As a result, the Christian East didn't see such need to interfere in the marital bed, and saw sexual attraction as normal. Monks were monks, presbyters were presbyters, and the laity was the laity - each state being deemed normal and desirable.
Meanwhile, in the Latin West, the Augustinian concept that sex within marriage for any purpose other than procreative is sinful became part of the culture. In time, they went to a non-married clergy, which was bit strange considering that the doctrines regarding the validity of sacraments administered by sinful clergy had been dealt with.
Consider the fact that some Catholics on this board deem married clergy to be a sacrilege, yet there are Uniates (Catholics who worship according to the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - the Eastern Orthodox way) which have a married clergy. Further, there are Anglican converts, also married, who serve in parishes. That seems rather incongruous to me - and as if the doctrine regarding married clergy in the Latin rite was never well thought out.
So is it sinful, or isn't it? Why is the rule OK as to the Uniates, but not OK as to Latin parishes, unless the pastor is a former Anglican?
Also it has never been addressed that some of our species have vastly stronger sexual urges than others. Some sexual urges emerge sporadically at different times in one's live; at other times they are quite amenable to self-control
Do the eastern Christians have a problem with homosexuality as prevalent as it has become in the west?
Is it a normal thing to segregate the sexes in society (although it certainly controls heterosexual attraction) with monks and nuns? How did that practice get started, do you know? Both east and west encouraged separation of unmarried singles and convents and monasteries were a good way to do so.
It seems to me that it has all gotten worse, as exemplified by our prisons. I don't think we had the problem in our prison populations in the past with same-sex acting out like we do now. What happened?
Nevertheless homosexuality is evidently here to stay and we are going to have to face it.
Has Christianity historically been so uptight about enforcing sexual morality and adding nuances to it that it has spilled over into perversions?
None of the above really has any meaning other than to conservatives of all cultures who wish to preserve healthy morality. It seems to me we will continue on our downward sexually promiscuous spiral.
And I guess I don't understand how most couples have lifelong sexual desires only for one another. That's where deeper bonding and true fidelity enter the picture.
Marriage doesn't necessarily seem to cure immorality (it sure helps); in bad marriages (sexually/spiritually incompatible) it is more likely to erupt in perverted desires perhaps.