Contraception and Homosexuality: "Dead-end" choices for humanity

[tmellin]

Contracepting heterosexual couples can be seen as similar to a homosexual couples in some respects (e.g. caring love, but no procreative potential). In the grand scheme of humanity, though, contraception and homosexuality are steps in the wrong direction.

Contraception and homosexuality are dead-ends to human reproduction. Of course we may yet see human reproduction and cloning in labs for homosexual couples, and later for “mixed trios” or perhaps amorphous, sexually interacting groups of humans?!

Even in this (to me bizarre) future world, though, the fact will remain that every human being has one (genetic) male father and one (genetic) female mother; this is the design of the human person that we cannot change, and it is the true design of the reproductive (child-raising) family.

We can all admit that male sex body parts are “originally designed to fit” female sex body parts, and consequently the average Joe citizen will always have the “common sense” that there is “something wrong with” homosexual sex. Unlike one’s genetic heritage (race; e.g. African American, etc.), homosexuality is behavior: behavior that one can change if one wishes.

To my knowledge, the Church does not support any sort of “punishment” of those who indulge in same-sex attraction (orthodox Catholic phrasing used there), but She must point out that it is a disordered (unnatural) way of loving another that should be resisted.

If you, or someone you love is suffering in the homosexual life (most homosexuals are suffering terribly, and not principally from social discrimination) please pass this site along to them as an true alternative to the illusion of happiness that GLBT culture is selling!

gaytostraight.org/

Peace be with you,

Tom

 

[Tony9712262]

The Church actually does not demand for a homosexual to change his or her sexual orientation, but to be celibate and carry his or her cross with Christ.

 

[aspawloski4th]

6billion people on Earth total, soo million in the USA. Why the obsession with procreating?

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Actually, an awful lot of gays have “procreated” (with artificial assistance) and/or are interested in such assisted procreation. (And all those who are so inclined would actually not be faithfully practicing Catholics; that’s the point.) It would seem that those are the ones so “obsessed” that they take great pains to go against nature and manipulate reproductive choices despite supposedly being “naturally inclined [from birth – uh-huh]” not to participate in reproduction, which for humans can only be heterosexual. Amazing that they are able to suspend their “inborn” attractions for a teeny tiny moment to supposedly force themselves to reproduce. (Many of them mate with members of the opposite sex for the sheer purpose of procreation, as opposed to relationship.)

Hmmm.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Amazing that they are able to suspend their “inborn” attractions for a teeny tiny moment to supposedly force themselves to reproduce. (Many of them mate with members of the opposite sex for the sheer purpose of procreation, as opposed to relationship.)

Can you cite this for me? I live in a city with an incredibly high per-capita ratio of homosexuals and am, therefore, rather aware of homosexual culture and very few homosexual men and women will “force” themselves into a heterosexual relationship for the purposes of procreation. Most gay male couples would adopt and most gay female couples would use artificial insemination from a donor (and you don’t have to partake in coitus to donate sperm to a specific woman).

The technology is actually possible to take an X chromosome from a woman and an X chromosome from another woman and insert them both in a denucleated ovum and allow for a child to biologically and genetically have two mothers. In theory, this could also be extended to homosexual male couples by taking one chromosome from each and inserting them in a denucleated ovum as well, making it genetically possible to have two males producing an offspring. You would need a surrogate, but the genetics would still be the same.

I’m not saying I support reproductive cloning, I am actually very much against it. But then, I’m also against reproduction in general because of the world’s population problem.

 

[DOShea]

What is the problem with world population? Are we running out of space or something?

 

[Lynxdk]

But then, I’m also against reproduction in general because of the world’s population problem.

