Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL... how do I explain without getting deleted by another mod? I started somewhere that's usually popular with sinning hetero males, and ended at a place for those on the other team. And to keep it on topic, I doubt anyone who I met thought "sex for fun" was a sin.
That being said, can we try to steer this one back to the OT? Don't want to get everyone (including myself) in trouble!
Those laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states.
Back in the 1950s, One state, I think it was Massachusetts, was the last remaining state where it was illegal to have, sell or use any sort of artificial birth control. It was finally struck down by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, there are those people, and sometimes they are supported by their particular church, that think we should return to those days. That's one reason that it's important to keep a wide divide between church and state. There are tooooo many things that someone will think to be Sinful and people should be "protected."
If the entire purpose of sexual intercourse is to achieve pregnancy, isn't sex with birth control, or any sex act that *cannot* achieve pregnancy, inherently immoral?
If you have sex for reasons other than birthing children, aren't you simply giving in to lustful desires?
How is an infertile heterosexual couple having sex any different than a gay couple having sex? Neither coupling can achieve a child, so why do it, rather than fulfilling lustful desires?
Further, aren't all sex acts rather than vaginal sex - technically sodomy?
Onan spilled his seed on the soil... but anywhere other than the womb has the same effect, so isn't the sin the same?
As a christian, shouldn't you be chaste unless you are actively trying to have a child? Wouldn't this limit you to having sex only once or twice a month, when the woman was fertile?
Have you read the Song of Solomon? Sex is meant to be enjoyed with your spouse, and no, you don't stop having sex just because you aren't trying to have a baby. Over and over again in the NT we're told that our body belongs to our spouse and that we refrain from sexual intimacy only for fasting.
So... the legal definition of sodomy is oral or anal sex between ANYONE. - Incorrect. Sodomy and Fellatio ARE NOT the same thing.
Is there anyone out there willing to step up for the biblically inspired anti-sodomy laws? - In the Bible, there is no law titled "The Anti-Sodomy Law".
Are you OK with the government saying what you can and can't do in the bedroom - No, I'm not ok with it.
So... the legal definition of sodomy is oral or anal sex between ANYONE.
Is there anyone out there willing to step up for the biblically inspired anti-sodomy laws? Are you OK with the government saying what you can and can't do in the bedroom?
The gov't should stay out of the bedroom.
However, I believe your first post pretty much summed up my belief.
I would edit it slightly to say all sex should be open to the possibility of procreation.
I also believe it is impossible to achieve perfectly. But my experience trying has been good. Hard, but good.
I would edit it slightly to say all sex should be open to the possibility of procreation.
.
All sex? possibility of procreation??? I am sooooo tempted to make a smarty remark But as long as there are miracles, I don't guess a woman ever gets too old. In fact, I am one of those that considers a hysterectomy sort of a blessing in disguse.
All sex? possibility of procreation??? I am sooooo tempted to make a smarty remark But as long as there are miracles, I don't guess a woman ever gets too old. In fact, I am one of those that considers a hysterectomy sort of a blessing in disguse.
The story of Sarah might be an inspiration....Never know..
But to give my actual viewpoint on the question, I think the belief that "all" non-procreational sex is immoral is just an overblowing of a very general commonsense rule, that rule being: don't do it if you're not permanently connected to someone. And how do you prove you really mean business about that? The "concrete" proof has historically been that the couple has intentions of being a family. It's almost like the "rule" is the Kindergarten version of, "Only sleep with someone you want a permanent bond with." People have interpreted that to mean, "Don't do it unless you're specifically looking to make a baby," never taking into account that, for example, two people can be "a family" without any children at all. It's interpreted the way a child might interpret something complex: by making it black-and-white, yes-or-no, do-or-don't and NEVER EVER veer from it. And yes, I believe that's why the story of Onan was written into the Bible, by men, human beings, who interpreted their religion that way. (Ducking because that's a whole other issue--who wrote the Bible--but I'm just trying to give my ha'penny or two to the OP's question.)
I think the reason some cultures and some religions define sex so stiffly (yar! har...Okay, sorry...) is that they're attempting to keep family units as singular and whole. I truly feel it's more for cultural reasons than straight from God or something like that. Keeping sex under defined rules hopefully ensures that any given couple knows a child born into the family is both of theirs and not the mailman's (this is very important, or was, to many cultures because of inheritance, etc.); keeps jealousy more under control; and, well, keeps people from leaving one another for greener pastures since they don't actually know what those pastures are like--all this in theory, of course. The idea seems to be that if sex is ever just "for fun," then that will be taken to extremes, even outside of the marriage. Again, this is a very black-and-white and somewhat alarmist assumption and not a terribly sophisticated one, at least in my view. There is so much more to it than that, and not everyone who enjoys a little sumpin'-sumpin' with the spouse that doesn't involve dreams of crocheted blankets and lullabies will become a raving sex maniac who fools around all over town and breaks up the family unit into crumbled bits.
