Sodomy vs. The True Nature of Marriage

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1271355145' post='2094119']
From what I've read, any action that is not pro-creative (generative) or has a similar or like action in a homosexual relationship is illicit.[/quote]

[quote] Socrates, I have West's book and heard his Naked Without Shame series. I don't think he is the villain he's being painted to be. I think he is a breath of fresh air because he's able to address topics and issues which would be difficult to hear from clergy. His position helps adults, especially married or soon to be married adults, apply theology to reality.
[/quote]

With all due respect, while defending West from being "painted" a "villain" you have turned some posters here (like Knight) into a "villain." It has already been said, more than once in fact, that anal penetration is immoral because it is not self-giving. That argument has been made already, [u]besides[/u] the argument that it imitates homosexual relations and is not a healthy form of penetration.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1271355640' post='2094125']
there is nothing "puritanical" about condemning illicit sexual acts..you can't debate Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition...what the Church has handed down to us, and what Scripture preaches is there for us to accept or reject...
[/quote]

Yes, it is very odd that a person against anal and oral sexual acts is labeled a "puritan."

[Hassan]

[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]


From what I recall of aquinas, the traditional Christian understanding of sodomy includes hcf's definition and then some. I think a woman holding and sorry of dominate position during sex, like being on top, was also sodomy for aquinas and the early Christians.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1271353495' post='2094099']
i tend to think of animals when it comes to oral and anal sex...

again, I would dare to say...if you are deeply in love, you don't need to do illicit sexual actions to make your love-making "more exciting!!!!"
[/quote]
The two acts mentioned above are not morally equivalent, anal sex is condemned.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1271356818' post='2094130']
From what I recall of aquinas, the traditional Christian understanding of sodomy includes hcf's definition and then some. I think a woman holding and sorry of dominate position during sex, like being on top, was also sodomy for aquinas and the early Christians.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 April 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1271357186' post='2094132']
The two acts mentioned above are not morally equivalent, anal sex is condemned.
[/quote]
Oral sex isn't?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1271355640' post='2094125']
there is nothing "puritanical" about condemning illicit sexual acts..you can't debate Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition...what the Church has handed down to us, and what Scripture preaches is there for us to accept or reject...
[/quote]
Please don't twist my words. You know very well my comment about being puritanical was in response to limiting the sexual act between husband and wife to three steps I outlined. It was not a comment on sodomy.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1271355750' post='2094126']
With all due respect, while defending West from being "painted" a "villain" you have turned some posters here (like Knight) into a "villain." It has already been said, more than once in fact, that anal penetration is immoral because it is not self-giving. That argument has been made already, [u]besides[/u] the argument that it imitates homosexual relations and is not a healthy form of penetration.
[/quote]
Please don't create scandal where none exists. I have not turned any posters into villains. I have read what they posted. I have read West's book and heard his series (Have you?) and posted my perception of the conversation so far. My opinion is to open to change if circumstances warrant.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=104486&view=findpost&p=2094076"]Your understanding of self-giving[/url] was rooted in the idea the woman does not feel pleasure in the act. I could not accept that understanding as criteria to determine what is objectively right or wrong. (What if she enjoys it? Is it then morally acceptable?)

I addressed the immorality of the act because it mirrors an act in homosexual relations is insufficient evidence. I will no longer pray because pagans prayed.

In regards to it being an unhealthy activity, I did not see any posts laying out the health risks involved. That's a new one. No need to provide evidence. I can imagine how it could be dangerous.

Edited April 15, 2010 by kamiller42

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1271353481' post='2094098']
Yes, I have said this already. In case you missed it.
[/quote]

Yes, we are on the same team. Sometimes you have to repeat things others say to drive the point home.

"Husbands, love your wives." 'nough said.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1271357256' post='2094134']
Oral sex isn't?
[/quote]
...it is condemned...

in recent years, it has only become a part of a "debate" because of the hardening of hearts...traditionally, the Church has always condemned the act of oral stimulation of the genitals regardless of "where the sexual act ends..."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1271357256' post='2094134']
Oral sex isn't?
[/quote]
The marital act consists of foreplay and intercourse.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1271357473' post='2094138']
Please don't twist my words. You know very well my comment about being puritanical was in response to limiting the sexual act between husband and wife to three steps I outlined. It was not a comment on sodomy.
[/quote]

sorry, I mis understood ya...it seemed like you were twisting my points and criticizing them and making me sound like some sort of puritan...(see, it works both ways...)

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1271356818' post='2094130']
From what I recall of aquinas, the traditional Christian understanding of sodomy includes hcf's definition and then some. I think a woman holding and sorry of dominate position during sex, like being on top, was also sodomy for aquinas and the early Christians.
[/quote]
Aquinas is not Scripture. You will find the roots of my comment by tracing back in the thread.

So now the woman on top is illicit? This act of making love is getting complicated.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271358035' post='2094144']
...it is condemned...

in recent years, it has only become a part of a "debate" because of the hardening of hearts...traditionally, the Church has always condemned the act of oral stimulation of the genitals regardless of "where the sexual act ends..."
[/quote]
Explicitly document this please from something in the last 30 years.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 April 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1271358118' post='2094145']
The marital act consists of foreplay and intercourse.
[/quote]
...oral sex is not appropriate foreplay...it is...to put it lightly...rather disgusting, and not at all "honoring God with the body..."

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1271357473' post='2094138']
Your understanding of self-giving was rooted in the idea the woman does not feel pleasure in the act. I could not accept that understanding as criteria to determine what is objectively right or wrong. (What if she enjoys it? Is it then morally acceptable?)[/quote]

It was not [u]only[/u] rooted in the idea that the act causes women pain, but that the act degrades both persons. That it would cause her pain is just [u]one[/u] example of how it degrades a woman. I just listed one example. Although I did mention the positioning of the spouses for the act, which removes eye contact and physical embrace from the act, which again makes the woman the object and the man selfish (after his own interests).

As for a woman "enjoying" anal penetration, well I do not know how that is possible - biologically or psychologically.

[quote] In regards to it being an unhealthy activity, I did not see any posts laying out the health risks involved. That's a new one. No need to provide evidence. I can imagine how it could be dangerous.
[/quote]

My mistake, I mentioned it in the other thread that got closed.

Edited April 15, 2010 by HisChildForever