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

[LemonAndLime]

Then do it.

I did.

 

[Nate13]

oops I missed it

Okay. Contraception is perfectly okay because we are facing a population crisis in the world. Homosexuality is wrong because it is against the natural law, as its sex without the gift of reproduction. Abortion is wrong because it is the taking away a life already begun. Divorce is not okay because what God has put together, let no one tear asunder.

Hmm before I respond let me ask a clarifying question. Are you arguing that contraception is against natural law but a population crisis trumps it, or are you arguing that contraception does not violate natural law at all? I’m assuming you meant the first because there would be no need for your justification of contraception if you did not believe it was wrong but I thought I would give you a chance to clarify if that is not the case.

 

[LemonAndLime]

oops I missed it

Hmm before I respond let me ask a clarifying question. Are you arguing that contraception is against natural law but a population crisis trumps it, or are you arguing that contraception does not violate natural law at all? I’m assuming you meant the first because there would be no need for your justification of contraception if you did not believe it was wrong but I thought I would give you a chance to clarify if that is not the case.

This is not about what I believe but forming an argument as requested. But I don’t think its relevant. The point was - could I make an argument that contraception is right but homosexuality is wrong. Yes. Human beings do exist who believe that.

 

[mitex]

Homosexual men have been molested as children at much higher rates than heterosexual men (35% versus 4% in one study).

It’s saying stupid things like that; makes the gay community hate us even more… Notice that we’re losing to them?

 

[LovePatience]

It’s saying stupid things like that; makes the gay community hate us even more… Notice that we’re losing to them?

Its the truth. Not very many people are saying this, and there is nothing biased about the Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

Mimiaga, M.J., Noonan, E., Donnell, D., Safren, S.A., Koenen, K.C., Gortmaker, S., … Mayer, K. H. (2009). Childhood sexual abuse is highly associated with HIV risk-taking behavior and infection among MSM in the EXPLORE study . Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 51, 340-348.

Paul, J.P., Catania, J., Pollack, L., & Stall, R. ( 2001). Understanding childhood sexual abuse as a predictor of sexual risk-taking among men who have sex with men: The Urban Men’s Health Study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 5

Roberts, S.J., & Sorensen, L. ( 1999). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and related sequelae in a lesbian population. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 3, 11-19.

Does physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect in childhood increase the likelihood of same-sex sexual relationships and cohabitation? A prospective 30-year follow-up.

Existing cross-sectional research suggests associations between physical and sexual abuse in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation in adulthood. This study prospectively examined whether abuse and/or neglect in childhood were associated with increased likelihood of same-sex partnerships in adulthood. The sample included physically abused (N = 85), sexually abused (N = 72), and neglected (N = 429) children (ages 0-11) with documented cases during 1967-1971 who were matched with non-maltreated children (N = 415) and followed into adulthood. At approximately age 40, participants (483 women and 461 men) were asked about romantic cohabitation and sexual partners, in the context of in-person interviews covering a range of topics. Group (abuse/neglect versus control) differences were assessed with cross-tabulations and logistic regression. A total of 8% of the overall sample reported any same-sex relationship (cohabitation or sexual partners). Childhood physical abuse and neglect were not significantly associated with same-sex cohabitation or sexual partners. Individuals with documented histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report ever having had same-sex sexual partners (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.16-6.80, p < or = .05); however, only men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report same-sex sexual partners (OR = 6.75, 95% CI = 1.53-29.86, p < or = .01). These prospective findings provide tentative evidence of a link between childhood sexual abuse and same-sex sexual partnerships among men, although further research is needed to explore this relationship and to examine potential underlying mechanisms.

Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Feb;39(1):63-74. Epub 2009 Jan 7.

 

[mitex]

Its the truth. Not very many people are saying this, and the gay community acknowledges that this is true as well.

It’s one study… Debunked by others I’m sure… Homosexuality and Pedophilia are different things… I find 35% too high a number to believe…

It smells of desperation and it’s mean spirited to say something like that…

Let me pose everyone a question here… Are you friends with a homosexual? Do you know a homosexual personally? I do and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it’s outrageous to say something like that.

Because if you don’t know said homosexual then you have no right to pass judgement on an entire group of people.

 

[LovePatience]

It’s one study… Debunked by others I’m sure… Homosexuality and Pedophilia are different things… I find 35% too high a number to believe…

It smells of desperation and it’s mean spirited to say something like that…

Let me pose everyone a question here… Are you friends with a homosexual? Do you know a homosexual personally? I do and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it’s outrageous to say something like that.

Because if you don’t know said homosexual then you have no right to pass judgement on an entire group of people.

Debunked where? Can you show me?

Yes, I do, and I know of a person who had that experience. You have no right to tell people who have had that experience that it doesn’t exist because your friend has not had that experience.

