/lit/ - Literature

ITT bigots

>>6631832
Anon please. Im trying to learn.

>>6631811
>>What is the purpose of sex?
why do you think that there is a purpose ?

>>6631935
All things exist with purpose, with Catholic doctrine.

>What is the purpose of sex?

Procreative unity

>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?

Sex is by definition a kind of procreative unity. This definition corresponds to a real part of human nature, because human beings are divided into two sexes, capable of fulfilling different reproductive roles, which requires a special kind of unity for those roles to be fulfilled. Fulfilling this functionality properly means marriage, while all other kinds of unnatural acts from fornication to sodomy are distortions of it.

If one were instead to define "sex" differently (perhaps a kind of pleasurable touching, idk), then we'd simply be talking about different functionalities, rather than the same phenomenon. The words we use for each aren't particularly important.

>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral? Why?

No. But the will must not intend something contrary or perverting of the purpose. This is because moral actions concern the right order of the will, and the right order of the will in the sexual respect is to fulfil its function- i.e., to bring sexual partners together in a procreatively-complementary union. This role can be fulfilled without directly intending the conclusion, though insofar as the will intends what excludes the fulfilment of the sexual faculties, he wills evil, and thus does evil.

>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?

Marriage is a kind of union, specifically, a procreative one. A thing can be a member of a kind while, due to accident or mishap, be also unable to fulfil its characteristic function or be impeded in that function in some respect- e.g. having a nose which can't smell, or an eye which can't see, which is, though a member of the kind, a defective member of the kind. So the question of what a marriage is, is the question of what kind of union it is, rather than what the union happens to be able to accomplish.

Homosexual unions, on the other hand, qua homosexual, are intrinsically incapable of procreative unity, hence are not kinds of marriage, which just is the normative fulfilment of the sexual faculty.

>>6631971
>Sex is by definition a kind of procreative unity
Why is it that and not mutual genital stimulation of two or more individuals?

I'm not an expert but I'll try to give some answers. Caveat lector, I might be wrong.

>What is the purpose of sex?
Marriage has a procreative and a unitive function in Catholicism. This means that marriage should occur within wedlock and should be 'open to procreation'.

>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?
Eh? Because it's good at those purposes? Because God says so?

>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral? Why?
In a certain sense, yes. Sex should be within marriage, and open to procreation. That means that contraception and non-vaginal sex are sinful, though sex need not of necessity lead to children. This is because God created sex for these purposes, and we shouldn't go against God's design. I've heard some talk that to do so would be 'contrary to the dignity of the human person'.

>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?
This a peculiarity about Catholic doctrine on sex. The sex act should be 'open to procreation'. This means that couples have penis-in-vagina sex without contraception. This does not go so far as to require that the couple must conceive and bear a child. The woman may be in an infertile phase, she may be pregnant, or she may be past her fertile years. The man may have low sperm motility. What is proscribed is to willingly close the sex act to new life, which essentially means all forms of sodomy, contraception and masturbation. In practical terms, the Catholic doctrine boils down to unprotected marital vaginal intercourse = good, anything else = bad. That's not to say that most Catholics follow this, though. Most Catholics of course use contraception and masturbate.

I don't adhere to the Catholic view since I'm non-religious, but I've tried to be fair to it here. Catholic clergy have encouraged members of the laity to practice a rhythm method of contraception where couples have sex when the woman is at a less fertile point in her menstrual cycle. Things like this seem very strange to me because assiduously tracking symptoms of fertility for intercourse opportunities to me seems a lot like 'closing the sexual act to life'. Does doing it that way trick God into thinking you want a little baby? Anyway, I'll stop before I go full fedora.

>>What is the purpose of sex?
Procreation
>>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?
Because that is why God made it for.
>>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral? Why?
It has to be done within marriage and open to life. That's the only rule really.
>>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?
Gay marriage doesn't exist. There is no such thing. It is wrong because it goes against nature. It is also a mortal sin to participate in same sex intercourse.
Also you could have googled it.

>>6631993
Because that is called mastrubation.

Here is an article that explains it pretty well
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/13/3452229.htm

>>6631993

It doesn't much matter how you define the word. If you define sex solely by the stimulation of genital organs, as I said that's fine- you're just talking about a different behaviour than I am.

Call the Catholic (and, indeed, traditional) definition "Shmex" if you want- what's important is the nature of the faculty referred to. Some forms of genital stimulation (what you call "sex") will be defective forms of "shmex," and hence will be perverse, while others will be fulfilments of the "shmexual" faculty, hence will be legitimate aspects of human fulfilment.

>>6632003
You can have oral sex to help you reach a shared climax.

>>6632043
Source?

>>6632035
>le epik John Milbank meme xD

>>6632053
Can you read any Slavic languages?
If you can't try Google.

>>6632053
https://catholicebooks.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/free-ebook-the-theology-of-the-body/

>>6632063
Sorry I opened several chapters of that ebook and searched for "oral sex" and found nothing.

I did find this website that claims the Catholic Church allows oral sex as foreplay, but that climax should not be substituted for coitus.
http://bustedhalo.com/features/what-does-the-church-teach-about-oral-sex

And also this website that calls oral sex 'unnatural' and therefore 'intrinsically evil'.
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

>>6631971
>Sex is by definition a kind of procreative unity. This definition corresponds to a real part of human nature, because human beings are divided into two sexes, capable of fulfilling different reproductive roles, which requires a special kind of unity for those roles to be fulfilled. Fulfilling this functionality properly means marriage, while all other kinds of unnatural acts from fornication to sodomy are distortions of it.

How can you reconcile this understanding with the idea of ordering yourself around love?

How would gay sex be contrary in some manner to ordering yourself towards love?

>>6632107
According to Catholic teaching, love isn't the only purpose of sex. Or a sufficient purpose. You have to have unprotected coitus in marriage for it to be ethical sex. Using contraceptives or a different orifice would be deliberately making sex infertile. Not that infertile sex is morally wrong, it's only morally wrong if you deliberately make it infertile. And doing it in the butt or mouth counts. So, no gay stuff.

>>6632113
Let me rephrase myself.

How can you reconcile this understanding with the idea of ordering yourself around nature?

How would gay sex be contrary in some manner to ordering yourself towards nature?

It seems God is supportive of natural law. how does homosexuality fit into this?

>>6632118
Gay people are broken. According to the Catholic Church, homosexuals are 'intrinsically disordered towards an objective moral evil', that is gay sex.

>>6632121
Doesn't this come from an arbitrary understanding of nature though? I mean, you might call an animal having gay sex a broken animal as well. But animals have no morality so they cannot be naturally aligned towards evil. You can say that the purpose of sex is justified by natural selection as what is truly natural, but then you could say that priests and monks are not natural and therefore evil. Maybe I messed up my reasoning somewhere, but on a related note I don't see how essentialist explications can survive deconstructive practices (hence the oral sex thing discussed in this thread).

>>6632107
There is no such thing as gay love, no importance anyway, it's irrelevant here.

>things are true because people in robes said so

Wow, that's just sad

>>6632163
And the sad thing is what people in robes say is true.

>>6632143
>Doesn't this come from an arbitrary understanding of nature though?
You could say so. The Catholic Church does give some philosophical explication for its stances, but at the end of the day it is a Church and this is its doctrine. The nature of the Church-laity relationship is that the Church sets the doctrine.

>>6632143
Nature isn't only physical, it's equally metaphysical. And gays aren't animals, they have a moral understanding.

>>6632169

I have yet to hear a single thing they say to be anywhere near the truth

>>6632180
is it worth arguing with religious people? we already know they have no evidence, that's why religions adopt the epistemology of faith and revelation which essentially means the suspension of rational inquiry

>>6632180
>>6632180
I have yet to hear a thing they say that isn't true.

>>6632189

If it isn't, then why to religious people argue among themselves?

A Christian and a Muslim both have wildly different beliefs, yet they both rely on faith for them to be true.

>>6632158
>There is no such thing as gay love
Do you really believe this?

>>6632209
Did you read the rest of the sentence?

>dear /lit/
>the catechism of the catholic church is a very long book, please cliff notes the sex bits for me

>>6632219
Yes

>>6632236
oh no people don't want to read the catechism of the catholic church good job you skewered them so acerbically in this post

/lit/ - Literature

jesus h christ you faggots

>>6632239
Good.

>>6632250
i don't think it's that far from topic. philosophy is often discussed on this board.