In practice, and especially over time, the whole "don't do it except for procreation" idea doesn't really bind a couple together long-term or make for true long-lasting harmony, especially in today's world, when we're more sedentary than ever, have more free time on our hands than ever and aren't occupied all day long with just surviving and bringing in food. Things are different today, and the dictate to only have sex for babies is obviously a dated one in many ways; if God truly truly is omniscient/omnipotent, then he or she would have foreseen how we'd evolve technologically and it's doubtful that he or she would have made such a rule as permanent. God would surely also have foreseen that this planet would be keeling over under the weight of overpopulation at some point in the future (that point being today) and certainly NOT needing many children for every family. Since God apparently can't make mistakes, I don't believe this rule came from him or her. Obviously, trying to make sex more of a "sacred" thing in this way doesn't necessarily always accomplish harmony, keep people from cheating or certainly, keep them happy overall. But historically, it has indeed kept nuclear families nuclear to a greater extent than if people were all jumping into one another's beds, helped keep inheritance issues to more of a minimum, etc. and helped keep the order. Today we're more free-wheeling in general, besides the fact that I truly don't know that many people--or any, really--who absolutely only have sex in order to make children, so these viewpoints being stated as having been handed down "from God" were more likely handed down by dudes wanting to try to maintain control and keep the peace.
I don't think what was taken into account was the fact that, if sex was only for procreation, then every couple where the woman had gone through menopause would be expected to then be celibate for years and years. That isn't realistic and a lack of physical contact in one's mature years can drive people *from* each other, not bring them close. Then again...there is the argument that people overall didn't live too many years past the age of menopause for a woman (and the equivalent age for a man)...another reason why things might be seen differently today as regards non-procreational sex.
It's late and I'm tired and rambling...I hope this all made sense and tied in with the OP.
If the entire purpose of sexual intercourse is to achieve pregnancy, isn't sex with birth control, or any sex act that *cannot* achieve pregnancy, inherently immoral?
If you have sex for reasons other than birthing children, aren't you simply giving in to lustful desires?
How is an infertile heterosexual couple having sex any different than a gay couple having sex? Neither coupling can achieve a child, so why do it, rather than fulfilling lustful desires?
Further, aren't all sex acts rather than vaginal sex - technically sodomy?
Onan spilled his seed on the soil... but anywhere other than the womb has the same effect, so isn't the sin the same?
As a christian, shouldn't you be chaste unless you are actively trying to have a child? Wouldn't this limit you to having sex only once or twice a month, when the woman was fertile?
yes. and thinking about it a lot is not good
either. good night.
If the entire purpose of sexual intercourse is to achieve pregnancy, isn't sex with birth control, or any sex act that *cannot* achieve pregnancy, inherently immoral?
If you have sex for reasons other than birthing children, aren't you simply giving in to lustful desires?
How is an infertile heterosexual couple having sex any different than a gay couple having sex? Neither coupling can achieve a child, so why do it, rather than fulfilling lustful desires?
Further, aren't all sex acts rather than vaginal sex - technically sodomy?
Onan spilled his seed on the soil... but anywhere other than the womb has the same effect, so isn't the sin the same?
As a christian, shouldn't you be chaste unless you are actively trying to have a child? Wouldn't this limit you to having sex only once or twice a month, when the woman was fertile?
I can support saying that 'X' is a sin, when the Bible says that 'X' is a sin.
Man-made doctrine which goes further and makes up new sins, I find it difficult to support or teach.
The Bible does not tell us that the primary purpose of sex is anything. So we can not argue that it's primary purpose is something.
'Lust' in and of itself is not 'bad'. In the Bible God desires, God lusts. Godly men desire and lust. The Bible talks about the focus of your lusting, and whether that is within due bounds.
When you lust after another man's possessions, that is a sin, as it leads to stealing.
To decide that I want to purchase a Chevy, is not bad lusting. To save the money to buy myself my own Chevy, is not bad lusting. To buy myself a Chevy, and to drive it, and to enjoy it, is not bad lusting.
To focus my desire on your Chevy, and to desire your Chevy, that is bad lusting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And to keep it on topic, I doubt anyone who I met thought "sex for fun" was a sin. 
