Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

I know you don’t intend it, but that comment just sounds rather self-righteous. If you are capable of living up to your moral convictions 100% of the time, more power to you. The rest of us sin sometimes.

For your information, I saw the value of reserving sexual relations for marriage when I was a teenager too. I saw the value, but I didn’t value myself or my girlfriend. I sinned.

But I would have been much less likely to sin in that way, if condoms and birth control hadn’t existed. I would have feared the consequences.

 

[Thinking10]

I know you don’t intend it, but that comment just sounds rather self-righteous. If you are capable of living up to your moral convictions 100% of the time, more power to you. The rest of us sin sometimes.

For your information, I saw the value of reserving sexual relations for marriage when I was a teenager too. I saw the value, but I didn’t value myself or my girlfriend. I sinned.

But I would have been much less likely to sin in that way, if condoms and birth control hadn’t existed. I would have feared the consequences.

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant to illustrate possible differences in our point of view on contraception.

What I meant was that we might be seeing the issue of contraception within marriage differently. I see that promoting marriage, and creating a positive supportive environment for marriage and child bearing will be far more beneficial than trying to eliminate every deviation from optimal behavior.

If marriage and childbearing are something that people are seeking willfully, and they have the environment around them to support our ideal of marriage, condoms aren’t going to ruin their marriage. The condoms may be used at some point during their marriage, but in a positive environment, where a good marriage is what couples are aiming for, we shouldn’t have to worry about them getting lost in pleasure at the expense of their duty.

That is what I was trying to illustrate. We shouldn’t be focused on what we are fighting, but on what it is that we are trying to build.

 

[underacloud]

Take a risk? Isn’t it about being open to life?

“Ordered per se to procreation” is the term used. It is paraphrased by some to mean “open to life”, but is is more complex than that. It is based on the purpose of sex and respect of the natural law that the purpose is not directly frustrated.

What is it that is being risked?

A pregnancy you didn’t want at that time. The level of risk one takes will be inversely proportionate to how much they do not want a pregnancy.

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.

“Using a loop hole” and “legal technicality” is inflamatory language that doesn’t help. While you retain such a prejudice, you will never be able to understand this doctrine. You seem merely intend on building a strawman.

If you have a sincere interest in understanding the doctrine, as I suggested I think it’s time you met with a priest to discuss.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

What you have said rings true. And it is the reason my wife and I abandoned NFP.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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 bolded portion is exactly what I deny. Sex between gay people CANNOT manifest the relevant kind of unity, which is the “reciprocal self-giving of the spouses” (USCCB). It cannot do this precisely because the sexual acts involved do not involve reciprocal self-giving. (Think about these acts, and it should be clear why.)

The fact that they do not involve reciprocal self-giving is precisely why they should not be allowed between married couples. Foreplay should be allowed, certainly! But the type of foreplay that simulates sodomy should not be allowed.

If it WAS allowed, we would have to say that it DID manifest reciprocal self-giving. This would put a huge hole in our teaching that gay sex is wrong. It would not, however, logically destroy the teaching against gay sex – you’re right about that.

But if you’ve been paying attention, Jaaansonik has said that he/she does not believe that oral sex to orgasm is morally wrong within a marriage. Given THAT view, the Church’s teaching against gay sex would be illogical.

So I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with Church teaching. I’m trying to defend it. But I don’t defend sodomy within marriage (neither does the Church), and I certainly don’t defend the arbitrary bias against gay people that Jaaansonik seems committed to.

 

[Thinking10]

But if you’ve been paying attention, Jaaansonik has said that he/she does not believe that oral sex to orgasm is morally wrong within a marriage. Given THAT view, the Church’s teaching against gay sex would be illogical.

That is the problem with getting focused in too closely on individual acts, rather than unions as a whole. If marriage, as a union, is viewed as procreative rather than individual acts within that union, you could never conclude that the Church’s teachings are illogical.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant to illustrate possible differences in our point of view on contraception.

What I meant was that we might be seeing the issue of contraception within marriage differently. I see that promoting marriage, and creating a positive supportive environment for marriage and child bearing will be far more beneficial than trying to eliminate every deviation from optimal behavior.

If you remove the guns from the house, it’s less likely someone will get killed. If you remove contraception from the picture, it’s less likely someone will be unchaste. Tremendously less likely. That’s my point.

 

[Thinking10]

If you remove the guns from the house, it’s less likely someone will get killed. If you remove contraception from the picture, it’s less likely someone will be unchaste. Tremendously less likely. That’s my point.

I am only talking about contraception within marriage.

 

[underacloud]

The bolded portion is exactly what I deny. Sex between gay people CANNOT manifest the relevant kind of unity, which is the “reciprocal self-giving of the spouses” (USCCB). It cannot do this precisely because the sexual acts involved do not involve reciprocal self-giving. (Think about these acts, and it should be clear why.)

It is not clear. As per many other threads on this topic, many faithful Catholics hold that acts of foreplay between husband and wife - including oral stimulation - are acts of self-giving to each other. They properly serve a unitive purpose, while retaining the procreative purpose (in being followed by intercourse).

If it WAS allowed, we would have to say that it DID manifest reciprocal self-giving.

