Debate help: Contraception mentality leads to divorce, homosexuality, murder

[ahs]

Contraception has never been safer for the woman - or as effective at ending a pregnancy. Before, it was a wait and see mentality - take certain herbs and wait,there are many other ways people achieved abortion in other ways- but it was also much, much more dangerous for the woman than it is today. There is little or no question about the fetus being terminated, unless you’re taking the abortion pill - which brings me to how much easier it is to have an abortion - you take a pill, then take another pill a few days later then get checked by the doctor to make sure everything is out of your body. Yes, people can still die from these methods, but much, much more rarely than ever before.
I could well imagine a girl getting pregnant during college or high school and not wanting to jeopardize her education - fact is that if you are in high school and have a child, you have a less than 25% chance of going on to university. For many, it would seem much easier for them to not have to ‘deal’ with the pregnancy. It’s pretty obvious to me why so many women get abortions - if they wern’t planning on having a child at that time, it’s easier for them to go take a couple of pills, deal with some stomach pain and not have to worry about everything that goes along with pregnancy -
God Bless
Rye

Well, yes; it is certainly much easier and safer today for a woman to shuck off the responsibility that comes with having sex and to simply murder her child than to give birth. Not only it is physically safer/easier for a women to murder a baby, but she is also safer in the sense that her surrounding society, on a large part, sees nothing wrong with it or simply doesn’t want to form an opinion.

…But that’s not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not there is a correlation between the contraceptive mentality and the acceptance of homosexual intercourse/divorce/abortion (etc…). If you’d like to discuss the above topic, please open a new thread and I’d be happy to dialog with you about it.

Wait…are you saying that is why there has been a rise in abortions? Because they are safer and easier to obtain, and this has nothing to do with contraceptive mentality?

What’s the purpose of an abortion? To prevent a woman from having a baby.
What’s the purpose of contraception? To prevent a woman from having a baby.

They stem from the same root.

 

[ahs]

Wait…are you saying that is why there has been a rise in abortions? Because they are safer and easier to obtain, which has nothing to do with contraceptive mentality?

What’s the purpose of an abortion? To prevent a woman from having a baby.
What’s the purpose of contraception? To prevent a woman from having a baby.

They stem from the same root.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Okay, I see what you are saying now, and I see Nate13 does as well and so does fix, yet trying not to derail the thread. The 2 things I bolded are not part of Catholic Teaching. A couple can decide to have sex when their act will NATURALLY be non-procreative (during an infertile time), yet must still be ordered to procreation. Also, an irregular cycle in a woman does not affect natural law…it just means she has irregular cycles. These topics should be addressed in a separate thread where they can get adequate attention, where you can also define what you mean by moral law vs. what moral law really is.

Here is the thing with natural law that can be confusing:
Natural law - moral order observed from nature
Natural law - laws of nature observed in nature as they were intended and designed by God
Procreation - laws of nature observed in nature that became moral order

HV starts to talk about fertility cycles (laws of nature) and transforms them into moral order (as the only way to have moral sex). The logical question is what is moral order if the cycles are not present?
The next questions is why each act was ordered to procreation if “NATURALLY be non-procreative (during an infertile time)” was observed in nature?
It seems that nature by itself is *contraceptive *during infertile times.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Actually I’m just demanding you are consistent and logical. If your going to claim the Church is wrong on natural moral law you are rejecting the Church’s teaching authority on issues of faith and morals. Thus you have no right to call upon it to decry homosexual acts. Thus that leaves any translation or interpretation of scripture a matter of personal opinion.

The point is that once you have decided the Church is wrong on one issue your in free fall from there. Especially when your basis for rejecting the teaching is that the law of “love” overcomes natural law. The real problem with your thinking is that you believe natural law and love are contradictory. Natural law is the owner’s manual for how to love. Regardless you should stop and think for a second here and realize that your reasoning for rejecting the Doctrine on contraception, is the same reasoning high schooler’s use to justify fornication and the same reason homosexual’s use to justify homosexual acts. I’m glad you still realize both those things are wrong, but you should realize the inconsistency in your argument.

I am questioning some points in HV. As far as I know I am consistent.

 

[Nate13]

Here is the thing with natural law that can be confusing:
Natural law - moral order observed from nature
Natural law - laws of nature observed in nature as they were intended and designed by God
Procreation - laws of nature observed in nature that became moral order

HV starts to talk about fertility cycles (laws of nature) and transforms them into moral order (as the only way to have moral sex). The logical question is what is moral order if the cycles are not present?

