Posted on 05/04/2015 6:14:42 AM PDT by marshmallow
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.
Today, marriage is generally understood as a social and legal contract between two people: nothing more. (In fact marriage is the only legal contract that society does not enforce; either partner can break the bond with impunity.) “But what weddings do not do any longer,” Rev. Sensing remarks, “is give to a man and a woman society’s permission to have sex and procreate.”
In today’s America, an increasingly large proportion of young people believe that they have permission to have sex whenever they want, with whomever they want. As for procreation, that too is taking place, more and more frequently, outside the bounds of wedlock.
But public attitudes could change, as they have changed in the past 50 years, and a change in attitudes could lead to another change in laws. So.....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
Confusion between "birth control" and "contraception" goes way beyond "Catholics". I bet even in your Church (whatever it is) most folks refer to the use of condoms, "the pill", etc as "birth control". That's certainly common usage generally.
By morally equating contraception (which, as I pointed out earlier, happens every single time that people don't engage in intercourse)
Your point is a blatant falsehood. Contraception by definition is something that renders an act of intercourse infertile unnaturally. Not having intercourse may be "birth control", but it is not, and cannot be "contraception".
with abortifacient birth control methods (i.e. anything that murders the already-conceived child at any point prior to birth),
That's one thing the Catholics DON'T do. They're VERY clear on distinguishing "Natural Family Planning" from artificial contraception. There are plenty of things for you to disagree with them about; no need to fabricate anything. And that's what you just did.
If you had anything worthwhile to say:
1) you wouldn't begin a 'conversation' with an idiotic Ricky Ricardo act.
2) You wouldn't be attempting some sort of psychological analysis.
So ...
1) Learn to be polite. Right now, whatever point you're trying to make is drowned out by your refusal to discuss matters like a man.
2) There really is no (2). You're not worth talking to.
Goodbye.
Actually, it is the logical result as noted by the USSC and other studies.
>http://www.catholicstand.com/contraception-leads-abortion-come-see/<
“Even the liberals justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992) understood clearly that acceptance of contraception requires abortion as a back-up. That Court ruling stated that Roe v. Wade could not be overturned because
…for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”
You’ve not said a single syllable worthwhile or politely on this thread, not a single one. NONE. And before your rage and bitterness polluted this thread, I laid out a very reasonable premise that while the authors had some good points (which I specifically said) - but that I thought they were trying to connect dots that do not really connect. I thanked the OP for posting it. To me it was an interesting discussion, and I was not at all judgmental or dogmatic.
Then you come in trashing the whole thread, and when you refuse to explain what you mean, you go deep bitter and angry.
And your obsession with “splaining to do?” WTF is your deep psychological problem dude? It’s an expression. It’s a more whimsical way of saying “you have some explaining to do.” Which you do, and you cannot do it.
Would you say condoms are the moral equivalent of abortafacients? What about low sperm counts? What about tubes being tied? What about vasectomy? Does it matter if any of the above couples have other children?
Stupid.
Contraception was around long before the sixties. In fact it has been around almost as long as there have been humans.
So no, sorry but a pill invented in the 1900's did not redefine marriage.
I know everyone is running around trying to find some way to make nicey-nice with the homosexuals by inventing reasons why they should not be opposed but try again.
I don’t agree - not to the extent you are using it - and to the extent that these authors used it - altho mathematically abortion is sometimes the result of failed contraception within marriage. But not very often. It’s kind of like using the “rape or incest” clause to make the case for pro choice - it’s hardly the driving force or the preponderance of cases. Quite the opposite.
And using the Roe V Wade court as back up for your point is hardly helping your argument.
Speaking of "learning to be polite..."
I used (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992)
NOT
Roe V Wade
I’ll let the studies referenced stand against your opinion.
You’re missing the point, but that’s your prerogative.
Marriage is union of one man and one woman. Male and female were created to form one since the time of Adam and Eve. Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Women were created to be the helpmate for men. The Lord continues to make wives as the helpmate for the husband to this day. A man may not find the woman who is his helpmate because we do not seek the will of God when we marry. A man and a woman who are one in Christ can have relations from time to time as an expression of love for each other. Children do not always have be the result of intercourse.
Is procreation the main reason God instituted marriage? NO
and what point am I missing?
Okay, but neither the Catholic article nor Casey have ANYTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE!!!!!
Contraception, and the acceptance thereof, in “the macro” (as the article stated) may lead a society into more abortions...but I still contend that is NOT the case among the married population, most of whom have kids at some point, and use various methods of birth control at some point. I just don’t think you have anything to prove me wrong on that.
>http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol6no4_1994.html<
According to the statistics of the Centers for Disease Control for 1991, one out of five U.S. women who obtain abortions are married.
[“Abortion Surveillance: Preliminary Data - U.S.”. 1991, MMWR, 43(3): 42, Jan 28, 1994]
I’ll take a leap and guess that those married women aborting were also contracepting.
They may not have been large in number, but they were extremely important to the flow of history.
Many of these marriages were blessed, performed, and/or attended by the highest religious figures of the time.
The participants may have loved each other, yet we are told that in some cases the husband and wife often hadn't even met before they were wed and didn't see much of each other after. There may have been children, but again this was more for continuing the legacy rather than to go forth and multiply.
Marriage has been used, misused, and abused for centuries.
I'm not stating this as an argument in favor of gay "marriage", only saying that these are facts that must be confronted in any defense of traditional marriage.
Agreed. Plus the legalization of abortions only added to the viewpoint of severing the connection between the sexual act and the creation of life. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear pro-aborts start arguing along the lines of “abortion is necessary so heterosexuals can have the same rights as homosexuals in not worrying that their sex lives will ever result in pregnancy!”
Which was first? The Pill or Playboy? The Pill is simply a method of birth control. The philosophies that brought about the damage we see today has already beginning as publications of such doctrines became commonplace. Look up an essay called The Origins of Political Correctness for a good history on that matter.
Personally even 50 years after it was approved I think The Pill should only be used short term between planned pregnancies and after the number of desired children is reached. Afterward the couple would be wise to opt for a safer more permanent method. If I were a younger man would I want my wife on The Pill for 10-20 years? No, I don't believe it is safe to do so. Would I want to endanger her life if the doctors said it's time to stop having kids due to her health? No. I would opt for sterilization instead.
I also do not agree with the notion that procreation is the sole reason for marriage that should determine if it is allowed or denied based solely on the ability of procreation by either spouse. Children are a blessing from the marriage that some may be blessed with and others not. There's plenty of kids to go around if the government didn't make adoption of foster children needing stable homes an impossibility. GOD created woman from man for man because GOD saw that it was not good for man to be alone.
The Lord blessed my twice with loving wives. Faithfulness to each other was never a question in either marriage. I had a good teacher who taught me to be a man. My Dad. Dad's got replaced by LBJ's Great Society when government took over the roll as provider for the family. How does media and entertainment portray Dad? There is the problem. This nation was brainwashed and it wasn't in pill form.
yeah, and many of them were pregnant from affairs, and thus that pregnancy is not even part of the married with contraception equation.
Learn causality....
Abortion among married women in their 30s ‘on the rise’
You wouldn’t be satisfied unless you conducted the interviews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.