Yes. Which I believe it does, as above.

This would put a huge hole in our teaching that gay sex is wrong.

No, it doesn’t. Gay sex is already exlcuded because it is not, cannot be, procreative. This discussion of the unitive dimension of particular acts is entirely moot.

But if you’ve been paying attention, Jaaansonik has said that he/she does not believe that oral sex to orgasm is morally wrong within a marriage. Given THAT view, the Church’s teaching against gay sex would be illogical.

If that’s what Jaaansonik is saying (I haven’t been directly following) it would be wrong. Obviously oral sex to completion cannot be procreative and is thus excluded (for heterosexual married couples as much as for gay couples).

 

[Thinking10]

It is not clear. As per many other threads on this topic, many faithful Catholics hold that acts of foreplay between husband and wife - including oral stimulation - are acts of self-giving to each other. They properly serve a unitive purpose, while retaining the procreative purpose (in being followed by intercourse).

If the procreative purpose of sex is what must never be avoided, why is deliberately charting and planning so as to avoid the procreative part of sex allowable?

 

[underacloud]

If the procreative purpose of sex is what must never be avoided, why is deliberately charting and planning so as to avoid the procreative part of sex allowable?

They can be avoided. They cannot be deliberately frustrated.

Grab a copy of Humanae Vitae and go meet with a priest. I don’t think I can help you any further in correcting your misunderstandings.

 

[Thinking10]

With NFP, the union of male and female cells isn’t disrupted. With calculation, it is simply prevented. The same can be said for barriers. They don’t take apart a union. They simply prevent that union from happening.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

With NFP, the union of male and female cells isn’t disrupted. With calculation, it is simply prevented. The same can be said for barriers. They don’t take apart a union. They simply prevent that union from happening.

The action of depositing seed in a woman’s vagina is not the type of thing that prevents pregnancy. Neither is the action of charting the type of thing that prevents pregnancy (just as me – my wife and I charted for years, and kept popping out kids). The action of putting on a condom IS the type of thing that prevents pregnancy.

 

[underacloud]

They are different, as below…

With NFP, the union of male and female cells isn’t disrupted. With calculation, it is simply prevented.

Sex, and thus possible conception, is avoided.

The same can be said for barriers. They don’t take apart a union. They simply prevent that union from happening.

Sex is not avoided, but conception is deliberately frustrated.

Grab a copy of Humanae Vitae and go meet with a priest.

 

[Thinking10]

The action of depositing seed in a woman’s vagina is not the type of thing that prevents pregnancy. Neither is the action of charting the type of thing that prevents pregnancy (just as me – my wife and I charted for years, and kept popping out kids). The action of putting on a condom IS the type of thing that prevents pregnancy.

Charting, thermometers and others tools are not being used to prevent something from happening? The whole goal is to prevent you, as a couple, from doing an action that would otherwise result in pregnancy.

What is the purpose then, of charting and everything else that goes into NFP? Mere curiosity?

 

[Thinking10]

Sex is not avoided, but conception is deliberately frustrated.

Both NFP and barriers are designed to prevent something from taking place that would, in the normal course of things, take place.

Up until recently, married couples did not have the scientific knowledge to know when to avoid conception. Naturally, they had sex when the wife was fertile. NFP is designed to prevent this otherwise natural occurrence, having sex when the wife is fertile, from happening. It is not really much different than using barriers to prevent conception, which would otherwise occur without the barrier, from happening.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Charting, thermometers and others tools are not being used to prevent something from happening? The whole goal is to prevent you, as a couple, from doing an action that would otherwise result in pregnancy.

What is the purpose then, of charting and everything else that goes into NFP? Mere curiosity?

My wife and I chart so that we know where we are in her cycle. This is interesting for a variety of purposes, including the fact that we know when she will get – errrr – more frisky. We do chart so that we can make an informed decision, yes. But this action is nothing like putting on a condom.

You see, despite charting, we still feel desire for each other. So IF we are to avoid, we have to show self-discipline. This is completely unlike the condom scenario. And sometimes we throw caution to the wind, and enjoy each other’s bodies completely sans latex. If a kid comes, we knew that was a possibility.

 

[Thinking10]

My wife and I chart so that we know where we are in her cycle. This is interesting for a variety of purposes, including the fact that we know when she will get – errrr – more frisky. We do chart so that we can make an informed decision, yes. But this action is nothing like putting on a condom.

You see, despite charting, we still feel desire for each other. So IF we are to avoid, we have to show self-discipline. This is completely unlike the condom scenario. And sometimes we throw caution to the wind, and enjoy each other’s bodies completely sans latex. If a kid comes, we knew that was a possibility.

Could you do NFP without any sort of scientific tools?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Could you do NFP without any sort of scientific tools?

All my wife and I use is her finger and a chart. I suppose we use a pen too. Nothing else.

 

[underacloud]

Both NFP and barriers are designed to prevent something from taking place that would, in the normal course of things, take place.

Yes, and one does it be avoiding sex, while the other does it by deliberately frustrating sex. Again, it’s perfectly fine to have sex that is not going to (or is unlikely to and unintended to) result in conception. It’s that way this is acheived that Humanae Vitae addresses.

So again, grab a copy and go meet with a priest.