Posted on 02/23/2014 9:52:47 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
That’s one sick article. That a married couple using birth control, is the same as homosexual sodomy. Sick minded logic.
“But homosexuals may be even more intensely in love with each other and even more firmly committed to mutual fidelity.”
The statistics make that EXTREMELY unlikely.
“They may even be more open to procreation than you are, through adoption”
This is possibly the most re7arded thing I’ve read this year so far. That’s like saying “they may even be more open to cooking than you are, through ordering takeout”
This article is also a little narrow. It’s true that most Catholics do not follow the church’s teaching on contraception, but this is simply not the case in every religious community that opposes sodomy as a sin. The Amish for example, follow these laws to the letter.
And when you say “80% of Catholics use contraception” that’s including a whole lot of people who are not Catholic by any measure, like Nazi Piglosi. There is a litmus test for practicing members of a faith. Dianne Feinstein can say she’s a practicing Jew, but she really isn’t.
****At the very least, Catholics who choose artificial contraceptive methods, in the interests of consistency, should modify their opposition to gay marriage. If and when they follow the Churchs teaching on contraception, which has not changed over two thousand years and was reiterated by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, they will have a more secure moral justification for their opposition.****
So if one sin is OK two is better? If one believes it is a sin to use contraceptives but uses them anyway, telling them to add more sins against God is the precise opposite direction one should counsel. True consistency is to oppose homosexual “marriage”, and repent of the use of contraceptives as well.
Not at all. It’s two sides of the same coin. After all what is contraception but the denial of a human beings full masculinity or femininity. It’s a rejection. Deep down it’s hateful. “I love you honey, but not all the way. I accept you, only as so far as we reject your procreative abilities.” Just as homosexual sodomy is a rejection of that which was intended.
If sodomy, then why not polygamy?
if polygamy, then any not zoo gamy?
if zoo gamy, then why not pedophilia?
As the dust settles on the Supreme Courts marriage rulings, Catholics and other defenders of traditional marriage have stepped forward with new energy and comprehensive strategies to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
On Redstate.com, Ryan T. Anderson sees the dissenting opinions of Supreme Court Justices Alito, Roberts, and Scalia in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ruling as flares signaling the path that marriage proponents must take from here.
From those dissents, Anderson sketches his own vision for strengthening marriage. We need to start living out the truth about marriage to insist that the government respect those who continue to stand for marriage as the union of a man and a woman [and] to redouble our efforts at explaining what marriage is, why marriage matters and what the consequences are of redefining marriage We should frame our message, strengthen coalitions, devise strategies and bear witness. We must develop and multiply our artistic, pastoral and reasoned defenses of the conjugal view as the truth about marriage, and to make ever plainer our policy reasons for enacting it.
A huge task, to be sure, but a cogent vision nonetheless.
Let me offer a few thoughts on one part of that task, the challenge of bringing the marriage message home to Catholics.
Anderson highlights Justice Alitos view that the marriage debate is a contest between two ideas, the conjugal view of marriage: a comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children, and the consent-based idea that marriage is a commitment marked by emotional union.
These dueling ideas square off in Supreme Court briefs, intellectual spaces like Public Discourse or First Things, and in the New Conversation about Marriage at the Institute for American Values.
But for many ordinary Americansalready conditioned by the sexual revolution to separate babies from sex and sex from marriageJustice Alitos contest of ideas over marriage is all but invisible. (And in this respect, Catholics are no different from their fellow Americans.)
Sundering Sex and Procreation
Heterosexual marriage has been functioning for decades now as a commitment based on love. Children? Optional. Its a mindset primed to accept homosexual coupling and same-sex marriage.
Back in 2005, liberal historian Stephanie Coontz observed that the deconstruction of traditional marriage (and the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage) was a predictable consequence of the separation of sex and procreation.
Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.
If Coontz, Co-Chair of the Council on Contemporary Families and a supporter of same-sex marriage, could name the problem (the separation of sex from procreation) back then, why couldnt we? More precisely, why didnt we?
Our priests didnt preach and our teachers didnt teach because contraception was the unmentionable sin-that-wasnt. Why risk alienating parishioners (and donors) by condemning The Pill and other sundry methods? Makes things a tad awkward over coffee and donuts later in the cafeteria. Besides, no one wants to be that guy, the rube at a Manhattan cocktail party, bumbling, ridiculous, and very uncool.
So our congregations sat comfortably in their pews, undisturbed by truth. Lets own this fact: Silence paved the way for Catholics progressive march from yesterdays contraception to todays same-sex marriage.
Perhaps thats an impolitic thing to say.
But until we name the problem correctly, we cant fix it. At least in Catholic circles, if we hope to defend the conjugal view as the truth about marriage, weve got to teach anew the truth about sex. Why? Because the truth about sexuality is the basis for the truth about marriage.
Successful arguments in the public square may or may not begin in the same place.
But within our own families, parishes, and Catholic communities, Catholics need to hear that gender mattersthat sexual complementarity, designed by God, tells us something about the sexual act, its purpose, and the moral norms that govern it. Catholics need to reconnect sex and reproduction, to realize that all kinds of sex arent equal (some, in fact, are immoral), and to understand marriage in relation to these truths.
