A Sexual Contention

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

A Sexual Contention

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

The idea is, that sex among heterosexuals, every so often, produces children. And clearly, when it does, the care and upbringing of those children is the priority. While fiction is often mostly about sex, fact is often mostly about children.

So, this observation leads me to wonder whether sex that cannot produce children, because it is masturbation, or because of contraception, or because it is homosexual in nature, is or is not a moral issue. Who cares, other than those engaged and pleasured, and why should they? By what right do they think they have any involvement, at all?

eg:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that the sexual function is meant by God to be enjoyed in "the total meaning of mutual self-giving" (CCC, n. 2352) within the marital relationship of a man and a woman.
On what rational basis is this assertion made? How does Catholicism come to think itself privy to God's purposes for sex, and what is its justification for this presumption?

Best wishes, 2RM.

FWI
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #2

Post by FWI »

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]
On what rational basis is this assertion made? How does Catholicism come to think itself privy to God's purposes for sex, and what is its justification for this presumption?


The rational basis is recorded documents and reviewable facts. It doesn’t matter what religious belief system, an individual or group holds. We can also come to a rational basis by reviewing the design of the male and female, as well as, how reproduction works. There is also the possible consequences of deviation from what is recorded.

The reality is that without reproduction, life would cease to exist! So, the sex act must be productive. This is accomplished through the desires, which male and female humans have for one another. We must also realize that for every good act, there is an opposite of that same act, which would be unproductive and of no real value.

So, when we review the recorded documents and facts, it is clear that God’s purpose for sex is only for productive purposes, not just general pleasures. Pleasures are surely involved (for the most part), but are secondary to God’s purpose of allowing life to exist.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #3

Post by 2ndRateMind »

FWI wrote: [Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]
On what rational basis is this assertion made? How does Catholicism come to think itself privy to God's purposes for sex, and what is its justification for this presumption?


...The reality is that without reproduction, life would cease to exist! So, the sex act must be productive...
Ummm. Why? Plenty of people have productive sex, and plenty of conceptions occur and plenty of babies are born. Some might even say, too many. What difference does it make if the sex I have and enjoy results in the fertilisation of an egg, or not? If a married heterosexual couple have sex, and fertilisation does not occur, have they sinned in some way?
FWI wrote: Pleasures are surely involved (for the most part), but are secondary to God’s purpose of allowing life to exist.
What makes you think this? Why could it not be that the pleasures are primary, and the persistence of humanity a useful by-product? How do you know, and on what basis do you claim to know, that the purpose of conception is the only justification for sex, and that all other sex is sinful and perverted?
FWI wrote:
The rational basis is recorded documents and reviewable facts.
References might be useful, if you think you can support your position in this way.

Best wishes, 2RM.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #4

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
On what rational basis is this assertion made? How does Catholicism come to think itself privy to God's purposes for sex, and what is its justification for this presumption?
A couple of things . . .

1- The Church declares something as right/true because it is right/true. She has no choice. And something isn’t right/true because the Church says so, rather the Church says it is right/true because it is right/true.
2- The Church has the authority to make such declarations because it was given to her by Christ Himself. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my church.� “He who hears you, hears me.� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� Scripture tells us the Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’.
3- The rational basis for the Church’s teaching on love, sex, marriage, children, etc. is the nature of the sexual act itself. So, no, the Church did not arbitrarily decide what is moral and what is immoral. This is something all men can know via acknowledging the world we live in, acknowledging form, shape, function, biology, science, etc. and honoring this reality. The Church is simply proclaiming what can already be known by all and simply IS.

4- Our sexuality is a gift from God. To misuse this gift would be wrong. Any act that blocks/thwarts/changes/alters the natural function of the sexual act would be misuse and is not designed to bring man the peace/joy he deserves. Does the world need the Church to tell her stealing is immoral? That sleeping around is immoral? Science/biology can show us the problems that promiscuity can wrought – both physical and psychological and reasonable people can conclude it is not in man’s best interest to achieve peace/love/long term happiness in engaging in a lifestyle of promiscuity. The Church in her wisdom proclaims moral truth – she doesn’t invent it.

Why could it not be that the pleasures are primary, and the persistence of humanity a useful by-product?
If you want to argue pleasure is primary, where does the universal pleasure of family come into play? Science reveals the physical and emotional benefits children bring. Fascinating to admit that children are good for man. Perhaps the universe knows what we need more than we do?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #5

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 4 by RightReason]

So, as it happens, I am celibate. So I have no dog in this fight. And in an important way, I think celibacy to be the worst of all sexual perversions, since all the others have at least something to do with sex. But suppose I wasn't celibate. Suppose I was promiscuous. And suppose that way of life suited me.

By what right would you, or the church, or some part of the church, seek to impose a way of life you are contented with, and suits you, on me, who wouldn't be thus content and wouldn't be thus suited to it? You claim that God wants this or that, and this or that is good and right and virtuous, and, as it happens, what God wants and what is good and right and virtuous matches your preferred way of life. Surprise, surprise. How convenient for you.

Trouble is, God didn't make us in a single mould. 'One size fits all' does not seem to be how God thinks and creates, even if the church would rather He should. God made us diverse, presumably because He thinks diversity to be 'a good thing', and if the church wants us uniform, and to restrict our freedom around our various sexualities, then I think the church first has to confront the possibility that God is right, and the church is wrong.

