Hebrews 13:
[4] Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Sex is God’s gift to married couples. It serves two purposes. First it serves to bind the two together. It is through sexual union that we truly become “one flesh” with each other.
We call this the "unitive" function or aspect.
Secondly, it serves to provide children. Children are called gifts from God and that the man who has his quiver full is happy.
The "procreative" function or aspect.
Neither of these two purposes take precedence over the other one. If the purpose for sex was strictly to have children than unfertile couples should never have sex with each other.
Indeed both aspects should be present.
It is not whether a child results from the union, but whether the union is "open" to both aspects. A childless couple, declared infertile, are still open to children, even if science deems it impossible. It worked for Sarah. And Elisabeth.
I think one of the things that pushes our kids to have sex before marriage is the attitude we Christians have traditionally shown towards the sexual act itself. We always say “No, no, no, no.” This tells the child that we believe sex is a necessary evil and it also serves to focus the child’s attention onto that which he thinks we want him to avoid. I guess you could call it the “Forbidden Fruit” syndrome.
There certainly is a forbidden fruit aspect to premarital activity. There is also the "free sex" attitude and the pill to reduce or eliminate unwanted complications. Throw in a sex-obsessed media culture and you get what we have today.
Instead of treating sex negatively with our children we should tell them the truth. I tell my children, if they ask, that intimate love is wonderful INSIDE of marriage. I tell them that God has given us a wonderful gift that is to be shared with your spouse, and no one else. The message they get isn’t “No” but “Wait”.
Agreed 100 per cent. I don't see where you have argued with me. Sorry. Nothing you said goes against Catholic teaching. It is just that we see sex without both aspects as immoral. When a teen screws his girlfriend they may not use contraception. So they are open to procreation. But without the bonds of marriage and a real committment they are making a mockery of the "unitive" aspect, treating it like a temporary "theme park."
Likewise, a married couple who places a barrier twixt themselves are celebrating the "unity" of their marriage, but denying the procreative aspect. In a sense, with mechanical barriers, they are even denying each other flesh-on-flesh union. This is unitive?
SD
And here is the root difference. The Catholic Church teaches that both the unitive and the procreative aspects must be present in every sexual encounter. The alternative position is that the procreative aspect must be present in the marriage, but not necessarily in every sexual encounter.
Let's consider the other aspect for a moment. If the unitive aspect must be present in every encounter, then does that mean having a "quickie" for the sheer pleasure of it is sinful? If I am misunderstanding how you define "unitive" here, please correct me.