If you mean "contact" in the broadest sense of the word, of course. You don't have to have intercourse every time you have "contact." (My, wouldn't you be busy!)
But intercourse itself is a different matter. The very words "sexual union" indicate a union of sexual organs. This would mean something other than sodomy, which is not (accurately speaking) a sexual union at all.
"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."
Of course. No disagreement here. There are many times when spouses can have intercourse when getting a baby started is not what you have in mind, but spousal closeness is. During pregnancy, for one! After menopause. Or during the frequently-recurring naturally infertile times. Goodness, nothing wrong with that.
"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."
I assume that by "traditional intercourse" you mean "with the sexual organs," i.e. normal intercourse. As I mentioned before, you can have intercourse when you're fertile, and then a new baby is a real possibility; or you can have intercourse when you're not fertile, and then a new baby is not a possibility. Fine either way.
But in neither case are you deliberately choosing an abnormal form of intercourse (like Onanism, or Sodomy) in which the act is turned away from its normal form so that there isn't even a connection with procreation. (That's what per - verted means: per= thoroughly, vert = turned.)
Both these things (Onanism and Sodomy) are condemned by God in the Bible, and both of them involve choosing some perversion of intercourse, and not the real, straight, honest thing.
" 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).
Agreed.
"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."
It's always a little ambiguous what you mean when you say "contact." Like, lots of people like cuddling, which doesn't necessarily result in intercourse when intercourse is not appropriate. There are all kinds of "interaction," and without expressing myself too salaciously, I want to say --- hey, feel free. (I've said that repeatedly in prior posts, and I don't know how I can say it in a more seemly way without jumping though the screen and waving my arms.)
But intercourse itself (not "contact," but intercourse) is a sacred thing, and I'm trying to find an analogy which would make sense to you. This is difficult because unfortunately we live in a coarsened and dulled culture where we don't share a recognition of sacredness on any level.
One way to express it, is that ejaculating semen into someone's mouth or rectum is something that is intrinsically shameful, so much so that I hesitated a long time before I wrote that sentence. It is something one could do with a whore, or even with a boy, because there is nothing specifically marital about it. The people may be married, but the act itself is not a marital act.
In fact it strongly suggests contexts where it is all about one person being serviced and the other person doing the servicing. That is, an instrumental act. A servile act. A matter of using another person: and use is use, even if it is mutual.
And one doesn't get a sense of love from the realization that they've used someone, or been used.
"Extracurricular forms of marital contact certainly don’t frustrate the unitive meaning of intercourse ..."
Once gain, an ambiguity of lanaguge. Merriam-Webster notes the second meaning of "extracurricular" as extramarital. But I don't think you're speaking of adultery, are you?
"...in cases where procreation and/or traditional intercourse is not possible (for instance — in the 6-weeks after cesarian surgery)."
Jewish law requires abstinence from intercourse for 6 weeks after childbirth. I think there are mulitple good reasons for that --- certainly, from the postpartum woman's point of view! Physically, she needs time to recover. Hormonally, she is flooded with prolactin and oxytocin: she needs to establish her nursing relationship with the baby--- intensive mother-baby attachment time. Loving husbands have understood that for millennia. I hope.
If by onanism you mean masturbation, then you are wrong. Onan's sin was not that he spilled his seed but that he disobeyed God by not raising up children to his brother. (He could have spilled all the seed he wanted AFTER he impregnated his brothers widow. )
Here is a discussion from another site on the issue..
(http://www.dtl.org/ethics/e-mails/masturbation/follow-ups.htm)
Masturbation is not mentioned by name (maybe they didn't have a word for it), but I did find a part of the Mosaic Law that applies to it. Bear with me for a few moments.
Leviticus 15:16-18 reads:
If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and [there is] an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening (NKJV).
This is normally explained as being a "nocturnal emission" but if you look under the hood at the Hebrew, a different picture evolves. The word "emission" is alah, which means (among other things), "(cause to, make to) come (up)." The word translated "semen" is a compound of shkabah ("a laying down for") and zeroa ("something sown"..."seed"). So, this word choice seems to indicate a deliberate action of producing the seed.
I'm afraid the "passive" sound of the verses in question is a result of religious sensibilities and not the most honest possible translation of the underlying language. The woman's presence is obviously optional (not present in verses 15 or 16) but present in 17. So I put it to you that masturbation is definitely implied by the verses. Even sticking with just the English translation, were it a nocturnal emission, would the phrase "be unclean until evening" make a lot of sense?
Let me take this just a touch farther. In chapter 15, there are two situations that require sin offerings and one that doesn't. This emission from semen is the one that does not require a sin offering. They do become ceremonially unclean, and they do need to wash up afterwards, but that's the beginning and ending of the requirement under the Law. If there is no sin offering required, then no sin has been committed.
Note that any sexual thoughts that may accompany the act are still sinful. (Lust is condemned in the bible)