Is It Moral for Married Couples to do Oral/Anal?

[Hobbit]

Hmmm, tough one. I'm going to have to run it through the great moral compass known as the 6-8-10 principle (come to think of it, it deserves its own thread...more to come).

I Corinthians 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

Well, the first thing we have to do is see if it is beneficial. There are five aspects that must be checked. By the way, this is all given that we're talking about a monogomous married couple who both remained celibate until marriage.

I. Physical - Ok, let's weigh the physical pros and cons. Oral sex seems to really be no different in that respect. Anal sex can be painful for the reciever and can be quite unsanitary, but both of those things can be avoided if proper precautions are taken, so I'd put that ever so slightly in the negatives column.

II. Mental - Any kind of sex is pretty much a non-mental activity, so this column is a bit irrelevant.

III. Emotional - Any kind of sexual activity can bring a married couple emotionally closer. However, some couples say that anal and oral take away much of the intimacy of sex. Some, on the other hand, say that the idea of a one-way only orgasm is a true way to make sex a gift. This one can be either a positive or a negative. Your results may vary.

IV. Social - Having sex in the privacy of your home in a traditional, monogamous, relationship doesn't really get you any friends, but doesn't lose any, either, so this is pretty neutral.

V. Spiritual - I don't think I'm really qualified to address this one. Individuals must decide whether they think it helps their spiritual life on their own.

I Corinthians 8:12 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

The question is, "Will this activity be a 'stumbling block' to another?" or, to rephrase it, "Will your engaging in this activity cause somebody else to sin?" In this case, it would have to do with the two partners. The only situation I can see is if the male partner had gay tendancies, as it might cause him to slide into those habits.

I Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

The last examination is whether it glorifies God. This is another one I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

So, the final answer seems to be...results may vary.

 

[Gunny]

Yet another thread.

It would seem so. The difference is science seeks answers, religion claims to have them, no?

Doesn't science also claim to have answers? Or is it just dishonest intellectuals claiming to have answers for science?

 

[dilloduck]

Yet another thread.

It would seem so. The difference is science seeks answers, religion claims to have them, no?

Some do--some just say it's in that general direction.

But yes--thread infringement

 

[manu1959]

Y'know, I honestly forgot you were involved in that.

What rights was it she wanted to deny anyone because of their sexual activities? Or did she just say she believed those activities to be wrong?

post 425

Originally Posted by glockmail
I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.
Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).

my response
back on topic.....

this is why you care if they a born gay?

because if they are not, and they have chosen the trait they can be legally discriminated against?

well then ...... if that is what you want ..... but listen up .... you chose to be a christian, you were not born that way, and there is no genetic proof to back you up .... so when society legaly discrimates against you .... no complaining

 

[Gunny]

Hmmm, tough one. I'm going to have to run it through the great moral compass known as the 6-8-10 principle (come to think of it, it deserves its own thread...more to come).

I Corinthians 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

Well, the first thing we have to do is see if it is beneficial. There are five aspects that must be checked. By the way, this is all given that we're talking about a monogomous married couple who both remained celibate until marriage.

I. Physical - Ok, let's weigh the physical pros and cons. Oral sex seems to really be no different in that respect. Anal sex can be painful for the reciever and can be quite unsanitary, but both of those things can be avoided if proper precautions are taken, so I'd put that ever so slightly in the negatives column.

II. Mental - Any kind of sex is pretty much a non-mental activity, so this column is a bit irrelevant.

III. Emotional - Any kind of sexual activity can bring a married couple emotionally closer. However, some couples say that anal and oral take away much of the intimacy of sex. Some, on the other hand, say that the idea of a one-way only orgasm is a true way to make sex a gift. This one can be either a positive or a negative. Your results may vary.

IV. Social - Having sex in the privacy of your home in a traditional, monogamous, relationship doesn't really get you any friends, but doesn't lose any, either, so this is pretty neutral.

V. Spiritual - I don't think I'm really qualified to address this one. Individuals must decide whether they think it helps their spiritual life on their own.

I Corinthians 8:12 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

The question is, "Will this activity be a 'stumbling block' to another?" or, to rephrase it, "Will your engaging in this activity cause somebody else to sin?" In this case, it would have to do with the two partners. The only situation I can see is if the male partner had gay tendancies, as it might cause him to slide into those habits.

I Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

The last examination is whether it glorifies God. This is another one I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

So, the final answer seems to be...results may vary.

The only thing I see wrong with your answer is the original questions says "scripture." You have used solely the New Testament as the source of your response.

 

[Gunny]

post 425

Originally Posted by glockmail
I disagree, as it goes to the crux of the issue, can they being treated differently under US laws? The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, therefore if someone is born with a trait, then that trait should have no bearing on their rights. But if someone chooses to have a trait, then that person can legally be treated differently.
Example of chosen traits are a criminal (may be incarcerated) or a medical doctor (may be able to prescribe narcotics).

my response
back on topic.....

this is why you care if they a born gay?

because if they are not, and they have chosen the trait they can be legally discriminated against?

well then ...... if that is what you want ..... but listen up .... you chose to be a christian, you were not born that way, and there is no genetic proof to back you up .... so when society legaly discrimates against you .... no complaining

Okay. I don't see much ranting, and I posted basically the same thing. Laws discriminate against certain groups or individuals based on their nonconforming to the status quo every day.

If one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, then one cannot whine when society treats you like you live outside the conforms of society.

