Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
Question: do you think there is a moral difference between killing a person (in euthanasia) and simply letting them die (not putting them on life support)?
Click to expand...
Question: do you think there is a moral difference between killing a baby and simply letting it die of exposure?
 
Jaaanosik said:
If NFP let the nature its course then there would be no observation.
For example taking a temperature reading daily is like treating the conception as a disease.
There was no other reason to measure temperature daily before. Only when some NFP methods showed up and treat the conception that way.
Click to expand...
Yes. The person is active in gathering information for NFP to inform them of which actions to take. Refraining from sex for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancy is an active decision, not passive.

Letting nature take its course would mean ceasing the actions required to determine fertility at a given time and making informed choices to have sex will little possibility of conception occurring. If you are actively charting fertility and taking active steps to avoid conception, whether you use a chart or a condom, you are actively avoiding conception.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Question: do you think there is a moral difference between killing a baby and simply letting it die of exposure?
Click to expand...
Given the baby could readily have been provided with care, the difference in that example is small. Did you wish to suggest any similarity with euthanasia??
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Question: do you think there is a moral difference between killing a baby and simply letting it die of exposure?
Click to expand...
It’s not natural to let a baby die of exposure! :eek: That would be like saying is there a moral difference between killing fertility and letting a malignant tumour eat your womb!
 
Thinking10 said:
Yes. The person is active in gathering information for NFP to inform them of which actions to take. Refraining from sex for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancy is an active decision, not passive.

Letting nature take its course would mean ceasing the actions required to determine fertility at a given time and making informed choices to have sex will little possibility of conception occurring. If you are actively charting fertility and taking active steps to avoid conception, whether you use a chart or a condom, you are actively avoiding conception.
Click to expand...
Letting nature take its course “in the broad” as you suggest is irrelevant. We are not required to live out life in ignorance - nothing especially natural about that for highly intelligent and self-aware creatures. We may know our bodies, and for some this is possible without trying, for others, very difficult. A woman knows about menopause. A woman knows when menstruation starts.
 
Only, for information on the topic: ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-distinction-between-ordinary-foreplay-and-sexual-acts/

Here, for the first time, this “particular theologian” seems to agree with the fact that it is totally moral and normal, for the wife and the husband in the marriage and in the context of the marital act, of touching in the erotic way, the erogenous top parts of the other and the non sexual parts, in the human fashion, in love and in the tenderness. The touchings, the fingerings, the kissings, the suctions, the massages, the caresses, the strokes, the lickings, the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations, the oral stimulations… are moral , but only on the top parts and on non-sexual organs. Could he give us the white list and the black list???**

The right of seeing, of watching and of staring the nudity of the other. The right of touching, in different manners in the human fashion, all the body of the spouse, but not the exterior sexual organs.

Here, his intellectual approach is against: the temporality and the phenomenology of the marital act, the female sexology, the male sexology, the sexology of the marital act, the good exception of definition of masturbation, the wrong understanding of the reality and the objectivity of the marital act.

It is so sad and this is a sad understanding.
 
fpt said:
Only, for information on the topic: ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-distinction-between-ordinary-foreplay-and-sexual-acts/

Here, for the first time, this “particular theologian” seems to agree with the fact that it is totally moral and normal, for the wife and the husband in the marriage and in the context of the marital act, of touching in the erotic way, the erogenous top parts of the other and the non sexual parts, in the human fashion, in love and in the tenderness. The touchings, the fingerings, the kissings, the suctions, the massages, the caresses, the strokes, the lickings, the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations, the oral stimulations… are moral , but only on the top parts and on non-sexual organs. Could he give us the white list and the black list???**

The right of seeing, of watching and of staring the nudity of the other. The right of touching, in different manners in the human fashion, all the body of the spouse, but not the exterior sexual organs.

Here, his intellectual approach is against: the temporality and the phenomenology of the marital act, the female sexology, the male sexology, the sexology of the marital act, the good ***acception ***of definition of masturbation, the wrong understanding of the reality and the objectivity of the marital act.

It is so sad and this is a sad understanding.
Click to expand...
A big work should be done by the catholic priests and co for stopping those crazy thoughts.
 
fpt said:
Only, for information on the topic: ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-distinction-between-ordinary-foreplay-and-sexual-acts/

Here, for the first time, this “particular theologian” seems to agree with the fact that it is totally moral and normal, for the wife and the husband in the marriage and in the context of the marital act, of touching in the erotic way, the erogenous top parts of the other and the non sexual parts, in the human fashion, in love and in the tenderness. The touchings, the fingerings, the kissings, the suctions, the massages, the caresses, the strokes, the lickings, the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations, the oral stimulations… are moral , but only on the top parts and on non-sexual organs. Could he give us the white list and the black list???**

The right of seeing, of watching and of staring the nudity of the other. The right of touching, in different manners in the human fashion, all the body of the spouse, but not the exterior sexual organs.

A correction:

Here, his intellectual approach is against: the temporality and the phenomenology of the marital act, the female sexology, the male sexology, the sexology of the marital act, the good exception of definition of masturbation, **the good **understanding of the reality and the objectivity of the marital act.

It is so sad and this is a sad understanding.
Click to expand...
 
A provocative question is: the opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act.

