Redefining Marriage: it's not the Gays, it's the RUBBERS!!!

[clarinetpower]

ncregister.com/blog/redefining-marriage-1

:shock:

[SinInTheCamp]

Making men wear condoms leads to the downfall of society, apparently. :roll:

[liltwinstar]

Contraception is the same thing as adultery???? Seriously?

Give me a break.

Also - NEWSFLASH - people have been practicing contraception for centuries. There are ways (not good ways), like pulling out, douching, herbs, rudimentary fertility awareness, etc that do work (sort of). And people have been doing those things for millennia. Good grief.

I love how he says that "Contraceptive sex is neither truly unitive nor procreative"

So, if sex with contraceptives is not "unitive" then we should all be able to have condom-clad sex with anyone we please, because it's not "unitive" so it's not really sex, and therefore it's ok. Am I right???

I think some people fetishize baby-making sex over (for lack of a better term) "regular" sex. Which is a bit strange to me.

[Brainsample]

This has bothered me since nursing school when we heard this lecture (a Catholic college). No one got uptight about anything, but did they go nuts on the day when they had to talk about and teach contraception -- because it's required for a nurse.

They start out with four faculty members there in the beginning of the class to give a disclaimer. They had two Sisters there, too, and one of them prayed at the start of class (didn't always happen, and the one who opened in prayer did not lecture). They then had the hippest instructor talk about the evil contraception. They had another instructor talk a little about NFP. Then, they had a nun talk about it. It was like a three ringed circus. Just before they got to the contraception part -- talking about the pill and various barrier methods -- they repeated the disclaimer that the College didn't advocate these methods but the State Board of Nursing required them to be taught.

Then, Oh, did things change when they got to Natural Family Planning. It was the best thing since sliced bread. I will admit that it had a great crunchy appeal to me personally.

BUT, I couldn't figure out what the big deal was between a barrier method and NFP in principle. If you are setting out to thwart God's plan, then this is a moral act, no? God could just as easily or maybe more easily put a pin hole in your condom or diaphram than He could mess with your hormonal cycle, thus thwarting NFP. So it's very, very morally wrong to practice active contraception, but it's perfectly okay and commendable if you practice passive contraception. Sorry folks. NFP is contraception. For well-prepared and responsible people, it is very effective contraception.

People get pregnant on the pill all the time, and people get pregnant with the use of barrier methods. But if it's a moral issue, then NFP is just as much contraception as a barrier method. It is an act of the will to prevent pregnancy. If hating your brother is murder, or if looking on a woman in lust is the same morally as committing adultery, then isn't NFP just as willfully sinful as a barrier method? (I'm excluding Oral Contraceptives because OCs have varied reliability in preventing ovulation and some varieties are more aborifacient, and some are not at all, based on the statistics. But barrier methods are not aborifacient.)

What I will say for the fertility cult minded Christians is that they are at least consistent in this -- that any contraception is a sin, be it active or passive -- because they argue motive and not means. (Which also doesn't mean that I agree, just that they are less contradictory in this particular thing.)

[ThisOlGirl]

Making men wear condoms leads to the downfall of society, apparently. :roll:

Ha! I've met a few guys who would probably love to use that as an excuse not to use a condom. "But babe, if you make me use this condom, we'll only be contributing to the fall of Western Civilization." :roll:

[Cassandra]

Making men wear condoms leads to the downfall of society, apparently. :roll:

From a cultural perspective highly effective contraceptives and barrier methods do invalidate certain principals of the Bible. I've always felt that the Bible was the result of making a guide of social laws that people would follow. Prior to condoms and hormonal birth control venereal disease was rampant, and if a woman had pre-marital sex any child that would result could potentially lack the resources provided in a two-parent home, as well as suffer from a social stigma. So to prevent venereal disease and one-parent children it makes sense to demonize pre-marital sex and having multiple partners by forbidding these actions in a religious document, and creating permanent negative consequences (hell).

Now that we can prevent the majority of sexual diseases and unwanted childbirth there really is no point in following certain tenets prescribed in the bible, including no pre-marital sex, and for some people even marriage.

So, I see this guy's point, but I don't have any issue with pre-marital sex, cohabitation without marriage, and all that jazz.

However, this all comes from the perspective of an atheist ;)

[Nothing2CHere]

OK, serious, non-snarky question here, because I am by no means a Bible scholar, and I am truly curious - where exactly in the Bible, what passages, are used to justify the "no sex before marriage" stance?

[Austin]

OK, serious, non-snarky question here, because I am by no means a Bible scholar, and I am truly curious - where exactly in the Bible, what passages, are used to justify the "no sex before marriage" stance?

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4 NAS

[Rosa]

Cassandra, is it really true that STDs were rampant the whole time before latex condoms? I thought syphilis was the really bad one, and it wasn't common until the 16th century in Europe.

[bananacat]

If God could get a virgin pregnant, then no mere condom or pill should be enough to thwart his will.

[Nothing2CHere]

Thanks, Austin!

And to what bananacat said.

[samithemage]

Are we sure he's for real and this isn't some highly elaborate joke? I mean, his last name is Greydanus (great anus, teehee, now I want to go watch some Mystery Science Theater 3000). How I am I supposed to take his stance against gay marriage, contraception, masturbation, and premarital sex seriously?

[dawn9476]

That person is so out of touch. I just can't get through the whole article.