The Purpose of Marriage

[mek42]

Fair enough.

So to answer your question, as directed by the above paradigm, “Why should sex be ordered towards procreation and unity?”

the Catholic answer is: because sex is the source of life. It is the normative way that the human person is created. And therefore it is, by necessity, ordered towards procreation. And it is wise that it is ordered towards union of man and woman…because in the entire history of human civilization, there is no better way that’s been tried and executed to raise a child, than with a man and woman bonded together for life. No. Better. Way.

I really think you have done the topic a disservice by trying to tailor it to my beliefs rather than simply answering. See, I read your explanation and conclude that homosexuality is a fine way to have unity if two people do not want to procreate. I’m pretty sure you do not intend this conclusion though.

 

[mek42]

This seems to be an incoherent position that defies logic.

Sex is the source of life. On that we are agreed, yes?

You believe that God, the Creator of the Universe, the Author of Life, has no will attached to this most magnificent act which changes the universe forever?

Really?

Only for meiotic organisms.

Where did I say that is what I believed?

You claim to be female. If I was asked to state with honesty whether I knew PRmerger at CAF to be female, I would have to answer no, because all I know is that you claim to be female. I have no reason to doubt your claims, so I would not state that I knew you to be male either. I simply do not know with the certainty I need to be able to answer in the affirmative while maintaining a sense of honesty. I hope this concrete example helps.

 

[PRmerger]

I really think you have done the topic a disservice by trying to tailor it to my beliefs rather than simply answering. See, I read your explanation and conclude that homosexuality is a fine way to have unity if two people do not want to procreate. I’m pretty sure you do not intend this conclusion though.

That’s why you can’t exclude one of the purposes of sex.

You cannot have sex if you don’t want the sex to be ordered towards procreation.

If someone here had argued: sex is ordered towards procreation OR union

then perhaps you could have argued (yes, argued, mek) that this allows homosexual sex.

But it doesn’t appear that you read my argument (yes, it is an argument) very well.

 

[PRmerger]

Only for meiotic organisms.

Fair enough. If you know any mitotic organisms who want to argue for the morality of their way to reproduce, please direct me to them.

 

[PRmerger]

Only for meiotic organisms.

Where did I say that is what I believed?

You claim to be female. If I was asked to state with honesty whether I knew PRmerger at CAF to be female, I would have to answer no, because all I know is that you claim to be female. I have no reason to doubt your claims, so I would not state that I knew you to be male either. I simply do not know with the certainty I need to be able to answer in the affirmative while maintaining a sense of honesty. I hope this concrete example helps.

Yes. It is all understood within the context of: this is what we all claim.

We need not put a disclaimer with all of our posts: But this is just my opinion. I cannot know for sure.

That would be quite tedious, don’t you think, mek?

Suffice it to say that when you offer your opinions here they are understood with the same disclaimer as anything I offer.

It’s just our thoughts and beliefs that we are presenting.

Arguments, as it were.

 

[josh987654321]

Why should sex be ordered toward procreation and unity?

To me, it makes sense. What do you think it should be?

Also, given that someone engages in premarital sex, especially when young, wouldn’t it be better, from a protection of children standpoint, for said premarital sex to be homosexual in order to not bring a child into the world outside of a marital relationship between the parents?

From a protection of children standpoint, yea maybe, but I feel it’s like saying “wouldn’t it be better for promiscuous men and women to use protection than not at all, for a protection of children standpoint?” Id say, yea i guess, but I believe they are still wrong and acting sexually immorally, Id say, they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

And I believe that especially with this line of thinking, how do they solve it? they teach people to use protection (contraceptives) thinking this will help, but all teenages hear is, “Oh, so with protection, now there is nothing wrong with it.” and than I believe that this increases the rate of promiscuity.

I read an interesting article on here when it came to Abortion, they say, that with an increase in contraceptives, there will be a decrease in abortions, when the facts actually point to the contrary, it turns out that with the increase of contraceptives, it ends up increasing the Abortion rate.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

I was not making an argument. I am asking a simple question. Why does God desire what we do sexually be ordered to procreation and unity?

I’ll give my understanding.