I think it’s more of a supply problem, than a population problem. There’s more than enough resources to go around, but not enough $$ to get them, and get them where they’re needed.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

I was actually referencing a report I read a while ago that stated there were now officially too many people in the world to support given our current agricultural and industrial output worldwide. Failing to find that report, I will retract that reference as I cannot properly cite it after having asked for citation from someone else. But this is causing the conversation to deviate from the original intent, so we should probably get back on track now.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Can you cite this for me? I live in a city with an incredibly high per-capita ratio of homosexuals and am, therefore, rather aware of homosexual culture and very few homosexual men and women will “force” themselves into a heterosexual relationship for the purposes of procreation. Most gay male couples would adopt and most gay female couples would use artificial insemination from a donor (and you don’t have to partake in coitus to donate sperm to a specific woman).

Yes, in my high-per-capita-homosexual region all methods of adopting the title “parent” are used: adoption, AI, and various reproductive technologies. But a sizeable minority also use direct coitus. Btw, did you think I was born yesterday? That I don’t realize that

you don’t have to partake in coitus to donate sperm to a specific woman

?

The technology is actually possible to take an X chromosome from a woman and an X chromosome from another woman and insert them both in a denucleated ovum and allow for a child to biologically and genetically have two mothers. In theory, this could also be extended to homosexual male couples by taking one chromosome from each and inserting them in a denucleated ovum as well, making it genetically possible to have two males producing an offspring. You would need a surrogate, but the genetics would still be the same.

I knew all that, too, but thank you for repeating the revolting details which I already alluded to in my previous post., less graphically. (i.e., “assisted reproduction”)

Your screen name is not terribly credible, i.m.o., given these posts.

 

[Carmelite101]

I was actually referencing a report I read a while ago that stated there were now officially too many people in the world to support given our current agricultural and industrial output worldwide.

All that is, is left-wing liberal propaganda. Try to get this information from a reliable neutral source or multiple sources for and against this theory.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Carmelite101: All that is, is left-wing liberal propaganda. Try to get this information from a reliable neutral source or multiple sources for and against this theory.

You forgot to quote the part where I retracted that reference due to my inability to find the reference.

Elizabeth502 Your screen name is not terribly credible, i.m.o., given these posts.

Ignoring the personal attack I could read into that, and the entirely too-aggressive tone of your post, Aquinas is renowned for his reason and his logic. Nowhere did I make a statement that was devoid of reason or logic. I was simply illustrating my disagreement with something that had been said and trying to explain my position, something that, more and more it seems, is difficult to do without inciting an argument.

Elizabeth502: Yes, in my high-per-capita-homosexual region all methods of adopting the title “parent” are used: adoption, AI, and various reproductive technologies. But a sizeable minority also use direct coitus. Btw, did you think I was born yesterday? That I don’t realize that…I knew all that, too, but thank you for repeating the revolting details which I already alluded to in my previous post., less graphically. (i.e., “assisted reproduction”)

And nowhere in your previous post did you allude to anything outside of direct coitus. “Assisted” procreation is far too vague for you claim any allusion to anything. Giving birth in a hospital is “assisted.” Having a wet nurse is “assisted.” Artificial insemination, itself, not condemned by the Church, is “assisted.” I am sure nuclear-transmission and translation (the processes I was directly describing without allusion) were no where near what you actually intended to allude to.
And forgive me if scientifically-accurate language to describe a process is “too graphic,” in the future I will refrain from using any medically- or scientifically-accepted language in order not to offend anyone who might be overly-sensitive.

Also, you have failed to cite for me any statistics on the numbers of professed homosexual men and/or women who “suspend” their “inborn” attractions in order to have children.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And nowhere in your previous post did you allude to anything outside of direct coitus. “Assisted” procreation is far too vague for you claim any allusion to anything. Giving birth in a hospital is “assisted.” Having a wet nurse is “assisted.” Artificial insemination, itself, not condemned by the Church, is “assisted.” I am sure nuclear-transmission and translation (the processes I was directly describing without allusion) were no where near what you actually intended to allude to.
And forgive me if scientifically-accurate language to describe a process is “too graphic,” in the future I will refrain from using any medically- or scientifically-accepted language in order not to offend anyone who might be overly-sensitive.

