Debating Christianity and Religion

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.

RightReason wrote:
Wow, did you come up with that all on your own? You so cleva!

No. I didn't practice any of these actions. Some of the leaders in your "Church" practiced the acts I have described. That is the true reflection of what some in it truly believe about sex.

FWI wrote: [Replying to post 20 by Bust Nak]

To be fair, you did say sex is for productive purposes.

Yes, I did (several times). But, cherry-picking certain comments of mine and ignoring the full context of my point would not be considered fair. This could easily be classified as deception.

My post said, and I quote "To be fair, you did say sex is only for productive purposes." What happened to the "only?" This is less of a case of cherry-picking, more you contradicting yourself.

[Replying to post 30 by Bust Nak]

This error of mine is inexcusable. So, to be clear this is what I posted:

[Replying to post 30 by Bust Nak]

The error in my transferring of your quote is inexcusable. So, to be clear, the following was included in my post 2:

So, when we review the recorded documents and facts, it is clear that God’s purpose for sex is only for productive purposes,

Now, what's your point?

FWI wrote: [Replying to post 30 by Bust Nak]

The error in my transferring of your quote is inexcusable. So, to be clear, the following was included in my post 2:

So, when we review the recorded documents and facts, it is clear that God’s purpose for sex is only for productive purposes,

Now, what's your point?

The point is, the word "only" rules out other purposes, then later you said "that the main purpose" implying there are other purposes.

[Replying to post 32 by Bust Nak]

The point is, the word "only" rules out other purposes, then later you said "that the main purpose" implying there are other purposes.

Sorry, you are wrong. The phrase: “only productive purposes� separates it from unproductive purposes. It is clear in the phrase that a single purpose usage is not being referred to. This critique is useless and does not follow the general rules of how words are used and the relationship they may have with other words. So, it seems that you are making up your own rules.

FWI wrote: Sorry, you are wrong. The phrase: “only productive purposes� separates it from unproductive purposes. It is clear in the phrase that a single purpose usage is not being referred to.

That's the thing, it wasn't clear from the way it was written. I'll however grant you that the principle of charity says one must interpreted it the way you intended, even if it wasn't clear.

This critique is useless and does not follow the general rules of how words are used and the relationship they may have with other words. So, it seems that you are making up your own rules.

You are seriously going to argue that "only" does not "rules out other purposes" in the "general rules of how words are used and the relationship they may have with other words?"