I honestly dont see the point of it then, takes all the fun out of it. (wtf!!)
Quote# 76205
Natural sexual activity are those acts between an adult male (preferably 25 years of age or older with reasonable financial stability and maturity) and a female who has reached an age of sufficient maturity to responsibly bear children as God wills (husband and his wife).
Procreation may not by intent be excluded whether by natural means or artificial means. Scriptural limits are set upon the days of a woman’s cycle when sexual intercourse is permissible. Probable fertility occurs at the beginning of the permissible duration for moral intercourse as shown in the story of Bathsheba’s pregnancy.
All focused ejaculations of a human male must be deposited within the vagina of a mature human female. The activity may not have been intentionally rendered infertile either by the male or the female. A woman may only receive sperm from a human male in the approved natural manner. All other two party (human or lower animal) sexual activity wherein one or both participants are human is condemned as unnatural. All sexual activity between near relatives or where one is a minor is condemned even if otherwise considered as natural.
Father David C. Trosch, Life Enterprises Unlimited 81 Comments [9/21/2010 5:30:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 62
WTF?! || meh
And if you masturbate He kills you (see Judah 38: 8 -10).
Hey - check out this article on the raunchiest sex scenes in the Bible (e.g. Lot’s daughters date-raping their own father). I really laughed out loud with this one:
All other two party (human or lower animal) sexual activity wherein one or both participants are human is condemned as unnatural.
So all other three party sexual activity is a-ok? Those kinky bastards.
Also, I am intrigued as to how sexual activity with a lower animal would work. Sex with invertebrates would not occur to most people I’m sure, these guys really like to cover ALL the options. I’m surprised plants aren’t mentioned.
How do these guys define “natural”? Why does sex have to be so “natural” while we live in an age when our daily lives have become very distant from running around naked and eating all our food raw. We don’t run around naked: we drive motorcars and wear clothes and we cook our meals on electric stoves. If “natural”, as applied to sexual intercourse here, is meant to mean “the way animals do it,” there are a few shocking surprises in store for proponents of “natural sex”.
There is a huge difference between natural and socially desirable. It may well be argued that it is socially desirable to postpone starting a family (if you desire offspring) until you are more mature, have the financial means to support children and are involved in a stable relationship. Likewise it would be socially desirable to limit the size of your family by means of contraception. These are practical considerations which have no bearing on whether sex is natural or not. And in the same way that we do not eat merely for nutritional sustenance, but enjoy a sumptuous meal, there is no need to regard sexual intercourse as a mere means of procreation when it can be enjoyed for its own sake.
The acceptability of sexual conduct should be assessed in terms of social desirability; whether it is natural is irrelevant.
Thanks Steve, that is hilarious. I just love Cracked:
“Now there’s something a woman never forgets. You’re getting busy with your husband’s brother, he splooges on the ground, and promptly gets slain by the LORD. Talk about awkward.”
– falling off my chair and rofl
Seriously though, the Bible is such a strange mixture of the bizarre, the mundane, the ghastly and the profound. Those Catholics who put it all together in one big book and called it “The Truth” were seriously brain damaged. Did they read the thing at any point?
Why stress about what the holy father says???..he doesn’t know what ‘natural sex’ is. I’m a balie and way past having offspring or natural issue…does that mean we balies are banned??? (wtf!!) It totally pisses me off that when morals and marriage etc are discussed on radio/tv it’s the priests who have the most to say. Are they experts?
Luckily, thanks to the editors at National Geographic, most of us have never been exposed to the sordid wonders of the animal world.
I agree wholeheartedly though. This misuse of the word “natural” is almost as irritating as the misuse of “energy” by woos. Humans are “natural”. Therefore the things that we do are “natural”. Therefore your stupid argument fails. Now go away.
No, but that’s never stopped anyone from making a complete ass of themselves, least of all clergy. See, they’ve got this whole moral superiority shtick going which a critical mass of people has been browbeaten into accepting as the final authority, and now it’s pretty much self-sustaining.
But I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, am I?
I remember winning a debate at school, sometime around 1972, on whether or not censorship was moral and justified. I did so, using the xtian bible as an object example of why there should be censorship. I mean, daughters having sex with fathers, people masturbating, mass murder…it was almost easy. Especially if the opposition hadn’t actually read the thing, and you could make up apposite quotes…B-)
I also nearly got kicked out of the Jesuit-run boarding school for leading an anti-Catholic movement, but that’s another story.
The point is…the point is…well, my point was that xtianity is pretty much morally bankrupt, and that if you’re sufficiently convincing in a given context, you can pretty much get away with anything.