>>6632253
Why even say it if it's of no relevance and you're unwilling to discuss it?

>>6632257

what do papist attitudes towards sex have to do with philosophy?

>>6632035
>Here both common-sense and empirical research suggest that the optimum condition for children is to be brought up by two parents of the opposite sex who are also their biological parents. Again this is a generalisation, subject to the severe limits of all generalisations: in many particular instances this is clearly untrue and in very many instances what matters is to make the best of what is not the optimum. By just this argument, it is surely the case that children are better-off being adopted by loving gay parents than being left to languish in one of the many unsatisfactory orphanages.

>However, just as an orphanage does not involve a collective marriage, so also the allowing to gay couples of a child-rearing function does not of itself amount to an argument that they should be treated as "married." For the latter requires traditionally the idea that a sexual union leads to natural procreation.

I knew this piece of shit was a fascist masquerading as a socialist all along.

>>6632244
Yes otherwise they might think the literature board isn't for people who want to read a book on the matter, but instead for people who want to read half a wikipedia article and feel smug. I'm glad you noticed how I was saving humanity there; charity's very hard to notice without being puffed up or boastful about it.

>>6632257
>it's often talked about so it must be okay xd

>>6631811
The purpose of sex is procreation. Source: Men and women in celibacy.

>>6631832
In this post - faggot

>>6632266
Theology and philosophy were in the past often intertwined. The teachings of the Catholic church are part of an Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition. Figures like Augustine and Aquinas are very significant in the history of Western philosophy. The Catholic Church's teaching on sex is of interest as the sexual ethic espoused by a Church with over a billion members and surely influences our society's thinking on sexual matters.

>>6632260
I was just glad that you had reading comprehension and a solid understand of the catechism.

>>6631811
>>6631935
>>6631938
Here is what Catholic education taught me:

All-girls Catholic school spent like a solid year, 1.5 hour classes called "Moral Theory/Decisions," (this was essentially a class that tried to scare you out of sex) ingraining in me that marital sex for the purpose of procreation is entirely the most important aspect of life, the second being retaining your virginity to give your life to the church and God. The only moral sex then, that exists, is sex for the purpose of procreation, and diverging from this course in any way pollutes the sanctity and purity of the act. I can't recall why— it's probably something to do with guilt and the nature of pleasure being sin and original sin and what have you.

We watched a very, very long video series throughout the semester informing us of the Catholic purpose of sex, etc. I repressed it a lot and this thread just made me remember, but OP if you're interested in learning, I can try to find the title of it. It's really cheesy, though.

The more zealous religious teacher (a woman) said that infertile couples were not meant to conceive and in vitro fertilization is not advised within Catholicism. I can't cite any evidence of this being canon, but this is how we were taught.

My other religion teacher (A real Stephen Dedalus character—left seminary, loves the arts) seemed to be more liberal about these kinds of things, and presented us with a lot of current Catholic figures, nuns and priests, contrarian to a lot of the practices promoted by the Vatican, advocating for alterations. That dude probably loves this current pope.

>>6632267
More reasonable than the Roman Catholic position

>>6632287
How many Catholics actually follow that, though?

>>6632287
Nice blog

>>6632026
>nature
This is a naked mole rat. It is an eusocial mammal. If a hive has 40 kids but only food to feed 30, 10 will be killed.

>>6632272
I'm pretty sure philosophy is a legitimate subject of discussion on this board. Many philosophers are significant literary figures. Literature doesn't just mean novels and poems.

>>6632300
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Here is what Catholic education taught me:

All-girls Catholic school spent like a solid year, 1.5 hour classes called "Moral Theory/Decisions," (this was essentially a class that tried to scare you out of sex) ingraining in me that marital sex for the purpose of procreation is entirely the most important aspect of life, the second being retaining your virginity to give your life to the church and God. The only moral sex then, that exists, is sex for the purpose of procreation, and diverging from this course in any way pollutes the sanctity and purity of the act. I can't recall why— it's probably something to do with guilt and the nature of pleasure being sin and original sin and what have you.

We watched a very, very long video series throughout the semester informing us of the Catholic purpose of sex, etc. I repressed it a lot and this thread just made me remember, but OP if you're interested in learning, I can try to find the title of it. It's really cheesy, though.

The more zealous religious teacher (A heavily educated woman) said that infertile couples were not meant to conceive and in vitro fertilization is not advised within Catholicism. I can't cite any evidence of this being canon, but this is how we were taught. In her teaching, there was a lot of emphasis on the sanctity and preservation of life — anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage (for the fact that natural procreation cannot take place, though she had many of the homosexual girls "asked to leave" from of our school)

My other religion teacher (A real Stephen Dedalus character—left seminary, loves the arts) seemed to be more liberal about these kinds of things, and presented us with a lot of current Catholic figures, nuns and priests, contrarian to a lot of the practices promoted by the Vatican, advocating for amendments to Catholic doctrine — things that range from homosexuality to gay marriage.

>>6632281

>ad populum

Also his thread's link to thomism is tenuous at best and we've had more than our fill of threads devoted to that archaic "philosophy" lately. Why don't you take the religious mumbo jumbo to facebook or reddit?

Could someone please explain to me how homosexuality is any worse than masturbation? and if it's not, then can you not be a priest if you masturbate?

>>6632035
Getting sick of the Milbank spamming

>>6632321
>>6632321
>All-girls Catholic school spent like a solid year, 1.5 hour classes called "Moral Theory/Decisions," (this was essentially a class that tried to scare you out of sex) ingraining in me that marital sex for the purpose of procreation is entirely the most important aspect of life, the second being retaining your virginity to give your life to the church and God.

Most of this is false, not sure if you are making
this up or just didn't listen in class.

>The only moral sex then, that exists, is sex for the purpose of procreation, and diverging from this course in any way pollutes the sanctity and purity of the act. I can't recall why— it's probably something to do with guilt and the nature of pleasure being sin and original sin and what have you.

This is also false. It's contrary to the catechism.

>The more zealous religious teacher (A heavily educated woman) said that infertile couples were not meant to conceive and in vitro fertilization is not advised within Catholicism.

Again half truths. It is not only not advised, it is strictly forbidden to conceive via in vitro, but taking other forms of fertility treatment is not.

> I can't cite any evidence of this being canon, but this is how we were taught.

All of these were half truths at best.

> In her teaching, there was a lot of emphasis on the sanctity and preservation of life — anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage (for the fact that natural procreation cannot take place, though she had many of the homosexual girls "asked to leave" from of our school)

Most of these are within the doctrine, but asking sinners to leave I find very hard to believe making me think this is some pasta from a liberal website or something.

>My other religion teacher (A real Stephen Dedalus character—left seminary, loves the arts) seemed to be more liberal about these kinds of things, and presented us with a lot of current Catholic figures, nuns and priests, contrarian to a lot of the practices promoted by the Vatican, advocating for amendments to Catholic doctrine — things that range from homosexuality to gay marriage.

Those are heretics who in time alongside their followers leave the church and it's impossible to defend those stances not only as an educated Catholic but as a Christian in general. And yes, there are bishops, especially in Germany, Austria, now even Ireland who oppose the doctrine itself, but they can't defend their stances.

>>6632324
The link to Thomism isn't tenuous at all. The Catholic teaching on sex is unchanged in many ways from what he wrote in the 13th century. Philosophy is a legit subject on this board. We discuss Stirner, Marx, Nietzsche, Descartes, Evola, Camus, Zizek, Aristotle, Kripke, Rand, et cetera et cetera. Rather than splitting any more hairs, please use the hide feature.

>>6632347
It's worse because it is a greater sin. To read up visit Romans.
You can be a sodomite group sex bishop, in fact a large part of the conclave is like that. But that doesn't really change if it is right or wrong since the rules are universal.

>>6632360
Where does Romans say it's worse than masturbation?

You can't be a bishop while practicing sodomy, I don't think. They wouldn't let you if it were known.

>>6632356
>>6632356

All right your holiness I hope I didn't interrupt your synod too badly. Let me know if you ever figure out the difference between theology and legitimate human learning ie philosophy.

>>6632379
I would say that a lot of theology isn't all that much more far-fetched than the metaphysics of Berkeley, Schopenhauer, Kant, Descartes, Plato, which are all regarded as central cases of "philosophy". And there can be blurring between philosophy and theology as well, depending on the context.

