(December 11, 2017 at 11:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(December 11, 2017 at 11:34 am)Chad32 Wrote: You have a very narrow view of what sex is about. I had that view too. But it's not about having kids. Hell, we've reached a point in scientific advancement that you don't even need to have sex, to have children. Having children and having sex is becoming more and more completely separate actions.
Sex is a bonding experience, more than anything. There is no sexual morality or immorality, except whether or not everyone involved is a consenting adult. We don't need to tack on social constructs like marriage, or even children into it. A man can't give birth, but a man can still raise a child if he wishes to.
As I explained in a different sex, natural law shows us that sex has 2 functional purposes: 1. procreation, 2. bonding (to help couples stay together in case there is a child). At the end of the day, sex is about forming a family. We evolved accordingly. Sex literally would not exist otherwise.
Natural law also says sex feels great. I've tested this assertion a few times.
One thing I don't like about religion (the Abrahamic ones in particular) is that it restricts people in ways they should not be restricted. Sex is great. Nobody should be ashamed for wanting to have sex with somebody, whether it is a one night stand or you are in love but it is outside of marriage or the two of you are of the same biological sex. What is natural, bottom line, is sexual desire. But it is the 21st century, and we've had contraception for how long now? I can't accept something as "natural law" if it can't change with the times. To me that tells me it's actually "the natural law for that time and that place and no other time nor any other place." When I look close enough everything seems to become relative.