Gay "marriage" vs. contraception

[Racer_X]

I usually try to post only my own words and not just cut and paste, but I found this too good not to pass on.

from A Defeaning Silence by Steve Skellmeyer
skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_skellmeyer_archive.html#108810144157807754

**The reason we can’t make the case [against gay marriage] is we don’t have a case, not anymore. You see, contraception within marriage redefined marriage, just as the Washington Post and the Pope predicted it would back in the 1930’s. Once contraception is acceptable, marriage is no longer about family, it is now about me. Now every relationship hinges on one thing: what’s in it for me?

The public acceptance of gay sex and gay marriage is functionally identical to public acceptance of contraception. Heterosexual contraception has already brought us legal abortion, a fifty percent divorce rate and a pornographic society: all of these problems mushroomed only after contraception was legalized. Gay marriage is just contraception without the chemicals or condoms. How can you convince a woman on the pill or a man with a wallet full of condoms that gay marriage is going to harm heterosexual marriage?

It can’t be done because it isn’t true. Marriage was dealt a death-blow when the Protestant Comstock laws were struck down. Once we were no longer permitted to forbid the manufacture or sale of contraceptives, we lost the ability to deal with deliberately sterilized sex in any form whatsoever. Like masturbation, gay sex and gay marriage are just another form of contraception. Indeed, the beauty of gay marriage is that their divorces are much less likely to impact children, since they will, by definition, tend not to have any. Contracepting heterosexuals know a kindred spirit when they see one. They certainly aren’t going to cast a stone at gays.

The move to amend the Constitution to defend heterosexual marriage will fail. If it succeeds, it will follow Prohibition in being repealed. It cannot be otherwise.**

 

[Ken]

Racer X:

I usually try to post only my own words and not just cut and paste, but I found this too good not to pass on.

from A Defeaning Silence by Steve Skellmeyer
skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_skellmeyer_archive.html#108810144157807754

The reason we can’t make the case [against gay marriage] is we don’t have a case, not anymore. You see, contraception within marriage redefined marriage, just as the Washington Post and the Pope predicted it would back in the 1930’s. Once contraception is acceptable, marriage is no longer about family, it is now about me. Now every relationship hinges on one thing: what’s in it for me?

The public acceptance of gay sex and gay marriage is functionally identical to public acceptance of contraception. Heterosexual contraception has already brought us legal abortion, a fifty percent divorce rate and a pornographic society: all of these problems mushroomed only after contraception was legalized. Gay marriage is just contraception without the chemicals or condoms. How can you convince a woman on the pill or a man with a wallet full of condoms that gay marriage is going to harm heterosexual marriage?

It can’t be done because it isn’t true. Marriage was dealt a death-blow when the Protestant Comstock laws were struck down. Once we were no longer permitted to forbid the manufacture or sale of contraceptives, we lost the ability to deal with deliberately sterilized sex in any form whatsoever. Like masturbation, gay sex and gay marriage are just another form of contraception. Indeed, the beauty of gay marriage is that their divorces are much less likely to impact children, since they will, by definition, tend not to have any. Contracepting heterosexuals know a kindred spirit when they see one. They certainly aren’t going to cast a stone at gays.

The move to amend the Constitution to defend heterosexual marriage will fail. If it succeeds, it will follow Prohibition in being repealed. It cannot be otherwise.

The notion many people have about traditional marriage is a sham. They try to say that marriage in the entire society is based on the ideal put forth by Catholic teachings. That’s just not true.

Catholics don’t even subscribe to the ideal put forth by the their Church. Yet some of them want to pretend thay can bend the entire society to an ideal that they can’t even get their own people to embrace.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment anymore. Divorce, Catholic annulment, and the Pauline Privilege attest to that.

Marriage is not open to children anymore. Contraception attests to that. The number of Catholic kids also attests to it.

So, the lifetime relationship, always open to children does not exist as a norm in society. The traditional marriage that folks want to protect does not exist.

 

[JimG]

The reason we can’t make the case [against gay marriage]
is we don’t have a case, not anymore. You see, contraception within marriage redefined marriage, just as the Washington Post and the Pope predicted it would back in the 1930’s. Once contraception is acceptable, marriage is no longer about family, it is now about me. Now every relationship hinges on one thing: what’s in it for me?

Exactly right. We began surrendering this issue a long time ago, first with contraception, then with no-fault divorce, then with abortion. Gay marriage is just the last step. Who now (except committed Catholics) can really argue that marriage is about family?

JimG

 

[RJS]

Racer X:

You see, contraception within marriage redefined marriage, just as the Washington Post and the Pope predicted it would back in the 1930’s.