>>6632107

>How can you reconcile this understanding with the idea of ordering yourself around love?

>How would gay sex be contrary in some manner to ordering yourself towards love?

Love is the virtue wherein one is ordered toward the good of the object of love. Hence, one loves oneself when one wills one's own good, and one loves one's neighbour when one wishes one's neighbour's good.

Now, there are many specific kinds of love: there is the love of one's country, love of one's family, love of one's friends. Sexual love is a specific kind of love- the love of the other in the sexual, that is, procreative-unitive capacity. Each is ordered toward some good in someone. But the good for each thing is given by its nature- the good is what perfects each thing as what it is.

Hence, when one acts so as to pervert one's nature, one fails to love oneself as one should. When one enters unnatural relations with another, one fails to love the other. It is thus possible for people of the same sex to love one another- as friends, relatives, countrymen, and fellow human beings, but insofar as that love is tinged with the sexual, it is an unnatural corruption of sexual love, not sexual love itself, which is possessed. Whatever is genuine love in homosexual relations, is what properly belongs to friendship or companionship. What is distinctly sexual, is not sexual love simpliciter, but a perversion or distortion of that love- an unnatural lust, which, if they loved each other, they would not have.

Can anyone actually prove objectively the purpose of an act? Or of, say, sex?

>>6632374
There where it says that no sodomite shall go into the kingdom of heaven. That's the worst thing that can happen to a person really.
Masturbation isn't explicitly mentioned, but Aquinas places it as the smallest sexual sin where things such as necrophilia and zoophilia are the greatest.


And not only that you can be a sodomite bishop, many are which is why you see such turmoil within the church. It isn't well known, but if you know the right people it's very clear.

>>6632399
Nobody can prove with absolute certainty that 2+2 is 4.

>>6632399

An act derives its identity from it purpose. Hence, if you commit any act at all, you act for some objective end, i.e., some purpose, whether intentional or functional. Your problem is in thinking acts can be divorced from ends.

>>6632403
But anon that's wrong

>>6632400
Sexual immorality is mentioned. As you saying masturbation doesn't fall under that?

>>6632410
That's what a friend of mine told me as a brilliant mathematician.

>>6632411
I'm saying masturbation by name explicitly isn't mentioned. Not saying it isn't sexual immortality.

>>6632428
Are you suggesting then that Romans is saying sodomy is worse than other forms of sexual immorality?

>>6632410
I think it's clearly in some sense correct. There's always a possibility we're wrong. Maybe something misfired in your brain when you were calculating 2 + 2. Maybe you're actually insane and you've been taken in by profound delusions about arithmetic. It's highly unlikely, but it's not logically impossible.

>>6632430
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

>>6632189
>ethics
>evidence

>>6632189
What, no. The truths of faith can always be investigated rationally. It's this thing we call theology. Anyway, it's pretty hypocritical to conclude that we don't have any evidence without good evidence.

>>6632452
Not as rationally as we may like anon.

>>6632444
I was referring to religious belief in general.

>>6632452
My post wasn't accurate. Most religions do regard their beliefs as having at least some rational justification. Most religions are not explicitly 'fideist'.

In practice, "faith" means a kind of religious credence insulated from ordinary standards of evidence and rational justification. According to some, faith may include belief with evidence insufficient to convince every rational person. The psychological effect of 'faith' is reliably to reinforce trust and belief in the authority of a given/revealed belief-system, rather than skeptical inquiry which is the basis of every successful pursuit of knowledge.

I still maintain that it is folly to argue with religious people. Would you argue with someone who believes the Earth is flat?

>>6632509
>sceptical inquiry which is the basis of every successful pursuit of knowledge.

I'm not sure that that's easy to demonstrate, from a sceptical inquiry perspective. Why presume our epistemic faculties function properly only insofar as sceptical?

If there is a God faith would be an epistemically appropriate way of knowing him, and cooperating with God's self-revelation, surely, in which case, to assume that a neutral, sceptical starting point is always epistemically appropriate is itself to beg the theological question. In other words, the religious person who begins with faith has no reason to believe that sceptical inquiry is the best way to know about religious truths, without begging the question against his own revelation.

In any case, dialogue can be fruitful. The religious provide the means by which the sceptic can question his own scepticism- even if the religious ultimately hold themselves aloof from such standards (and not all do), the sceptic owes it to himself, as a sceptic, to examine his own ideas in light of the best arguments from the opposing side, when they are offered.

>>6632321
>All-girls Catholic School
Did you have a cute Oneesama that did lewd things to your lily?

>Purpose

Make baby and celebrate Gods glorious creation

>Why this

Life is a gift from God, not to be wasted and by using a condom or other contraception you are stopping God from giving life. Celebacy is so they aren't distracted from their duties.

>Should it be done for moral reasons exclusively

Yes, pleasure is just a by-product, making babies is priority

>Gay marriage

It's wrong because it inherently stops this procreating, infertile or barren couples are just defects of what is normally functional; like a blind persons eyes.

>Why not IVF

God chooses who lives and who lives, not you and conception outside of marriage is a big no-no.

>>6632865

>things are true because I say so

>>6632879

Yes. I am the definitive authorty now, didn't you get the memo?

>What is the purpose of sex?
Unity and procreation
>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?
Because the only other method of procreation that I know of involves bone marrow.

As somebody who has donated bone marrow, I can say humanity would die out or reduced to the tens of thousands.

In addition, it's much more complex and would require a radically different physiology that can take bone marrow from others, which would go very wrong.
>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral? Why?
Yes, because He wills it.
>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?
Gay marriage is wrong because it involves sodomy and homolust by its very nature, a gay marriage is a marriage born from sin rather than virtue.
>>6632163
Because our absolute God said so, it's objective.

>>6632910
Oh, and IVF is functionally the same as PIV

After reading this thread I'm now interested in what the Episcopal Church teaches differently from the Catholic that allows it to accept gay people and gay marriage. Does anyone know anything or know where I can look?

>>6633128

Church of England master race, it's like the Catholic Church but not shit.

>>6632143
you can call such animal a defective instance of that particular species

i dont see how you came to the priest being evil thing. Pls explain

>>6631938
id rather say they are naturally ordered to a particular effect

>>6632043
i agree with this anon

>>6632347
Explanation: Homosexuality, in itself, is not wrong. It's perfectly fine to be gay and Catholic. However, you can't be gay and married because marriage has a procreative aspect, which two people of the same sex can't do. In addition, gay sex outside of marriage is wrong simply because any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Gay marriage, gay sex, and masturbation are all basically equal sins. You can go to confession and be absolved of any of them, just like normal sins like punching someone.

Basically, homosexuality is no problem. Homosexual sex is, but it's not worse than masturbation. And you can be absolved of both those sins by a priest.

>>6633203
Unfortunate that it won't be around in another 20 years. It's not really like the Catholic Church at all besides appearence considering that it's wishy-washyness incarnate.

>>6633803
>marriage has a procreative aspect

Spoken like an easily-duped Catholic.

>You can go to confession and be absolved of any of them

Sure. Now, I can never remember, is it 10 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers if you blow a guy, but 10 Hail Marys and 10 Our Fathers if it's your uncle, or is it the other way around because the sperm is kept within the family?

>>6633803
lies.

homosexuality isn't a sin, identifying yourself as a homosexual who is in essence a sexual being like some sort of depraved animal is a much more graver a sin than simply masturbating to a cactus.

this is because masturbation can be temporary, being such a sex addict that you have to have sex to live and thus be gay. Being gay means you are nothing less than a deprived animal and what heaven would be a heaven if all of its inhabitants did nothing but let their sexual urges get the better of them?

also all of you morons who keep argueing about gay rights keep thinking that your sexual preferences define who you are as a person and i find that quite retarded.

>>6633833
masturbation and homosexuality are practically equal, they both go contrary to the procreative and unitive aspect of the sex act (unitive as in uniting man and woman)

>>6633841
I've always wondered, but never really had a dinosaur around to ask: what do the every-sperm-is-sacred stone age thinkers think about nocturnal emissions?

>ctrl+f
>seewald
>0 results
Get good /lit/ we're going through Popes like that Avignon disaster and you're not even caught up to the current millennium
>masturbation everywhere
Y'all are looking for the 12th C. bull on ipsation as a starting point.

>>6633856
theyre not intentional
/the end/

>>6633873
Are you saying God actually cares about a mens rea w/r/t the spilling of seed? Is one not culpable for one's own erotic dreams, yet they are culpable for looking on a woman in lust?

