We've Already Redefined Marriage, by Accepting Contraception

Catholic Culture ^ | 5/1/15 | Phil Lawler

[C. Edmund Wright]

I’ts on the rise...in ENGLAND....totally different culture - and it’s still VERY LOW....the point is, it is FAR FAR FAR from making the case you think it makes. You have facts, and no ability to put them in perspective, because you’ve gone out of your way to find facts that seem (SEEM) to back your already emotional assertion.

No form of birth control, be it contraceptory or otherwise, is destroying marriage. It did not lead to gay marriage. And procreation is NOT the only, or even the chief, reason for “the two to become one flesh.”

[G Larry]

20 PERCENT OF ABORTIONS were married women!

and you respond that “many were due to affairs”?

And then pretend THAT doesn’t destroy marriage?

[C. Edmund Wright]

you got your causation all bass ackwards dude.....the affairs caused the abortion, not the other way around. Geez....so many freepers, so little logic.....

Which misses the point - the thesis of the authors was WAAAAY over stated.

[af_vet_1981]

Wow dude, wow. How absurd. First of all, the adultery analogy is simply a non-starter. There is no legitimate marriage with adultery. There is legitimate marriage with birth control, since most who practice it have also had children. Epic fail on that one.

Do you agree that pornography is adultery ?

[C. Edmund Wright]

Totally irrelevant question, unless you can show me how many abortions are caused by porn?????

But yes, it’s a type of adultery certainly, but no one’s ever gotten pregnant from it. Contraception is never an issue with porn.

[muggs]

If married couples can engage in sexual activity without the purpose of begetting and raising children,

So married couples of a certain age should no longer be permitted to have sex?

[af_vet_1981]

You admitted adultery into evidence with respect to marriage in your own words,

"There is no legitimate marriage with adultery." and then write "yes, it’s a type of adultery certainly."

It seems to me you agree that pornography is a grave sin, being adultery, but that using drug potions to prevent conception are not a grave sin. Is that a fair summary of your position ?

[G Larry]

Disagree!

The availability of contraception made the affairs seem inconsequential.

The abortion was the fulfillment of the promise of no consequence.

[C. Edmund Wright]

No, and I’m sorry you can’t separate out a discussion of sin from a discussion of physical consequences and this article’s faux connection of dots and over interpretation.

But it’s good to know you’re perfect and your marriage is perfect, tho I suspect it’s celebate now.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You’re not even trying now. Never said anything good about contraception. Never said I was for it or against it. Never. What I did say, and I stand behind, is that the notion that marital sex is only for procreation (which was a baseline assumption of the authors in the articles) is absurd - and thus it is absurd to say that contraception has led to gay marriage. Moreover, the authors were somewhat guilty of lumping drug induced contraception in with many other types of birth control.

I stand by those three comments.

[C. Edmund Wright]

The abortion was the fulfillment of the promise of no consequence.

That is true, but does not make the case you are trying to make. Because people use abortion AS their contraception does not mean that other contraception LEADS to gay marriage. Keep your eyes focused on the ball, the topic at hand, and quit going down little tangental trails that don't speak to the bigger issue.

[G Larry]

Can you show me the post where I made the “LEADS to gay marriage” argument?

[C. Edmund Wright]

that was the point of the original article....you totally lost sight of what you thought you were defending.

Sheesh....

[G Larry]

NOPE!

Go look at MY posts.

“Contraception promised sex without consequences.

Because it is not perfect it necessitated abortion and undermined fidelity and marriage.”

[C. Edmund Wright]

dude you can’t change the premise - I was on topic about the original post, and I kept trying to get you back to that, but you were too stubborn.

[af_vet_1981]

You’re not even trying now. Never said anything good about contraception. Never said I was for it or against it. Never.

Yes or not, are you for or against contraception by potion (drugs) ?

[C. Edmund Wright]

I am against abortafacient drugs - but that has nothing to do with the point of the article. And your childish use of “potion” and so on only indicates you have a weak case.

[af_vet_1981]

What I did say, and I stand behind, is that the notion that marital sex is only for procreation (which was a baseline assumption of the authors in the articles) is absurd - and thus it is absurd to say that contraception has led to gay marriage.

I don't find your notion in the posted article. You inserted the word only in error, and so your notion is in error. Try to substitute "fundamental purpose" for "only" and see if that makes sense to you.

In a must-read column for the Wall Street Journal, Rev. Donald Sensing, a Methodist minister from Tennessee, argues that acceptance of same-sex marriage “will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.”

Understand that Rev. Sensing is not happy with the situation as he sees it. “I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God,” he writes. But he argues persuasively that the public understanding of marriage was doomed when society accepted the Pill, and thereby severed the link between marriage and procreation. Marriage, he observes, had traditionally been recognized and protected by society as the only institution in which sexual intercourse—and, therefore, child-bearing—was sanctioned.

”Society's stake in marriage as an institution is nothing less than the perpetuation of the society itself, a matter of much greater than merely private concern,” Rev. Sensing writes. But once contraception became the norm, and procreation was deemed incidental, the fundamental reason for legal protection of marriage was obscured.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Okay, if you’re gonna ignore the bigger argument and nit pick me, I’ll nit pick you and the author.

First, it’s absurd to say that the pill “severed” the relationship between marriage and procreation. At best, you can say it eroded it a little, but did not sever. There is still a whole lot of married procreating going on out there.

Second, the sub title of the article is “The Pill made same sex nuptials inevitable” is a provocative assumption, but one he cannot support except around the edges. What about condoms. What about the sponge. What about allowing infertile people to get married. What about diaphragms.

The pill is different from all of those situations, but they all prevent pregnancy as well. And the author doesn’t ever touch on that sufficiently...because to do so would weaken his dot connection.

There is also a lot of historical realities that are simply ignored...the idea that a wedding gave a man and woman permission to have sex and procreate is a gross generalization, given that the implication is that societies have never given such permission without a wedding.

And finally, you made a big deal about the pill and it being a chemical potion that killed a child. That’s a valid argument, but not one the article ever mentions. That’s a totally separate discussion. I bet you jumped into this debate based on that fact, and don’t even realize the article never even goes there. That’s why I said it’s irrelevant, and no doubt why you assumed I was pro pill. You stepped in heep big doodoo there buddy roe.

[C. Edmund Wright]

oh...another flaw in the article thesis? The author even quotes the Bible about “not good for man to be alone” and “one flesh” - and then ignores that in God’s first statement about marriage, procreation has nothing to do with it. The author thinks that statement makes his case, but actually, it weakens it.

Then there’s the idea that only the weakness of the institution of marriage has allowed gay marriage. I think that’s a stretch too. Gaystapo will do what they will do. In fact, one could say if marriage were even weaker, the gaystapo wouldn’t even worry about it.