I just don't think you really meant depraved--as in evil, degenerate, and perverted. I think you meant heathen--as is someone who doesn't subsribe to your religious beliefs.
i think "evil" is also appropriate as it is really just the absence of holy. that whole horns a pitchfork is bit simple-minded and hyperbolic.
No I meant depraved as in the removal of the procreative function of sex perverts or corrupts the act and makes it an exercise of pleasure with no real end. In John Paul the Great's words it is telling a lie with our bodies and it corrupts what he called the language of the body. I get that depraved is a harsh sounding word, but there is no need to lie about theology when questions are asked. The Catechism uses the word depraved and the phrase intrinsically evil in describing all acts of sex not open to procreation. If you think it is all mumbo jumbo devised by men in fancy robes and pointey hats that is fine, but the word choice shouldn't bother you.
Your word choice is inaccurate, subjective, careless, . . . and inflammatory since you are talking about 95% of us. But I'm glad that you acknowledge that your basis is entirely religious. We can now ignore it as hyperbole.
Strike a nerve? The basis of my arguement is not entirely religious, but in this debate religion has to be a major factor as marriage is a social and religious institution. There is no separating it.
but "not real end" is simply one interpretation of it. to many, pleasure is the desired end result of the act of sex. and isnt pleasure in some form vital to our well being? whether it be from food, sex, whatever, man must have pleasure in their life or the psyche suffers. and if god only wanted the true end results of sex to be procreation, why did he make is so pleasurable? you may argue it was so we would engage in the activity and procreate. but being that god had the ability to make us however he wanted, he could have made the act of sex not so pleasurable and given man the understanding that it was something we had to engage in now and then to procreate. and also could have designed the female to ovulate 24/7. "lets get this done and over with honey, its time to spit out that fourth child." saying that the act of sex is designed for procreation and that anything else is depraved, corrupt, or whatever, is simply one interpretation.
If the desired end is stictly pleasure then in essence one is reducing their spouce to nothing more than a pleasure object. Is that really how I should view my wife? It is not how I want her to view me. Also since when is sex that is open to procreation any less enjoyable or pleasureable? Procreation is not the only purpose. Sex is also a uniting experience for a couple that strengthens relationships, but the strengthening comes from the true self giving. How can we be really self giving with a spouse we have reduced to a sex toy.
To deprave the act of sex is to make it morally bad, to corrupt it. Having sex strictly for pleasure is a sin, I believe, because it is a distraction from the ascendance of the soul. It is bad for your ultimate well being, it hinders enlightenment. Sex is pleasurable, but so are other things that weigh heavily on the soul. Restraint is a more transcendent act and an exercise of will. I don't buy the argument that having willfully non-reproductive sex turns your partner into a sex toy, as there is a real emotional relationship there.
once again we are mixing religion with politics. I am an athiest, and i got married in the catholic church. isnt that just as blasphemous? by the way, i really enjoyed bengal buddy's response, very informative, thank you, im not being sarcastic either.