The whole point I was trying to make earlier when you made this point was that the only reason you know what is “irregular” is because you know what is “regular”, the “norm”, “how it was designed to be”. The same would apply to homosexual acts. Even if something is genetically different in people who are homosexual it would not change the morality of homosexual acts at all. Someone born genetically to have an addictive nature and easily able to become addicted to things does not get a pass morally on drunkenness. Might God take some of these things into account in determining culpability? Yes, but these things remain unchangeably disordered none the less and contradictory to God’s love.

To answer your question directly the moral order does not change. The nature of a woman with an irregular cycle is the same as the nature of a woman with a normal cycle. You express the fact that you realize this when you recognize that the first woman has an irregular cycle. If the moral order changed depending on whether the cycle was irregular or regular, you wouldn’t call it irregular. You know how it was designed to work though and what the purpose of the cycle is, thus you can recognize that a woman with an irregular cycle has the same nature as all other women. You wouldn’t classify her as a woman if not.

The next questions is why each act was ordered to procreation if “NATURALLY be non-procreative (during an infertile time)” was observed in nature?
It seems that nature by itself is *contraceptive *during infertile times.

Saying nature is contraceptive at times is like saying nature is murderous at times; its nonsensical. The fact as you said that 3/4th’s of a woman’s cycle is infertile is a testament to the fact that the unitive aspect of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. However if you remember a past thread, the unitive aspect of sex gains all of its meaning from the existence of the procreative aspect. All things involving sex point back to the procreative aspect. Thus the fact that 3/4th’s of the cycle is infertile actually points to the fact that sex is ordered towards procreation.

 

[Nate13]

I am questioning some points in HV. As far as I know I am consistent.

Your accepting Church teaching authority when and if it pleases you. Your application of natural law is definitely inconsistent.

 

[ahs]

Jaaanosik,

I was about to be up in arms over you derailing this thread, but I see where you thinking can tie into the topic. Also, Nate13 is being generous in clarifying the natural law/moral law issue, which also ties into the thread topic.

Also, you need to recognize the difference between a body being naturally infertile, and a couple removing the procreative aspect from a marital act by adding some outside influence (contraceptive device, drug, completing an act in an unnatural manner, etc…). On the one hand, you are talking about the nature of something as God created it to be. On the other, you are talking about humans who want to change the inherent nature of an act by doing something to that act that is contrary to the nature of act.

And from here, we get back to the contraceptive mentality. People want to play God, as it were. They want to engage in this sexual act, yet they want to do it wihtout regard for their natural fertility. They remove an aspect that is naturally present while simultaneously engaging in the act that is naturally ordered to that very aspect they have removed. They convince themselves that this is okay because: it makes them feel good; they love each other; their conscience says its okay; their friends do it; they aren’t ready for the responsibility of parenthood; God would not want to bring a child into this hard situation; they feel so strongly about this; whatever other reson you can think of…

…and these are some of the same arguments that homosexuals use to justify homosexual sex…

…and the same used by those seeking divorce…

…and by those who wish to justify murdering their babies…

The contraceptive mentality opens the door for, and in my opinion causes, a popular acceptance of divorce, homosexual sex acts, and abortion, etc… It’s a mentality based on “how I feel about…” and “what I want…” and it totally rejects “how God feels about…” and “what God wants…”.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The whole point I was trying to make earlier when you made this point was that the only reason you know what is “irregular” is because you know what is “regular”, the “norm”, “how it was designed to be”. The same would apply to homosexual acts. Even if something is genetically different in people who are homosexual it would not change the morality of homosexual acts at all. Someone born genetically to have an addictive nature and easily able to become addicted to things does not get a pass morally on drunkenness. Might God take some of these things into account in determining culpability? Yes, but these things remain unchangeably disordered none the less and contradictory to God’s love.

To answer your question directly the moral order does not change. The nature of a woman with an irregular cycle is the same as the nature of a woman with a normal cycle. You express the fact that you realize this when you recognize that the first woman has an irregular cycle. If the moral order changed depending on whether the cycle was irregular or regular, you wouldn’t call it irregular. You know how it was designed to work though and what the purpose of the cycle is, thus you can recognize that a woman with an irregular cycle has the same nature as all other women. You wouldn’t classify her as a woman if not.

