Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Jaaanosik]

You don’t have to intend to beget offspring every time you engage in sex.

Either way this conversation wearies me as I have committed myself to celibacy and I am sick of the myriad ways the iniquity of heterosexuals has damaged the fabric of society and then the myriad times they blame it on LGBT people.

Please, check the CC quotes I provided earlier.
The HV says differently and this is the issue - the teaching changed going from CC to HV.

 

[Amandil]

Please, check the CC quotes I provided earlier.
The HV says differently and this is the issue - the teaching changed going from CC to HV.

No it did not. It doesn’t say you must “intend” to get pregnant, it says that the couple must be open to God’s creative act. The difference is subtle, but it is definitely distinct.

 

[underacloud]

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.

Your logic does not follow. This is why I was trying to show you directly what the Church teaches about marriage earlier - not because I believe you don’t hold to it, but because it does not support the argument you are trying to build.

Yes, sex between gay people is capable of manifesting unity. So what? As has been shown repeatedly, unity is not the sole or even primary purpose of marriage.

The Church teaches regarding the primary purpose of marriage: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children”.

And regarding the connection between the unitive and procreative: “the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

Homosexual couples are incapable of procreation and thus unsuitable for marriage (as established by God and defined by His Church). The day that the Church changes its teaching on marriage to mean any relationship capable of manifesting unity, then you will have a logical argument. But based on the current Church teaching, which will not change in principle, only a couple that is per se naturally capable of procreation is capable of contracting a Christian marriage. There is no arbitrary discrimination.

 

[Thinking10]

I’ve been teenager that would NEVER have had sex with my girlfriend if not for condoms and birth control. Nearly all my friends were the same way.

.

We may be looking at the issue from very different points of view. I have never done such a thing, not out of fear of getting someone pregnant, but because I have seen the value of reserving sexual relations for the primary purpose of reproduction, within marriage. It is because I have a positive view of marriage, not a fear of getting someone pregnant, that I have no interest in premarital sex.

 

[Thinking10]

You don’t have to intend to beget offspring every time you engage in sex.

If you are making a conscious decision to have procreative sex, you are intending to beget offspring.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Sodomy is a sexual act which violates the natural order of sexuality, irrespective of gender. What’s important to remember is that, in order for it to violate the natural order of sexuality, it has to be closed to life. Foreplay is not closed to life, it’s foreplay, used to heighten the enjoyment of both participants during the actual (properly ordered) sexual act. That is why it is okay for a married man and woman to engage in such acts, while still remaining immoral for homosexuals to engage in such acts, there is absolutely no way that homosexual acts can be properly ordered towards procreation, either before, during or after the foreplay.

Just for the sake of crazy argument here, what if you were a man who was attracted to other men, but had married a woman. Could you have a threesome and fool around another guy to “heighten the enjoyment” as long as you finished with your wife?

 

[Thinking10]

You don’t have to intend to beget offspring every time you engage in sex.

So you are doing the same thing people who use contraception are doing, but you found a loophole in the law that makes your method of avoiding conception permissible?

 

[Thinking10]

No it did not. It doesn’t say you must “intend” to get pregnant, it says that the couple must be open to God’s creative act. The difference is subtle, but it is definitely distinct.

This sounds like separating sex from procreation. The focus is entirely on how the act is done, not why it is done the way it is.

 

[Thinking10]

When you are talking about NFP, it almost sounds contradictory. It sounds as if it is being used as birth control, and has nothing to do with an intent to procreate, and at the same time, is done for purposes of procreation. It sounds like NFP and defenses of it are contradictory about how NFP relates to procreation. NFP is directed both toward and away from procreation at the same time. It sounds like it causes confusion about what its relationship is with procreation.

 

[Prodigirl]

Prodigirl,

I’ve been teenager that would NEVER have had sex with my girlfriend if not for condoms and birth control. Nearly all my friends were the same way. Couple that bit of common sense with the fact that, since the advent of the Pill and availability of condoms, non-marital sex has increased dramatically (no one denies this), and you have a pretty strong rational argument that contraception leads to promiscuity and non-marital sex – which in turn clearly increases the incidence of single motherhood and STDs.

This is not rocket science.

