• 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

phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
To you Christians who are against homosexual activity, you need to realize why your arguments are unconvincing. If your arguments consists solely of the idea that sex should be between only a man and a woman, someone will naturally (and reasonably) retort: why? You're going to be lead into a metaphysics argument about the nature of sex, and ultimately, as I have seen time and again, you will get up to the issue of why you can allow sexual relations that have no intention of producing offspring: sex with contraception. If the purpose of sex is to create children (which it is), and this is why homosexuals cannot have sex, then how can you justify heterosexuals engaging in sex that is closed off to life, even if within a marriage? You are making a special exemption and you will get called out on it.

It's as simple as this: if you accept contraception, then you have no good, convincing reason to deny homosexual sex.
 
Ssshhh. Don't give them any ideas. Sheesh.
 
TeleKat said:
Ssshhh. Don't give them any ideas. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

I had a poster on this forum tell me that it was sex when man masturbated in a cup, it was frozen, a woman got it from a fertility clinic and she used a turkey baster to cause sperm and egg to come together.


>>>>
 
phattonez said:
To you Christians who are against homosexual activity, you need to realize why your arguments are unconvincing. If your arguments consists solely of the idea that sex should be between only a man and a woman, someone will naturally (and reasonably) retort: why? You're going to be lead into a metaphysics argument about the nature of sex, and ultimately, as I have seen time and again, you will get up to the issue of why you can allow sexual relations that have no intention of producing offspring: sex with contraception. If the purpose of sex is to create children (which it is), and this is why homosexuals cannot have sex, then how can you justify heterosexuals engaging in sex that is closed off to life, even if within a marriage? You are making a special exemption and you will get called out on it.

It's as simple as this: if you accept contraception, then you have no good, convincing reason to deny homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

If the only purpose of sex was procreation, women would come into "heat" like the test of the mammals and only be sexually receptive when they are actually fertile.

That they are fertile only about a third of the time or less suggests more to it than procreation.
 
What if...? said:
If the only purpose of sex was procreation, women would come into "heat" like the test of the mammals and only be sexually receptive when they are actually fertile.

That they are fertile only about a third of the time or less suggests more to it than procreation.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true.

Booty Call: How to Spot a Fertile Woman

While yes, women are only fertile a few days out of every cycle, their desire tends to align quite closely with that fertility.
 
phattonez said:
To you Christians who are against homosexual activity, you need to realize why your arguments are unconvincing. If your arguments consists solely of the idea that sex should be between only a man and a woman, someone will naturally (and reasonably) retort: why? You're going to be lead into a metaphysics argument about the nature of sex, and ultimately, as I have seen time and again, you will get up to the issue of why you can allow sexual relations that have no intention of producing offspring: sex with contraception. If the purpose of sex is to create children (which it is), and this is why homosexuals cannot have sex, then how can you justify heterosexuals engaging in sex that is closed off to life, even if within a marriage? You are making a special exemption and you will get called out on it.

It's as simple as this: if you accept contraception, then you have no good, convincing reason to deny homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. When marriage and sex are discussed in the Bible it is not solely in the context of child-producing. Jesus, for example, discussed it as the means by which two become one, not the means by which two produce more. Sex is intended to strengthen a marriage (this is also discussed later in the epistles, where it is discussed as a duty we owe each other for just that purpose), and in some weird way, is the defining act of marriage.

In short, there is no biblical reason why recognizing how Gods intends sex to function requires the prohibition of birth control. One can perhaps produce derivative logic, if you like, but it is certainly not required. It is also rather certain that this is not behind the last two generations' higher level of acceptance of the concept of homosexual marriage - as if if only traditional marriage advocates were to suddenly favor not using birth control, suddenly SSM advocates would be convinced :roll:
 
Christianity has never been against contraception or abortion, not even the Catholic Church itself, until after the 1850's. In the Middle Ages when Christianity ruled Europe, women were aborting through their own means regularly. Contraception became associated with witchcraft around the time of the Inquisition, but after that things returned to the status quo. Reproductive choice was a private matter, for the most part.

Homosexual activities became outlawed around the time of Constantine because they were associated with Paganism, and because homosexual acts do not result in the faith being spread.

Jesus said nothing about commanding people to reproduce. That was invented later. The best way to propagate religion is through children. Adults generally don't convert all too easily, which is why they tend to get murdered or thrown in prison instead.

The American Christian view on these political matters is incredibly distorted and not consistent with historical fact.
 
