Homosexual act=contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marys_daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marys_daughter

Guest
Hi guys,

Okay, please critique the following statement all you want…all thoughts welcome.

“homosexual relations are just another form of contraception”

Thanks in advance,
Stephanie
 
I’ll offer a few comments…

It seems that it is a greater evil to engage in homosexual relations than it is for a heterosexual couple to “simply” contracept their naturally good act.

Besides that, it seems that a couple engaging in homosexual relations has no interest in either conceiving or not so contraception would have nothing to do with that particular act. The end (sexual experience with no possibility of reproduction) might be the same but the path there seems quite different.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Br. Dan
 
Hi:

I think this is a completely contradictory statement. The purpose of contraception is to prevent the fertilization of the woman’s egg by the man’s sperm. Thus, the term “contraception” implies the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, the “union” of two people of the same gender cannot possibly signify contraception. It is worse than contraception, because it doesn’t just reduce the chance of conceiving life, it eliminates it completely, and is a self-destructive act.

Jorge.
 
I agree with Jorge that the statement contradicts it’s self, there is no possibility for life to be created in the first place to the is not contracepting to be done. That doesn’t make it any less wrong though.
 
Well, I’ll advocate the other viewpoint.

Yes, “homosexual act=contraception”, from the perspective that they are both mortal sins.

Hey, it only takes one mortal sin to send me to hell, so trying to debate which mortal sin is a “worse” mortal sin seems kind of pointless.
 
Then again, one of the reasons for the immorality of homosexual acts is that procreation cannot result from them. The other is that they are not unitive because are bodies simply aren’t made for uniting with one of the same gender. I do have a concern about calling homosexual acts contraception because of the latter statement. Also, people who have incorrectly decided that contraception is morally acceptable might decide that, if homosexual acts are a form of contraception, then homosexual acts must not be sinful, either.

David
 
I see the paralell here – that some heterosexual couples are just as commited to “contraception” or “NOT creating life” as homosexual couples are. The difference however is, the heterosexual couple can always change their viewpoint, and become open to their God-given ability to create life. Homosexuals will never be able to do this.
 
Any sexual action that does not promote life is certainly wrong and immoral. But what homosexuality does is make a mockery of sexual unity. It is a dead act with deadly results (one way road to damnation). Homosexuality is an empty action with no chance of any bonding whatsoever. Take it from someone who WAS there, prevent anyone and everyone from ever ‘going there’.

With God’s grace, ALL who ask Him will be saved from this empty fate!

Go with God!
Edwin
 
Both are mortal sins. However, this is a discussion form. Therefore my own personal opinion is that a homosexual act is worse than a heterosexual act if the contraceptive is a condom. However, if the contraceptive causes an abortion such as in using birth control pills or an IUD, then the heterosexual act is worse because the heterosexual act also results in the death of another human being.
 
The Art of Natural Family Planning manual makes a great point that there is a connection between contraception and homosexuality. Basically, when you divorce sex from procreation there is no logical stopping point–every depraved behavior can be justified.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top