There are many different systems of ethics (stoicism, utilitarianism, etc.) all based around different ideas of what is morally good. One of these systems is called natural law, the name coming from a belief that its rules are built into human nature (and as we are in God’s image, placed there by God).

Natural law systems work by first inventing what’s called a catalog of goods, then by applying those goods to specific moral issues. It’s a useful method, partly because the results depend entirely on the somewhat subjective choice of what is put into and left out of the catalog, so by changing the choice you can see what happens to the morality.

Thomas Aquinas invented the most famous version of this system, and chose to include “procreation” in his catalog of goods. As a result of that choice his system draws different conclusions about sexual conduct from most if not all other systems of ethics, including other versions of natural law.

The choice of “procreation” as a moral good was for a long time held to be self-evident but it seems many people no longer find the resulting morals about condoms, gays, etc. natural.

 

[tonyrey]

Anyone who believes the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is pleasure rather than procreation fails to understand elementary biology…

 

[inocente]

Anyone who believes the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is pleasure rather than procreation fails to understand elementary biology…

Is the primary purpose of lips to stop the edges of the mouth fraying when we take in food, or for talking, or for kissing a baby?

Whatever, the purpose could not possibly be to play a trombone, so are wind and brass instruments disordered, even unto kazoos?

Many people no longer believe in these supposedly self-evident purposes.

 

[josh987654321]

A small price to pay given the violence of a lot of other special interest groups, such as pro-life extremists: “The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization active in the United States, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence. In addition to numerous property crimes, the group has committed acts of kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Opponents of equal marriage also get violent: “About 200 young people, many of them masked, pelted police lines with bottles, stones, fireworks and flares. The crowd – led bizarrely at one stage by a lone bagpiper – chased and beat up TV crews and press photographers. Police and gendarmes responded with tear gas and baton charges.” - independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-huge-gay-marriage-protest-turns-violent-in-paris-8632878.html

Whereas gay people have generally been peaceful and good natured, as our prime minister pointed out when equal marriage was made law here: *“To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs.” - José Zapatero
*

I simply believe that same sex marriage is completely the wrong way to go about fixing these things and will only advocate sexual immorality for society.

I’ll never understand why sex is the be all and end all.

I wouldn’t say “be all and end all” but I believe it’s because sexual intimacy is so unique to marriage, I believe sexual intimacy is (or should be) reserved for marriage, it’s in the consummation of marriage where a man and a woman become so intimately one.

Fine but remember we already debated interpretations of scripture in detail.

Okay, I just wanted to repeat it, because I thought maybe if you read over Matthew 19 and Mark 10 again, you might also see more than what you currently see (that is, I believe as I see, more than just divorce, but the purpose of marriage to explain why).

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. It is all understood within the context of: this is what we all claim.

We need not put a disclaimer with all of our posts: But this is just my opinion. I cannot know for sure.

That would be quite tedious, don’t you think, mek?

Suffice it to say that when you offer your opinions here they are understood with the same disclaimer as anything I offer.

It’s just our thoughts and beliefs that we are presenting.

Arguments, as it were.

Incidentally, the above sentiments are presented, much more eloquently, by Pope JPII:

Nonetheless, there are in the life of a human being many more truths which are simply believed than truths which are acquired by way of personal verification. Who, for instance, could assess critically the countless scientific findings upon which modern life is based? Who could personally examine the flow of information which comes day after day from all parts of the world and which is generally accepted as true? Who in the end could forge anew the paths of experience and thought which have yielded the treasures of human wisdom and religion? This means that the human being—the one who seeks the truth—is also the one who lives by belief.–Fides et Ratio

So, to summarize, you need not say anymore: but I’m not really sure of [A] because I haven’t acquired that knowledge by way of personal verification.

That’s understood.

When you say, “But Manila is the capital of the Philippines!” we all know that this is because you accept the word of your 4th grade social studies teacher.

There is no need to say, “All I know is that some people claim that Manila is the capital. I have never actually verified this.”

We get that. That is how all of us who seek the truth operate.

 

[josh987654321]

I’ll give my understanding.