Have you even thought about any of this?

>>6633898
>Is one not culpable for one's own erotic dreams, yet they are culpable for looking on a woman in lust?
No

>>6633923
Matthew 5

>27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Can we try just a little bit to reconcile your thoughts on the matter?, or is this just going to be a "the church sez, so..." session with you?

>God made man and woman.
>Eve ate the apple
>Her punishment was to suffer childbirth.

Why did God make two separate sexes if childbirth wasn't in the pre-talking-snake plan? Surely two guys, Adam and Dave, would have been fine.

Or did God change the biology of the female body so as to make it painful? If so, then are modern woman physically different to Eve?

>>6633932
if you think that means finding a woman attractive, then youve misunderstood the whole time

but i agree that indulging in sinful thoughts about others is bad

>>6633940
Man was created in God's image. Woman was created to complement Man.

>>6633833
1. Identifying as gay doesn't turn you into a gay person. It is just an acknowledgment of a part of your being, just like how I would say I am brown-haired, white, and tall.

2. Gay rights are so politicized nowadays that you shouldn't be surprised that we think of our sexual minority status as an important part of our identities. That doesn't mean that sex is a foremost priority for people who identify as gay.

3. Try to empathize with the state of a modern gay person. Modern society in general makes such a big deal out of sex that it's only natural for the average person to consider sex to be an important goal. And don't forget that it's a biological imperative as well. If you are gay and you are told that it is illegal to get married, or that it is sinful for you to act on your social and biological imperatives, then the idea of having sex suddenly becomes a lot more important to you. Straight people can largely take sex for granted and don't need to worry about it as much; no matter how bad their luck may be with women, they always have a chance to get some, even if their religious beliefs demand that they exercise moderation.

I've always thought that the Catholic position on homosexuality was a reasonable derivation of scripture, but your attitude toward gays is wholly un-Catholic

>>6633945
We're talking about God's views in relation to the mens rea of having erotic dreams.

Keep up, will you? This is a literature board. You guys are supposed to be readers. If you are not a reader, at least act like it.

>>6633966
i dont see how what you posted has any mention to dreams

>>6631811
>What is the purpose of sex?

Procreation. It's the power in man's nature that allows him to fulfil the first commandment God gave to man: And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?

What else could the purpose of sex be? The greatest potential that the sex act can fulfil is the creation of new life; the pleasure associated with the act is accidental to the act, not its essence. It is conceivable to have sex without pleasure, but sex without the potential for life is not even sex properly speaking, it is what is called sodomy (sodomy does not just refer to anal penetration, it includes all uses of the sexual organs that are not sexual, i.e. not having the potential for conception of new life).

>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral?
Yes
>Why?
1. Because God decrees it.
2. Because it's the nature of sex, and all things ought to fulfil their nature.

>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?

There is no reason to have sex if a couple physically cannot have children, but it should not be presumed that a couple absolutely CANNOT have children. God is in charge of the womb. There are various instances in scripture when a lady who was not able to conceive was given the ability to conceive by God after her praying for it. If a married couple who do not, according to science, have the ability to conceive, nevertheless pray to God for their sex act to be effectual, then they have not committed a sin because they have still directed the act towards its proper end (its telos).

>>6632392

>Sexual love. I wouldn't call the kind of love I, and many others considered to be archetypal lovers, have "sexual love."

I would gladly die for my beloved never having had, and of course never to have, sex with her. In addition, when I think of her; I don't sexualise her at all, and I'm not even really interested in sex; I never fantasise about it like I fantasise about simply being with her. I'm not sure what it is I want from her, perhaps it is to be loved in return, perhaps it is nothing.

But to label it sexual love isn't even reductionistic, it's just wrong.

Now here's my rebuttal to you're idea of sex:
I would lay a premise that love is a good. I would also lay a premise that when one does "a good action" they are expressing their love for God, since a defining characteristic of a good christian is loving God; I think that makes sense.

Now, if we believe that expressing love for God not only is good, but is The Good, then it seems likely that expression of love is a good in general.

So, if I have sex with a woman in order to express my love in physical terms (rather than for hedonistic pleasure) my action is good.

And I would say this is more compelling even, than for procreation, as doing is this, as you like to say: "the right order of things."

For, human beings are not made to procreate. We are made to do good and love (especially God) and physically (through action I mean) express our love.

>>6634021

Sorry, only

>Sexual love

is supposed to be greentexted

and you're should be your

and christian should be Christian

>>6633966
Dreams are unintentional, therefore they cannot be sins.

Meanwhile, your own thoughts while awake ARE intentional, with very few exceptions.

You can't control what you dream about unless there's some lucid dreaming stuff in there, but you can control what you think about. Other anon is also correct in that "looking on a woman in lust" is different than simply finding someone attractive.

>>6633833
Retards like you are the reason there's so much opposition to the Catholic Church nowadays. Go learn what it actually teaches, mouthbreather.

Being gay is a state of being, and states of being can never be sins. However, if one is gay and acts upon that, seeking homosexual relations, then it is a sin. It's fine for people to be gay as long as they don't have gay sex.

Try studying some catechism and theology next time before posting.

>>6634021
>I would gladly die for my beloved never having had, and of course never to have, sex with her. In addition, when I think of her; I don't sexualise her at all, and I'm not even really interested in sex; I never fantasise about it like I fantasise about simply being with her. I'm not sure what it is I want from her, perhaps it is to be loved in return, perhaps it is nothing.

>But to label it sexual love isn't even reductionistic, it's just wrong.

I'm not the guy you are replying to, but this kind of love you have is indeed not sexual love. It is what is called romantic love, or spousal or conjugal love, or sometimes courtly love. It's the love that Adam had when he saw Eve for the first time and said: "And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man."

Now, you CAN have sexual love for you beloved, but that is a distinct kind of love. Sexual love is the appetite of the sexual organs, the conjugal love that you have for her is an appetite that resides more in the spiritual part of the soul. It's like a half way between divine love and sexual love, mid way between heaven and earth.

I too experience a kind of lack of interest in sex with a woman I admire. In fact, I can't think sexual thoughts with a woman that I am in love with in the same way that I can with a woman I am not.

>So, if I have sex with a woman in order to express my love in physical terms (rather than for hedonistic pleasure) my action is good.

This is confused thinking on your part, when you say "in order to express my love in physical terms". The kind of love that is expressed "in physical terms" is sexual love. Romantic love is not expressed physically, or, not explicitly physically. I said that this kind of love is between heaven and earth, neither fully spiritual nor fully bodily. It can be expressed by spiritual gestures and it can be expressed by physical gestures, but only accidentally and not essentially. The only act which essentially expresses this kind of love is the sacrament of marriage and the procreative act (sex). But this procreative act on this term is not understood in its physical terms (hedonistic), but purely for its end towards procreation. Let me explain. When someone has sex purely for pleasure and out of physical love, the intentions of the person is not directed towards procreation, but towards the pleasure they are experiencing. However, when you have sex out of this conjugal love, your love for the person is so intense that you are practically abstracted from the physical pleasure of the act and lost more in the contemplation of the person you love, and in your feeling of oneness with them. This love, in fact, is the love PROPER to sex. The purely physical love, sex, I would, on second thought, say is not even the proper appetite for sex but is rather AT BEST a lubrication made to make sex easier, and at worst an unnatural perversion.

>>6634045
It's impossible for one to be a sodomite as a state of being. The term "homosexual" is problematic in itself. No person is ontologically a "homosexual". The words, "I am a homosexual", is contrary to the truth, because noone can BE "homosexual", everyone is by nature made by God as a "heterosexual".
"Homosexuality" is just a vicious habit where the will becomes conditioned to a perverse use of the sexual feeling. It's possible to break out of this habit just like any other habit. To say that someone is by nature conditioned to be vicious is to fall in to a kind of Lutheran picture of nature, seeing man as being in a state of "total depravity".

>>6634082
>No person is ontologically a "homosexual"
cool declaration
>everyone is by nature made by God as a "heterosexual".
Interesting declarative statement
>"Homosexuality" is just a vicious habit where the will becomes conditioned to a perverse use of the sexual feeling.
You said it, so it must be true

>>6634090
My reason for believing this is the truth that God made man essentially good. Though original sin weakens man so as to make his falling into evil more likely, it does not make him essentially evil. If God made a man a sodomite by nature that would mean that God had implanted evil directly into his nature, which is impossible because God is not the author of evil. This is a truth of theology that I am not going to try and explain.