Saying nature is contraceptive at times is like saying nature is murderous at times; its nonsensical. The fact as you said that 3/4th’s of a woman’s cycle is infertile is a testament to the fact that the unitive aspect of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. However if you remember a past thread, the unitive aspect of sex gains all of its meaning from the existence of the procreative aspect. All things involving sex point back to the procreative aspect. Thus the fact that 3/4th’s of the cycle is infertile actually points to the fact that sex is ordered towards procreation.

If nature by itself is 3/4th’s of the cycle non-procreative how come it’s logical to say that each act has to be procreative? Based on what?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik,

I was about to be up in arms over you derailing this thread, but I see where you thinking can tie into the topic. Also, Nate13 is being generous in clarifying the natural law/moral law issue, which also ties into the thread topic.

Also, you need to recognize the difference between a body being naturally infertile, and a couple removing the procreative aspect from a marital act by adding some outside influence (contraceptive device, drug, completing an act in an unnatural manner, etc…). On the one hand, you are talking about the nature of something as God created it to be. On the other, you are talking about humans who want to change the inherent nature of an act by doing something to that act that is contrary to the nature of act.

And from here, we get back to the contraceptive mentality. People want to play God, as it were. They want to engage in this sexual act, yet they want to do it wihtout regard for their natural fertility. They remove an aspect that is naturally present while simultaneously engaging in the act that is naturally ordered to that very aspect they have removed. They convince themselves that this is okay because: it makes them feel good; they love each other; their conscience says its okay; their friends do it; they aren’t ready for the responsibility of parenthood; God would not want to bring a child into this hard situation; they feel so strongly about this; whatever other reson you can think of…

…and these are some of the same arguments that homosexuals use to justify homosexual sex…

…and the same used by those seeking divorce…

…and by those who wish to justify murdering their babies…

The contraceptive mentality opens the door for, and in my opinion causes, a popular acceptance of divorce, homosexual sex acts, and abortion, etc… It’s a mentality based on “how I feel about…” and “what I want…” and it totally rejects “how God feels about…” and “what God wants…”.

Are you saying that selfishness is a synonym for contraceptive mentality?

 

[ahs]

If nature by itself is 3/4th’s of the cycle non-procreative how come it’s logical to say that each act has to be procreative? Based on what?

…on this, “the unitive aspect of sex gains all of its meaning from the existence of the procreative aspect. All things involving sex point back to the procreative aspect.” (Nate13)

Are you saying that selfishness is a synonym for contraceptive mentality?

No. But you can reasonably see how the contraceptive mentality stems from the root of selfishness. It also stems from the root of placing oneself on par with God, which stems from pride…selfishness also stemming from pride. But this now gets into a new topic, which would be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum I would think, or perhaps Moral Theology, but deserving of its own thread none-the-less.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…on this, “the unitive aspect of sex gains all of its meaning from the existence of the procreative aspect. All things involving sex point back to the procreative aspect.” (Nate13)

No. But you can reasonably see how the contraceptive mentality stems from the root of selfishness. It also stems from the root of placing oneself on par with God, which stems from pride…selfishness also stemming from pride. But this now gets into a new topic, which would be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum I would think, or perhaps Moral Theology, but deserving of its own thread none-the-less.

How is this observed from laws of nature?
How do you find out that unitive aspect is supposed to be inseparable from procreative aspect in every single act based on laws of nature if nature by itself is 3/4th’s of the cycle non-procreative?
Quite the opposite. The nature shows you that 3/4th’s of the cycle the separation is there.
Based on what logic you link them together? Isn’t it obvious that laws of nature should be excluded if you want to create the link?

And if you didn’t notice I am trying to differentiate between being procreative and being procreative in every single act.

 

[seekerz]

I am having a debate with a friend and he has said he’ll give no more consideration to my points without objective, impartial evidence…stats.

Can someone (multiple someones) please help me find data for my argument that, since the dawning of the contraception mentality (free-love, hippie-days) there has been a correlation in the rise of:

-Divorce
-Homosexuality
-Abortion (I called it “murder, in as much as innocent babies are killed in the womb”)

Thanks,
ahs

I think that before coming to a conclusion, you first should have the data but you seem to have come to your conclusion first, before having seen the data!

Even if the mentality you describe is associated with the issues you list, that still does not necessarily imply a causative relationship. For example, all of these issues could simply be more apparent because we are in the information age and there is so much more known and studied about matters which were cloaked in secrecy in earlier times.

Perhaps I am being unfair (and I certainly don’t have data to back up my opinion), but I see the era of modern history leading up to the 60’s as a time when society hid its dirty laundry under the bed and seemingly kept a relatively spotless house. Examining issues such as child abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and alcoholism, my theory is that people in that era closed their eyes to what was happening behind other doors and kept the doors to their own houses firmly shut against public scrutiny.

