If You Don’t See “Them”, Then Are “They” Really There?
A bizarre religious debate is going on in Egypt. The question is: should you take them off or keep them on (your clothes) when having sex? It started when Dr Rashad Khalil, an expert on Islamic law, warned that being completely naked during intercourse invalidates a marriage. His ruling was promptly dismissed by other scholars, including one who thought that “anything that can bring spouses closer to each other” should be permitted.
Another religious scholar suggested it was OK for married couples to see each other naked as long as they don’t look at the genitals. To avoid problems in that area, he recommended having sex under a blanket (in a very dark room with blind folds). O.K., now that they have that mess cleared up, what about oral sex (which came about because of the “westerners’ habit of “stripping naked during sexual intercourse”), anal sex, and contraception? Very strange stuff, but here’s the article (parts may be inappropriate for minors!!).
The Muslim faith, like other “modernized” religions, seem a little confused on how to get a handle on the morality of sex. Most of them have no problems with divorce, contraception, oral sex, and some, even anal sex. Not surprisingly to most of you, the acceptance of contraception has done more to promote the homosexual lifestyle than all of the sex obessed activists of today combined. If sex is primarily for bonding and recreation and can be engineered to be deliberately sterile, how can we deny the legitimacy of the ultimate sterility of same-sex relationships? How ironic that the Catholic church is call hypocritical and inconsistent. Marriage and procreation is biblical and consistent with historical tradition and scriptural teaching. Christ transformed marriage into a sacrament that, validly entered into and consummated, is binding until the death of the husband or wife. Furthermore, the sexual union that ensues must be open to the gift of life. If a man and a woman is unable to consumate the marriage for any reason, the marriage is invalid (don’t let this get out, or we may lose that homophobia tag) , even for physical disorders such as impotence. Does anyone (seriously) know if it is appropriate to take viagra?
.jpg)
“Not surprisingly to most of you, the acceptance of contraception has done more to promote the homosexual lifestyle than all of the sex obessed activists of today combined.”
That is surprising to me, actually. Please elaborate on that point, because I’m not convinced that accepting contraception promotes “the homosexual lifestyle” anymore than it promotes “recreational” sex (in general).
Comment by bink — January 18, 2006 @ 8:22 AM
Bink,
I believe this is normally taught under the Andrew Sullivan 101 lesson plan…
Pull out any one of Sullivan’s classic arguments for gay marriage and you get something like this:
1) Homophobes say that marriage is for heterosexuals only, because reproduction is one of the primary ends of marriage.
2) Although that may once have been the case, many straight couples now avoid having children for many years, or even marry with the express intent of never having children. Thus, reproduction can no longer be considered one of the primary ends of marriage. The only end of marriage is social acknowledgement of a loving and committed relationship.
3) Therefore, since gay couples can be just as loving and committed as straight couples, marriage should be extended to same sex couples.
This is a compelling argument for many modern people because living in a contraceptive saturated society they have successfully divorced sex and reproduction so completely that they see them as totally independant. In an argument regarding abortion, I once read a proponant state “It is unfair to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy because consent to sexual relations does not constitute consent to bear a child.”
Now, biologically speaking, that’s like saying that consent to consume a chocolate brownie does not constitute consent to consume calories, but many people actually think that way these days. And so when someone like Sullivan argues that gay relationships and straight relationships are the same because both involve love and neither necessarily involves reproduction, this makes intuitive sense to many people. Had contraception not laid this groundwork, it would not be such an easy sell.
Comment by DarwinCatholic — January 18, 2006 @ 8:57 AM
Thanks D.C, it’s much better than I could have done. If I could also add, that if sexual acts can be viewed in the context of being “relational” with no purpose that extends beyond themselves, then they can also define the extent of that “relationship”. This opened the door to justifying any and all sexual activity from sodomy, masturbation, bestiality and pedophilia.
Comment by shelray — January 18, 2006 @ 5:26 PM
Thanks DC, that does clear up what Shelray was saying. I still think that “…gay relationships and straight relationships are the same because both involve love and neither necessarily involves reproduction.” I’ve always felt that love can be the same for both…
I do, however, think that marriage brings reproduction into the mix and thus IS different for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Perhaps that goes along with what Shelray said about homosexual relationships not being able to extend beyond themselves which, if they are not allowed to adopt, is definitely the case.
Comment by bink — January 19, 2006 @ 8:24 AM
A tremendously powerful explanation of this point, bink, in made by Elizabeth Anscombe, the British philosopher and strong Catholic in her article “Contraception and Chastity” which may be found here: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml
You will want to print it out for careful reading.
Comment by Jim McCullough — January 19, 2006 @ 9:42 PM