Replies

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.

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) ?

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.