Is non-procreative sex immoral?

[Sunstone]

You are making the incorrect assumption (in my opinon) that bonding has anything to do with non-procreative sex.

Couples use sex to bond even when there is little or no chance of procreation.

Pair bonds, in my limited knowledge of early human history, came about mainly for protection (the male being physically stronger) and procreation.

I seem to recall there are several hypotheses regarding how pair bonds evolved. But my memory is not up to discussing them. Maybe Painted Wolf can help us out.

 

[linwood]

Besides the fun is in the attempt.

The attempt is fun but as a father I can tell you that nothing is a s much fun as a successful attempt.

 

[Scott1]

If you could, explain to me what you mean by the Bible cannot be interpreted differently.

First of all..... thanks for the apology..... we all get a little heated sometimes.... it's forgotten.

God is not the author of confusion. There are many levels of Scriptural interpretation.... ie first literal, then the other senses (anagogical, tropological etc) so there can be several "meanings" to a particular passage. What I mean by the "correct" interpretation of the Bible is grounded in the literal sense.... Jesus prohibits adultery, a sexual sin.... is that a sin against non-procreative sex or the covenant of marriage ( remember Jesus is pretty strict about divorce too)? Both are valid arguments, but I would hesistate to use my personal experience in this matter over the clear examples of morality in the Bible.

My separated bretheren in the Protestant faiths have (for a large part)tossed out 1500 years or so of sound Apostolic teaching... and made the Bible something for an individual to interpret for themselves..... but the Bible itself shows that this is incorrect. Many of Paul's letters are to discipline the members of a particular church (who believed in Christ as Savior already) in one aspect or another.... why? Because the faithful were to be led by the Apostles (and Paul, but he was unique) and their ORAL teachings (remember it was long before bibles were around or anyone could read them if they were) and it was important, as the Book of Acts shows with Paul, to present teachers as authentic (ie Apostolic) ministers of the Gospel. This never stopped.... the laying of hands on Steven continues in an unbroken line to this day in the Catholic Church...... I just wish everyone would read as much history as they do Scripture.

That's what I meant by why I am a Catholic.

Hope this helps you understand me.
Scott

 

[cvipertooth]

God is not the author of confusion. There are many levels of Scriptural interpretation.... ie first literal, then the other senses (anagogical, tropological etc) so there can be several "meanings" to a particular passage.

So how do we know which type of interpretation to use? For instance, when Jesus says that he is the vine and we are the branches, that is clearly symbolic. But when we talk about his death and ressurection our faith depends on its literal meaning.

What I mean by the "correct" interpretation of the Bible is grounded in the literal sense.... Jesus prohibits adultery, a sexual sin.... is that a sin against non-procreative sex or the covenant of marriage ( remember Jesus is pretty strict about divorce too)? Both are valid arguments, but I would hesistate to use my personal experience in this matter over the clear examples of morality in the Bible.

Actually, I think we are both saying the same thing and neither of us have understood the other.(except for the "my opinion" parts. The non-procreative sex itself is not wrong as long you are married or not commiting adultery. But If you are married you would hope that the desire for sex would be the desire to procreate. It's a bit of Catch-22.

My separated bretheren in the Protestant faiths have (for a large part)tossed out 1500 years or so of sound Apostolic teaching... and made the Bible something for an individual to interpret for themselves..... but the Bible itself shows that this is incorrect. Many of Paul's letters are to discipline the members of a particular church (who believed in Christ as Savior already) in one aspect or another.... why? Because the faithful were to be led by the Apostles (and Paul, but he was unique) and their ORAL teachings (remember it was long before bibles were around or anyone could read them if they were) and it was important, as the Book of Acts shows with Paul, to present teachers as authentic (ie Apostolic) ministers of the Gospel. This never stopped.... the laying of hands on Steven continues in an unbroken line to this day in the Catholic Church...... I just wish everyone would read as much history as they do Scripture.

I think it is comical that the protestant churches, despite their attempts to make the Bible "Interpretable" to all, have only created more barriers between themselves. Each one, in most cases, believes that they are right and the other is wrong. This is also why i am not a big fan of denominations in general.

That's what I meant by why I am a Catholic.

