• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

You are Losing the Homosexuality Debate Because of Contraception

Gotta consider the observed creation as well.as the bible and the preacher.

Bonobo chimps are the only other constantly sexually receptive mammal. I'll let you look up how THEY live.

If sex was just for procreation, women would have "heats". Unless this is another of jahweh's hell-filling scams.

Let me know if your groundbreaking research discovers that they use contraception.
 
There are plenty of things that Jesus did not say, yet we still hold to. Jesus did quote a verse in Genesis, though, which is quite clear about to need to "be fruitful and multiply"

Sure. However, Jesus clearly also discussed sex and marriage separate from procreation, indicating that the definition that declares that the latter is necessary to the correct enactment of the former is incorrect so long as you accept the authority of Christ on the question.

Why was Onan killed then, if the punishment for failing to produce offspring with your brother's wife is only public humiliation?

1. Old Testament Law is not binding upon Christianity.
2. Onan was refusing to give his brother a child in order to wrongfully seize an inheritance. The OT requirement was to provide an heir. It was a familial duty to the deceased. That does not translate to "therefore sex is only intended for procreation".

You don't see a trend whereby when sex was opened up to allow contraception that eventually promiscuity was accepted, and then after that why not homosexual sex? Pope Paul VI saw what would happen quite clearly:

I absolutely see a trend where reduced consequences enable increased promiscuity which gives large sections of society incentives to reduce the scope of moral judgment, which in turns enables increased acceptance of homosexual sex. That simply does not translate to it is therefore a religious duty to not use birth control, any more than the invention of computers enabling internet porn means that the religious should avoid circuitry.

Even the Catholic Church supports the use of family planning that includes non-procreative sex within the sacrament of marriage.
 
Sure. However, Jesus clearly also discussed sex and marriage separate from procreation, indicating that the definition that declares that the latter is necessary to the correct enactment of the former is incorrect so long as you accept the authority of Christ on the question.

Because he was dealing with a question about the aspect of unity, so he responded to the point and used a verse that later on, though not applicable to the point that he was making, was clear about the need to procreate.

1. Old Testament Law is not binding upon Christianity.

Of course it is. We cannot sin however we want and think that we're fine. The moral law still applies. It is the ceremonial law that has changed. In other words, the natural law has not changed, but those aspects of the law which were not applicable to the moral law are no longer in force.

Jim Blackburn said:
Also, Christians are not and have never been bound by Old Testament law for its own sake, and those elements of Old Testament law which are not part of the natural law—e.g., the obligation to worship on Saturday —were only ever binding on the Jews. Christians do have liberty on those issues.

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law | Catholic Answers

2. Onan was refusing to give his brother a child in order to wrongfully seize an inheritance. The OT requirement was to provide an heir. It was a familial duty to the deceased. That does not translate to "therefore sex is only intended for procreation".

Like I said, the punishment for the failure to produce offspring is public humiliation. See Deuteronomy 25:

Deuteronomy said:
5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And the name of his house[a] shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

The punishment is public humiliation, not death. What Onan did made him guilty of death. The sin of Onan was intentionally rendering an otherwise fruitful act of sex unfruitful, and for that he was killed.

I absolutely see a trend where reduced consequences enable increased promiscuity which gives large sections of society incentives to reduce the scope of moral judgment, which in turns enables increased acceptance of homosexual sex. That simply does not translate to it is therefore a religious duty to not use birth control, any more than the invention of computers enabling internet porn means that the religious should avoid circuitry.

Because computers in and of themselves are not evil. Contraception, however, since it is used exclusively as a means to bypass the natural law, is evil.

Even the Catholic Church supports the use of family planning that includes non-procreative sex within the sacrament of marriage.

The difference is that NFP is always open to new life. There is nothing added to the act that make it naturally unfruitful. That is the difference. The evil is in making an otherwise fruitful act intentionally unfruitful. NFP merely abstains from engaging in sexual relations on fertile days, but does nothing to force the act to be unfruitful.

Can we name anything good that has come about because of the use of contraception? Is a reduction in the number of children that you have a good thing given how the Bible always praises the begetting of offspring?
 
It's as simple as this: if you accept contraception, then you have no good, convincing reason to deny homosexual sex.
Thus we know why homosexual activity is gaining in acceptance, even within denominations whose leaderships speak out consistently against contraception and homosexuality. :D
 
Thus we know why homosexual activity is gaining in acceptance, even within denominations whose leaderships speak out consistently against contraception and homosexuality. :D

It's true. Most of these churches are not offering a logically consistent and reasoned response to the issue of homosexual activity. The reason they don't is because they can't unless you also deny contraception.

If you accept contraception, you must accept homosexual sex. There is no good reason to accept one and not the other. There is no moral difference.
 
Thus we know why homosexual activity is gaining in acceptance, even within denominations whose leaderships speak out consistently against contraception and homosexuality. :D

How would you know?
 
Is contraception against God's truth?
That depends upon whom you ask. Many Christian denominations accept contraception.


It seems to me that you can't quite make the claim that you're making until you first answer that question.
And the same to you, unless you declare by fiat that you, and only people who agree with you, have the Ultimate and Exclusively Correct access to God's truth....
 
That depends upon whom you ask. Many Christian denominations accept contraception.



And the same to you, unless you declare by fiat that you, and only people who agree with you, have the Ultimate and Exclusively Correct access to God's truth....

Welcome to the Catholic Church.
 
It's true. Most of these churches are not offering a logically consistent and reasoned response to the issue of homosexual activity. The reason they don't is because they can't unless you also deny contraception.
Actually, people are pretty good at plucking what they want out of texts. I don't think it would be all that difficult to sort through the Old & New Testaments to find passages to say, well... whatever policy you want to advocate.

I'm currently reading Karen Armstrong's Fields of Blood, which is an argument against the idea that religion is inherently the cause of warfare and conflict. It's fascinating to see how so many religions and philosophies start out advocating peace and advocating against hierarchical socioeconomic imbalances, and get co-opted by the state to justify structural uses of violence. Same exact texts, diametrically opposite conclusions.

Maybe I don't agree with your analysis after all.... :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom