Replies

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.

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.

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.