This whole “in human fashion” business is totally putting me off. I mean, why not say that homosexuals could engage in foreplay “in human fashion” too? Is the phrase “in human fashion” simply a phrase used to justify an action that had been previously morally questionable?
Moreover, do I think that a wife might legitimately not want to kiss her husband
that way? Yes, I do. And I think it is verges on marital rape for a husband to use his reasoning capacities to try and convince his wife to do something she doesn’t want to do.
As opposed to the caresses of homosexuals? Are these somehow inhuman?
Okay, it is a good idea, I will make some efforts of not posting so many posts in a row.
For information:
“In the human manner” is coming from the Canon Law. What means the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act, in three moments (before, during and after).
In the canon law:
Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have
in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
**
If the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh???**
Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1° those who lack sufficient use of reason;
2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;
The essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted, conjugally sexually speaking???
3° those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
**
The essential obligations of marriage, conjugally sexually speaking???**
Can. 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.
**
Through some form of sexual cooperation, conjugally sexually speaking???**
Of course that yes that the anal sex and the oral sex are morally wrong, by nature and per se. Do we have the same acception of definitions?? That is the question???
The oral stimulation of sexual external parts of the other is not oral sex. The oral stimulation is not oral sodomy or oral masturbation. The oral sex is oral sodomy (morally wrong per se). The manual stimulation of sexual external parts of the other is not masturbation, the digital stimulation of sexual external parts of the other is not masturbation.
By nature the sexual caresse has to be practiced, only, in the sexual alterity and in the sexual complementarity, within marriage between husband and wife. The sexuality is for the marriage for one male with one female. The marital act implies sexual alterity and sexual alterity, and also foreplay, an union per se and and an after. The body of male is done for the body of female and vice versa.