Hope this helps you understand me.
Scott

It did help. Sometimes I think when we get into these debates we cant see the forest for all the trees.

 

[Scott1]

I'll reply to your questions in a PM..... I've let this thread go way off topic.... where are the moderators around here? Oh wait.... that's me!

Chat with you soon,
Scott

BACK ON TOPIC: Is non-procreative sex immoral?

 

[painted wolf]

ohh... pair bonding. There are lots of ways that pair bonding is formed in nature. Usually it involves ritualized behaviors and mutual grooming. (dating and cuddling )
The ritualized behaviors (dating) help the animals to determine if they will work well together as parents. Such behaviors include presentation of food, nesting materials and eaven 'dance'.
Mutual grooming (cuddling) is an intimate form of providing for each others health. You remove parasites and keep each other clean. This activity usually follows sex in a new pair.
We don't pick ticks off one another much anymore, but the fact remains that those moments after sex are still powerful for the formation of pair bonding.
The powerful part of pair bonding is that it ensures that both parents will be avalible to raise the offspring. Fathers provide more than protection (wich females are just as good at, remember "hell hath no fury..." the same goes for a mother protecting its offspring). Fathers provide a share of the food, shelter, cleaning, baby-sitting and teaching of the offspring. In truely social animals this extends to others members of the group, such as aunts, uncles and grandparents. (and some aspects of pair bonding are found between these family members as well.)
So yes, sex is an important part of human pair bonding.

Linwood- I'm still enjoying the practicing part, so I'll have to take your word on it. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Ceridwen018]

In my mind, it's obvious that sexual relationships between men and women evolved from the need to procreate...aka, back in the day, the sole purpose of sex was to have babies. Society has changed a lot, however. Basically, I don't see how it is immoral. Who does it hurt? Who does it offend?

 

[retrorich]

In several of the threads that discuss human sexuality, one or more people have asserted that non-procreative sex is immoral, but I don't think any thread has yet specifically addressed that question. So, is non-procreative sex immoral? If so, why is it immoral? If not, why not? What do you think?

I don't believe any sex between consenting adults is immoral, unless it produces children which the parents are not capabable of, or interested in, caring for. In that respect, procreative sex is more likely to be immoral than nonprocreative sex.

 

[Godless Dave]

Then why would Jesus care about adultery?..... it's just two people having sex for pleasure... right?

It's also betraying the trust of another person.

 

[anders]

I don't dare to guess any percentages, but I'd still say that most human sex is non-procreative, so any moral standpoint addressing this factor only would be extremely stupid.

Then there is the question of what adultery is. Regardless of how dictionaries and law books may define it, I don't think it is a case of adultery if all four people involved know what is happening and the two non-participants (if they are) turn their blind eyes to it. I know of one case where one of the marriages already was finished except for some legal and practical dealings, and the other one was saved for a couple of years, enabling the couple to split in an unusually civilized way when the previously non-committing partner found a new friend. So I agree with SOGFPP that like in so many moral issues, it is impossible to make generalized statements.

I might add that the two non-committing partners now live what seems to me to be happy lives with new partners, and one of the two "perpetrators" tries all marketing tricks to get "back" his "accomplice". After all, she was my first fiancée.

Here's one for you, SOGFPP:

This never stopped.... the laying of hands on Steven continues in an unbroken line to this day in the Catholic Church......

The Church of Sweden (which, as you know, is Lutheran) takes pride in upholding the Apostolic succession. When it took over, IIRC the Catholic Archbishop was forced to transmit it!

 

[DTrent]

How do you deal with the argument that the natural purpose of sex is procreation; therefore, non-procreative sex is unnatural?

Proverbs 5 is a good place to take someone when discussing Scripture on this subject.
It doesn't exactly mention pro-creation but 'rejoicing with the wife of one's youth'. Birth control may not be mentioned in the Bible but nowadays it's not wise to have tons of kids. Time and money and health are at the bare minimum for the majority of us. In Bible times, it was expected you'd have kids and lots of 'em to carry on the name, etc. Things have changed but it's not a bad thing. If you want lots of kids, so be it. If you don't, so be it.
But it is NOT un-natural NOT to pro-create. Enjoy your marriage mate - with or without pro-creating!