Not to try and send the topic off to other places, can anyone point me to the Washington Post piece that is spoken of here?

 

[hawkeye]

Racer X:

I usually try to post only my own words and not just cut and paste, but I found this too good not to pass on.

from A Defeaning Silence by Steve Skellmeyer
skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_skellmeyer_archive.html#108810144157807754

The reason we can’t make the case [against gay marriage] is we don’t have a case, not anymore. You see, contraception within marriage redefined marriage, just as the Washington Post and the Pope predicted it would back in the 1930’s. Once contraception is acceptable, marriage is no longer about family, it is now about me. Now every relationship hinges on one thing: what’s in it for me?

**The public acceptance of gay sex and gay marriage is functionally identical to public acceptance of contraception. Heterosexual contraception has already brought us legal abortion, a fifty percent divorce rate and a pornographic society: all of these problems mushroomed only after contraception was legalized. Gay marriage is just contraception without the chemicals or condoms. How can you convince a woman on the pill or a man with a wallet full of condoms that gay marriage is going to harm heterosexual marriage? **

It can’t be done because it isn’t true. Marriage was dealt a death-blow when the Protestant Comstock laws were struck down. Once we were no longer permitted to forbid the manufacture or sale of contraceptives, we lost the ability to deal with deliberately sterilized sex in any form whatsoever. Like masturbation, gay sex and gay marriage are just another form of contraception. Indeed, the beauty of gay marriage is that their divorces are much less likely to impact children, since they will, by definition, tend not to have any. Contracepting heterosexuals know a kindred spirit when they see one. They certainly aren’t going to cast a stone at gays.

The move to amend the Constitution to defend heterosexual marriage will fail. If it succeeds, it will follow Prohibition in being repealed. It cannot be otherwise.

Anyway God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, marriage has to leave it self open to children, but some unfortunates can’t have children, 2 men together or 2 women is disgusting, just sexual pleasure, it’s bad for society and I will never give it my vote.

 

[Racer_X]

Ken:

The notion many people have about traditional marriage is a sham. They try to say that marriage in the entire society is based on the ideal put forth by Catholic teachings. That’s just not true.

Catholics don’t even subscribe to the ideal put forth by the their Church. Yet some of them want to pretend thay can bend the entire society to an ideal that they can’t even get their own people to embrace.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment anymore. Divorce, Catholic annulment, and the Pauline Privilege attest to that.

Marriage is not open to children anymore. Contraception attests to that. The number of Catholic kids also attests to it.

So, the lifetime relationship, always open to children does not exist as a norm in society. The traditional marriage that folks want to protect does not exist.

Ken, I can’t tell whether you are affirming these things or if you are just fatalistically telling it like it is, rather than how it ought. If the latter, I agree. Things are in a bad way.

 

[john654]

RacerX,

Exactly! I grew up in the 60’s. EVERYTHING WAS OPTIONAL!

BECAUSE, They made children OPTIONAL!

End of story that is what happened. The 11 comandment “Remember thy PILL!”

If anyone says different they are wrong!

Great Post!
John

 

[Prometheum_x]

JimG:

Exactly right. We began surrendering this issue a long time ago, first with contraception, then with no-fault divorce, then with abortion. Gay marriage is just the last step. Who now (except committed Catholics) can really argue that marriage is about family?

JimG

That is an unfair characterization of other Christians. There are certainly other groups besides “committed Catholics” who can argue that marriage is about family.

 

[Salena]

I’m confused about the teachings of the Church on this one. I realize contraception use is a sin, but how we you begin to compare that with gay marriages. I read in the OSV that a gay couple is no worse than a married couple using contraception. I do realize that is a selfish union and there is no openess to giving life, but it’s not perverted. A gay union is perverted.
I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church and would like to understand this one better, but my thinking at this point is that it’s insane to compare the two.

 

[fix]

I do realize that is a selfish union and there is no openess to giving life, but it’s not perverted. A gay union is perverted.
I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church and would like to understand this one better, but my thinking at this point is that it’s insane to compare the two.

Contraception is not a marital embrace. It is faux embrace. It is mutual masturbation, like homosexual sex. It is sterile and a perversion of what God intends.

 

[Ghosty]

Contraception use in marriage IS perverted, and that’s the point. It’s an absolute perversion of the nature of sex, which is always meant to 1) be done in a commited marriage, 2) be open to natural aspect of the act, namely bringing life into the world, and 3) open to the spiritual side of the act, namely bringing joy, pleasure, trust, and a deeper connection to the couple involved. Removing any of these factors perverts the sexual act and renders it a mockery of God’s gift.

