LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Nonsexual same-sex unions smart arse

hashtagsarestupid

Oh, right, that.

[stupid joke that doesn't contribute to conversation removed]

edited 10th Nov '13 7:42:10 PM by Sixthhokage1

I'll be honest, when people people say that they can get married but not have sex, or could if they wanted. I don't really believe them unless I know that specific person well enough to think that they would be able to do it.

But the conservative rabbis who marry gay people are not trusting them to not have sex at all, they are trusting them to have only approved forms of sex. Which is an entirely different matter if you are one of the conservative rabbis who adopted the responsum that does allow gays to marry.

Assuming you have the moral "obligation" to interfere/be obsessed with other's private business.

edited 11th Nov '13 8:25:53 AM by peryton

If I thought that only anal sex was prohibited, I'd agree.

I'm not going to call something that I feel is sin, not sin. My comment was aimed at a particularly stupid comment (We'll let homosexuals get married but they won't have sex) people occasionally make. I feel it's patronizing and acting like I'm stupid. If you don't believe in not having sex outside of marriage, why should I think you won't have sex in marriage?

edited 11th Nov '13 8:45:03 AM by Soban

It's quite possible to choose never to have sex. My question is "Why should I?" Still waiting for a good answer.

You can tell me I'm living in sin all day long. I'm not obligated to listen to you.

edited 11th Nov '13 10:05:56 AM by Morgikit

I assume that you also believe that it's stupid to trust Catholics to only have sex for procreation? After all, it's the same problem.

edited 11th Nov '13 10:05:21 AM by SilasW

Do you want the answer for me in my life or one that I think you might actually listen to? I personally think that the Bible is Sex positive. Just like I can be fire positive and still keep it in a fireplace.

To be honest? Yes, I don't believe them.

edited 11th Nov '13 10:24:57 AM by Soban

Ever read Song of Solomon? Or Song of Songs in some translations. It's pretty hard to deny that it's rather positive.

Not Three Laws compliant.

Factual correction: Catholics do not prohibit sex except for procreation. The stance of the Catholic Church is that the possibility of procreation must not be artificially blocked. There's nothing in Catholic dogma or rules that says otherwise. So people who are infertile due to natural causes (age, illness, injury, etc.) are not prohibited from having sex within marriage.

If you're going to slam a religion at least base your slams on correct information. Better yet, don't slam religion at all.

edited 11th Nov '13 11:13:22 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Tell that to the vast overwhelming majority of both american catholics and african missionaries, who pretty much state that "all sex is evil aside from making babehs".

I will give the benefit of the doubt and not slam the basic catholic dogma, but to prevent criticism of something that does happen, and is the source of much misfortune, is not morally correct.

My post wasn't meant to be an attack on Catholicism, I was simply checking that Soban was not being hypocritical with his "don't marry people on the grounds that they won't have [type of sex religion forbids] when they obviously will" stance. However I do appreciate the factual correction.

edited 11th Nov '13 12:37:12 PM by SilasW

Seeing how well over 90% of us in the West openly disagree with doctrine on contraception, yes, that would be monumentally stupid.

It's mostly at the leadership level, though African missionaries (usually run at a high level) are a relatively recent problem. Catholics will occasionally yell about a specific drug if it's an abortifacient deceptively advertised as a non-abortive regulator, but for the most part Western Catholics' views on contraception are a point of considerable frustration for our hierarchy.

Peryton:

Citation, please. You specifically said "Catholic". Please cite any official document of the Catholic Church you can find that states "All sex that isn't for making babies is evil".

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

How does that comes up a conversation?

Regardless sexless marriages are not exactly uncommon. It doesn't seem that far out.

edited 11th Nov '13 4:56:36 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

It does not come up in casual conversation much, but my circle of friends and I talk about ethics a lot. Sexual ethics is a aspect of that.

Fair enough.

I don't know why you would have reason to doubt a married couple's vow of abstinence. I get that temptation of the flesh is strong but it's not all encompassing.

hashtagsarestupid

Madrugada:

Here you go. [1] 2351: "Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes"

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Try again.

1. 2337: "Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman."

Nothing there about "Only for making babies."

edited 11th Nov '13 6:12:52 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

The fact remains though that they view pleasure for pleasures sake as immoral. The unitive thing is there so that people stay together to create and raise children. Why else the insistence on a relationship?

The fact remains, though, that procreative sex is not the only type that the Catholic Church regards as acceptable. Any statement that it is, is false to fact. You don't have to like the Catholic stand on sex, hell, lots of Catholics don't. But don't attack it for a position that it does not hold. That's dishonest.

And incidentally, in the position of the Catholic Church, making children is not the sole reason for marriage, either. It's important that a couple not actively and artificially prevent conception, but that's a far cry from saying "the purpose of marriage is to make babies."

The unitive thing is there, because the Church holds that sex is something that has far more importance than simply being something that feels nice. It forms a bond between the two people, it is a gift you give to your partner.

edited 11th Nov '13 6:43:30 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Depends on how narrow you define procreation. If upholding a relationship is viewed as good for other things than making babies, you're right. Otherwise it's just longterm procreation enabling. And if sex in a relationship (without making babies) were to be moral, the thing about

would make no sense. How's that far from saying that marriage and sex are only for making babies?

Is it explicitly stated? No, but it's implicit in these teachings.

And what are the churches reasons to insist on sex only in a stable relationship? Especially considering that their clergy has to remain celibate?

edited 11th Nov '13 6:59:55 PM by Antiteilchen

So am I free to attack the hierarchy for saying that male-female sexuality is the only kind that's human? Because that's the equivalent of waving your arms and shouting 'Look at me! I'm a target!'

edited 11th Nov '13 7:27:37 PM by Morgikit