Sodomy vs. The True Nature of Marriage

[dominicansoul]

i seriously believe that as Catholics, we must at all times grasp what has been handed to us through Scripture and Tradition, in seeking the truth through these debates. I myself find no harm in debating these topics to death, because it is good to discuss and re-discuss our points of view in order to come to the correct conclusions. In light of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, in no way, shape or form are we to accept sodomy as an act to be permitted between married couples. I've said this before...I find it quite beligerant of us, that we who are blessed by God with Holy Sacraments, and are called to be Lights in this world...would try to find "loopholes" to justify the most base and perverse actions. In marriage, a man and woman are united by the Almighty God. How can such a couple dare permit themselves to partake in such abominable actions? Why must we humans always take gifts from God and use them to our own sick desires? Must we always pervert what the Good Lord gives to us?

Sodomy is condemned throughout Scripture. God even brought His wrath upon a city because of it...

I could care less what Christopher West says, or how he says it, or whether or not he says it strongly enough...SODOMY is an ABOMINATION...and we Catholics should never think otherwise...

With that in mind, I am happy to see he is taking the time to straighten out the controversial aspects of his presentations. I pray he comes back strongly defending the Church's teachings...

[goldenchild17]

I have nothing of use to contribute to the subject at hand. I'm not at all comfortable with Mr. West's teaching on things, but its not my place to argue why. That isn't to say anything (positive or negative) about TOTB as presented by JPII, simply because I'm simply not a theologian or philosopher and can't hope to understand it on my own any time soon. That being the case, I would hope that someone other than Mr. West would offer good explanation of it, because as it stands, my overall opinion of TOTB is not a particularly positive one, not because of JPII but because of the little I've heard about it, as explained by Mr. West. I can only hope (and assume) that Mr. West hasn't completely gotten it 100% right. We'll see what happens when he comes back from his vacation.

I just wanted to comment on the posts which argue that this topic has been done before and shouldn't be done anymore. Yes it has been done, pretty much every possible debate topic under the sun has been covered. This is a message board, it's very existence depends on people discussing things, whether important or not. If the message board (this one or anyone) is going to continue then eventually old topics will be rehashed. There are many discussions which have been done to bits, and yet if they are never brought up again, then some people will never ever see them. Why? Because a lot of times out of sight really is out of mind. If someone never hears, for example, that condoms don't always prevent stds, or that Mary never sinned etc., then it may never ever occur to them to ever look into it. They may never discover the truth, not because the information doesn't exist, but because it has been so long since its been discussed. But if topics are discussed on a regular (fairly regular, no need to get crazy with it) basis, then more people will be exposed to the information. Maybe I'm underestimating how often the average person does a topic search on a message board for an ancient (but important) subject, but I don't think its as much as when people see such a topic current on the page. Will the arguments be different or new in each new thread on a subject? Most likely not, because really what is particularly original nowadays? But different people have different attitudes or ways of putting things that might connect better with different people.

Basically, if you don't see a point for a particular thread, don't follow it. It's easier on you, and less cluttering in a topic that doesn't need to go off track by debating whether or not it should exist. There are (and have been) plenty of topics here, and other forums, that have been of absolutely no interest to me and ones that I saw no real point for. This is probably why I have been one of the longer tenured members here, but don't have the highest of post counts to go with it. And yes, I realize that my whole post totally contradicts that argument by the fact that I'm posting this here. But oh well

and just to make my post infinitely more important:

Edited April 15, 2010 by goldenchild17

[God Conquers]

[quote]I have nothing of use to contribute to the subject at hand. I'm not at all comfortable with Mr. West's teaching on things, but its not my place to argue why. That isn't to say anything (positive or negative) about TOTB as presented by JPII, simply because I'm simply not a theologian or philosopher and can't hope to understand it on my own any time soon. That being the case, I would hope that someone other than Mr. West would offer good explanation of it, because as it stands, my overall opinion of TOTB is not a particularly positive one, not because of JPII but because of the little I've heard about it, as explained by Mr. West[/quote]

Ummm... why don't you just read the Theology of the Body?

[goldenchild17]

Tried that before. I'm not smart enough yet to fully grasp it. I'm sure I'll try again some day.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='14 April 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1271303808' post='2093776']
Sodomy is condemned throughout Scripture. God even brought His wrath upon a city because of it...[/quote]
I know Scripture says a lot about homosexual behavior. Where in Scripture does it mention sodomy between man and woman?