Homosexual sex can be said to be a perversion because it takes out #2, as does contraception. Rape of a spouse takes out #3, and pre-marital sex takes out #1. All make sex a perverted act, not a naturally/spiritually pure one, and therefore are equally sinful. This is my understanding of the problem, at least.

 

[EENS]

Prometheum_x:

That is an unfair characterization of other Christians. There are certainly other groups besides “committed Catholics” who can argue that marriage is about family.

Other Chrstians? Only Catholics are Christians. To be Christian you must believe in and follow Christ. No other religion does that. Christ established a Church. To deny the Church is to deny Christ. Also, unless you deny the Real Presence, you must concede that protestants do not believe in Christ FULLY. God bless.

 

[Jennifer123]

I think that the difference is explaining the importance of gender. Sex is sterile on both accounts (hetero contraceptive and homosexual unions) but gender still does matter.

It matters that man was created as man and woman was created as woman. It’s the complementary nature of gender that makes us whole and complete beings. Homosexual unions can still have sex, but the nature of that choice renders the individual incomplete, and ultimately unfulfilled.

Only the union between man and woman creates new life, and the marriage contract ( a social contract throughout the ages, not necessarily a religious one) protects this new life which creates (supposedly) mature, responsible citizens which keeps society moving in a productive manner.

Now I know that with gay adoption that the argument gets muddled, but I think there’s PLENTY of scientific studies that show children raised w/o positive influence of both genders does harm their maturity.

I think that may be helpful???

 

[JimG]

Prometheum_x:

That is an unfair characterization of other Christians. There are certainly other groups besides “committed Catholics” who can argue that marriage is about family.

I didn’t really intend to characterize the beliefs of other Christians. But the Catholic Church is the one that has held the line on all these critical issues. Certainly other Christians can argue that marriage is about family. And I hope they do. But to the extent that they (or we) have accepted contraception, divorce, cohabitation, and abortion, the force of their arguments is drastically weakened. Advocates of gay marriage will simply point to the state of heterosexual marriage and the mess that’s been made of it, and say, OK, this is what you want to preserve?

JimG

 

[Makerteacher]

EENS:

Other Chrstians? Only Catholics are Christians. To be Christian you must believe in and follow Christ. No other religion does that. Christ established a Church. To deny the Church is to deny Christ. Also, unless you deny the Real Presence, you must concede that protestants do not believe in Christ FULLY. God bless.

I just checked your profile and saw that you are quite young, and like most young people, you are utterly sure of what you know. Your hard-line reply above is perfectly in keeping with your state of maturity, but not perfectly in line with official Catholic teaching on this subject. May God bless you.

This is taken directly from our Catechism, which I recemmend you spend some time reading:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

 

[rjmporter]

Salena:

I’m confused about the teachings of the Church on this one. I realize contraception use is a sin, but how we you begin to compare that with gay marriages. I read in the OSV that a gay couple is no worse than a married couple using contraception. I do realize that is a selfish union and there is no openess to giving life, but it’s not perverted. A gay union is perverted.
I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church and would like to understand this one better, but my thinking at this point is that it’s insane to compare the two.

Lets start here. What are the objective criteria for perversion? You cannot simply define it as somethnig which makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Apologia100]

Ken:

The notion many people have about traditional marriage is a sham. They try to say that marriage in the entire society is based on the ideal put forth by Catholic teachings. That’s just not true.

Catholics don’t even subscribe to the ideal put forth by the their Church. Yet some of them want to pretend thay can bend the entire society to an ideal that they can’t even get their own people to embrace.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment anymore. Divorce, Catholic annulment, and the Pauline Privilege attest to that.

Marriage is not open to children anymore. Contraception attests to that. The number of Catholic kids also attests to it.

So, the lifetime relationship, always open to children does not exist as a norm in society. The traditional marriage that folks want to protect does not exist.

Non Sequitur. Just because no-one is following the objective standard does not invalidate the objective standard. God is not nullified just because we are all disobedient.

 

[JimG]

“Marriage is not a lifetime commitment anymore.”

That was written by Ken a few posts back. To me, the operative word is “anymore,” since it did used to be a lifetime commitment. If a divorce was desired, valid grounds were required. There was (and really is not now) any such thing as “no fault” divorce.

It was Christians, not secularists, who first threw in the towel on contraception. As someone else said, that meant that marriage was no longer about family. All the adverse consequences could have been forseen, up to and including divorce, abortion, and “gay marriage.”

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Homosexual marriage is a **non-negotiable **(UHP 10.)