>>6634082
>everyone is by nature made by God as a "heterosexual".

This is so out of touch with reality I'm starting to think some of you honestly never leave the house and/or live in Kansas somewhere.

>>6634108
this has to be b8

the Catholic Church has already accepted that people are born gay and cannot change it

>>6634113
There is a concept in philosophy called "second nature". Our nature is made up of what we essentially are, in body and soul. Our second nature is made up of all our habits. Now, it's possible for someone to be a "homosexual" in their second nature, i.e. by their habits, but it is not possible for someone to be "homosexual" in their first nature. So someone can habitually have the desires that are "homosexual", but this is an ACQUIRED habit - that's the essential part, that it's acquired and not innate. It's not innate in me to post on 4chan - that is an acquired habit. It is innate in me to see the light of the computer screen. It's not innate in me to be able to read the letters on the screen - that's an acquired habit.

>>6634140
The scriptural statement of this is:

>Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

>For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

"God gave them up", "they exchanged the truth", "men, leaving the natural use of the woman . . ."; i.e. this is all an act that occurs AFTER the creation of the man. It's an intentional act which becomes a habit, not something innate.

The whole idea of sodomy being something innate is extremely modern. The word "homosexual" is extremely modern. Not even the ancient Greeks thought sodomy was natural, at least neither Plato nor Aristotle thought it was natural.

>>6632277
Yes, you are.

>>6634140
you are forgetting that there might be defective instances of a kind, which arent intended by the person

otherwise, you would be saying that being blind is an acquired habit, which is absurd

>>6631811
I'm not Catholic, but isn't:
>>6632031
correct? Catholicism defines "sex" as literally cumming in a girl (for lack of more sophisticated terms) to procreate, and everything else is masturbation and therefore wrong?

>>6631971
>>What is the purpose of sex?
>Procreative unity
Wrong.

>Sex is by definition a kind of procreative unity.
Wrong.

>This definition corresponds to a real part of human nature
Wrong.

>because human beings are divided into two sexes
Only most of the time, and many genders.

>Fulfilling this functionality properly means marriage
Wrong.

>while all other kinds of unnatural acts from fornication to sodomy are distortions of it.
Wrong.

>No. But the will must not intend something contrary or perverting of the purpose.
Wrong.

>This is because moral actions concern the right order of the will
Wrong.

>and the right order of the will in the sexual respect is to fulfil its function
Wrong.

> i.e., to bring sexual partners together in a procreatively-complementary union.
Wrong.

>insofar as the will intends what excludes the fulfilment of the sexual faculties, he wills evil, and thus does evil.
Wrong.

>Marriage is a kind of union, specifically, a procreative one.
Wrong.

>Homosexual unions, on the other hand, qua homosexual, are intrinsically incapable of procreative unity, hence are not kinds of marriage
>which just is the normative fulfilment of the sexual faculty.
Wrong.

99% of your entire post is pure sophistry and not even skilled sophistry, with no reasons to accept any of it. You started with a conclusion and worked towards an argument.

>>6634166
Then I would say that "asexuality" is the "defective instance", but "homosexuality" is a disordering of an instance that is not defective.

Blindness might be an acquired habit though. I don't think that a man is by nature blind. Even those "born blind" were born with the essential DNA that would give rise to visual organs, it's just that something went wrong in their growth that impaired them.

>I answer that, One thing can be natural to another in two ways. First in respect of the specific nature, as the faculty of laughing is natural to man, and it is natural to fire to have an upward tendency. Secondly, in respect of the individual nature, as it is natural to Socrates or Plato to be prone to sickness or inclined to health, in accordance with their respective temperaments. Again, in respect of both natures, something may be called natural in two ways: first, because it entirely is from the nature; secondly, because it is partly from nature, and partly from an extrinsic principle. For instance, when a man is healed by himself, his health is entirely from nature; but when a man is healed by means of medicine, health is partly from nature, partly from an extrinsic principle.

>Thus, then, if we speak of habit as a disposition of the subject in relation to form or nature, it may be natural in either of the foregoing ways. For there is a certain natural disposition demanded by the human species, so that no man can be without it. And this disposition is natural in respect of the specific nature. But since such a disposition has a certain latitude, it happens that different grades of this disposition are becoming to different men in respect of the individual nature. And this disposition may be either entirely from nature, or partly from nature, and partly from an extrinsic principle, as we have said of those who are healed by means of art.

>>6634186
are we supposed to believe your assertions or something?

>>6634140
This is the most embarrassing abuse of Aristotle I've ever read on /lit/, holy shit.

Being gay means you are sexually attracted to the same sex. It doesn't mean you have gay sex. It is a physiological and psychological attribute that you cannot change. According to your third-rate ontology, being gay should count as "first nature," but that's not even worth discussing because even if Aristotle's ontology were worth using today, you're not using it remotely correctly.

Being gay does not mean you have gay sex. If you control your urge to have gay sex, you're still gay. This is what Catholicism and pretty much any other rigorous Christian doctrine teaches. If the same doctrine teaches that gay sex is sinful, that simply means that gay people have an unchangeable, sinful urge that they need to control. But they are still gay.

fucking summer /lit/

>>6634190
i am not arguing that it is natural, it is unnatural

>it's just that something went wrong in their growth that impaired them.
i dont see how this cant be the case with "homosexuality"

>>6634192
Embarrassing.

>>6634186
The way you contradict is very convincing. No need to elaborate here.

>>6634199
>If the same doctrine teaches that gay sex is sinful, that simply means that gay people have an unchangeable, sinful urge that they need to control.
Which is exactly why it is impossible to accept Catholicism and pretty much any other rigorous Christian, since it is effectively impossible for a thing to control an unchangeable inherent quality it possesses. Either God makes mistakes, or God intentionally creates souls for the purpose of them being beyond his Grace. This is unacceptable.

>>6634220
>The way you contradict is very convincing.
It is, yes, when all you did was create ad hoc definitions and snowball them. At least the contradiction doesn't try and introduce self-generated "knowledge".

>>6634199
>Being gay means you are sexually attracted to the same sex.

Yes, and I'm saying that this attraction itself is an acquired habit, and not something that arises out of nature.

>>6634222
that is a false dichotomy, it could be that they are homosexual because of the intervention of a secondary cause

>>6634245
You don't choose to be heterosexual, kid.

>>6634257
>secondary cause

That's literally heresy.

>>6634262
Just because something forms over time, doesn't mean you choose it with your conscious. We all have preferences on many things we can't choose, that doesn't make these preferences innate.

>>6634275
>We all have preferences on many things we can't choose, that doesn't make these preferences innate.
How is "a preference that can't be chosen" not innate?

>>6634281
Our existence preceded it

>>6634275
So you can choose to not be heterosexual or homosexual?

>>6634272
Explain

>>6634288
No anymore than you can choose to like broccoli or video games or beer if you don't like them, or choose not to like coffee or peanut butter if you like them.

>>6634245
If something is an acquired habit then it can be unlearned. It has been effectively proven that you cannot unlearn gay attraction.

Calling something a "habit" also implies that there is agency, that there is an act which is performed. Sexual attraction is not something that you "do". You can develop a contrary habit of repressing your natural sexual attraction, but that doesn't eliminate the sexual attraction. On the other hand, having gay sex can be considered a habit.

>>6634295
You're comparing completely unlike things.

>>6634296
>You can develop a contrary habit of repressing your natural sexual attraction, but that doesn't eliminate the sexual attraction.

this is just modern psychological dogma
if you are gay, that is part of your ontological being, and not a habit
if you have no sexual desire, that is an acquired habit of repression
"pure ideology"

>>6634296
>If something is an acquired habit then it can be unlearned.
I don't know about that, do you think you can unlearn your primary language?

>>6634306
Only in intensity.

>>6634315
Are you not aware that there have been billions of indigenous persons around the globe that were subject to the education systems of imperialist powers and were made to do exactly that?

>>6634315
I guess I never really thought about any of this before. Boy, did my religious upbringing really make me blind.

Thanks for expanding my worldview.

>>6634326
No, they weren't. They just stopped passing the language on.

>>6634319
No.

>>6634327
Sure

>>6634034
>Dreams are unintentional, therefore they cannot be sins.
I don't know about that, they probably think unintentional behavior can be a sin.

