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

[Bullypulpit]

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.

So long as the acts are between two consenting adults, and the acts are indeed consensual, with no threat or coercion...Then yes, they may engage in those acts if they so choose.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

Yes that's my take as well...Sex is the reward for marriage, and the way to have a family, at least in the eyes of the church. What I was trying to articulate was that the scriptures mention sexual activities other than intercourse as being taboo only to reinforce the notion that that kind of sex should not be the only type of sex engaged in as it will never lead to children or a need to marry, hence as long as married people are living the Christian ideal of married sex for the purpose it was given, the other pleasurable stuff (chocolate rubbed all over one's body, massages, and sex from the chandelier) are all okay as well...

 

[Abbey Normal]

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...

That's an interesting take. IMO, though, it is not in anyway "unnatural" to have sex without meaning to procreate, so I do not know why it would have been phrased that way. And the Song of Solomon in the OT is certainly a positive discourse on finding excitement in your spouse. Kind of like pleassure for pleasure's sake.

 

[Gunny]

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.....

Okay, so their problem is legal discrimination from laws that dictate who one can and cannot list as next-of-kin/primary beneficiary. It's our problem too. If you're married, try NOT listing your spouse.

I don't see that the issue has anything to do with their choice of lifestyle; rather, it has to do with the law telling us, not just homosexuals, who we can and cannot give our shit to, or who we want notified in case of emergency.

 

[Gunny]

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

I stand corrected insofar as the definition of "fornication" goes. You are correct.

Based on my take of your stance, you believe that marriage exempts persons from God's otherwise damnation and punishment of sexual perversion throughout the Bible.

I don't see it. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Joz]

There have been 1744 posts since I was here & this is what I come back to??
My .02 worth.

Sex was designed for marriage. Sex is what sets the marital relationship apart from all other relationships. In most societies a union that isn't consumated, isn't considered a marriage. And a sexless marraige is also grounds for divorce.
A couple that makes love has a special bond. It was designed for that purpose, to make two people one. It is the sharing of yourself in the most intimate of ways.
That is the reason for speaking against 'fornication'. You can't unite with half a dozen different people leaving little pieces of your emotional self with each one.
And if sex is what "makes" a union a marraige, then are you married in God's eyes to each one of these people?

Just because a couple agrees to an act or deed doesn't make it right. There are many couples that agree to have an open marriage. There's alot in this world that is distorted.

When a person gets married, you promise to love one special person above all others; so much that you would be willing to die for that person. So would you do anything to harm that person? What about the health risks of butt sex? We claim that to be taboo for gays but it isn't quite so healthy for hetrosexuals as well. The body was made a specific way with each part for a specific reason.

* Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): there is no doubt that anal intercourse carries a greater risk of transmission of HIV - the virus that can cause acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) - than other sexual activities, particularly for the receptive partner.

* Human papilloma virus (HPV, wart virus): can be transmitted during anal intercourse and lead to anal warts, which in turn could perhaps predispose infected individuals to cancer of the anal canal.

* Hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis): is a viral infection that can cause jaundice and abdominal pain. Hepatitis A is not usually a very serious illness, although sufferers can feel quite ill. It can be transmitted by oral-anal contact.

* Hepatitis C: is a cause of progressive and sometimes fatal chronic liver disease. Hepatitis C may be transmitted by anal intercourse, although this seems to be a rare occurrence. Sharing of equipment for intravenous drug use is a far more important risk for transmission.

* Escherichia coli (E. coli): may sometimes cause mild to severe, or even (rarely) fatal, gastroenteritis. It is one of many viruses and bacteria that can be transmitted by oral-anal contact. Some E. coli strains (uropathic E. coli) can also cause urinary tract infections (UTIs), ranging from cystitis to pyelonephritis - a serious kidney infection. E. coli very readily crosses the short distance between the female anus and the female urinary opening, so causing a urinary infection. Anal intercourse could facilitate this ‘transfer’ – particularly if it is immediately followed by vaginal intercourse.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/analsex.htm

 

[MissileMan]

Sex is what sets the martial relationship apart from all other relationships.

