Should homosexual behaviour be criminalised?

[SMGS127]

Why does ejaculation have to occur in the vagina? If it is because of procreation, then again, I ask, why should it matter if the couple is incapable of having children?

Because the marital act must always ‘conclude’ (conclusion is defined as ejaculation, although the Church in no way means this to argue that the marital act cannot continue past ejaculation) in an act open to new life. This is part of the reason (but not the only reason) that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful, because the acts themselves are closed to new life by nature of being between two members of the same sex.

Now to address your question more directly, an infertile couple can still have sex that, by its nature, is open to life despite there being little or even no possibility of actual life being given through such an act. The openness to life is not defined by one’s biological ability to produce such life, but rather by the marital acts they choose to engage in. One may engage in any non-degrading, consensual, private sexual act as foreplay or “afterplay” with their spouse, but vaginal sex must occur at some point (the unitive nature of sex) and vaginal ejaculation must occur as part of sex (the procreative nature of sex).

This is also why permanently impotent men (e.g. cannot get erect, cannot penetrate, or cannot ejaculate) cannot validly marry if they have such a condition at the time of marriage, because they would be unable to engage in a procreative marital act. The same holds true for permanently impotent women (e.g. those who cannot have vaginal sex from the point of marriage or before to the end of their life for whatever physical reason), though their impotency is significantly less common and usually treatable even when it does occur (and thus not permanent).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thou shalt not commit adultery. I think that would cover rape. And if you really think about it, most sins ARE covered in the 10 Commandments.

Look in Leviticus. The prescribed reaction for unmarried sex included paying the father for damages and marriage or killing the couple. I can see one inferring from this that the Bible discourages rape.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Chizzywinks]

Because the marital act must always ‘conclude’ (conclusion is defined as ejaculation, although the Church in no way means this to argue that the marital act cannot continue past ejaculation) in an act open to new life. This is part of the reason (but not the only reason) that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful, because the acts themselves are closed to new life by nature of being between two members of the same sex.

Now to address your question more directly, an infertile couple can still have sex that, by its nature, is open to life despite there being little or even no possibility of actual life being given through such an act. The openness to life is not defined by one’s biological ability to produce such life, but rather by the marital acts they choose to engage in. One may engage in any non-degrading, consensual, private sexual act as foreplay or “afterplay” with their spouse, but vaginal sex must occur at some point (the unitive nature of sex) and vaginal ejaculation must occur as part of sex (the procreative nature of sex).

This is also why permanently impotent men (e.g. cannot get erect, cannot penetrate, or cannot ejaculate) cannot validly marry if they have such a condition at the time of marriage, because they would be unable to engage in a procreative marital act. The same holds true for permanently impotent women (e.g. those who cannot have vaginal sex from the point of marriage or before to the end of their life for whatever physical reason), though their impotency is significantly less common and usually treatable even when it does occur (and thus not permanent).

So you mean to tell me that if a man is impotent, and yet is with a woman and they want to get married regardless because they love each other and want to have a life together, they cannot have a valid marriage in the Church? Wow… that right there really makes me question the Catholic faith. I think I need to ask a priest about that one.

 

[SMGS127]

So you mean to tell me that if a man is impotent, and yet is with a woman and they want to get married regardless because they love each other and want to have a life together, they cannot have a valid marriage in the Church? Wow… that right there really makes me question the Catholic faith. I think I need to ask a priest about that one.

Note that I said the phrase permanently impotent. It has to be a case where doctors can say with 100% certainty that he will never gain full function of whichever step(s) he is impotent in (erection, penetration, ejaculation). Also, why would that make you question your faith? I’m honestly curious. A marriage requires a complete marital act to be consummated; surely you know that at the very least?

Also, could you not say the same for a same-sex couple? “If two women want to get married because they love each other and want to have a life together, they cannot have a valid marriage in the Church?” That situation would be barred for different reasons than the one discussed above, but romantic love is not the only requirement (nor even a requirement at all) for a marriage. The Sacrament is there for a specific purpose; marrying “to be happy” is only a recent development across all of history. There are many, many people barred from marriage for various reasons, and the Church has good reason to do so.

I do encourage you to speak to a Priest as you have stated though. I have not intended to make you question your Faith over something like this! Hopefully he can quell your worries on the issue.