Catholics need to hear the big picture, to see the coherence of the entire truth. They need to know that the Churchs teaching against contraception is not an outlier among Catholic teachings, an outdated asterisk with little relevance to modern sexuality. (Nor is it some patriarchal plot to ensure that Catholic women produce lots of little Catholics.) On the contrary, the Churchs teaching on contraception flows from an integrated view of the human person, human dignity and sexualityand that same truth provides the reason why marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman.
According to the Catholic women Ive been interviewing over the past year, few Catholics hear much of anything from the pulpit about the Churchs teachings on sexuality and contraception. Although an increasing number hear the Churchs message that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, many arent buying it. The latest Barna Group polling shows that only 50% of practicing Catholics define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (Barna defined practicing Catholics as those who attend Church at least once a month and consider their faith very important in their lives.)
Weve got to understand why these Catholics dont accept the truth about marriage: its because they dont accept the truth about sex. And thats the underlying problem we must address.
Todays Catholics, especially younger Catholics, are by and large the products of public schools and a sexually corrupt culture. Theyve been taught (without hearing any countervailing voices in their parish) that gender is fluid and sex is only about pleasure. Every kind of sexual activityanal, oral, vaginal, twosomes, threesomes, etc. becomes an equally valid choice for consenting adults. (Newly released Gallup data shows that 68% of Catholics overall say that gay and lesbian sexual relations are morally acceptable, while just 29% believes those relations are morally wrong. Even among weekly church-goers, almost one-third believes homosexual sex is moral.)
Todays Catholics also have learnedoften from Catholic voicesthat reproduction is a deliberate add-on to the sexual relationship, not an intrinsic aspect of sexual love, and indeed might be accomplished best in a petri dish miles away from the marriage bed.
It doesnt take much, then, for Catholics to see marriage through minimalist eyes, as societys validation of a couples commitment status and, not incidentally, as a vehicle that confer benefits. From that perspective, restricting marriage to one man and one woman seems little more than a hoary traditionthe vestige of a less enlightened erathat becomes hurtful and discriminatory to those excluded from it. And thats where a huge percentage of Catholics are today.
Defending marriage is a vast and vital task. We need to work on all fronts, as Ryan Anderson argued so persuasively. But in our outreach to the larger society, lets not overlook the extensive in-house work that needs to be done with our fellow Catholics.
If silence paved the way for Catholics progressive march from yesterdays contraception to todays same-sex marriage, then its not hard to see the remedy. Catholics, be not afraid to teach, preach, and live the truthespecially the truth about sex and contraception.
Logical fallacy.
No birth control is 100% guaranteed effective against pregnancy.
All homo sex is.
There’s no group out there that accepts homosexual actions but doesn’t accept birth control within marriage, as far as I have ever heard of anyhow. You would think there would be a few if there was absolutely no connection there.
Freegards
This is not very logical, nor premised well.
Doesn’t make much sense.
It’s all part of the same package. The narcissistic deification of self. I alone am the master of my destiny. Devoid of any consideration for natural law. It’s no wonder the homosexual community can often be found present at pro-abortion rallies and vice versa.
Comrades in arms in the sexual heresy.
Because despite contraceptives, which require active deliberate use, hetero couples still manage to procreate. Homo couples don’t, ever.
That a married couple using birth control, is the same as homosexual sodomy. Sick minded logic.
**********
Yes it is. I know one thing that is true. Jesus drank wine but he never did that. Some sins are not okay. Deal with it, Homos.
I don’t know if we can say that because hetero couples manage to “get the job done” despite contraceptives that we can separate homo sex under the same rubric. I suppose one could if they were looking at it strictly as a pragmatic/biological consideration.
So where did Jesus denounce contraception?
That sexual relations are only sanctioned for procreative purposes is heresy, while equating preventing conception with sodomy on that basis is perverse.
Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. (Proverbs 5:18-19)
And Song of Solomon in part glorifies eros in marriage outside any context of child bearing.
In explaining the Church's teaching about contraception, many people mistakenly think that this teaching is relatively new, something which occurred with Humanae Vitae in 1968.
Other people, from a more fundamentalist bent, want to know if there is any basis in Sacred Scripture for these teachings. In reviewing both Sacred Scripture as well as the history of our Church's teaching in this area, one finds a very positive and solid foundation, as has been presented to date.
Concerning "What does the Bible have to say?" the very positive presentation concerning creation, marital love, and covenant emerges from the texts of Sacred Scripture. However, we also discover references to any violation of the unitive-procreative dimensions of marital love and to the divine consequences which followed. In Genesis, we find the story of Onan, the second son of Judah, who married Tamar, the widow of his older brother Er. (The Levirate law of Judaism prescribed that if the oldest brother died, the next oldest, single brother would marry his widow to preserve the family line.) The Bible reads, "Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life." (Cf. Genesis 38:1ff). Here is a basic form of contraception � withdrawal, and clearly a sin in the eyes of God....
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html
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.