Don’t be condescending to me, sir. You apparently think women are stupid. Perhaps you don’t know many, or don’t know many who are educated and perhaps brighter and/or more informed than yourself. Your post to which I’m responding is way more “aggressive” than mine, not to mention offensive & insulting. Um, I know what assisted reproduction is. It is not the broad definition you refer to, such as wet nurses and hospital birth. It is widely understood to refer to technological assistance of any kind – i.e., beyond simple coitus.

It’s probable that you’re responding aggressively because I fail to be submissive enough for you. I mentioned your screen name because you may fancy yourself to be logical, but you are not - and certainly not in the logical use of language. I didn’t “allude” to specific technological intervention because this is not a medical thread, and most people have enough taste and imagination not to need gory details. But again, more importantly, I don’t need you to “educate” me about facts which I apparently have in greater abundance than you.

For example, I know that the Church does not condone artificial insemination, but intrauterine insemination (big difference, technically) – another error which you lectured me about.

Also, you have failed to cite for me any statistics on the numbers of professed homosexual men and/or women who “suspend” their “inborn” attractions in order to have children.

I made no specific statistical claim. I indicated (accurately) their frequent & casual occurrence. I’m certain that I am much more familiar with these trends than you are, judging from your statements. There’s enormous hypocrisy and double-speak in the gay community. (Those who claim they were “born that way” and “could never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex,” but miraculously manage to overcome their distaste for utilitarian reasons. Those who claim that one’s orientation is one or the other, but conveniently ignore the phenomenon – choice, really – of bisexuality. And many other hypocrisies.) These are frequent examples, not occasional. It’s called polymorphous sexuality for those who are acquainted with the fluid lifestyles of those who live in or near highly sexually charged communiities.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Elizabeth, I am going to continue this debate no longer for two reasons:

One, you have accused me of misogyny, which I had no intention to convey despite the fact that you believe I laced my post with it (which is, in and of itself, yet another personal attack against me) despite the fact that I am a feminist and believe misogyny in any form is wrong, and, two, because this has completely derailed the point of the original post and you are rapidly turning it into a personal debate concerning my character. I could take this to a moderator considering my rather neutral tone in comparison to your blatantly aggressive tone, but I won’t because I’m simply done arguing with you.

Secondly, I wish to point out, the original topic is not devoid of medical and social concerns. It deals with contraception (a medical issue) and homosexuality (a social issue). Therefore, the entrance into the discussion of certain medical terms is to be expected. I do not think women are stupid, but I think it is arrogant and overly-sensitive of you to believe that I am attempting to defend my position while I supposedly believe you to be stupid or failing to submit to me. Both are accusations against my character as a person and take the nature of this discussion from a free exchange of ideas concerning the original topic and into the realm of purely personal attack. The civility of your posts has gone far beyond anything reasonable and I will tolerate it no more.

To the OP, forgive me for inadvertently completely derailing your topic. I will refrain from this topic further considering the conflict I have seemed to engender in someone else.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Elizabeth, I am going to continue this debate no longer for two reasons:

One, you have accused me of misogyny, which I had no intention to convey despite the fact that you believe I laced my post with it (which is, in and of itself, yet another personal attack against me) despite the fact that I am a feminist and believe misogyny in any form is wrong, and, two, because this has completely derailed the point of the original post and you are rapidly turning it into a personal debate concerning my character. I could take this to a moderator considering my rather neutral tone in comparison to your blatantly aggressive tone, but I won’t because I’m simply done arguing with you.

Secondly, I wish to point out, the original topic is not devoid of medical and social concerns. It deals with contraception (a medical issue) and homosexuality (a social issue). Therefore, the entrance into the discussion of certain medical terms is to be expected. I do not think women are stupid, but I think it is arrogant and overly-sensitive of you to believe that I am attempting to defend my position while I supposedly believe you to be stupid or failing to submit to me. Both are accusations against my character as a person and take the nature of this discussion from a free exchange of ideas concerning the original topic and into the realm of purely personal attack. The civility of your posts has gone far beyond anything reasonable and I will tolerate it no more.

To the OP, forgive me for inadvertently completely derailing your topic. I will refrain from this topic further considering the conflict I have seemed to engender in someone else.