[quote]With that in mind, I am happy to see he is taking the time to straighten out the controversial aspects of his presentations. I pray he comes back strongly defending the Church's teachings...[/quote]
From what I read, he is taking care of family business and pondering the advice he received about teaching [i]methods[/i], not the content.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='14 April 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1271313757' post='2093843']
Tried that before. I'm not smart enough yet to fully grasp it. I'm sure I'll try again some day.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
it's been re-translated - check the thread in open mic for the name of the guy who did the translating. you might find his re-translation easier to work with.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1271346405' post='2094036']
I know Scripture says a lot about homosexual behavior. Where in Scripture does it mention sodomy between man and woman?
[/quote]

If you do not define man-woman anal penetration as "sodomy" then how do you define it? And does your definition make it somehow acceptable as an act of foreplay?

[HisChildForever]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary,

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: \ˈsä-də-mē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1–11
Date: 13th century
: anal or oral copulation [b]with a member of the same or opposite sex[/b]; also : copulation with an animal
— sod·om·it·ic \ˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik\ or sod·om·it·i·cal \-ti-kəl\ adjective

Therefore one can use "sodomy" when referring to either man-man or man-woman anal penetration.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='15 April 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1271346839' post='2094048']
+JMJ+
it's been re-translated - check the thread in open mic for the name of the guy who did the translating. you might find his re-translation easier to work with.
[/quote]

thank you I'll give it another shot when I get some time. Maybe this summer.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1271347491' post='2094056']
If you do not define man-woman anal penetration as "sodomy" then how do you define it? And does your definition make it somehow acceptable as an act of foreplay?
[/quote]
I was looking for a Scriptural reference. Scripture makes it clear about men lying with men and women lying with women as being unnatural. It is mostly silent about specific acts. I am curious what passage you are thinking of.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1271347943' post='2094064']
I was looking for a Scriptural reference. Scripture makes it clear about men lying with men and women lying with women as being unnatural. It is mostly silent about specific acts. I am curious what passage you are thinking of.
[/quote]

Are you disregarding the definition I just posted?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1271348120' post='2094066']
Are you disregarding the definition I just posted?
[/quote]
Merriam-Webster is not Scripture. It's good info to know, but hardly an authoritative source on ethics. Got some Scriptural references?

Don't get me wrong. When I think about what the anus is for and to mix that with an act of love is disgusting. But, I don't want my senses to define what is right or wrong.

Some may find nibbling on an ear disgusting. Does "disgust" make something objectively wrong? An objective truth needs to be backed by an objective and authoritative source.

Edited April 15, 2010 by kamiller42

[Seven77]

it is an act from which no life can come as is the case with homosexual acts...therefore Rom. 1:26-27 apples.

read the Church Fathers here:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1271349029' post='2094072']
it is an act from which no life can come as is the case with homosexual acts...therefore Rom. 1:26-27 apples.

read the Church Fathers here:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html
[/quote]
There are many acts between a man and woman can perform from which no life can come of but does not exclude the act which would lead to life. Are they all forbidden?

Romans addresses specifically homosexual behavior. It declares all homosexual relations as unnatural whether there's sodomy or not. Even if one woman could implant a baby in the other, homosexuality would still be objectively wrong.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1271348550' post='2094070']
Merriam-Webster is not Scripture. It's good info to know, but hardly an authoritative source on ethics. Got some Scriptural references?

Don't get me wrong. When I think about what the anus is for and to mix that with an act of love is disgusting. But, I don't want my senses to define what is right or wrong.

Some may find nibbling on an ear disgusting. Does "disgust" make something objectively wrong? An objective truth needs to be backed by an objective and authoritative source.
[/quote]

Contraception is not clearly outlined in Scripture, even though Onan disrupted the marital act to avoid pregnancy and was punished for it (death). The Scriptures do not go into any specifics about medicines but the [i]Didache[/i] clarifies the matter. Since nothing is mentioned in the Scriptures concerning physical contraceptives, we must rely on Tradition and common sense to know that it is immoral. The same applies to abortion. There is no specific mention of abortion in Scriptures, but it is clearly outlined in Tradition.

Yes, the Scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality. The Scriptures also condemn fornication, sexual activity outside of marriage. Where in the Scriptures is appropriate foreplay addressed (for spouses)? Inappropriate foreplay? Again, we must rely on Tradition and common sense. If homosexual "intercourse" is condemned between two men, then why would the same act (anal penetration) NOT be condemned between a man and a woman? It is not a form of foreplay, because foreplay is used to encourage arousal. And foreplay is not penetration, since penetration is the marital act. It is also a misuse of our bodies. Here some argue that touching a spouse intimately is not what the hand was intended for. This is a poor argument, because the hand is an important tool for communication and relaying feelings. I think everyone here can agree that anal penetration is a misuse of the genitalia. It also degrades both spouses. There is no self-giving, as I imagine the woman experiences no physical pleasure - in this way, she is turned into an object meant to give pleasure. If you think about the positioning required for anal penetration, well this only emphasizes the idea that the woman is being used.

Note that our common sense should be linked to our existing knowledge of Catholic teaching.