>Meanwhile, your own thoughts while awake ARE intentional, with very few exceptions.
What? Thoughts aren't intentional. You see a pretty girl walk by, BAM sinner.

The way i see it this is all part of the package of trying to make everyone feel like they have done something wrong, driving them to seek forgiveness from god, something that is at the core of christianity: you can never be completely "clean" without jesus.

>>6634330
No, they were put into years of abusive reeducation programs that have made most of their languages extinct or moribund. One of the big issues in modern linguistics is the complement and hopeful revitalization of such extinct languages. It's like you don't know what you're talking about.

>>6634346
They made their languages extinct because they stopped using them, not because they "unlearned" them.

A program intense, abusive and prolonged enough would have a similar effect upon gay people.

>>6634346
>hopeful revitalization of such extinct languages
What a waste of resources when they have so many more serious problems.
Speaking a language they didn't invent doesn't make them worse off.

>>6634344
>ignoring the rest of the post
>ignoring the other anon (me)

>>6634315
that's a horrible analogy. knowledge is not habit. I might not be able to unlearn my knowledge of the language, but I can unlearn the habit of speaking the language.

once your gay sexual attraction is set (whether it's from birth or from a confluence of biological and psychological factors) it can't be unlearned

anyway the origin of this discussion was the ontology of gay, and this underage dilettante using Aristotle in the most malicious and arbitrary way possible. Physiological responses are not habits. Even if they were, we have found that there is a genetic correlation with gayness, so it would certainly not be an "acquired" habit.

AND EVEN IF you people were to abuse language hard enough to argue that being gay is an acquired habit, the Catholic Church with their far more rigorous Aristotelian exposition of scripture still disagrees with you, so what the fuck

>>6634351
>"stopped using them"
Right, Indians completely freely chose to simply not speak their languages anymore.
Kill yourself.

>>6634353
Did you even think about what you wrote? How is the preservation and revitalization of languages not at the very top of list of priorities for people whose careers are the study of languages?

>>6634372
Sexual orientation is not a habit.

>>6634376
I'm not sure if you understanding how abuse and drilling work. I seriously doubt they erased their memories.

>>6634372
i think that it is because he thinks that things can it can only be natural (as in, according to our essence) or an acquired habit, he never considers a third option

>>6634376
Do you think they were ever forbidden from speaking their language?
No, they just started using the conqueror's language because it was more convenient, you kill yourself.

>>6634395
He means reeducation camps to "civilize" natives. I doubt most Indians went through those, though.

>>6633803
But they can't help being gay, I think. How can you punish someone for something they can't help doing?

>>6634393
>Sexual orientation is not a habit.
That is exactly what I'm arguing

>>6634386
It's important for someone who studies languages because it's a way for them to get paid, but it's not actually important for a society with extinct languages.
At most it is good for historical purposes, but trying to make them used again is utterly pointless.

>>6634402
they cant help being gay, but they can abstain from doing gay things
>How can you punish someone for something they can't help doing?
for the reason that said activity is wrong

>>6633955
does God have a dick? if so, why? if not, is it just smooth?

>>6634413
>does God have a dick?
Why wouldn't he?

>>6634402
I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm an Anglo-Catholic, so my Church doesn't really dislike gayness. But coming from a Christian point of view (and I'm more orthodox on homosexuality than most Anglo-Catholics, but less than the Church of Rome), we all can't help sinning, either. We have a sinful nature. To say, "Well then, you can't call sin 'bad'" is not how Christianity works.

>>6634419
>We have a sinful nature.
i disagree, our nature is not sinful at all

>>6634424
Which denomination are you?

>>6634417
Nobody to have sex with.

>>6634426
Catholic

>>6634419
Why did God make them gay to begin with?

>>6634441
You're a Roman (I presume) Catholic, and you reject the doctrine of original sin?

>>6634437
I have a dick and don't have anyone to have sex with either, so what?

>>6634446
There are psychologies which incline one to be a lot more sinful than homosexuality does, and homosexuality really isn't anymore sinful than having sex with a condom on is.

>>6634447
no, why would you assume that?
that we are deprived divine assistance "help" our nature doesnt mean that our nature has turned evil, it is still good, because it was made by God

Ok Catholic bros question incoming

I'm a nominal Catholic and I like reading Catholic theology from time to time.

I'm wondering why the sex act has only ONE purpose. Is God averse to humans experiencing pleasure? Surely God made the pleasures of the world to make it a somewhat happy place. If food is only meant for nutrition, why did he make it taste good? Is it wrong to eat any food when you aren't hungry just cause I like the taste? Should I count up my calories and make sure I'm never eating any food for pleasure since, after all, the purpose of food is to keep me alive!

The case seems the same with sex. Obviously the function of sex is to reproduce. But God gave us the gift of highly pleasurable sex even though he surely knew we don't want to (and probably shouldn't ) reproduce all the time. I see no difference in enjoying a few donuts and having some protected sex.

What's the Catholic counter argument to this?

>>6634466
Well I obviously don't mean the nature of the soul, I'm talking about Galatians 5:17

>>6634467
Keep in mind that food is not a person, it is a thing you pulverize and digest. There is no such thing as "fidelity to food", etc.

>>6634467
food tastes good to encourage us to eat.
sex feels good for the same reason

>Is it wrong to eat any food when you aren't hungry just cause I like the taste?
if it could have any negative effects to your health it would be wrong (it could increase your cholesterol, or make you fat)
>Should I count up my calories and make sure I'm never eating any food for pleasure
No

>>6634344
>You see a pretty girl walk by, BAM sinner.

LITERALLY the opposite of what the other anon and I said.

Scenario A: You see a pretty girl walk by. You deem her attractive, and you may even become erect. Both of these are involuntary actions, they are simple instincts derived from an innate desire to reproduce. You can't control your feelings of arousal, but you can control yourself from acting on them, as in:

Scenario B: You see a pretty girl walk by, and you become aroused. However, instead of stopping there, you begin to imagine committing sexual acts with this girl. This is NOT involuntary, and you CAN stop yourself from thinking these things. Therefore, if you don't stop yourself, then it's a sin. Not as bad as ACTUALLY committing sexual acts with her, but a sin nonetheless.

Your response, however, isn't entirely wrong. At some point in their life, everyone has done something wrong. Even major things, such as injuring another person physically or emotionally. The more major sins are mortal sins, and without having been forgiven for these, you can't get into heaven. It's good to feel bad about doing bad things, otherwise the world would be much worse off. That's the point of ethics.

>>6634482
>you begin to imagine committing sexual acts with this girl. This is NOT involuntary
Hm, i guess you're right.
I still don't see anything wrong with it though, you're not affecting anyone else with your thoughts.

>>6634474
still, we dont have a sinful nature

>>6634467
The sex act doesn't have only one purpose; it has two purposes, procreation and unity. God is absolutely not averse to experiencing pleasure: look up Genesis 2,16. Many people are really obsessed about the Original sin, i.e. the result of a great prohibition, but they always ignore that while God forbids man to eat from the tree of knowledge, he also allows him to enjoy the rest. All the rest. Including sex.

Sex is pleasurable, yes, and that's the reason why it's not only procreative, but also unitive.

>>6634493
You're affecting yourself.

>>6634493
why would something be wrong only if it affects negatively someone else?

>>6634493
It's because the act of the will is completely interior, so your intention of an action is the only thing that really matters. If you work towards and complete an action in your mind, it's as good as done. That means there should also be some good loopholes there, so don't despair. It's not as rigid as it seems at first. Glad I could help, though!

>>6631811
Abstinence

>>6634522
>If you work towards and complete an action in your mind
Stop posting forever then because i killed you in my mind.

>What is the purpose of sex?
Procreation between a loving married couple.

>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?
Because its sinful to sleep with someone for purely enjoyment because its shameful.

>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral? Why?
Yes. Because its sinful and shameful to do otherwise.

>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?

There is no "physically cannot", they can try and pray to god for a miracle. Nothing is impossible with him.

Is it alright that I use loopholes to get out of sin.

For example "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman it is an abomination"

Can I bend it around so we can have intercourse standing or doggy? Technically Im not going against gods words so I don't see what is wrong.

>>6634675
I have another question. Am I allowed to telepathically suspend the ethical my entire life so I can lead a horrible life that inspires Christians to shun that way and live a more virtuous way than I do? Its an end justifies the means kind of deal where I know I am not sincerely doing these sins but am doing them to better other Christians.

