ignorance of the natural law does not excuse violating the natural law, since a catechism is not required to understand the natural law. It’s built into us by God through our human nature.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By definition homosexual sex is natural.

It happens in nature in nearly every species.

it’s just naturally the smaller option.

Just like red hair is the smaller natural option.

Definition of natural (adj)
Bing Dictionary
nat·u·ral náchərəl ]
of nature: relating to nature
conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature
produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, not artificial or synthetic

By this logic murder is also natural because it is found among humans.

Do you really want to go there?

Are you saying that God made us intending for us to kill each other and that’s o.k.?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your job is to run to love. Not away from sin.

I guess you don’t know who said “Go and sin no more.”

 

[underacloud]

You would see them as unnatural between members of the same sex, but not unnatural between members of the opposite sex. You know, of course, that you have to accept them as unnatural between members of the same sex. That’s in the catechism.

Looks like you are parsing the catechism to see if you can find a loophole. “Oh, the catechism doesn’t mention oral and anal sex between married partners, so it must be up to me to decide. Well then, I decide oral and anal sex between married partners is natural and therefore not a sin.”

Do you see how clever you have been?

Again, if you have a catechism reference to show what you cliam, offer it. You say here that I have to accept it as it is in the catechism. You then contradict yourself and say that it is not actually addressed.

Anyway, as per my previous posts, I think there arguments have been made now. We will not convince each other, and other observers can consider the views put forward. Better yet, they could actually look into some of the works by moral theologians in this area and what they have to say.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ummmm saying ALWAYS is a presumptive reach. I’ve read the church father’s have you? I don’t recall any paragraphs on anal sex. It was so common in those times, they didn’t even mention it.

Ummmm presumption does not a doctrine make.

Your comments beggar belief. You are suggesting that the Church Fathers unanimously and vociferously condemned homosexual sex and yet were perfectly OK with anal sex within a marriage? Are you serious?

Many of the Church Fathers condemned all sex in its entirety. And you’re expecting me to believe that they approved of anal sex?

 

[Amandil]

So, when Abraham knew his wife was barren, and that he was shooting blanks, it was a sin for Him to bump uglies with her. Afterall, he couldn’t procreate and knew it, so to be aroused, I.E. lust by your definition was a sin.

So, God demanded Abraham sin, to bring the savior of the world’s line into play. Brilliant.

God can sin. We all outta feel some pressure lifted if your definition is right. :0|

That’s an obvious non-sequitur.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Foreplay (kissing, fondling) is one thing.

Masturbation and coming to climax is quite another.

Oral sex is a form of mutual masturbation. Do you not agree?

Well, all parties agree that it’s not OK to have oral sex to climax. But I think that all parties would also agree that all parts of the body can be licitly touched or caressed, even kissed. The fuzzy grey area is the definition of “oral sex”.

If someone has in mind something that involves thrusting (not to be too graphic – sorry), then I think clearly that is not licit foreplay. But there are lots of other things that might be classified as “oral sex”, and are not as clearly intended to produce lust.

There is a danger of legalism here. There is also, of course, a danger of rationalization.

My contribution to the conversation is to say that there is a third danger: that we lose sight of the fact that certain sex acts are intrinsically wrong. Losing sight of that would be a true tragedy, because it would seriously compromise our ability to present a plausible and consistent witness to a culture where homosexual actions are considered moral.

Advocating masturbation is weird for a Catholic.

Advocating forms of foreplay that do not incite lust is not. The question is about what types of foreplay have that characteristic.

 

[fpt]

If the fiancée does not want to be touched, sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want to receive the masculinity of her future husband, she is not capable to enter into the marriage.

If the fiancé does not want to be touched, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want to receive the feminity of his future wife, he is not capable to enter into the marriage.

The right on the body, the right of the body, the right to the body, the conjugal debt, the conjugal sexual rights, the conjugal sexual obligations, the mutual, reciprocal and bilateral donation of sexed and sexual bodies (to take, to receive, to give, to do - to kiss, to massage, to lick, to suck, to caresse, to touch -, to act, to donate), the fact of making one flesh, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation (activity and passivity)??? The right of caresses, the obligation of caresses, the duty of caresses, the Holy erotism within marriage, the fact of giving the body, and the fact of receiving the body, the Song of Songs???

In the context of marital act, the massages in human fashion, the caresses in human fashion, the kisses in human fashion, the suctions in human fashion, the touchings in human fashion, the licks in human fashion and all the stimulations (in the human fashion) on all the body of the other, even on the sexual exterior parts of the other, are morally permissible, by nature and by essence. All her body, her erogenous parts and even her external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and with tenderness by her husband; all his body, his erogenous parts and even his external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and with tenderness by his wife.

If you don’t want to be touched, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch, the marriage is not for you.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Laws of nature do not equal natural law. Your argument includes the logical falacy of equivocation. None of your examples discount the natural law basis for determining the immorality of some act.

As I said, you redefine the word natural.

you use the word natural, in the sense “of nature” then complain when “of nature” kicks your butt in the conversation.

Don’t waste my time.

That’s like calling an ad hominem just because someone calls you a liar.

 

[Amandil]

As I said, you redefine the word natural.

you use the word natural, in the sense “of nature” then complain when “of nature” kicks your butt in the conversation.

Don’t waste my time.

That’s like calling an ad hominem just because someone calls you a liar.

He’s not “redefining” the word. He’s using it according to classic philosophical and metaphysical sense.

It was modernism which redefined the word into its materialistic sense as you are using it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, if you have a catechism reference to show what you cliam, offer it. You say here that I have to accept it as it is in the catechism. You then contradict yourself and say that it is not actually addressed.

No, that’s not what I said. I said (or at least meant to say but apparently it did not come across) that natural law is covered in the catechism.

Sodomy is against the natural law. Read St. Paul in Romans if you don’t think so. Also in Corinthians.