Northern Light said:
Christianity has never been against contraception or abortion, not even the Catholic Church itself, until after the 1850's. In the Middle Ages when Christianity ruled Europe, women were aborting through their own means regularly. Contraception became associated with witchcraft around the time of the Inquisition, but after that things returned to the status quo. Reproductive choice was a private matter, for the most part.

Homosexual activities became outlawed around the time of Constantine because they were associated with Paganism, and because homosexual acts do not result in the faith being spread.

Jesus said nothing about commanding people to reproduce. That was invented later. The best way to propagate religion is through children. Adults generally don't convert all too easily, which is why they tend to get murdered or thrown in prison instead.

The American Christian view on these political matters is incredibly distorted and not consistent with historical fact.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. Show me any source.
 
phattonez said:
To you Christians who are against homosexual activity, you need to realize why your arguments are unconvincing. If your arguments consists solely of the idea that sex should be between only a man and a woman, someone will naturally (and reasonably) retort: why? You're going to be lead into a metaphysics argument about the nature of sex, and ultimately, as I have seen time and again, you will get up to the issue of why you can allow sexual relations that have no intention of producing offspring: sex with contraception. If the purpose of sex is to create children (which it is), and this is why homosexuals cannot have sex, then how can you justify heterosexuals engaging in sex that is closed off to life, even if within a marriage? You are making a special exemption and you will get called out on it.

It's as simple as this: if you accept contraception, then you have no good, convincing reason to deny homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just that. If you accept the idea that heterosexual couples that are infertile or simply choose not to have kids are allowed to be married, you're making a special exception.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, it's not just that. If you accept the idea that heterosexual couples that are infertile ... are allowed to be married, you're making a special exception.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 
Gotta love all the non Christians telling us what we must believe if we are to be Christians without any knowledge of the bible. Claiming homosexuality wasnt banned until Constantine when it was condemned by God in the old testament and the Torah written long before Constantine was ever born. It was banned by Constantine because it was against Christianity not because it was a symbol of paganism
 
No, you are losing the homosexuality debate because your arguments are just all ****ing dumb. (referring to people against homosexuality, not OP)
 
Cardinal said:
Awesome response, dude.
Click to expand...

It is the only response for someone who persists in willful ignorance despite having been shown incorrect over and over and over and ...

StillBallin75 said:
No, you are losing the homosexuality debate because your arguments are just all ****ing dumb. (referring to people against homosexuality, not OP)
Click to expand...

The OP is opposed to both sodomy and contraception.
 
Paleocon said:
It is the only response for someone who persists in willful ignorance despite having been shown incorrect over and over and over and ...
Click to expand...

So you believe then that people who have no ability or intention of having kids should not be allowed to be married?
 
Cardinal said:
So you believe then that people who have no ability or intention of having kids should not be allowed to be married?
Click to expand...

If by "no intention" you mean that they intend to never perform a natural sexual act, then it is correct that they marry invalidly.

The marriages of infertile people are only invalid if this was not disclosed to the other spouse.
 
Paleocon said:
If by "no intention" you mean that they intend to never perform a natural sexual act, then it is correct that they marry invalidly.

The marriages of infertile people are only invalid if this was not disclosed to the other spouse.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that if I were to read over my marriage license I would see "intends to have sex" on it? Our exchange of vows in the courtroom was videotaped and I can tell you for a fact that no intention of sex (or kids) was mentioned.
 
Cardinal said:
So are you saying that if I were to read over my marriage license I would see "intends to have sex" on it? Our exchange of vows in the courtroom was videotaped and I can tell you for a fact that no intention of sex (or kids) was mentioned.
Click to expand...

Some things are implicit.

Actually, I'd amend my statement to note that Josephite marriages (both intend to never have any sexual relations) are not invalid.
 
Paleocon said:
Some things are implicit.

Actually, I'd amend my statement to note that Josephite marriages (both intend to never have any sexual relations) are not invalid.
Click to expand...

Good for them. As for what is "implicit" in our marriage, that is entirely between me and my wife.
 
StillBallin75 said:
No, you are losing the homosexuality debate because your arguments are just all ****ing dumb. (referring to people against homosexuality, not OP)
Click to expand...

This is the winning post.
 
Christians are "losing" the debate on homosexuality because it's the natural nature of our sinful to reject God's truth and as we as a people move farther from God it's easier to accept or approve of that which is sinful or wrong. People are rejecting God's truth and substituting it for their own, it has nothing to do with contraception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom