Let’s discuss these contraception issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Beaver:
So you would say that one should not cause someone to sin.
To do so would not reflect love.
Click to expand...
to be sure.
 
The rate of divorce as only increased, roughly, by 1.27% from 1950 to 2000 when you factor in population growth. You can’t take the numbers from 100 years ago (crime, poverty, divorce, etc.) and reasonably compare them to todays numbers w/o factoring population growth.
 
40.png
wabrams:
The rate of divorce as only increased, roughly, by 1.27% from 1950 to 2000 when you factor in population growth. You can’t take the numbers from 100 years ago (crime, poverty, divorce, etc.) and reasonably compare them to todays numbers w/o factoring population growth.
Click to expand...
Should have decreased. Why not?
 
Before contraceptives, it was a given (almost) that the couple would have children (except for sterility. Sex and babies were connected in people’s minds. They didn’t think they could expect sex without expecting pregnancy. At least not to the extend that people do today. They seem shocked at pregnancy instead of expecting it.

So, now we have contraception and people choose to get married and have sex without having children, so a homosexual can say that marriage should have nothing to do with procreative sex, because heterosexual couples have non-procreative sex.

Since sex is not thought of as being for the purpose of procreating (as well as for bonding), then homosexuals think their choice of sexual acts should be acceptable.
 
Contraception separates the procreative from the the unitive meaning of the marital act:

Beaver said:
1. Created abortions on demand.
Click to expand...

Abortion is the ultimate removal of the procreative meaning.

Beaver said:
2. Created an increase in pornography.
Click to expand...

Pornography removes the procreative and distorts the unitive meaning.
40.png
Beaver:
  1. Created an increase in divorces.
  2. Created an increase in incest & rape.
Click to expand...
By removing the procreative consequences from the unitive, the way has been paved for all kinds of sexual immorality: adultery, rape, incest. Sexual immorality has in turn lead to an increase in divorce, STDs, etc.

Beaver said:
6. Created an increase in homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Another form of removing the procreative meaning.
 
40.png
wabrams:
The rate of divorce as only increased, roughly, by 1.27% from 1950 to 2000 when you factor in population growth. You can’t take the numbers from 100 years ago (crime, poverty, divorce, etc.) and reasonably compare them to todays numbers w/o factoring population growth.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Beaver said:
1. Created abortions on demand.
  1. Created an increase in pornography.
  2. Created an increase in divorces.
  3. Created an increase in incest & rape.
  4. Created an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.
  5. Created an increase in homosexuality.
  6. Created homosexual agenda of licensing.
Click to expand...
  1. Increased the number (raw and %) of children who are abused and neglected. This in spite of the “only wanted children” mantra of the pro-death, pro-contraceptive crowd.
 
40.png
Beaver:
According to record the quality of education has risen by 4%.
Click to expand...
What is going on with all this numbers stuff? Are you saying that there are fewer abortions and fewer divorces or more abortions and more divorces. I’m getting lost and how does it relate to the morality of contraception or abortion.

As far as the quality of education going up! I doubt this unless it is being compared to recent years. Just from what I am hearing on TV, students are falling way behind other countries in science and math and many don’t know much about geography.

Anyway, I don’t see how we are relating these figures to contraception exactly. Is someone trying to justify contraception? Sorry, but I’m getting lost in the conversation and need a little help or maybe I should sit on the sidelines.
 
Re: “gay” marriage Quote:
Originally Posted by atsheeran
*I didn’t say that and I don’t think that it can be reasonably inferred from my post. Do you not think that there can be sins of a sexual nature that are independent of contraception? If the only sin in homosexuality is that it is contraceptive, then where is the sin in pre-marital heterosexual sex or adult males having sex with minor females (so long as no contraceptives are used).

I described contraception in this way:

The key in my description was that something that was inherently procreative was being deliberately rendered non-procreative. That is clearly not the case with homosexual sex! It is inherently non-procreative, so there is no taking of a procreative act and rendering it non-procreative. My guess is that when two individuals engage in homosexual sex they are not doing so to avoid conception.

Nothing that I said implies that homosexual sex was “accidental” or not deliberate. I’m sure that when two individuals engage in homosexual sex they do so purposely and knowingly.*

I am glad you said this was a guess. The fact is that, that is precisely why they do it and heterosexually set the standard by practicing contraception. You can not get away with this…
The fact is that heterosexuals turn themselves into homosexuals by practicing contraception…
Tr. Donald F Hudzinski
 
Notice that there is nothing positive about contraception.

So why do we practice it…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top