>>6634163
I guess you lack reading comprehension on top of being a faggot

>>6634501
Why is the unitive aspect strictly confined to marriage? What if I feel a strong bond to a woman at a club and want to be close to her for the night but due to life circumstances know I can't be with her forever?

I guess my general thrust is that just because something has several definite functions does not mean we can't also enjoy that thing without any purpose from time to time. Singing and dancing are purposeless, aesthetic pleasures, but they aren't sinful. Why can't recreational sex be the same.

>>6634237
>>6634186
>>6634203

Not even that guy but, uh, Pretty sure he's right about the catholic stance on those things. I mean, you know he's not just offering his opinion? It's in relation to the catholic understanding of sex and OP's question.

>>6633803
>And you can be absolved of both those sins by a priest.
Assuming you try not to do them again

>>6634125
>the Catholic Church has already accepted that people are born gay and cannot change it
It hasn't and they can and often do change it

>>6634594
End is different than result. You may have intended to kill me, and your intention is what matters with regards to your soul, but the result is that I'm still alive because you can't kill people over the internet.

This is the reason that the statement "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is wrong, good intentions can't send you to hell.

>>6634021
I am the guy you're replying to.

>I never fantasise about it like I fantasise about simply being with her. I'm not sure what it is I want from her, perhaps it is to be loved in return, perhaps it is nothing.

Great. This kind of transcendental love is best not tinged with sex at all. It is the "no greater" love of which Christ spoke, that a man would die for his friends. It doesn't lead to unnatural sexual acts, is not oriented to such acts, and moreover consists purely in an aesthetic admiration and desire of the other's company, the enjoyment of their humanity. It's purely admirable. It can exist between friends, family members, or lovers, and is kin to the love of God. It is a great shame that our culture wrongly confuses this with the love a husband bears for his wife.

>I would lay a premise that love is a good. I would also lay a premise that when one does "a good action" they are expressing their love for God.

Nothing wrong here.

>Now, if we believe that expressing love for God not only is good, but is The Good, then it seems likely that expression of love is a good in general.

Correct, comports exactly with what I meant.

>So, if I have sex with a woman in order to express my love in physical terms (rather than for hedonistic pleasure) my action is good.

If you were a man, having sex with a woman (your wife) partially for hedonistic pleasure is perfectly acceptable- indeed, it would be a bit unnatural if one did not take pleasure in intercourse with one's wife (though more in the nature of an involuntary defect than a voluntary one, I would think).

On the other hand, if one is of the same sex as one's beloved, whatever is distinctly sexual in the "physical expression of one's love" (one is not talking about friendly pats on the back or hugs here)- whatever perverse means of satisfying the sexual appetite are used to "physically express" one's love, is disordered and evil.

To protest that this is being done for the sake of "love" is vacuous: Everyone acts for the love of something. Indeed, your love of your beloved, insofar as it involves such unnatural acts, is marred by a hatred for the right order of your beloved's body, of a concern for her chastity- that is, orientation toward the good in the sexual respect. Your alienation from your and her procreative capacity is an obvious manifestation of this Gnostic contempt for the physical right order. Your righteous love of the other is being used as a mask for evil, and that cannot and ought not stand.

It is wrong to oppose the love of God and the love of the right order of the body. One loves God partly by loving his creation, especially his image, Man. Procreative unity is not the sum total of human purpose, but it is an important aspect of that purpose, as an aspect of the body, which is an aspect of men. The love of God is not opposed to, but entails, all other virtues, including chastity. Any "action" that runs contrary to this virtue, is opposed to the love of God.

>>6631811
>What is the purpose of sex?
To make more people.
>Why is it the purpose of sex and not something else?
Because sex for pleasure is lust, much of the time.
>Must all sex be directly done in the intent of all the purposes to be considered moral? Why?
If the two that are having sex are married under the Catholic church, then it should be fine. Condoms and birth control are technically against the teachings of the modern church, but it isn't fornication. It's a pick your sin thing I guess, but recreational sex between a married couple isn't wrong.
>If gay marriage is wrong due to the lack of ability to procreate, what of couples that physically cannot have children?
I believed gay marriage was wrong because marriage was a sort of bond making a male and female into one again, similar to adam and eve. Things against homosexuality aren't too outspoken in the bible, but gay sex is an obvious sin, with Moses speaking out against it, and crossdressing is considered an abomination as well. Also, gay sex is fonication, so it is inherently sinful.

But look it up yourself. 4chan isn't the best source, and neither am I.

>>6634237
They're not ad hoc, they're grounded in human nature, albeit presented in summary form because I don't have the inclination to write a textbook on sexual morality. Your flippant contradictions are, I am almost certain, founded in misunderstandings.

>>6632250
Blessed be His Holy Name

>>6634186
>human beings are divided into two sexes
>Only most of the time, and many genders.

Kekkington

>>6637188
>hermaphrodites don't exist
>gays don't exist
>shitposting outside of /b/

Why do women have clits if sex is only meant to be procreational? Why do people develop into sexual maturity and develop sexual desire before they're mentally, physically, and economically able to run a family household if sex is only meant to be procreational? How is gay sex unnatural if it occurs in nature all the time? How is sex between two men or two women in a committed monogamous marriage wrong but sex between a infertile/old man and woman in a committed monogamous marriage not wrong? Why should anyone accept anything as true from an ancient cult developed at a time when they couldn't possibly understand natural science as well as we do and rests on claims that are either unprovable and impossible (like a man being born from an unfertilized egg, or being executed and rising from the grave) or proven completely untrue (the entire Exodus myth)? Do Christians have to rain on other peoples' happiness because deep down they understand they have no foundations for their beliefs?

>>6637587

I dunno why the heathens think these kinds of arguments hold water, but whatever, lightning round.

>Why do women have clits if sex is only meant to be procreational

No one says that sex is meant to exclude pleasure. But what makes sex, sex, is its procreative aspect. Hence ignoring that aspect is to pervert the sexual function.

>hy do people develop into sexual maturity and develop sexual desire before they're mentally, physically, and economically able to run a family household if sex is only meant to be procreational

Having a faculty of a certain nature doesn't mean that the faculty should come into being ex nihilo in an instant without time for maturity. Biology in general doesn't tend to work like that.

>How is sex between two men or two women in a committed monogamous marriage wrong but sex between a infertile/old man and woman in a committed monogamous marriage not wrong?

Because the latter engage in a unity which is of the correct type to constitute a fulfilment of their sexual desire, even if factors extraneous to the union (e.g., age, disease, injury, deformation, etc) prevent that union from producing offspring.

>Why should anyone accept anything as true from an ancient cult developed at a time when they couldn't possibly understand natural science as well as we do and rests on claims that are either unprovable and impossible (like a man being born from an unfertilized egg, or being executed and rising from the grave) or proven completely untrue (the entire Exodus myth)?

Because the fundamental insight is sound- you don't need to be a modern scientist to know that humans produce offspring, and have faculties to produce them rooted in the complementary nature of men and women.

>Do Christians have to rain on other peoples' happiness because deep down they understand they have no foundations for their beliefs?

Christians encourage people toward true happiness, not the irrational counterfeits of the modern barbarian.

>>6637664
>No one says that sex is meant to exclude pleasure.
If sex is ONLY MEANT for procreative purposes then its pleasure-granting quality is highly suspect. In reality, sex is not ONLY for procreation but for the psychological and physical health and bond between persons. This problem doesn't just concern homosexuals, it concerns sex between monogamous heterosexual married persons. As it turns out, not everyone wants babies, or at least not everyone wants more than a set amount of babies, and it's actually better for everyone that the amount of babies made is controlled to 1-2 per person.

>Having a faculty of a certain nature doesn't mean that the faculty should come into being ex nihilo in an instant without time for maturity.
God mad a mistake, then.

>Because the latter engage in a unity which is of the correct type to constitute a fulfilment of their sexual desire
In the real world, people, including married, monogamous, heterosexual couples, don't always have sex to procreate. In fact, very rarely do they have sex to procreate. The fulfillment of sexual desire is sex. It is absolutely insane that people should only have sex once or twice in their lives or have sex expecting to have babies every single time.

>Because the fundamental insight is sound
Your fundamental insight being unnecessarily limited and rigged to make anyone that doesn't follow your prejudice sophistry as worthy of being stoned to death.

>Christians encourage people toward true happiness
Clearly not.