Maybe there is empirical evidence that sinfulness has increased since the 60’s but my money is on increased awareness/openness/discussion along with, in some instances, (e.g. same-sex unions and abortion) greater acceptance.

 

[ahs]

I think that before coming to a conclusion, you first should have the data but you seem to have come to your conclusion first, before having seen the data!

Even if the mentality you describe is associated with the issues you list, that still does not necessarily imply a causative relationship. For example, all of these issues could simply be more apparent because we are in the information age and there is so much more known and studied about matters which were cloaked in secrecy in earlier times.

Perhaps I am being unfair (and I certainly don’t have data to back up my opinion), but I see the era of modern history leading up to the 60’s as a time when society hid its dirty laundry under the bed and seemingly kept a relatively spotless house. Examining issues such as child abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and alcoholism, my theory is that people in that era closed their eyes to what was happening behind other doors and kept the doors to their own houses firmly shut against public scrutiny.

Maybe there is empirical evidence that sinfulness has increased since the 60’s but my money is on increased awareness/openness/discussion along with, in some instances, (e.g. same-sex unions and abortion) greater acceptance.

I think you make a god point here. I realize it looks like I made my mind before looking at the stats, and in a way I did. I was basing it initially on the fact that contraception shares a common characteristic with the others (removal of the procreative aspect) and, regarding divorce, divorce would be a logical consequence to cutting the procreative nature from the procreative act. I also had read about all the stats, I just never went and hunted for them myself…until now. And so far they show a strong correlation.

I also had thought about the fact that maybe we just didn’t hear of such things as much in the past as we do now. But the steep and sudden change from this graph on divorce seem to suggests there is more at play. divorceministry4kids.com/2011/divorce-statistics/
Then I recalled what the Church said (I’ll find the appropriate encyclical) warning us of the contraceptive mentality to come as contraceptives were being used/approved more and more and how the natural consequence would be strained marriages, loss of the meaning of the marital act, etc… Surely if these things were as common then as they are now there would not be such a steep increase in divorce rates beginning precisely when contraceptive use got its full-blown public approval in the 1960’s. You would expect to see a gradual increase, even perhaps some leveling off. Not to mention that in the 1980’s you suddenly see a sudden drop in marriage rates, and then birth rates also decline (see previous posts with links from other posters). Look at the marriage-divorce graph in that link above. Since 1980, the divorce rate is percieved to be decreasing, but compared to the marriage rate, it is still on the rise while marriage falls.

What is it that has led such an increasing amount of people to believe they can “put asunder” what God has joined? What makes people think they can abort a baby? What justifies homosexual sex? Why do people think they can just live together without getting married? The common factor is the removal of the procreative meaning of marriage and the marital act. Marriage and the marital act has lost its meaning to these people. Why? And When did it start (at least on a large scale)? Because people began to learn, erronously, that sex could be had for pleasure with no thought at all of procreation…and it started, on the large scale, in the 1960’s…

 

[LemonAndLime]

No. You can sift through the tons of NFP threads or start a new one to see why it doesn’t.

Yes, exactly. If I form the opinion first, then I can find anything I want to support my opinion. The reason I did all the ranting was I wanted to show that I had put alot of thought into it and looked objectively at what was available, to find some facts, and then formed my opinion based on the facts. To me, the facts add up to the correlation. I apologize I am not better at wording this.

Alright, so the justification for contraception would be that we need to reduce the population. *(By the way, I can post some really great info for you to help debunk this myth if you ever need it…or read a book called “Sex Au Naturel” by Patrick Coffin). *To justify using contraceptives to reduce the popluation, rather than simple avoidance of sex, a person has to believe that sex can be ordered to nature while not being ordered to procreation. In other words, they have to believe that sex can be fully ordered to nature if it is unitive. But we see from the argument against homosexuality that sex must have the [potential for the] gift of reporduction in order to adhere to natural law. So, this already shows contracepted sex to be as wrong as homosexual sex.