There are many different systems of ethics (stoicism, utilitarianism, etc.) all based around different ideas of what is morally good. One of these systems is called natural law, the name coming from a belief that its rules are built into human nature (and as we are in God’s image, placed there by God).

Natural law systems work by first inventing what’s called a catalog of goods, then by applying those goods to specific moral issues. It’s a useful method, partly because the results depend entirely on the somewhat subjective choice of what is put into and left out of the catalog, so by changing the choice you can see what happens to the morality.

Thomas Aquinas invented the most famous version of this system, and chose to include “procreation” in his catalog of goods. As a result of that choice his system draws different conclusions about sexual conduct from most if not all other systems of ethics, including other versions of natural law.

The choice of “procreation” as a moral good was for a long time held to be self-evident but it seems many people no longer find the resulting morals about condoms, gays, etc. natural.

Alot of this went over my head

Is there another way you could explain it to me please? I’m not sure I understand your understanding.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Natural law systems work by first inventing what’s called a catalog of goods, then by applying those goods to specific moral issues. It’s a useful method, partly because the results depend entirely on the somewhat subjective choice of what is put into and left out of the catalog, so by changing the choice you can see what happens to the morality.

Thanks for your explanation of “Natural Law.” It’s been the most descriptive explanation that I’ve encountered so far. Most of the other explanations I’ve encountered elsewhere go with the idiom “it’s the law that’s written on your heart!” and leave it at that.

 

[inocente]

Thanks for your explanation of “Natural Law.” It’s been the most descriptive explanation that I’ve encountered so far. Most of the other explanations I’ve encountered elsewhere go with the idiom “it’s the law that’s written on your heart!” and leave it at that.

Thanks, although an expert would probably get hot under the collar with my explanation.

 

[inocente]

Alot of this went over my head

Is there another way you could explain it to me please? I’m not sure I understand your understanding.

I would probably make a mess of it, but here are some suggestions.

If you don’t know much about the various ways of reasoning ethics, a great place to start is Michael Sandel giving the opening lecture in his Justice course at Harvard, which is very entertaining and has been viewed a staggering 4.6 million times: youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

(If you get hooked, you can then watch the whole excellent course, the Harvard channel is: justiceharvard.org/watch/)

If you already know that, this thread gives recommendations for a book on natural law: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=694541

For advanced stuff Stanford is good, e.g.: plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/

Another good book is A Companion To Ethics, Singer (ed.): amazon.com/A-Companion-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0631187855

 

[tonyrey]

Anyone who believes the **primary **purpose of sexual intercourse is pleasure rather than procreation fails to understand elementary biology…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Anyone who believes the **primary **purpose of sexual intercourse is pleasure rather than procreation fails to understand elementary biology…

Is the question of “the purpose of sex” synonymous with the question of “the purpose of marriage”?

 

[mek42]

Is the question of “the purpose of sex” synonymous with the question of “the purpose of marriage”?

Since marriage, religious or civil, exists only among humans, while sex exists among the vast majority of meiotic organisms, I posit, No.

 

[tonyrey]

Is the question of “the purpose of sex” synonymous with the question of “the purpose of marriage”?

No but marriage has until very recently always been associated with procreation.

 

[josh987654321]

Is the question of “the purpose of sex” synonymous with the question of “the purpose of marriage”?

I would say, yes. Because sex is (or should be) reserved for marriage, I believe it is the sexual act where the union of a man and a woman become so intimately one and it is fulfilled in marriage when the couple consummates their union, in this way there is no holding back from either the man or the woman and it is the whole intimate self giving of one to the other.

When people seperate sex from marriage (as secular society has practically already done) I believe it undermines the purpose/fulfilment of marriage. The CCC also explains it well, I believe it turns into a “try before you buy” and in alot of cases they don’t even bother with marriage (it’s simply a title for some that holds no value at all), so it turns into a relationship where the two can never share any real intimacy because in the back of their minds, they know there is always a way out if it gets tough or another/better opportunity presents itself.

I found an article on a ninemsn feed, that was talking about how “accepting” people are of casual sex in todays society, a staggering 63% think there is nothing wrong with it, personally I find such statistics appalling and a real shame. I believe the less and less sacred our sexuality becomes, the less and less intimate any marriage or union will be.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh