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 ...
There are many other forms of birth control, and a RCC friend once told me Catholics have a special name for those who rely on them: "parents".
The pill (along with things like implants and IUDs), in contrast, was a revolutionary paradigm shift that turned contraception from something that might prevent pregnancy in 20% of couples using it over the course of a year into something that permitted women to prevent pregnancy reliably more than 95% of the time. Coupled with unrestricted abortion for those who fell in the remaining 5%, there is no meaningful comparison between the pill as birth control and any other mechanism.
Totally off subject, and bad dot connect. The abortion industry is not there to service those married couples who get pregnant by accident. Sure that happens, and sure some get abortions, but many also have the unplanned child anyway. On the whole, it does not make your point at all however.
Sorry to break that to you, but that’s a far more modern teaching. Both Marriage and contraception far predates the argument you are attempting to make. To claim that contraception itself is a debasement of marriage is something that was invented long long long after both marriage and contraception existed.
If you are to argue that contraception itself destroys the institution of marriage, then you are trying to make the argument that marriages that existed before this belief came to be were not legitimate or somehow failed or flawed, when in fact both existed for millennia before the modern teaching that contraception within marriage was an affront to marriage.
To believe the only responsibility of marriage is to procreate is a bit disingenuous as well. I hate to break this to you, but birth control existed during the eras of the old and new testaments, and yet, not one mention of them being immoral is mentioned in either book. The only mention I know of in the Bible is the mentioning of the refusal of a man to produce an heir for his dead brother with his wife so that inheritances would not need to be shared, but the condemnation was upon his selfishness, not upon the use of birth control itself. Not to mention that Onan was EXPLICITLY ordered by God to produce offspring and raise them as well.
Marriage contains a lot more obligations than procreation, if it was only about that, life would be a lot simpler for the married folks walking this planet.
NOT APPLYING THIS TO YOU!!! - but the tone of some posters almost seems like a “since I’m not having any fun, you can’t either” type preachiness...with some absurd logic stretches to make their point.
your post 23 - very well laid out and correct.
Wonder what you think about my “theory” in post 24?
In the case of marriage the start of the slippery slope was the 1930 Lambeth conference in which for the first time in history contraception was accepted as moral by a major religion. (The fact that people did it long before is irrelevant. Sin has always been with us, but this was the first time this particular sin was declared to no longer be a sin.) It accelerated in the 1950s and 1960s with no-fault divorce, and the final "tipping point" came in 1968 with the definitive rejection by both clergy and laity of Humanae Vitae, with the clerical rejection being the fatal turn.
Events since them have simply been the inevitable consequence of that tipping point, as clearly enumerated in that remarkably prescient document itself.
Every non-Catholic Christian who rejects birth control within marriage is invariably conservative, that I have observed. There don’t seem to be any pastors that think birth control within marriage is bad but also accept things like female clergy, abortion and ‘gay marriage.’ On the other hand, try finding a liberal of any faith that does accept those other things but also finds birth control within marriage unacceptable.
All of one side is invariably and absolutely fine with bc within marriage, and in fact actually hate the fact that there are faiths like the old order Mennonites, Amish, Catholics and independent types who aren’t. The other side is split.
Freegards
I don’t agree with 24, let me make this clear, I completely understand the slippery slope argument around birth control that is the foundation of the contraception argument of the church. I am not remotely arguing that a healthy proper marriage should be open to the act of procreation, and that marriage does as part of its many obligations, requires the dedication of oneself to the next generation, and it is indeed a selfish action to willfully decide not to have children if one is able.
HOWEVER, I do not agree that contraception within marriage itself is an affront to the institution of marriage. I do not believe that a family that is barely able to feed the offspring it does have cannot take measures other than abstinence to attempt to make sure they do not have another child. I believe that Children are a blessing, but I also believe that it is our responsibility to be good stewards. Parents are charged with their children’s care and upbringing, and to argue that all people should be popping out a kid ever year or two throughout their fertile lives when infant mortality is less than 1% is irresponsible for most people, they would not have the resources or ability to effectively raise that many children.