Freudian slip? :rotflmao:

 

[Gunny]

Freudian slip? :rotflmao:

If you ever met my "X", you'd think so for sure.

 

[Joz]

Freudian slip? :rotflmao:

Not Freudian. My fingers aren't working right. They're tired. Been typing for the last 2 days. I'll fix it smart _ _ _.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Joz, you make a good argument that this is what is meant in the verse I quoted above: "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

 

[-Cp]

It has to be immoral - anything that involves the ol' Hershey Highway - is jacked up.....Think God wants a man to pull out the "dipstick" with sludgy oil all over it?

SWEET MOTHER OF PEARL!!!

 

[Nienna]

It has to be immoral - anything that involves the ol' Hershey Highway - is jacked up.....Think God wants a man to pull out the "dipstick" with sludgy oil all over it?

SWEET MOTHER OF PEARL!!!

Bleh! BLEH!


:shiver:


Sheesh, Cp, you sure have a way with words. :shocked:

 

[5stringJeff]

I stand corrected insofar as the definition of "fornication" goes. You are correct.

Based on my take of your stance, you believe that marriage exempts persons from God's otherwise damnation and punishment of sexual perversion throughout the Bible.

I don't see it. Whatever floats your boat.

I believe that God allows a married couple to pleasure each other as they see fit. As I see it, God's damnation of sexual conduct outside of marriage is harsh because God intended for sexual activity to be done within marriage. I'm not saying every married couple ought to participate in such activity, only that it is allowable.

But it seems that we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nienna]

Been looking through scripture for an answer to this one. I haven't found anything specific. Just things like, we shouldn't abuse the body because our bodies are God's temple. But also, we should put to death the desires of the Flesh. To me, it seems like it's about the spirit in which these acts are performed. If they are done lovingly, with respect for one another, and gently, then I don't know that they are wrong.

However, anal is just gross.

 

[Joz]

I believe that God allows a married couple to pleasure each other as they see fit. As I see it, God's damnation of sexual conduct outside of marriage is harsh because God intended for sexual activity to be done within marriage. I'm not saying every married couple ought to participate in such activity, only that it is allowable.

But it seems that we will have to agree to disagree.

So, what you are saying is that within the confines of marriage, anything goes.

 

[Nienna]

So, what you are saying is that within the confines of marriage, anything goes.

It's counterintuitive, isn't it? God DID create a specific place on a woman's body to receive the man's... um... "manhood." Is it being greedy or misusing the body to want to insert the "manhood" into other areas? Or insert other things into a woman?

 

[5stringJeff]

So, what you are saying is that within the confines of marriage, anything goes.

That's how I read it, as long as both parties are willing.

 

[Avatar4321]

The scripture are silent about this, so if you really want to know:

Discuss the matter with your partner

Ask God about it.

Listen to the Spirit and use common sense.

Also, from what Ive seen there are three reasons for sex:

1)Procreation
2)Intimacy
3)Fun.

parties that claim sex for fun is a sin (I dont agree with that if its in marriage), can still justify sex for intimacy purposes even if the couple cannot procreate.

 

[Joz]

That's how I read it, as long as both parties are willing.

Well I'm going to have to disagree with you Ol' 5string.
Just because 2 people agree to do something doesn't make it right. Sex, like everything else in this world, has become distorted.

You can not make me believe that boinkin' someone in the *ss is a healthy practice. This is an area that is for bodily excrement. And besides, it isn't your *ss.
You speak against the health issues of gay sex yet you condone the very same practice between a man & a woman. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's counterintuitive, isn't it? God DID create a specific place on a woman's body to receive the man's... um... "manhood." Is it being greedy or misusing the body to want to insert the "manhood" into other areas? Or insert other things into a woman?

He did??? Maybe i should look into this sometime: