If that's so, you might consider that God twined together two purposes with sex: the delight and attachment of the spouses, and the the continuation of the human race. Both are sacred purposes, and the first thing anybody notices about sex is that the two purposes are srongly linked. Physically conjoined. This is not accidental. This is designed, and providential.
Marital intercourse was given a form by God that does not deliberately separate sexual union from natural fertility. Love-play, fine, oh my. Contact, costumes, positions, and pleasures, fine, oh my. But sexual intercourse that is deliberately made non-fertile --- we're not talking about people who are naturally infertile, or naturally infertile times --- but intentionally made nonfertile, frustrates either the procreative or unitive meaning of intercourse, and usually both.
>> I don’t know where you are denominationally, but you seem to be a person who believes, as I do, that God designed and created sexual love and called it good. (You do believe that, don’t you?)
Right on.
>> If that’s so, you might consider that God twined together two purposes with sex: the delight and attachment of the spouses, and the the continuation of the human race.
Absolutely true.
>> Both are sacred purposes, and the first thing anybody notices about sex is that the two purposes are srongly linked. Physically conjoined. This is not accidental. This is designed, and providential.
Also true.
>> Marital intercourse was given a form by God that does not deliberately separate sexual union from natural fertility.
I believe God intended several possible forms of marital contact — some of which can be separated from fertility. My disagreement only comes with your assertion that each sacred purpose (closeness and procreation) cannot stand on its own ... spousal closeness can be a reason for contact beyond procreation alone.
The idea that traditional intercourse is the only appropriate form of sexual interaction (or at least the only interaction leading to a finale) tends to limit the purpose of marital sex to procreation alone. Marital sexual contact is intended to continue long after procreation has ceased, not to mention when couples have physcal disabilities which might hinder traditional contact (paralysis, or whatever).
Other forms of contact can contribute significantly to spousal closeness — one of the two sacred purposes. That such activities were made pleasurable is as divinely inspired as the pleasurable status of traditional intercourse.
>> Love-play, fine, oh my. Contact, costumes, positions, and pleasures, fine, oh my.
Agreed.
>> But sexual intercourse that is deliberately made non-fertile [...] frustrates either the procreative or unitive meaning of intercourse, and usually both.
Extracurricular forms of marital contact certainly don’t frustrate the unitive meaning of intercourse ... they can enhance it. Such contact simply focuses solely on the unitive meaning of intercourse outside of its procreative meaning — both were divinely intended, and both can stand alone as reasons for marital contact.
In fact — marital unity was specifically INTENDED to qualify, by itself, as a reason for sexual contact (traditional or extracurricular) in cases where procreation and/or traditional intercourse is not possible (for instance — in the 6-weeks after cesarian surgery).
H