The natural moral regime of opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act: the natural moral regime of the sexed and sexual validity of marriage and the natural moral regime of the use of the marital act.

What is a good wife, sexually speaking? What is a good husband, sexually speaking?

The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, rights to the body, rights on the body, rights of the body, the sexual donation, the sexual reception, the sexual cooperation, the sacrifices and the efforts and the privileges about the conjugal sexuality, in the details with all the subtleties???
 
Jaaanosik said:
There might be some very tough conditions when under the double effect principle it would be merciful.
Click to expand...
No, never. Euthanasia is identical to abortion in this respect (ie. the morality issues). I may relieve pain (Intention) but I may not make the decision that I need to act to cause death for the good of the patient. Murder is never good.

Double effect cannot justify murder, though it may assist you to determine that a high risk act (high dose pain killers where required) is moral.
 
Wow, this thread has been derailed.

If homosexual sex, namely anal sex between men has been touted as bad because of health concerns, why is it suddenly okay between married heterosexual couples? The same health concerns apply.
 
Sarcelle said:
Wow, this thread has been derailed.

If homosexual sex, namely anal sex between men has been touted as bad because of health concerns, why is it suddenly okay between married heterosexual couples? The same health concerns apply.
Click to expand...
Anal sex is a particular act, homosexual sex is not the same thing - it’s sexual activity of any kind between persons of the same sex, eg mutual masturbation qualifies.

Anal sex is not ok for anyone. I don’t believe anyone said otherwise.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Then why wouldn’t the act of oral sex be wrong regardless of the marital status of the actors?
Click to expand...
There is nothing in any document that says it is NOT wrong. Just because a supposed moral theologian wrote a book does not make it canon law or acceptable. Each act within the conjugal act has to be directed toward union and procreation. The excuse for oral sex is that either the man cannot achieve an erection any other way or that the female has to have this performed in order to have an orgasm. And regardless, oral foreplay is still oral sex. It does not matter that the husband eventually ejaculates in the vagina.
 
cjforJesus said:
There is nothing in any document that says it is NOT wrong. Just because a supposed moral theologian wrote a book does not make it canon law or acceptable. Each act within the conjugal act has to be directed toward union and procreation. The excuse for oral sex is that either the man cannot achieve an erection any other way or that the female has to have this performed in order to have an orgasm. And regardless, oral foreplay is still oral sex. It does not matter that the husband eventually ejaculates in the vagina.
Click to expand...
It is skating a very very thin line to claim it is permissible as foreplay.
 
In the context of the marital act, foreplay and sexual foreplay are rights, obligations and duties to receive and to give. Each member of couple has a moral right to ask to receive many intimate foreplay in the human fashion, in the love and the tenderness.
 
Again!!!

A provocative question is: the opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act.
The natural moral regime of opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act: the natural moral regime of the sexed and sexual validity of marriage and the natural moral regime of the use of the marital act.
What is a good wife, sexually speaking? What is a good husband, sexually speaking?

The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, rights to the body, rights on the body, rights of the body, the sexual donation, the sexual reception, the sexual cooperation, the sexual sacrifices and the sexual efforts and the sexual privileges about the conjugal act, in the details with all the subtleties???

The right to touch, to kiss, to massage, to lick, to suck, to caresse, to see, to look at, to state, to hear, to listen the nudity of the other???
 
fpt said:
Again!!! with a correction

A provocative question is: the opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act.
The natural moral regime of opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act: the natural moral regime of the sexed and sexual validity of marriage and the natural moral regime of the use of the marital act.
What is a good wife, sexually speaking? What is a good husband, sexually speaking?

The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, rights to the body, rights on the body, rights of the body, the sexual donation, the sexual reception, the sexual cooperation, the sexual sacrifices and the sexual efforts and the sexual privileges about the conjugal act, in the details with all the subtleties???

The right to touch, to kiss, to massage, to lick, to suck, to caresse, to see, to look at,** to stare,** to hear, to listen the nudity of the other???
Click to expand...
 
fpt said:
Again!!!

A provocative question is: the opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act.
The natural moral regime of opposability of the modus operandi of the marital act: the natural moral regime of the sexed and sexual validity of marriage and the natural moral regime of the use of the marital act.
What is a good wife, sexually speaking? What is a good husband, sexually speaking?

The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, rights to the body, rights on the body, rights of the body, the sexual donation, the sexual reception, the sexual cooperation, the sexual sacrifices and the sexual efforts and the sexual privileges about the conjugal act, in the details with all the subtleties???

The right to touch, to kiss, to massage, to lick, to suck, to caresse, to see, to look at, to state, to hear, to listen the nudity of the other???
Click to expand...
In other words “If it feels good do it” lol. The duty of a husband is to respect his wife’s body as a temple of the Holy Spirit.The same goes for a wife. The mentality of “anything goes” may lead to some serious repercussions especially when a couple whose sex life has become routine and boring engages in practices the bible has considered depraved. When people are engaged in sexual intercourse part of the physiology leads to a sort of dulling of the mind and often times being overcome by lust and the seeking of the pleasure of orgasm people could seek eroticism just for its own sake.
 
What are the sexual rights of each one on the body of the other that are opposable to the other, in respecting the natural moral order in the context of the marital act? Is there a list? If yes, what are those sexual rights? If not, why?

In my humble opinion the list of sexual rights on the body of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is still existing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top