>>6631811
It's easy Opie.
>1. Straight sex is bad.
>2. Unless you're married and trying to have kids
>3. Homosex is even worse.
>4. Unless you're a priest trying to get some boipussi.

>>6637758

No one argues that sex involves procreative purposes alone, as if one can isolate procreation from other things in complex systems like human beings, with complex cultural dimensions. What I am arguing is that the unity of procreatively-complementary individuals is the *distinctive* purpose of sex, which pleasure, socialisation, love and all the rest help perfect. The consequence of procreation being distinctive, however, is that sexual acts performed in such a way as to frustrate the procreative aspect of the union are disordered, as sex acts.

While it is true that sex also confers social, psychological, and physiological advantages, none of these are what make sex, sex. Hence it cannot be said that the mere achievement of such benefits makes an act rightly-ordered, as a sex act, if these are achieved to the exclusion of the procreative end.

Now it may be that we are picking out different actions when we talk about sex. The same gesture, considered as a matter of geometry, can be fulfilling different functions and operating toward different ends at the same time, after all.

I am talking about the procreative faculty, and the fulfilment and perversion thereof. You seem to be talking about pleasurable touching. In that case, we are talking about two different actions (though they may physically coincide), and you should understand my position as that some forms of pleasurable touching (what you call 'sex') involve perversions of the procreative faculty, and hence are immoral.

Whether people happen to want babies, for whatever reason, says nothing about the proper end of their sexual faculties.

>God mad a mistake, then.
Seems pretty implausible.

>In the real world, people, including married, monogamous, heterosexual couples, don't always have sex to procreate. In fact, very rarely do they have sex to procreate. The fulfillment of sexual desire is sex. It is absolutely insane that people should only have sex once or twice in their lives or have sex expecting to have babies every single time.

The Catholics would tell you to choose your days carefully, if you are fecund (and of course, not all are fecund). They seem to make it work well enough, even those who take the teaching seriously. That said, though I personally subscribe to most of the Catholic sexual philosophy, I am not a Catholic and so feel free to disagree with them on this point- I think within marriage contraception can be ok, since as the perfection of sex the marriage is itself a continuing sex act, with individual acts of coitus being mere parts of that act, which can be regulated not as destroying the procreative orientation of marriage, but in ensuring that that orientation achieves its optimum expression.

>>6637758
>Your fundamental insight being unnecessarily limited and rigged

Your understanding is being limited by inordinate desire to act irrationally. It is the Christian who will not settle for distorted perversions of sex, but pursues the genuine article, whose appreciation of sex is not limited by ignorance.

>>6637843
>No one argues that sex involves procreative purposes alone
The Catholic Church argues that is exactly the only possible reason for sex. Why else do they say all their members, including monogamous married heterosexual couples with children, sin when they use contraceptives? They are, of course, wrong. Sex doesn't have to be about making babies, most times it isn't, and it never was.

>Seems pretty implausible.
Well, we are talking about a guy that gives children cancer.

>The Catholics would tell you to choose your days carefully, if you are fecund (and of course, not all are fecund).
Then they are sinners, according to their administrative body, since they are intentionally having sex and not trying to conceive from that sex. But of course they're trying to have sex without conceiving- sex is wonderful, it fosters happy unions, and having kids when you don't really want them for whatever reason is insane and beyond irresponsible.

>>6637862
The Christian creates the perversion in their mind. There is no perversion "out there", it's only inside you. The height of irrationality is saying it's irrational to criticize your terrorizing people because they're not following your ridiculous rule-book.

Catholicism is too hard for most people so a Catholic must make more Catholics, not with theology, but with his dick.

>>6638362
>The Catholic Church argues that is exactly the only possible reason for sex.
it says that you cant divorce the procreative and the unitive function without being inmoral

>Then they are sinners, according to their administrative body, since they are intentionally having sex and not trying to conceive from that sex.
the act would be legitimate, since it is ordered toward what it is naturally directed to (of course one must take the intentions/situation of the participants to see if it really is ok)

>The Christian creates the perversion in their mind. There is no perversion "out there", it's only inside you. The height of irrationality is saying it's irrational to criticize your terrorizing people because they're not following your ridiculous rule-book.
Oh please, even Plato and Aristotle considered homosexual acts as shameful and believed sex is ok only inside of marriage, youre being ridiculous.

If you really want to bond that hard with someone, have a drink with them, instead of trying to get in their panties.

As the other anon said (who is mistaken about contraception, fyi)
>Your understanding is being limited by inordinate desire to act irrationally. It is the Christian who will not settle for distorted perversions of sex, but pursues the genuine article, whose appreciation of sex is not limited by ignorance.

>>6638540
>it says that you cant divorce the procreative and the unitive function without being inmoral
Right, they think procreation is the only possible reason for sex. But it isn't.

>the act would be legitimate
Everything you've just said up to this point means it can't possibly be. Intentionally having sex on a safe day so as to avoid pregnancy can't possibly be "ordered toward" anything but sex for the non-procreative reasons for sex that the Church condemns as worthy of eternal damnation.

>Oh please, even Plato and Aristotle considered homosexual acts as shameful and believed sex is ok only inside of marriage
1) No one's pinned their arguments on Plato or Aristotle, who were wrong about many things.
2) Socrates, their teacher, was a notorious homo. And, perhaps you recall, there is "no one wiser than Socrates".
3) Gauging actual Ancient Greek attitudes, including those of Plato and Aristotle, towards what we call homosexuality isn't nearly as simple as you make it. Plato explicitly prescribed that the Republic's military class should be actively homosexual so as to foster brotherly love and loyalty unto death. Sorry but you're not going to get a Catholic conversion from him.

>If you really want to bond that hard with someone, have a drink with them, instead of trying to get in their panties.
There is literally no reason why my wife and I shouldn't fuck each other over having drinks. I don't understand why you derive such pleasure from telling other people what they should be doing, really. What a hubristic hassle.

>Your understanding is being limited by inordinate desire to act irrationally.
You still haven't explained what this "irrational action" it is that I am guilty of.

>>6638708
>Right, they think procreation is the only possible reason for sex.
>Reading comprehension
>Ever
Procreation and unity is the reason SEX is SEX which means the act of SEX must be ORDERED towards procreation and unity, not that procreation must result from everytime you have sex.

>No one's pinned their arguments on Plato or Aristotle, who were wrong about many things.
Well, they were right on this one m8!
Most of their mistakes are of scientific nature, their ethics, metaphysics, etc are mostly spot on

>I don't understand why you derive such pleasure from telling other people what they should be doing, really
It's love for one's brother
If I saw someone I love doing something wrong, I wouldnt stand there just watching for shits and giggles, or try to "justify" what theyre doing, I'd tell them that they are mistaken (softly and calmly, obviously, but not try to sugarcoat it a lot)

Socrates also thought homosexual act were perverse

>You still haven't explained what this "irrational action" it is that I am guilty of.
Easy, youre going after what you want, not what is good for you, which is to act irrationally

>>6638808
>Procreation and unity is the reason SEX is

You've pulled this completely out of your ass.

>>6631811
Who cares what papists think about anything?

>>6638831
damn, i'm not even gay, but i would gladly shave him down and massage his chest or something.

>>6638808
>Socrates also thought homosexual act were perverse

He and every other rational human being on planet earth.

>>6638831
eh, at least it isnt a 8 inch dick

>>6631811
For there to be a purpose for procreation there must be a purpose for creation.
For the human brain to have a concept of purpose requires there to be ultimate purpose.

The question is where you would like to stop, will you stop at sex?
Matter?

Material things have function, not purpose; for purpose there must be a conscience.
And do not all functions require purpose?
If the ultimate function is the universe, then it must have purpose in order to exist.
When we perceive things as being without purpose, we are fooling ourselves by shoehorning some other concept in for purpose.
As long as you are conscious you cannot escape purpose, and God being the ultimate consciousness, his creations have inherent purpose that we may not be able to know.

>>6638831

Um, no, that's pretty much a bog-standard definition, not that it matters particularly much for the purposes of the argument. Sex just is that process oriented toward procreation and unity. It's that biological function which makes sex what it is, and the associated behaviours sexual.

To illustrate the point, if we were to encounter a race of aliens which did not have bodily differentiation according to reproductive role, hence were not capable of reproductive unity, but were capable of friendship and pleasurable physical contact, they wouldn't be sexual beings in virtue of the latter ability.