Sexual Identity

I think I finally understand some of my thoughts on sex. I think sex is a form of expression. It's not just a biological action. If we just see it as that then we dehumanize the event. Humans are able to express themselves and more than that understand that expression past what we have been wired to do. The line is difficult, but I think there is a difference. If we see it as a meaningful act of expression then it should not matter who your partner is as much as what the act actually means to the both of you. It does not matter if you are married or not, but it helps. If you are married then you have already told each other that you are committed to each other. However, there are many partners who are very committed to each, more than some married couples and if that commitment comes through sex then I see nothing wrong with the act. To me sex is more about the expression and the obligation of one partner to another than the consequent. The consequent is still important, but not as much as the expression and the meaning of the act.

To defend my own faith, I believe the original rules were made to ensure that the obligation of partners existed there and that there was not an extension toward recreation. I think Catholics get a bad rap because people think they are only concerned with the consequent, producing a child and are truly against homosexuals. I think that many bad leaders profess this message, but this is not an all encompassing rule. It is more of a minimum. Sex is for producing a child and it should be a meaningful act if the two partners actually have a meaningful marriage. However, such obligation can occur outside of marriage and such expression can occur without the intention of producing a child.