 

[Chizzywinks]

I’m sorry, but I DO think “romantic love” is the number one reason to get married. My husband and I fell in love and got married. We knew when we got married that there would be no children, as I am too old AND, yes…had a tubal ligation after my last child.

Guess that, along with other reasons that I’m not going to get into here, makes my marriage “invalid”.

Does the fact that I cannot have children equate my marriage to the civil union of a SS couple? Marriage is not just about procreation. Not by a long shot.

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t think you understand what I posted. Let me try again.

First off, your tubal ligation does not affect your potency, which is what is important. Your fertility is irrelevant to the validity of your marriage.

Secondly, any event that occurs AFTER a marital ceremony cannot in any way “invalidate” a marriage. So let’s say that a husband of 2 years has a freak accident and loses the ability to function below the waist, including sexually. His marriage is still and always will be valid, even though he is no longer potent. Another example; if a woman develops vaginal spasms 5 years into a marriage and can no longer have sex with her husband for the rest of her life, they are still validly married until one dies. Nothing can ever invalidate a valid marriage EXCEPT a decision by a bishop about two spouses who have not consummated their marriage. After a marriage is consummated, it exists until death and cannot be broken by any person on Earth.

Thirdly, I never said romantic love wasn’t important! I just said it wasn’t necessary; arranged marriages done with full consent of the spouses involved are still valid even though there is no romantic love, at least not at first. This is still a common occurrence in many cultures. It also isn’t the only important thing. Potency is very important, because one needs to be able to perform the marital act in order to be married due to the unitive-procreative nature of marriage. Again, one does not need to be fertile; they just need to be able to engage in a specific marital act that is done with an openness to life. This openness to life (which again, does not refer to fertility) is also important, as it necessitates a focus on the true nature, responsibilities, and love of God’s gift of the Sacrament of Matrimony to us.

 

[cshuvani92]

This is absolutely incorrect in every way. Ejaculation must happen inside the vagina. Outside of that, all sexual activity both before and after ejaculation (including any further stimulation, whether manual, oral, or otherwise performed for the purpose of the wife to reach orgasm) is licit, as long as it is done between two validly married individuals, is performed with consent from both spouses, and the sexual activity does not, in any way, degrade the integrity of either spouse.

I have never heard it explained that way. I grew up learning both inside my home and parish that any sexual activity that does not involve an attempt to create life is illicit and frowned upon.

 

[cshuvani92]

Hmmm…ok, so then I guess I should not be having sex with my husband, as I am post menopausal and cannot have anymore kids. Interesting.

I suppose that also means elderly couples should no longer enjoy each other sexually…

I didn’t say I agreed. That is just what I have been taught. Sexual practices don’t concern me much as I have been celibate my whole life and will continue to be until death.

 

[SMGS127]

I have never heard it explained that way. I grew up learning both inside my home and parish that any sexual activity that does not involve an attempt to create life is illicit and frowned upon.

To be fair, as long as ejaculation occurs during vaginal intercourse, the entire sexual act is done with an attempt to create life, regardless of whether the rest of the sex involved vaginal intercourse .

 

[EIF5A]

To be fair, as long as ejaculation occurs during vaginal intercourse, the entire sexual act is done with an attempt to create life, regardless of whether the rest of the sex involved vaginal intercourse .

What about natural family planning? It seeks to prevent the creating of life…

 

[SMGS127]

What about natural family planning? It seeks to prevent the creating of life…

In a way, but not entirely. The gist of Natural Family Planning is that you are still having sex open to new life; if God were to want to grant you a child and make NFP ‘fail,’ you would not be artificially putting up blocks and saying that you won’t accept such a child. This also goes to the infertile example; none of their sex CAN result in new life, but it must still be OPEN to new life. The requirements of the marital act insist that one must not reject new life in any possible way, but they do leave open the allowance that one may try to avoid pregnancy through natural means if done for the benefit of the future children (e.g. low income, 2 working parents, etc.). If someone performed NFP for the sole purpose that they “didn’t want children,” that would probably be illicit.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Why does ejaculation have to occur in the vagina? If it is because of procreation, then again, I ask, why should it matter if the couple is incapable of having children?

That’s why God killed Onan.