Or you tell me: why have STDs become more and common since condoms became available? Condoms have been available to man for a millennium, so I don’t consider it wise for me to embark on a complete study of this topic. I would say, however, that STDs seem to be more common because 1) researchers began collecting and publishing data with regard to condom use and STDs, and 2) there is not the stigma attached to STDs now, like there was even 60 years ago, so more cases are being reported to medical professionals. There is a wealth of MISinformation and DISinformation disseminated from various “morality” sources, causing couples to use condoms incorrectly or not every time they have intercourse. This is not unlike the beginning of the second half of the 19th century, when American rates of sexually transmitted diseases skyrocketed. Causes cited by historians include effects of the American Civil War, and the ignorance of prevention methods promoted by the Comstock laws. (I include the link for those who are unfamiliar: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130734/Comstock-Act ) I do not believe contraception leads to promiscuity, and I have found no scientific evidence to that effect. That also negates your claim about contraception use leading to single motherhood.

Here is some older information regarding births to single mothers: I will include a link to this information for you. As I have always maintained the the source of the problem of unwanted pregnancy includes poverty and ignorance, I believe the focus should not be on contraceptives as an evil protagonist, but instead should be on education and support of boys and girls, men and women. Today’s cultures practically require conception out of wedlock or without benefit of economic security. These are societal problems that should be addressed before we go pointing the finger at contraceptives as the culprit.

"The number of infants born to unmarried women in the United States reached an historic peak in 2007, at 1,714,643. After relative stability in the key measures of non-marital childbearing from the mid-1990s to 2002, these measures have risen sharply. The number of births rose 26% and the birth rate for unmarried women climbed 21% during 2002–2007. Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births in 2007 were to unmarried women. The recent increases in non-marital births have been widespread across race and Hispanic ethnicity groups. Adult women aged 20 and over have accounted for much of these increases. In earlier decades, references to teenage and non-marital childbearing were used interchangeably, because large proportions of unmarried mothers were teenagers. In recent years, less than one-fourth of non-marital births were to teenaged women. Despite the currently older age profile of unmarried mothers, concerns remain because their infants are at greater risk of low birthweight, preterm birth, and dying in infancy, and are more likely to live in poverty than babies born to married women.

"The historic increases in non-marital childbearing result from many factors, including substantial delays in marriage beginning with the baby-boom generation and changes in sexual activity, contraceptive effectiveness and use, and abortion. Many infants are also born to couples in cohabiting relationships: According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), about 40% of recent non-marital births were to cohabiting women . In addition, there have been attitudinal changes. The societal disapproval that unmarried mothers faced at one time has diminished sharply. With the availability of more detailed birth data for 2007 from the vital statistics system and new data from the 2006–2008 NSFG, it will be possible to monitor current trends in the behaviors and attitudes that affect fertility patterns for unmarried women and the health outcomes for their babies. ~ cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm

Thanks for your patronizing accusation that I’m irrational though. It was quite clever, and I enjoyed it. * I have not accused you of being “irrational”.*

P.S. I agree that condoms “work”. That’s not what we’re talking about. I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said there was an increase in STDs due to condom use. That is the comment I was addressing.

 

[Prodigirl]

Sorry, but for the catholicism the marriage is a natural contract and a natural institution, and the persons are the objects of this particular contract. It is a donation and a reception of persons (body, soul and heart). The donation of persons means the donation of souls, the donation of hearts and the donation of bodies. This donation has to be mutual, reciprocal, total and bilateral.The wife agrees with the fact of receiving the masculinity of her husband, the husband agrees with the fact of receiving the femininity of his wife; the wife agrees with the fact of giving her own femininity to her husband, the husband agrees with the fact of giving his own masculinity to his wife: to give and to receive.

The body of wife becomes the body of husband, the body of husband becomes the body of wife: it is the donation of bodies, for making one flesh, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation. The exchange of vows of marriage implies the donation of nudities: the wife offers / gives her own nudity to her husband, the husband offers / gives his own nudity to her wife: the right to see, to look at, to stare the nudity of the other, the obligation and the duty to show the nudity to the other, the right to receive and to take the nudity of the other, the marital debt, the conjugal sexual obligations, the conjugal sexual duties, the conjugal sexual rights, the obligation, the duty and the right to the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion. The terms of “human fashion” means in the respect of the human nature.