There is no judgment passed on anyone. Saying that people who are same-sex attracted are more likely to have had been molested in childhood passes judgment on who exactly? The molestor?

 

[Nate13]

This is not about what I believe but forming an argument as requested. But I don’t think its relevant. The point was - could I make an argument that contraception is right but homosexuality is wrong. Yes. Human beings do exist who believe that.

Well don’t cop out now haha. I can respond to your argument either way and yes its very relevant what you meant. I’m not denying that people exist that believe that contraception is ok and homosexuality is not. I’m just denying that said people are logical. You can’t embrace human reason (natural law) to deny homosexuality and then turn around and deny it applies to contraception as well and be rational. If I was a homosexual person and someone was making that argument I would call them a hypocrite. You are going to allow heterosexual couples to have sex that intentionally denies the procreative purpose of sex, but will then deny that applies to homosexual acts as well?

 

[mitex]

Debunked where? Can you show me?

Yes, I do, and I know of a person who had that experience. You have no right to tell people who have had that experience that it doesn’t exist because your friend has not had that experience.

There is no judgment passed on anyone. Saying that people who are same-sex attracted are more likely to have had been molested in childhood passes judgment on who exactly? The molestor?

Here

You know us Catholics used to say all sorts of horrible things about Jews and African Americans. Jews were accused of murdering Jesus and other Christians in the Middle Ages. African Americans were accused of raping white women.

What your saying isn’t true. Are there homosexual pedophiles out there? Yes just like there are straight ones. But to say there is a vast conspiracy of homosexuals out there molesting little kids is hateful, mean spirited and harmful.

Your not only being uncharitable to sexually active homosexuals but celibate homosexuals as well who are struggling with Church teaching. Stop saying something that isn’t true and focus your arguments on defending traditional marriage. Not by demonizing an entire segment of the population with a stigmatizing and false accusations.

Do you see the Pope calling homosexuals pedophiles? No. Do you see the Bishops calling homosexuals pedophiles? No. Do you see the Courage Apostolate calling homosexuals pedophiles? No. Do you think Jesus would call them nasty pedophiles? No I think Jesus would look down on them with utmost pity and compassion just like he did the prostitute who washed his feet.

And for the reading material I cite the Catechism “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Calling them pedophiles is unjust discrimination is uncompassionate and is insensitive.

 

[LovePatience]

Here

You know us Catholics used to say all sorts of horrible things about Jews and African Americans. Jews were accused of murdering Jesus and other Christians in the Middle Ages. African Americans were accused of raping white women.

What your saying isn’t true. Are there homosexual pedophiles out there? Yes just like there are straight ones. But to say there is a vast conspiracy of homosexuals out there molesting little kids is hateful, mean spirited and harmful.

Your not only being uncharitable to sexually active homosexuals but celibate homosexuals as well who are struggling with Church teaching. Stop saying something that isn’t true and focus your arguments on defending traditional marriage. Not by demonizing an entire segment of the population with a stigmatizing and false accusations.

Do you see the Pope calling homosexuals pedophiles? No. Do you see the Bishops calling homosexuals pedophiles? No. Do you see the Courage Apostolate calling homosexuals pedophiles? No. Do you think Jesus would call them nasty pedophiles? No I think Jesus would look down on them with utmost pity and compassion just like he did the prostitute who washed his feet.

And for the reading material I cite the Catechism “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Calling them pedophiles is unjust discrimination is uncompassionate and is insensitive.

Your bias against homosexuals may be showing. Why are you calling them “nasty pedophiles”? Why did you bring the word “pedophile” into the discussion? The link that you just posted does not address ANYTHING that I have posted. I am being charitable to homosexuals; you are the one who is not.

 

[mitex]

Your bias against homosexuals may be showing. Why are you calling them “nasty pedophiles”? Why did you bring the word “pedophile” into the discussion? The link that you just posted does not address ANYTHING that I have posted. I am being charitable to homosexuals; you are the one who is not.

I am so sorry… I thought you were calling homosexuals pedophiles and I was trying to defend them…

I feel so bad. I do believe I owe you an apology kind sir. I need to read posts more throughly before jumping to conclusions. I am so sorry.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well don’t cop out now haha. I can respond to your argument either way and yes its very relevant what you meant. I’m not denying that people exist that believe that contraception is ok and homosexuality is not. I’m just denying that said people are logical. You can’t embrace human reason (natural law) to deny homosexuality and then turn around and deny it applies to contraception as well and be rational. If I was a homosexual person and someone was making that argument I would call them a hypocrite. You are going to allow heterosexual couples to have sex that intentionally denies the procreative purpose of sex, but will then deny that applies to homosexual acts as well?

You are assuming that the person who believes contraception is ok and homosexuality is wrong believes in natural law.

 

[Nate13]

You are assuming that the person who believes contraception is ok and homosexuality is wrong believes in natural law.

