D
- Status
C
Castello
Guest
You may want to study the defined Dogmas of the ChurchWhere did you get this? Is this your creation?
Your whole post, just plain wooooow.
The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation and bringing-up of offspring. The secondary purpose is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge. (Sent. certa.) CIC 1013, Par. 1.
Read more: catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/misc/dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/
N
Nate13
Guest
Notice I used the word “inherent” multiple times. Its like a principle. Male+Female parts in the right place = inherently able to reproduce. This is incredible coming from both of you.
D
Debora123
Guest
What do you mean by “this is incredible coming from both of you?”
Am I not allowed to point out my misunderstanding of something without being responded to with sarcasm?
Anyway, it still makes no sense to me. You say “all the parts are in the right place” and “inherently able to reproduce”. And to me, it’s just like, HELLO, the UTERUS is missing - the single most important female reproductive sex organ! And I don’t see how the word “inherent” can somehow change that fact. If anything, it only adds to my confusion and moves me farther away from seeing a logical answer, as it usually does. Not sure why I even bother still.
But whatev’s, it was just a comment. I have no intention of actually getting involved in a debate that I’ve already heard all the answers to anyway.
N
Nate13
Guest
Its called using reason.Where did you get this? Is this your creation?
Your whole post, just plain wooooow.
Why don’t you explain where I am going wrong here. Why would God create a bond between a male and female as happens in sex that is so close he refers to them becoming “one body”, if sex was not reproductive? I think you are failing to understand “inherently” which is really why you don’t understand this. You have to look at the big picture and look at the norm and how things are supposed to work. Yes things go wrong such as infertility and the like but that does not change what the norm is or the inherent way things work. These are the terms I’m talking in. I’ll go through this again and then you can comment on where you think I’m going wrong.
-God created man and woman.
-Objectively (big picture) man is fertile and woman is fertile and if they have sex babies will come and they will form a unitive bond such that it ties them together, right? That is the norm and how things work unless something has unfortunately gone wrong. If something goes wrong though they still are called to act as though nothing has. Thus barren couples still have sex, and reap the benefits from doing so because their act is objectively directed properly.
-Now take away the procreativeness of sex and lets say sex was designed to not be procreative at all but you just have this act that forms this incredible bond between two people. From a designer standpoint this makes zero sense. There would be no reason for God to have created the unitive bond between a man and woman in sex if there were no possibility (I’m talking inherently no possibility) it would create children for them to raise as one body.
-Thus we reach the conclusion that there is no obvious biological or spiritual purpose for the unitive bond created from sex in human beings objectively, if sex had not been designed by God to be procreative as well.
-The opposite however does not hold true. The procreative purpose of sex has a purpose all on its own biologically unreliant on other factors, of continuing on the species.
-If we go look at animals we see this reality. There are animals that were designed so sex is inherently procreative, but does not cause a unitive bond to be formed between the male and female. In some cases you have where only the mother takes care of the young or even cases where neither the mother or father takes care of the young. They are not designed to be a family, yet the procreative purpose of sex is still valuable.
-I cannot think or find any examples in animals where their sexual organs are geared only towards forming a bond of oneness between the male and female counterparts, while at the same time being designed to never be procreative. Can you think of any examples where an animals sexual act inherently has all the feelings of oneness, but has not been designed to create and exchange biological data?
-Thus with all this in mind my point that you have two purposes to sex the unitive and the procreative. The unitive however is reliant on its existence (from a biological/designer/God creating perspective) on the procreative purpose of sex.
-There is only cause to design sex to bind two people together as one, if the act is also designed to create babies.
N
Nate13
Guest
Actually it was indignation that you would think I would believe that since I know we have talked enough on past threads for you to know I don’t think infertile people should not have sex.
It’s all from a God designs it perspective. I explained it better above in my post before this. Give me comments as I am always striving to work to be more clear.But whatev’s, it was just a comment. I have no intention of actually getting involved in a debate that I’ve already heard all the answers to anyway.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… you realize that this is the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and not the Code of Canon Law that is currently in effect (1983), don’t you?
In fact, the relevant canon here is as follows:
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
Note that marriage is ordered both to the good of the spouses and to procreation and education of offspring. No “primary” or “secondary” purpose is specified by the canons currently in effect.
D
Debora123
Guest
That wasn’t my point, and neither was I accusing you of thinking such.
I guess “God’s perspective” makes no logical sense to me. It’s nothing you can or can’t say, really. It’s the whole reasoning itself.
N
Nate13
Guest
Both purposes are equally important, but one has no cause for existence unless sex was designed to create babies in the first place. A couple that does not have children and that cannot have children is still called to perform the act as if they could though. Their act is then open to children and open to the miracles of God if He so chooses and is still directed properly and is equally fulfillingly.
N
Nate13
Guest
I looking at it from God starting from scratch and piecing us together. Unitive bond by itself makes no sense. Procreative bond by itself would make sense. Both together makes sense.
In nature you will not find a creature designed so sex is only unitive. You will find a creature where God has designed it so sex is only procreative though.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nate,
Per what I quoted from the canons, above, I think I would reply that the act of conjugal love is equally appropriate to both of the ends of marriage. In fact, canon 1061 addresses “a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.” So, I would say that the conjugal act is not ordered toward one purpose, but two.