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???

The triptych (right / obligation / duty) stays, even if that can be seen like a odd thing. The right of the body, the right on the body and the right to the body are catholic notions, it is like that, I am sorry.

You should read all my messages of this thread for understanding **my deep thought about this topic. **

I have left Catholicism behind. You have just explained some of the reasons why.

 

[Prodigirl]

When you are talking about NFP, it almost sounds contradictory. It sounds as if it is being used as birth control, and has nothing to do with an intent to procreate, and at the same time, is done for purposes of procreation. It sounds like NFP and defenses of it are contradictory about how NFP relates to procreation. NFP is directed both toward and away from procreation at the same time. It sounds like it causes confusion about what its relationship is with procreation.

Ah, the duplicity!

 

[underacloud]

When you are talking about NFP, it almost sounds contradictory. It sounds as if it is being used as birth control, and has nothing to do with an intent to procreate, and at the same time, is done for purposes of procreation. It sounds like NFP and defenses of it are contradictory about how NFP relates to procreation. NFP is directed both toward and away from procreation at the same time. It sounds like it causes confusion about what its relationship is with procreation.

Yes…because it is. The term used in Humae Vitae is “regulation of birth”.

Catholic couples may have sex even though they specifically wish not to fall pregnant in doing so. Anyone who would tell you that Catholics must intend procreation every time they have sex does not understand the doctrine.

It is all laid out in Humanae Vitae and anyone who remains confused should read that document. You may still disagree with the doctrine, but at least you will understand it better.

 

[Thinking10]

Yes…because it is. The term used in Humae Vitae is “regulation of birth”.

Catholic couples may have sex even though they specifically wish not to fall pregnant in doing so. Anyone who would tell you that Catholics must intend procreation every time they have sex does not understand the doctrine.

It is all laid out in Humanae Vitae and anyone who remains confused should read that document. You may still disagree with the doctrine, but at least you will understand it better.

I have read Humanae Vitae multiple times. NFP is meant to avoid conception while at the same time seeking conception. It is self contradictory.

 

[underacloud]

I have read Humanae Vitae multiple times. NFP is meant to avoid conception while at the same time seeking conception. It is self contradictory.

No…there is no “seeking conception”. Catholics may have sex without the intent to conceive. There is no contradiction.

 

[Thinking10]

No…there is no “seeking conception”. Catholics may have sex without the intent to conceive. There is no contradiction.

You are choosing to have sex in a procreative manner, specifically in that manner. You are intending to conceive.

 

[Thinking10]

It it about connecting sex with procreation every time or just meeting the legal definition of sex?

 

[underacloud]

You are choosing to have sex in a procreative manner, specifically in that manner. You are intending to conceive.

No.

If I know my wife is infertile, I am having sex with her for other reasons. I have no intention to conceive.

If I know my wife may be fertile, we may choose to have sex and take a risk of an “oops baby”. Again, there is no intention to conceive, although it is a possibility. Having sex while using contraception also holds such a possibility, although you wouldn’t say that the couple intends conception, would you?

Anyway, this is now well and truly gone off on a tangent from the original purpose of the thread. If you wish to have this discussion you should start a new thread. But then, you’ve had this discussion many times already.

You say you’ve read Humanae Vitae many times. Perhaps it is time to meet with a priest who can help you understand it better, since no one yet on this forum has been able to correct your misunderstandings.

 

[Thinking10]

No.

If I know my wife may be fertile, we may choose to have sex and take a risk of an “oops baby”. Again, there is no intention to conceive, although it is a possibility. Having sex while using contraception also holds such a possibility, although you wouldn’t say that the couple intends conception, would you?

Take a risk? Isn’t it about being open to life? What is it that is being risked? How can a baby be an accident baby if you were not trying to prevent such a baby from being conceived?

 

[Thinking10]

So NFP is or is not using a loop hole to find a way to have sex while minimizing the possibility of conception? It is done for the same purposes and with the same intention as contraception. It is only because of a legal technicality that it is allowed.