Yes they have - "not having sex" is the oldest form of birth control.
you must not have seen the word “some” in my post 24 - and maybe you haven’t met as many unhappy pharisees as I have....
Okay, I won't make an assumption, but I will make an assertion - based on your words above - that you think abstinence is the only proper form of birth control within marriage? Really? Your statement above is useless unless that's your point. And if that's your point, I feel sorry for you.
God never once in any book of the old or new testament condemned contraception within marriage, the only mention of it in either book is the story of Onan who was punished for his selfishness, not simply because he used birth control. He was Ordered by God to produce heirs with his brothers wife, and refused, and was punished by God for defying his explicitly ordered will, not because he used birth control.
NO doubt sin has always been with it, but to argue birth control destroyed marriage is disingenuous.
Birth Control and Marriage existed long long long before the modern teaching that you shouldn’t use it if married. If marriage is an institution of God and birth control itself within marriage is an affront to God I am pretty sure the Bible would have mentioned it explicitly. The Bible states explicitly that laying with your wife while she is menstruating is a sin, but I don’t hear the church(s) condemning any one for that. It explicitly tells you not to cut your sideburns or beard, but most Christians I know do not have beards or sideburns... these are things that the old testament EXPLICITLY condemns. Birth Control within marriage is never mentioned with the sole exception of Oman using it to willfully defy the explicit order of God to him for his own selfish reasons to not need to split the inheritance.
To argue that birth control within marriage is a mortal sin, would be to debase ever marriage that existed prior to this far more modern teaching that you may only plan your family by abstinence or timing when you decide to be amorous to your partners cycle and hope for the best.
oh, this just in...I think post 29 kind of indicates that perhaps there is some truth to post 24. just sayin......
People have confused “birth control” and “contraception” ... they don’t mean the same thing.
And this thread illustrates the depth of corruption to which these United States have fallen.
This thread? Really? You got some splainin to do Lucy......
Stuff it. I don't "'splain" to you.
TRANSLATION: you want to come to a forum and vent emotionally and judgmentally (and absurdly) - but since you have no leg to stand on, you don't want to embarrass yourself further. Got it. Thanks' for splainin........you've said it all.
Jerk.
You got yourself off very much on the wrong foot with your idiotic (Yes, you're acting like an idiot. At least, I think it's an act) Ricky Ricardo imitation.
Stuff it.
Jerk.
And yes, supposed conservatives (such as you pretend to be) supporting contraception DO show how thoroughly corrupt America has become. How long before you start supporting institutionalized sodomy?
Jerk.
These people are called "Catholics", as evidenced by this very article.
And this thread illustrates the depth of corruption to which these United States have fallen.
By morally equating contraception (which, as I pointed out earlier, happens every single time that people don't engage in intercourse) with abortifacient birth control methods (i.e. anything that murders the already-conceived child at any point prior to birth), Catholics themselves throw a monkeywrench into any agreement they might otherwise have with Protestants on the subject. The Catholic argument seems to be "if we don't agree on every single point that (we claim) are related, we're never going to acknowledge any agreements whatsoever". Hence the constant fence-jumping between contraception, pro-life, Protestants, and now gay marriage any time any one of those subjects comes up.
Obviously, you are miserable and bitter in your monk like state of celibacy - and I do feel sorry for you. Thus you are ranting emotionally, and jumping to all kinds of convulsions. First of which is that “splainin to do Lucy” is some kind of insult. It’s an iconic figure of speech, said in humor. But bitter celebits don’t get humor I guess.
Second, I never said I was pro or anti contraception - other than the narrow construct that it was blamed by these two authors. You just went over the cliff on that ASSumption.
Third, the idea that this has anything to do with sodomy is just a total bitter rant devoid of any logical underpinning whatsoever. That’s just you being stupid. Or perhaps in your celibacy, you don’t understand the differences.
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.