I’m responding to the way you tried to defend it. You said homosexuality is wrong because of natural law, and I’ll assume that means you acknowledge it as viable or at least were doing so for the sake of an argument. If your ignoring the fact that natural law also applies to contraception that would make your argument irrational.

However if you want, your free to deny it in both cases and come up with another reason entirely to oppose homosexual acts that you think is substantive. I’m anxious to hear a great reason why homosexual acts are wrong if not for natural law.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Well don’t cop out now haha. I can respond to your argument either way and yes its very relevant what you meant. I’m not denying that people exist that believe that contraception is ok and homosexuality is not. I’m just denying that said people are logical. You can’t embrace human reason (natural law) to deny homosexuality and then turn around and deny it applies to contraception as well and be rational. If I was a homosexual person and someone was making that argument I would call them a hypocrite. You are going to allow heterosexual couples to have sex that intentionally denies the procreative purpose of sex, but will then deny that applies to homosexual acts as well?

Nate, your logic is kind of strange.
Natural law and homosexuality is obvious. The body parts do not “fit”. Full stop, that’s it.

 

[Nate13]

Nate, your logic is kind of strange.
Natural law and homosexuality is obvious. The body parts do not “fit”. Full stop, that’s it.

I’m sorry to do this, but since I know the logic you use against contraception I’m going to have to ask why doesn’t love overwrite natural law in this case? Many people in favor of homosexual acts would argue something to that effect. I’m sorry but it just seems so disingenuous to me to apply natural law only when its convenient.

Also, do you believe it goes against natural law for a man to knowingly deliberately complete the act anywhere other than inside a woman? If not wouldn’t that open the door to homosexual acts?

 

[Jaaanosik]

I’m sorry to do this, but since I know the logic you use against contraception I’m going to have to ask why doesn’t love overwrite natural law in this case? Many people in favor of homosexual acts would argue something to that effect. I’m sorry but it just seems so disingenuous to me to apply natural law only when its convenient.

Also, do you believe it goes against natural law for a man to knowingly deliberately complete the act anywhere other than inside a woman? If not wouldn’t that open the door to homosexual acts?

For that read #48 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8968363&postcount=48

 

[Nate13]

For that read #48 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8968363&postcount=48

Why doesn’t love override fornication? You will also hear that argument ALL over the place. Walk into any high school and that is exactly the argument most people will give for premarital sex. “As long as your in love…”. “Love” overrides everything apparently.

Also why can’t homosexual’s get married? The only reason they can’t get married is because homosexual acts are disordered. But if contracepting is not disordered and that means homosexual acts are not disordered, on what basis are homosexuals denied the right to marry?

I’ve also heard people squirm out of 1 Corinthians 7 there, and without the teaching authority of the Church to call on (since it had to be rejected in the case of contraception) I see little weight that can be brought to bear in order to support your reading of 1 Corinthians 7.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Why doesn’t love override fornication? You will also hear that argument ALL over the place. Walk into any high school and that is exactly the argument most people will give for premarital sex. “As long as your in love…”. “Love” overrides everything apparently.

Also why can’t homosexual’s get married? The only reason they can’t get married is because homosexual acts are disordered. But if contracepting is not disordered and that means homosexual acts are not disordered, on what basis are homosexuals denied the right to marry?

I’ve also heard people squirm out of 1 Corinthians 7 there, and without the teaching authority of the Church to call on (since it had to be rejected in the case of contraception) I see little weight that can be brought to bear in order to support your reading of 1 Corinthians 7.

The Church teaches:

• only a man and a woman can get married.
• sex outside of marriage is immoral.
  Full stop. Don’t you get it?

The Church does not say that each sexual act has to be procreative. That’s it.
These two things are not related.

… and by the way do you know why the Church say that contraception is wrong?

 

[Nate13]

The Church teaches:

• only a man and a woman can get married.
• sex outside of marriage is immoral.
  Full stop. Don’t you get it?

The Church does not say that each sexual act has to be procreative. That’s it.
These two things are not related.

… and by the way do you know why the Church say that contraception is wrong?

News flash. The Church teaches that the procreative and the unitive aspects of sex cannot be separated in the sexual act.

From the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

From Humanae Vitae

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Church teaching is established on this issue. If you reject the Church’s teaching authority here you cannot call on it to defend why homosexual acts are wrong.

 

[ahs]

Does NFP have contraceptive mentality?

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

Yet I haven’t seen any proof, so all it is is you searching for proof of an opinion you already hold. You should look for proof without opinions otherwise you’ll only see or believe what you want to. Hence why we’re going in circles.

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.

Okay. Contraception is perfectly okay because we are facing a population crisis in the world. Homosexuality is wrong because it is against the natural law, as its sex without the gift of reproduction. Abortion is wrong because it is the taking away a life already begun. Divorce is not okay because what God has put together, let no one tear asunder. .

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.