Best wishes, 2RM.

FWI
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #6

Post by FWI »

[Replying to post 3 by 2ndRateMind]
Ummm. Why?


All beneficial actions must have a purpose. The sexual was designed for reproduction

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #7

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
And in an important way, I think celibacy to be the worst of all sexual perversions, since all the others have at least something to do with sex.
I do not understand what you mean by celibacy being the worst of all sexual perversions. You think being celibate is a perversion? How so? Not engaging in sex is not perverting something anymore than it would be considered perverted to not sing. Also, celibacy does have to do with sex. We are sexual beings. Our bodies are a sex. We are male or female. Our maleness and femaleness is embodied in our entire being – not just our plumbing – though there is that too.
But suppose I wasn't celibate. Suppose I was promiscuous. And suppose that way of life suited me.
Your way of life would still be wrong. Let’s switch the word promiscuous to cocaine user – Suppose I was a cocaine user. And suppose that way of life suited me, etc. Of course a cocaine user would be likely to believe/think his cocaine use suits him and that it is his right to engage in such a lifestyle. But our knowledge of the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world shows us such cannot be the case. Using cocaine will not bring you the happiness and fulfillment you think it will. It might be a temporary distraction. It might be very pleasurable in the moment – many things are, but this pleasure does not mean something is right or good.
By what right would you, or the church, or some part of the church, seek to impose a way of life you are contented with, and suits you, on me, who wouldn't be thus content and wouldn't be thus suited to it?
This is simply the age old comment, “Something that is true for you is not necessarily true for me.� We call this moral relativism and it is illogical. It’s also self refuting:


You: There is no absolute truth.
Me: Is that true?

Truth exists. The world works in a certain way. Right and wrong are something that can be known by man by simply observing the world we live in. We are subject to the design/order/function of the world. We don’t have to give God credit for this design/order, but we do have to acknowledge the universe has rules/laws
You claim that God wants this or that, and this or that is good and right and virtuous
I never made this claim – you did.
, and, as it happens, what God wants and what is good and right and virtuous matches your preferred way of life.
It does? I would love to eat nothing but hot fudge sundaes, I would love to not have to make my family dinner every night, I would have loved to know what taking heroin feels like, etc.

I, however, like G.K. Chesterton would not want a church that is right when I am right. I would want a church to be right when I am wrong.
Surprise, surprise. How convenient for you.
Really? Convenient for me? I believe the Church’s teaching on contraception is true. As a result, I have 8 children – not exactly convenient.
Trouble is, God didn't make us in a single mould. 'One size fits all' does not seem to be how God thinks and creates, even if the church would rather He should. God made us diverse, presumably because He thinks diversity to be 'a good thing'
I couldn’t agree with this more. We are all special and unique. My mother-in-law use to describe it as ‘unrepeatable existence’. Isn’t that beautiful? But I think you are getting confused that there can be diversity within the moral law. Following the moral law does not restrict our freedom. Quite the opposite actually. If I am free to take drugs or watch porn and then find myself addicted – no longer to function without these things, is that freeing? Freedom does not mean being able to do whatever we feel like. God wants us to be happy. The Church wants us to be happy. Only when we follow that which is right/good will we be happy.

FWI
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #8

Post by FWI »

[Replying to post 3 by 2ndRateMind]
Ummm. Why?


Because, this is reality.
What difference does it make if the sex I have and enjoy results in the fertilisation of an egg, or not?
As I have already stated: this is not why the sexual act for humans was implemented. Sexual pleasure is a byproduct of the reproductive cycle, not it's goal. The intent of the cycle is to have a male and female attracted to one another, then they marry and "attempt" to reproduce. Most achieve this goal, but some don't. However, this does not alter the cycle. The bible gives examples, where couples were unable to reproduce for decades. But, for some, who adhered to the cycle, this was not permanent.
If a married heterosexual couple have sex, and fertilisation does not occur, have they sinned in some way?
No. See above.
What makes you think this? Why could it not be that the pleasures are primary, and the persistence of humanity a useful by-product? How do you know, and on what basis do you claim to know, that the purpose of conception is the only justification for sex, and that all other sex is sinful and perverted?
Reality and consequences, both emotional and physical.
References might be useful, if you think you can support your position in this way.
This comment and others, which you have made, makes it clear that this would be a waste of time. Hence, we just need to agree that we disagree.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #9

Post by Bust Nak »

FWI wrote: The reality is that without reproduction, life would cease to exist! So, the sex act must be productive.
That does not follow, only a proportion of sex acts need to be productive to maintain a healthy population.
So, when we review the recorded documents and facts, it is clear that God’s purpose for sex is only for productive purposes, not just general pleasures. Pleasures are surely involved (for the most part), but are secondary to God’s purpose of allowing life to exist.
If that was the case then God would mandate sex acts.

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: A Sexual Contention

Post #10

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

I would challenge if masturbation is sex.

Anyway if you believe in evolution the two most fundamental features are surviving and reproducing. So why wouldnt a rational society focus on the reproductive role of sex?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

Post Reply