Abortion is wrong because it takes away a life already begun. Yet, the most common forms of birth control used today are abortifacient in nature. They prevent a fertilized egg from implanting either chemically (pills/patches/hormones/chemicals) or physically (IUD’s). Life begins at the moment of conception because a fertilized egg, at that very moment, went from being just an egg to being a cell (now fertilized) with a full human DNA structure and the full ability to divide, grow, and “be” on its own…only needing a safe place to live and nutrition to grow…same as you or me. So, these contraceptives ALSO take away a life already begun. And what justifies the use of these types of contraceptives? The prior use of other contraceptives…either they weren’t as effective, or too cumbersome to use…whatever the reason, the justification for their use is the desire to remove the procreative aspect from a sexual act.

Divorce separates what God has joined and we cannot separate what God has joined. How are we joined? Well, “the two shall become one flesh”. We finalize the marriage by consummating the marriage…by physically and emotionally and spiritually joining as one flesh in the marital act. We offer 100% of our selves to each other in marriage. If we use a contraceptive, we withold something…our natural fertility. Marriage is naturally for procreation, primarily, and unification. Using contraceptives takes away the procerative part, thus making the marriage about only unification (which now justifies homosexual unions), which is still thwarted in our witholding of our natural fertility fron the spouse. With the procreative nature removed, and the unitive aspect particially removed, Marriage now loses part of it meaning and divorce becomes very reasonable option for couples who have no desire to procreate and don’t feel like they are being satisfied in the unification aspect with their curent spouse. In other words, contraceptives tell a couple it is okay to separate the natural aspects of marriage (procreation and unification). If it’s okay to separate those, the next logical step is to think its okay to seprate the union as well.

You didn’t really respond to my reply. You have in fact helped me to prove that I can say contraception is ok without referring to homosexuality.

 

[seekerz]

I think you make a god point here. I realize it looks like I made my mind before looking at the stats, and in a way I did. I was basing it initially on the fact that contraception shares a common characteristic with the others (removal of the procreative aspect) and, regarding divorce, divorce would be a logical consequence to cutting the procreative nature from the procreative act. I also had read about all the stats, I just never went and hunted for them myself…until now. And so far they show a strong correlation.

I also had thought about the fact that maybe we just didn’t hear of such things as much in the past as we do now. But the steep and sudden change from this graph on divorce seem to suggests there is more at play. divorceministry4kids.com/2011/divorce-statistics/
Then I recalled what the Church said (I’ll find the appropriate encyclical) warning us of the contraceptive mentality to come as contraceptives were being used/approved more and more and how the natural consequence would be strained marriages, loss of the meaning of the marital act, etc… Surely if these things were as common then as they are now there would not be such a steep increase in divorce rates beginning precisely when contraceptive use got its full-blown public approval in the 1960’s. You would expect to see a gradual increase, even perhaps some leveling off. Not to mention that in the 1980’s you suddenly see a sudden drop in marriage rates, and then birth rates also decline (see previous posts with links from other posters). Look at the marriage-divorce graph in that link above. Since 1980, the divorce rate is percieved to be decreasing, but compared to the marriage rate, it is still on the rise while marriage falls.

What is it that has led such an increasing amount of people to believe they can “put asunder” what God has joined? What makes people think they can abort a baby? What justifies homosexual sex? Why do people think they can just live together without getting married? The common factor is the removal of the procreative meaning of marriage and the marital act. Marriage and the marital act has lost its meaning to these people. Why? And When did it start (at least on a large scale)? Because people began to learn, erronously, that sex could be had for pleasure with no thought at all of procreation…and it started, on the large scale, in the 1960’s…

I see your reasoning and wish I could agree but man has sought the pleasures of sex without the responsibility of childbearing for the better part of history I’d guess. According to Wikipedia, coitus interruptus has been practiced for millenia. What has changed since the 60’s has been the social acceptability of behavior which was once generally acknowledged to be immoral. The behavior existed before, perhaps on a lesser scale, but it was acknowledged as wrong by society and often even by those indulging in it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I think you make a god point here. I realize it looks like I made my mind before looking at the stats, and in a way I did. I was basing it initially on the fact that contraception shares a common characteristic with the others (removal of the procreative aspect) and, regarding divorce, divorce would be a logical consequence to cutting the procreative nature from the procreative act. I also had read about all the stats, I just never went and hunted for them myself…until now. And so far they show a strong correlation.