Wow – you found Love and Responsibility an easier read than Theology of the Body? Whew…!I have read parts of Theology of the Body and have read Love and Responsibility. Also read lots of other sources. Theology of the Body was kind of dry for me and very word heavy. Love and Responsibility is the condensed version
N
Nate13
Guest
Yes its ordered towards two purposes but one only has its existence in nature because of the other. Does that make sense?
You are correct in that for humans we need to seek both because we have been given both. However we seek both equally knowing that one only exists because the other exists.
I like the step by step way it goes through it. It agrees with my engineering mind a lot easierWow – you found Love and Responsibility an easier read than Theology of the Body? Whew…!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, I see what you’re saying – intercourse, in all species, fulfills a biological function. For all animals besides humans, it exists for the sole reason of propagating the species.
However, it exists in human nature for both, and not for one primarily and the other as a side effect. For us, it is equally a means to achieve each purpose of marriage. In fact, from a philosophical / theological point of view, I think it’s valid to ask the following question: given the fact that humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation, isn’t it possible that sexual reproduction exists in order that it would be available to humans, and therefore, would be a means to achieve the unitive purpose of marriage?
In other words, sexual reproduction is not biologically necessary. In fact, some species do not exhibit it primarily (or at all). For non-human species, there is no unitive function that sexual reproduction fulfills. Given that it fulfills both purposes of marriage in humans, one might assert that it exists in the way that it does specifically because it is ordered toward the purposes of marriage!
(I know – it’s an interesting change in perspective. Nonetheless, it gives one pause for thought, don’t you think…?)
C
Castello
Guest
You do realize that the quote I provided is Sent. Certa - that means it is an infallible teaching that has not yet been raised to dogma. It is not just a Canon that can be changed.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
You really want to know were you are going wrong?
I am afraid you will not be able to understand it because it appears the natural law clouds your mind.
It seems you fail to recognize the God’s moral order.
D
Debora123
Guest
Haha, so which is it folks? Are the 2 purposes of the marital embrace equal in importance or is there one that is “more important” than the other??
Honestly, in the end, does it even really matter which one is more important than the other??
…And then some people wonder why I have such a hard time taking all this seriously or making logical sense of it.
N
Nate13
Guest
Equally important and inseparable from each other. The old way it was put makes it easy to imply that one is more important than the other, but it did not actually say so.Haha, so which is it folks? Are the 2 purposes of the marital embrace equal in importance or is there one that is “more important” than the other??
Honestly, in the end, does it even really matter which one is more important than the other??
…And then some people wonder why I have such a hard time taking all this seriously or making logical sense of it.
The point of my last few posts has been to show why the are inseparable not why one is more important than the other, which one is not.
C
Castello
Guest
Pray for your heart to take our Faith seriously. God will answer your prayer.Haha, so which is it folks? Are the 2 purposes of the marital embrace equal in importance or is there one that is “more important” than the other??
Honestly, in the end, does it even really matter which one is more important than the other??
…And then some people wonder why I have such a hard time taking all this seriously or making logical sense of it.
N
Nate13
Guest
That’s fine. I tried to explain it and I do the best I can. None of my words have connected with you or Debora at any point in the past and I think we just have different ways of thinking and approaching the World. Don’t take offense though if I don’t give your criticism much value seeing as you will not attempt to point out where you think my argument is flawed.
D
Debora123
Guest
Let’s take 2 different scenarios:
Couple #1 - This couple wants to get married. However, due to some birth defects regarding his genitalia, the man is completely and permanently unable to get an erection in order to have sex. The couple will not be able to have sex, but they plan on adopting and raising many children.
Couple #2 - This couple wants to get married. However, due to a serious disease, the woman was required to have a total hysterectomy, leaving her completely and permanently sterile. The couple are still able to have sex, but do not plan on adopting and raising any children.
Now, the laws of God would not allow couple #1 to marry, but would allow couple #2 to marry.
What throws me off is when people say that the purpose of a marriage is first and foremost to provide an environment for raising children. If this were really the case then it makes no sense to me why couple #1 cannot get married, and couple #2 can. Couple #1 would get married to raise a family, couple #2 would get married to be together and satisfy their sexuality. But guess which couple is allowed to be married!
Couple #1 - This couple wants to get married. However, due to some birth defects regarding his genitalia, the man is completely and permanently unable to get an erection in order to have sex. The couple will not be able to have sex, but they plan on adopting and raising many children.
Couple #2 - This couple wants to get married. However, due to a serious disease, the woman was required to have a total hysterectomy, leaving her completely and permanently sterile. The couple are still able to have sex, but do not plan on adopting and raising any children.
Now, the laws of God would not allow couple #1 to marry, but would allow couple #2 to marry.
What throws me off is when people say that the purpose of a marriage is first and foremost to provide an environment for raising children. If this were really the case then it makes no sense to me why couple #1 cannot get married, and couple #2 can. Couple #1 would get married to raise a family, couple #2 would get married to be together and satisfy their sexuality. But guess which couple is allowed to be married!
- Status