Nevermind her. She can’t stand the idea of original thought or non cookie cutter people. She is a conformist type person. Also her medical and psychological knowledge is far obsolete.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Nevermind her. She can’t stand the idea of original thought or non cookie cutter people. She is a conformist type person. Also her medical and psychological knowledge is far obsolete.

Whoa. This post is way, way out of line. Excuse me, but apparently you are ignoring, or have forgotten, many of my quite informed contributions and noninflammatory, non"conformist" participation in threads that have included controversial discussions on TG, SSA, and many other sexually-charged issues. Apparently I have way more medical knowledge than either of the two posters who are now engaging in snide remarks which do not further clarification on the moral issues (& Catholic stances on those) being discussed on this thread. I say that only because there are some flatly incorrect statements that have been made here, and this unnecessary, out-of-left-field insult does not shed any light on the important distinctions the Church makes on certain moral issues brought up here.

For the record, I am well informed on gender dysphoria, a subject dear to the heart of this poster. I have listened and posted openly and tolerantly on this subject, for anyone who cares to do the CAF research on that. “Conformist” is hardly a word that applies to me or my positions, let alone “cookie cutter” or “non-original.”

I could say to others “never mind [this poster],” but I won’t stoop that low. Stay on topic, please. People of any persuasion who believe they know what the RCC says, but clearly misrepresent teachings on reproductive issues, should be corrected as soon as possible. People of any persuasion who believe they know what “type of a person” another poster is are way out of line, not just morally (despite possibly getting on their own high horse, morally), but more importantly, factually. And that doesn’t even address the whole TOS crossing-the-line.

It’s important to reveal the facts that polymorphous sexual behavior is a feature of certain lifestyles, and a preference of a sizeable minority in certain regions. It is not practiced universally by such populations, but it is tolerated, welcomed, even “celebrated” far more in some populations than in others. To imply that gays never or rarely copulate with straights is just naive. And its frequent occurrence, however, calls into question any absolute equation between SSA and sexual behavior.

This has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. Nothing.

 

[Elizabeth502]

the original topic is not devoid of medical and social concerns. It deals with contraception (a medical issue) and homosexuality (a social issue).

Correct. And you were wrong on your medical remarks. They do not reflect Church teaching, but you implied a superior level of knowledge, which you clearly don’t have. The tone you used definitely implied that. And when you speak that way, you can expect a defensive response. I’m glad you don’t feel inwardly the way you expressed yourself outwardly.

And when someone makes statements about behavioral trends that are insufficient in information, it’s important to correct that, because that too (the social issue) is yes, a subject of the thread.

 

[Matusewic]

You forgot to quote the part where I retracted that reference due to my inability to find the reference.

I apologize, however my intent was to make everyone aware that the over-population myth is false & although you retracted it, it might have been in the back of your mind & made others aware that this might be a problem.

The purpose of the over-population lie is a product of the liberal agenda to justify abortion, euthenasia, and to restrict our freedoms of industry so you can only buy ‘green.’

Peace to you, sir.

 

[aspawloski4th]

The title of the thread implies that if one uses contraception, or is homosexual that they are contributing to the end of humanity. While contraception most certainly is a choice, homosexuality is not, theres one fallability of the title. The other is that its a dead end tohumanity. There are 300 million people in the USA and 6 billion on Earth, so in pure numbers humanity is long from going extinct. Most people that use contraception are either teenagers who shouldn’t be having children in the first places or couples who had the amount of children that they think they can handle already. I’m speaking from the point of view of here in the USA. I’d much rather see 3 children raised by parents well and sent to a Catholic school than 8 children sent to a public school because the family’s resources are already stretched. I went to both public and Catholic schools so I have very good background to compare the two. I happen to be the oldest of 8. I was born when my parents were 22, the lastone was born when My parents were 45. The parental drives were not there by the time he reached his teens, because by nature one isn’t parenting when they are in their 50’s. The attitude of the title is repugnenet to me. It seems to have the view that if a human isn’t a breeding machine they are a drag on humanity.