I agree that each instance of sexual intercourse need not be had with the intention of procreating (and I didn’t suggest otherwise). But you’d also be aware that you’ve not answered the question I asked. Let me put the question another way: “Does the presence of sperm in your ejaculate **suggest **to you any particular relationship-context in which the act of sexual intercourse might naturally belong?”
I guess normal means it is normal to want to do it and that it is commonly done. I agree with that. I don’t know of any health benefit - I think what they are saying is that it is not “unhealthy”. Medically speaking, I suspect that is true too, if the act does not become consuming or a substitute for ordinary social interaction. But I note your view that masturbation is a moral act (contrary to the longstanding Catholic position).
This is illuminating. But does it mean that animal behaviour can tell us anything about what is moral for humans?
I have no issue serving properly behaved customers in a restaurant. Holding hands and a peck on the cheek would not breach that test in my mind. And I very much doubt that the Catholic Church would regard serving such a couple as problematic.
How has he not answered the question? The presence of sperm in ejaculate only shows that reproduction is one natural purpose of sex, not that it is the only one. Likewise the presence of amylase in saliva only indicates that eating is one natural use of the mouth, not that it is the only one.
It means that animal behaviour can tell us something about what is natural.
No, there are genuine and well proven health benefits to regular orgasms. Lower risks of prostate cancer, cystitis or diabetes, for example. Obviously if you are married, or at least in a stable long term relationship, that needn’t mean masturbation, but if not an encounter with Pamela Handerson is obviously safer than promiscuous one night stands.
He did not answer the question I asked. Neither did you.
The natural purpose of sperm is probably the same in most animals, I’ll give you that!
So if Adam and Eve didn’t choose to disobey then sin would not have entered the world? Or could it have entered by any later human who disobeyed? Since God created Adam and Eve from scratch he must have programmed then with certain personalities, intelligence, propensities etc. since they didn’t grow up with inherited genes or any human nurture. Therefore, whatever they did could not really have been a free will choice since they were essentially robots.
Then you are not making your question clear. What you wrote was:
This has been answered.
So you take what is natural as a guide to what is moral, but only when it agrees with your preconceptions?The natural purpose of sperm is probably the same in most animals, I’ll give you that!
If they are not doing anything then it won’t cause scandal and serving food to them wouldn’t be supporting it.
It could have entered later if humans later chose it.
So according to your logic it is the fact that the penis ejaculates which points to its function, because everytime a man orgasms he ejaculates sperm, and this points to its function. Well according to this logic, a woman’s orgasm has nothing to do with procreation, as there is no procreative function to it. In fact a womans clitoris is designed for nothing else to be aroused during sexual conduct, unlike the male penis, which is clearly and purely procreative. So based upon this logic, it seems that male homosexual activity is disordered, but female to female sexual activity is perfectly ordered, since they are both using parts that are purely superfluous to procreative activity. The clitoris seems to be there simply for the woman’s pleasure. In fact, there does not even need to be vaginal penetration to stimulate the clitoris, so it is purely and totally superfluous to procreative activity.
By the Catholic teaching which you profess, it is grave matter and intrinsically evil to masturbate. It separates the marital act from both its procreative and its unitive significances. It cultivates an attitude of selfishness and individualism. It engages an unreasonable lust that often satiates itself with pornography, abuse of the opposite sex, and deviant sexual behaviors and fetishes. And, like contraception, it is shockingly common, especially among Christians. It is the skeleton that practically everyone has in his closet, and may be #1 or #2 on the list, next to invalid marriages, why many people are receiving Holy Communion unworthily.
That is what they teach no disagreement with you on that, I just happen to think that the Catholic Church is wrong about a whole lot of things and has historically been wrong about all kinds of things. For example their slaughter of the French Cathars, their murder of Giordorno Bruno, the Spanish Inquisition, The outright slaughter of Native Americans in central and South America, The Church ordering that any Catholic who joins the Free Masons should be executed. Oh yeah, when the Church outlawed the publication of any Bibles in any other language other than Latin and ordered that anyone who did so was condemned to hell, excommunicated, and subject to execution. Imagine that, your church just a few short centuries ago would have killed you for having an English Bible in your possession!!!
I honestly don’t want to read these descriptions so I won’t (so I might be misunderstanding your argument) but here’s the morality of these actions. Masturbation or any deliberate unnecessary sexual stimulation outside of marriage is grave matter not neutral, male or female. So is looking at porn (unless you were a law enforcer who was looking for criminals doing it illegally or something that)
How would you know if two men renting a hotel room were two homosexuals or were an unrelated unmarried couple? Maybe the two men are two brothers who want to share a room and cut costs or two heterosexual cousins or a father and son or a brother and sister. Would you require people renting a room in your hotel to provide documentation so that you could ascertain what their relationship is and whether they are married or not?
Where do you base your morals then?
I agree absolutely that the Church says that these are indeed sinful. Again no argument with me here. I am arguing that there is anything disordered or unnatural in these actions. Rau argued that the Penis is primarily designed for procreation, I argue that the female clitoris is not designed for primarily procreative purposes, it is simply tertiary. Therefore, there is no violation of Natural Law to engage in female to female clitoral stimulation from a Natural law perspective.