Separating pleasure from procreation has always been possible for couples who survived long enough to outlive their fertility. In our time, not only has “readily available contraception” transformed sexual experience, but so have the vicissitudes of nature. The extension of fertility both early and late in life poses problems for any religion that teaches that the primary role of women, according to “nature,” is motherhood. What is “natural” about a ten-year-old becoming a mother or a fifty-five year-old becoming a mother? Both are possible today. Given the propensity of Mother Nature, aided by medical science, to open new possibilities for human fertility and sexuality, can any religious leader speak with “authority” about gender roles and the “purpose” of sex as decreed by “nature” or “natural law”? Nature, not just the pharmaceutical companies, has been surprising us with some serious new challenges! If we are responsible, we will meet the challenges with some serious new thinking about the ethics of human sexuality.

Part of the problem is the modern idea that "love" and "sex" are somehow synonymous. Marriage is no longer a covenantal relationship of two people willingly give themselves up, for life, for the other - but is all about a lifetime of good sex. "I'm not enjoying sex with you anymore. Guess we have to get divorced."

The fundamental idea of Christianity is that self-gratification is NOT the highest good. But the fundamental idea of Western culture is that it IS the highest good. And THAT is the problem that the church is having with modern times. Has nothing to do with sex, specifically. It has to do with idea that self-love IS love and is the ONLY love. And that's a lie. And the church should not stop saying so, because Jesus wouldn't. HE was at odds with his culture also.

@WMARKW check your facts please
This data is supported by an earlier study the National Survey of Families and Households. It found that about 26% of both Mormons and non-Mormons had experienced at least one divorce at some time during their life.

This simple statistic obscures an interesting factor: Mormons who marry fellow believers have an extremely low divorce rate:

"A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage, compared with 20 percent for religiously homogamist unions among Catholics and Protestants and 27 percent among Jews. However, when a Mormon marries outside his or her denomination, the divorce rate soars to 40 percent -- second only to mixed-faith marriages involving a Jewish spouse (42 percent)." 7

Those marrying in the temple have a 6% divorce rate.

You mention contraceptives as if they were 100% effective. They are not. At best they are 99% effective and at worst 96%.

To have sex without being in a position to provide for or accept the responsibility of a child (including the child's right to be raised by both genetic parents)is like playing Russian roulette. But it's the child who takes the bullet - or the knife or the brain destroying sucking device, or the life with only one parent.

Not because of tragedy but because of "choice." We've now decided that killing an unwanted child is a small price to pay for the right to live an irresponsible sex life.

But then it's not the adults paying the price.

"CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24"
------------------------------
That could be significantly less if the religious nuts would allow teaching about the down side of sex in schools. So many places only allow "abstinence only" teraching. These kids never get to see those scary videos about what it actually means to get and STD and how to prevent it. Kids will have sex, their hormones will not be denied or turned off. They need to know the real consequences and those that are going to do it anyway need to know how to take precautions

If Aristotle's biological theory was incorrect it does not follow that his ethical stance on the special relationship between man and woman was incorrect (as outlined in his Ethics was incorrect.

Your argument is invalid because it rests on an assumption that flies in the face of common human experience - the family is the core of any human society.

Like Parminides you block out the reality to hold to your one tenet - that sex is more than for procreation.

Yes of course it is but only within the confines of marriage.

Just as Aristotle's notion of potency solved the Parminides problem so did Jesus solve the sex problem by making sex in marriage not only good but one of man's highest goods.

With respect to Paul's (or the pseudo Pauls) "unchristian", prudish comments about women, Professor Bruce Chilton, a contemporary historic Jesus and Paul exegete says it best (from his book Rabbi Paul):

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10)."

Much of Paul's lack of understanding of sex and marriage apparently was due to his belief that the second coming was at hand. Still waiting for that prophecy.

Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Catholicism/Christianity.

So...do people who stand before God and tell that LIE (FOR BETTER OR WORSE, THROUGH SICKNESS AND HEALTH) but in the end get DIVORCED get a gold star because they were MARRIED??? There are people ALL OVER THE WORLD who...for one reason or another...AREN'T MARRIED but have been together for much longer and ARE MORE DEVOTED to one another than some of those who have big, expensive weddings but at the first sign of trouble get DIVORCED!!! People have reasons that are really no other person's BUSINESS for why they DO or DON'T DO something...God knows what's in our hearts.

Love?? Are you kidding me?? Have you read your bible lately??

'..... the elements of love described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.'
__________

Given that Paul of Tarsus was most likely gay, what does that say about his so-called authority on proper heterosexual sexual behavior?

This seems to be the problem that the Vatican has always had as well. They're in denial - the reality of a statistically normative percentage of homosexuals within the clergy as well as among the ranks of the faithful, has been categorically denied by Rome for centuries.

This and their prohibitions against priestly marriage have completely discredited their 'authority' on human sexuality and sexual behavior.

Denying human nature is always the first mistake of every religion.....

http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm

Christians do not believe in pleasure. Pleasure is evil! A tool of the Devil.

Why, everyone knows "pleasure" is a dirty word in America!

This is a rather pointless discussion. Of course there is sex outside of that necessary for procreation. As in all things, it needs to be operative with the elements of love described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.
That is what raises sex outside of procreation to a level above animal rutting, in which there is no knowledge or caring about possible harm produced. It is a shame that some humans are still at the animal level.

Diarmaid'
after all has been written, you haven't gotten yet.
The RCC knows that there is strenght in big numbers: more catholics means more power for the Vatican. So they want catholic women to have has many babies as possible on the correct logic that children of a catholic mother will grow up to be catholics. So simple, but you haven't gotten yet.

"Christianity, whether or not you think it's true, is a love-poem."

Not really. Christian love, often, is not love. It is just a ritual word, without any personal meaning or value. It is often a disguise for more malevolent emotions, even of hate; I sometimes, wonder that people who immerse themselves in this false, imitation love, really love, even their own families, even their own children. I am not so sure that they do.

Another improper manifestation of Christian sexual attitudes is advocacy of early marriage??

References please!!!

Another improper manifestation of Christian sexual attitudes is advocacy of early marriage. Modern psychology has determined that the personality undergoes a significant change between very young adulthood and the mid-20s, so young marriages tend not to last.

The chance of divorce is much, much less when both partners are least 25 years old and never been married before. Mormons, for instance, who frequently marry under 20 have a very high divorce rate.

Accept it -- society's better off if people don't marry until their somewhat mature, but they're going to have sex before that.

Although most religions warn us about the dangers of pre/extra-marital sex, it is obvious we are not paying attention as pre/extra-marital intercourse and other pre/extra-marital sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes calls it an anti-desire pill - 4/18/2010). And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

And the following data need to promulgated so everyone is aware that today's contraceptives don't always work to the degree advertised:

Percentage of women (men) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)(Guttmacher Institute statistics)

Method Typical

Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2

Periodic abstinence – 25.3
Calendar 9.0 –
Ovulation Method 3.0 –
Sympto-thermal 2.0 –
Post-ovulation 1.0 –

No method 85.0"

(Abstinence) 0

(Masturbation) 0