I also had thought about the fact that maybe we just didn’t hear of such things as much in the past as we do now. But the steep and sudden change from this graph on divorce seem to suggests there is more at play. divorceministry4kids.com/2011/divorce-statistics/
Then I recalled what the Church said (I’ll find the appropriate encyclical) warning us of the contraceptive mentality to come as contraceptives were being used/approved more and more and how the natural consequence would be strained marriages, loss of the meaning of the marital act, etc… Surely if these things were as common then as they are now there would not be such a steep increase in divorce rates beginning precisely when contraceptive use got its full-blown public approval in the 1960’s. You would expect to see a gradual increase, even perhaps some leveling off. Not to mention that in the 1980’s you suddenly see a sudden drop in marriage rates, and then birth rates also decline (see previous posts with links from other posters). Look at the marriage-divorce graph in that link above. Since 1980, the divorce rate is percieved to be decreasing, but compared to the marriage rate, it is still on the rise while marriage falls.

What is it that has led such an increasing amount of people to believe they can “put asunder” what God has joined? What makes people think they can abort a baby? What justifies homosexual sex? Why do people think they can just live together without getting married? The common factor is the removal of the procreative meaning of marriage and the marital act. Marriage and the marital act has lost its meaning to these people. Why? And When did it start (at least on a large scale)? Because people began to learn, erronously, that sex could be had for pleasure with no thought at all of procreation…and it started, on the large scale, in the 1960’s.…

I believe if the word procreation was replaced with unity in the bold sentence then there would be a better chance of influence on the people.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I see your reasoning and wish I could agree but man has sought the pleasures of sex without the responsibility of childbearing for the better part of history I’d guess. According to Wikipedia, coitus interruptus has been practiced for millenia. What has changed since the 60’s has been the social acceptability of behavior which was once generally acknowledged to be immoral. The behavior existed before, perhaps on a lesser scale, but it was acknowledged as wrong by society and often even by those indulging in it.

Not for nothing is prostitution referred to as the oldest profession.

 

[ahs]

You didn’t really respond to my reply. You have in fact helped me to prove that I can say contraception is ok without referring to homosexuality.

Help me understand what you are saying…I think I’m missing something here. And “contraception is ok without referring to homosexuality” is not what we are talking about. I said you can’t support the one and simultaneously condemn the other…without ignoring reason.

I see your reasoning and wish I could agree but man has sought the pleasures of sex without the responsibility of childbearing for the better part of history I’d guess. According to Wikipedia, coitus interruptus has been practiced for millenia. What has changed since the 60’s has been the social acceptability of behavior which was once generally acknowledged to be immoral. The behavior existed before, perhaps on a lesser scale, but it was acknowledged as wrong by society and often even by those indulging in it.

Haha. I think we may have talked past each other. The bolded is EXACTLY what I am trying to point out. Not that contraception led to the things I listed, but the contraceptive mentality that sprang in the 60’s led to the social acceptability of those things. I guess I’ve not been effective in stating that…maybe I’m using too many words. )

 

[seekerz]

Help me understand what you are saying…I think I’m missing something here. And “contraception is ok without referring to homosexuality” is not what we are talking about. I said you can’t support the one and simultaneously condemn the other…without ignoring reason.

Haha. I think we may have talked past each other. The bolded is EXACTLY what I am trying to point out. Not that contraception led to the things I listed, but the contraceptive mentality that sprang in the 60’s led to the social acceptability of those things. I guess I’ve not been effective in stating that…maybe I’m using too many words. )

Then we are more in agreement than I had first thought. The contraceptive mentality you refer to is part and parcel of the so-called postmodern thinking in which much knowledge and truth have been questioned, challenged and often reduced to personal perspectives.

 

[ahs]

Then we are more in agreement than I had first thought. The contraceptive mentality you refer to is part and parcel of the so-called postmodern thinking in which much knowledge and truth have been questioned, challenged and often reduced to personal perspectives.

Yes! Yeah, I think we are on the same page. I think were it gets confusing is where I try to point that it is the one that leads to the other. Certainly, there is nothing that can “prove” it. All the stats in the world won’t prove that “contraceptive mentality led to acceptance of same-sex sex, divorce, abortion, etc…” They (the stats) only suggest a correlation or they don’t. All I can do is point to what is there, take into account exactly what you said above, and take an objective look.

(Keep in mind, I had not intended to debate and prove my point here…I was only looking for info to use in a debate with a friend of mine…wanting him, a non-Christian, to see why the Church stands where it does…knowing that I could not use the “because the Church says” statements that he would simply shrug off.)

Anyway, the more the topic was discussed here, the more I saw, and was shown, that a better proof might be found in putting the arguments into action, so to speak. If someone could effectively argue for one while condemning the other (and not throw reason out the window), it would show that I had little or no ground to stand on. But if it could not be done, then I may have a strong case…taking into account the stats and info that are available and the correlation they suggest.