In the case of homosexuals, it isn't even that. Society has basically accepted that they exist and as long as they are productive members otherwise, no problem.

It's when it comes to them wanting special rights that legally consider their abnormal sexual behavior as normal there's a problem.

 

[Hobbit]

The only thing I see wrong with your answer is the original questions says "scripture." You have used solely the New Testament as the source of your response.

I have, thus far, been unsuccessful in attempting to find a clear 'ruling' on the matter and find that these three verses are the definitive moral compass for things not otherwise covered by the Bible, such as smoking, skydiving, drugs, deep sea diving, and a variety of other activities ranging from the innocent to the deplorable, none of which are specifically listed in the Bible. Other verses may be introduced on a case by case basis. For example, if something seems to benefit you socially, a common verse to invoke is Psalms 1:1 "Blessed is the man who walketh not in the counsil of the ungodly." If it makes you friends, but it makes you the wrong kind of friends, then it is harmful.

However, I can find nothing on point for oral or anal sex and would appreciate any help finding any relevant verses.

 

[manu1959]

Okay. I don't see much ranting, and I posted basically the same thing. Laws discriminate against certain groups or individuals based on their nonconforming to the status quo every day.

If one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, then one cannot whine when society treats you like you live outside the conforms of society.

In the case of homosexuals, it isn't even that. Society has basically accepted that they exist and as long as they are productive members otherwise, no problem.

It's when it comes to them wanting special rights that legally consider their abnormal sexual behavior as normal there's a problem.

not sure they want special rights.....just the same ones you and your spouse have....right to spousal health care, right to inherit spouse's estate, right to visit their spouse in the hospital....not much else.....

 

[just_sad]

Inspired by a sidebar in the Are You Bron Gay thread:

Is it moral for a married couple to perform oral/anal sex with each other? Why or why not?

I say it is, because there are no prohibitions against married couples doing such things in Scripture, and they are two consenting adults.

ewww
anal for animals .....

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I respect your right to believe what you want. I respect Jeff's right to believe what he wants.

What brought me into this argument at all is the intolerance to another poster posting what she believes. When it comes to religion, we all believe something, even if it is to not believe in it. It's bad enough that poster had to suffer the rantings of moral relativist liberals, but then to get dogged out for no reason other than her inter-religious viewpoint doesn't conform to another's religious viewpoint is a bit overboard.

Thus, my answer. Anyone that doesn't want to agree with it, cool. The proof for my answer to the original question as posed is in black and white. What individuals believe and their relationship with God is theirs, not mine.

I'm just banking on the "forgiveness" part!

She was dogged out because she dodged, weaved, and was generally inconsistent and unresponsive when pressed for details.

I respect her right to think whatever she wants, but if she wants to go advertising what she thinks, I see nothing wrong with looking for clarification.

Regardless, there was hardly intolerance. Don't go all liberal on me now.

 

[5stringJeff]

Fornication -- sex for pleasure -- is a sin. So yeah, it IS prohibited in scripture.

Fornication is an unmarried person having sex, not just "sex for pleasure."

 

[Abbey Normal]

i don't think there's nothing wrong with couples having anal or oral sex lol

Unless George Bush does it, right?

 

[Abbey Normal]

I have to run and pick up my daughter, and don't have time to look it up, but isn't there some negative scripture on sodomy?

 

[Nienna]

i don't think there's nothing wrong with couples having anal or oral sex lol

So you DO think there's SOMEthing wrong with anal or oral sex?

 

[Abbey Normal]

For the sake of an interesting discussion, can any of our bible scholars interpret verse 26?

Romans Chapter 1

24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

 

[Nienna]

For the sake of an interesting discussion, can any of our bible scholars interpret verse 26?

Romans Chapter 1

24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

I had always thought that applied to women having sex with other women, not the TYPE of sex in which they engaged. However, that deserves further examination.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I had always thought that applied to women having sex with other women, not the TYPE of sex in which they engaged. However, that deserves further examination.

That is very possible, since the next verse discusses men having sex with men. Either way, it does not specifically speak to married people, so we do not know if there is a different standard.

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[Bonnie]

That is very possible, since the next verse discusses men having sex with men. Either way, it does not specifically speak to married people, so we do not know if there is a different standard.

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I could be wrong, but I believe the gospels speak to this in terms of procreation, meaning that one of the main purposes for sex was so married couples would create more souls for heaven (procreation) families.. as well as make the bonds of marriage stronger, thus sex is a reward for getting married. Oral sex or otherwise does not lead to children, but is strictly for pleasure. Same for men with men and women with women...

 

[dmp]

I could be wrong, but I believe the gospels speak to this in terms of procreation, meaning that one of the main purposes for sex was so married couples would create more souls for heaven (procreation) families.. as well as make the bonds of marriage stronger, thus sex is a reward for getting married. Oral sex or otherwise does not lead to children, but is strictly for pleasure. Same for men with men and women with women...

I'm unsure of what you're referencing, but Paul was clear on his instructions: If any of you young people can't keep it in your pants, it's better to marry.



Backrubs and chocolate are things we use for pleasure as well.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Inspired by a sidebar in the Are You Bron Gay thread:

Is it moral for a married couple to perform oral/anal sex with each other? Why or why not?

I say it is, because there are no prohibitions against married couples doing such things in Scripture, and they are two consenting adults.

Totally dude. Go for it. Take her out to dinner at the sizzler, buy her some chocolates and pop the question. Let us know how she takes it. Pun intended. Ha!