Unless they're transgender.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Determines the Morality of a Sexual Act?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Unless they're transgender.
OK you got me
It's amazing to me how this isn't obvious to all.
Sex is like any other activity. It has consequences if not done intelligently. And it is immoral precisely when it is coercive or when the consequences are ignored and can harm another.
On the other hand, sex is a *wonderful* way to share a bond with someone. To limit that to just procreation is, in my mind, completely immoral.
It doesn't bother me if two people of the same gender have sex. What is it to me? How does their happiness hurt anyone else?
It doesn't bother me if someone has more than one sexual partner if *everyone* is fully aware of the situation. Again, for consenting adults, what is the problem? Yes, take care about diseases and birth control. But immoral? Please.
What *does* bother me is people putting their noses into places they don't belong. If your neighbor isn't hurting anyone and all are consenting, it is NONE of your business. So stay out of it. Unless, that is, you want o join in and they are OK with that.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
One could still pose the question of whether prostitution falls under the definition of "coercion". Most (not all) prostitutes have allowed themselves into their trade, in compliance with financial pressure. Incorporating money into sex could still be considered coercion. Of course, prostitution is not a sexual act; it is a business act, which is why it should be governed as such. I think it should be legal and regulated to protect prostitutes and their clients, but still socially discouraged.
All of us are coerced into having jobs in order to survive. If we are lucky, we enjoy our jobs. Those less lucky do not. So, yes, regulated.
I don't think prostitution should be any more socially discouraged than any other service job. It would be nice if people have other choices, but that is true of other jobs as well.
There *should* be social discouragement for violating previous agreements with other partners.
Except for people with conditions that cause irregular ovulation, every fertile female who isn't on the pill or pregnant "spills her seed" about once a month.
Christian rules around masturbation were written by people who didn't know what we now consider the basics of biology. In Biblical times, the common view was that the raw material to create the baby all came from the man's sperm and that the woman just provided the vessel where it would grow.
The difference is that the woman has no control on 'spilling her seed', this is not the case with the man.
Except she does: hormonal birth control suppresses ovulation; women can choose to take birth control or not and thereby choose whether to ovulate or not. No ovulation, no "spilling of seed."
I don't think this was on the mind of the adherents of natural law which date the issue back to Mosaic Law.
What do you mean by "adherents of natural law"?
Of course it wasn't on the mind of the people who wrote Mosaic Law. As I pointed out earlier, they thought women had no seed to spill. Now we know better.
The original question in the op had to do with Catholic belief which rests its reasons on the natural law and gives as one reason what it believed to be from Moses.
Yes, and right now we're exploring how Catholic teaching (or your take on it, anyhow) contradicts itself.
I know full well that the Catholic Church condemns birth control. The point I'm making is that your argument against male masturbation implies that NOT using birth control is also contrary to the principles underlying Catholic teachings.
First of all it is not 'my' argument against masturbation. In the second place the reference is to artificial birth control. Have you never heard the old joke about 'spilling the seed'? Meet my 5 kids, sneaky, leaky, and the 3 rhythm boys. This is failed birth control.
You're the one giving it.
If you have another way that a woman can prevent her "seed being spilled" besides pregnancy or hormonal birth control, I'd love to hear it.
No I'm not I simply answered the question in the op
When a woman, as you put it, 'seed being spilled', is a 'natural' bodily function. Why would the church have a problem with that? it is perfectly within 'natural law'.
You didn't make a distinction about "natural law" before; why are you moving your goalposts now? (And what do you mean by "natural law" anyhow?)
And masturbation is also a perfectly natural bodily function, so you're making a distinction without difference.
Lorgar-Aurelian
Active Member
how fukin gey it iz m8
Skwim
Veteran Member
I decided to look up "natural law" as a precept of Catholicism. Unfortunately, the only cogent explanation I found was a non-Catholic source, Wikipedia.
So, if I understand it correctly, the Catholic church bases its "natural law" on reasoning that concludes an act is both good in its essence, and good (moral, if you will) in its intention. Likewise, an act is against natural law if, in essence, it's bad, and bad (immoral, if you will) in its intention.
If so, then I'm at a loss as to how it concluded that masturbation, and oral and anal sex is against natural law.
.
"The Catholic Church holds the view of natural law introduced by Albertus Magnus and elaborated by Thomas Aquinas, particularly in his Summa Theologiae, and often as filtered through the School of Salamanca.
To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Thomas Aquinas' precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: "Good is to be sought, evil avoided.
Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one's motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don't always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:
Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Fortitude
The theological virtues are:
Faith
Hope
Charity"
To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Thomas Aquinas' precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: "Good is to be sought, evil avoided.
Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one's motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don't always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:
Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Fortitude
The theological virtues are:
Faith
Hope
Charity"
So, if I understand it correctly, the Catholic church bases its "natural law" on reasoning that concludes an act is both good in its essence, and good (moral, if you will) in its intention. Likewise, an act is against natural law if, in essence, it's bad, and bad (immoral, if you will) in its intention.
If so, then I'm at a loss as to how it concluded that masturbation, and oral and anal sex is against natural law.
.
Last edited: