Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o
If every act of sex produced a child you might have a point....you make sex an after the fact sin if each act is not blessed by God with a child per act...Abraham had sex with his wife at an age he reason it was impossible to conceive...was that a sin?....is sex after change of life for a women a sin

Does a man divorce a sterile wife because its a sin to be with her?...if so King Henry the 8 in fact had a point with the Church

40 posted on 08/12/2012 4:20:05 PM PDT by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: tophat9000
I apologize, I must not have explained myself clearly. Let me try again.

I was supporting marital sex in the procreative form: that means normal sex, sex that has not been intentionally disabled or diverted from the reproductie function.

In fact, most instances of marital intercourse cannot achieve pregnancy. Intercourse can achieve conception in less than one week out of each month, and there are long stretches --- during pregnancy, and during the breastfeeding anovulatory state, and of course after menopause --- when conception is impossible. Nevertheless, intercourse at those times is still "in the procreative form" (that is, if there is ejaculation into the vagina), simply because that's the way we are designed: to be fertile sometimes, and not others.

Of course that excludes ejaculating up your spouse's (blank) or down her (blank) or onto the ground --- I don't want to cause unwanted mental pictures here --- or into a baggie or a dish of raw liver. Onanism. Ugh.

The moral principle is quit non-discriminatory by the way. Anal intercourse is considered wrong whether it's done by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

The gay author Richard Rodriguez wrote rather scornfully that he was told gay sex is wrong because "two gay men don't have a kosher place to stick it." But that's a fact: they don't have a kosher place to stick it.

It's a question of whether you're cooperating with the normal sexual design, or trying to sabotage it somehow. Contraception is one way to sabotage it; sodomy is another. We'll leave Portnoy with his complaints.

This has nothing to do with natural or physiological unintended infertility.

It's never ever been considered sinful for a husband and wife to have normal sex, even if one or the other of them is naturally infertile.

Sorry for the perverted details. At least I hope I have not been obscure this time!

49 posted on 08/12/2012 7:02:04 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: tophat9000

Queen Katherine was not sterile. She and King Henry had several children, of whom the later Queen Mary was the only one who lived to adulthood. They did not, however, produce a son who survived birth.


50 posted on 08/12/2012 7:03:43 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("You're screwed, losers. Steyn 2012!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson