Contra-Contraception

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Shocker

Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality?

Okay, lack of procreation is a reason they object.
And no, I don't know. Homosexuality is neither wrong nor a sin in my book. :p

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Shocker

Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality?

Yes. Everything banned in the Bible (sins, abominations, etc.) has a reason behind the ban. Some of those reasons are no longer relevant, but there was always one at the time.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shocker

Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality? I'm sure any concerns about procreation are just secondary. But thats just my opinion.

How did they determine it was a sin? Wasn't it because it has "no direct route to procreation"?

[Stormieweather]

Very interesting article (and links) regarding homosexuality and the Fundamentalist Christian movement. Abortion is also mentioned in one of the links.

http://elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

He is confused on one point though, sodomy is not a sin (nor the same thing in the Bible as homosexuality, it is usually referred to as sex for the purpose of idolatry).
It is an abomination, along the lines of wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt and eating shrimp, not sin.
Fundies are so stupid.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Yes. Everything banned in the Bible (sins, abominations, etc.) has a reason behind the ban. Some of those reasons are no longer relevant, but there was always one at the time.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

It is an abomination, along the lines of wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt and eating shrimp, not sin.

Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?

It didn't conform to Moses' sense of style?

What about not trimming the hair on the sides of your head?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?

I never could figure that one out either, unless it had to do with economics... keeping merchants honest somehow. How about not eating bats, but locusts are ok?
Some abominations are very silly, like not planting different crops in the same field and leaving a specific corner of your field unharvested.
How about not being able to approach the alter if you have less than perfect vision, what the hell is that about?
I just like that football and my gardening gloves are an abomination too.
My thinkin' is that they spent too much time in tha' desert and the sun cooked all tha' Lords good advice a bit.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Pie

Okay, lack of procreation is a reason they object.
And no, I don't know. Homosexuality is neither wrong nor a sin in my book. :p

I've heard a lot of people who aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.

You're all sinners, anyway.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I've heard a lot of people who aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.

You're all sinners, anyway.

How does one not just bust a gut when you hear something like that said with a straight face?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

How does one not just bust a gut when you hear something like that said with a straight face?

Who said I managed to?

The logic I've heard is this: Contraceptives and homosex (I love using this term) are counter productive to society and detrimental to the economy because they produce nothing. Without babies, families don't grow. If families don't grow, homes aren't purchased, minivans/SUVs don't sell, diaper production drops, and no fresh children go off to college to become educated and help the country. Or, something like that. The argument was backed with the mention that people that don't have children "are greedy and live their life only for pleasure" when it is obvious that people need to produce for the good of mankind, the future of the economy, and the good of the country. This father of two underlined that it is important for everyone to "give back" to the world by having children and not live with just one's own interests in mind.

None of his argument had any mention of religion, nor is he a religious person. It hurt my head.

[Pangloss62]

Yes, I'm glad my parents "had" me, but I think there are many, many people who have children only to satisfy themselves, to make themselves feel wanted, needed, and loved. It's selfish, by any measure. Problem is, as the world's population increases every second, it's only in "Western" countries that practice contraception and abortion that have a very low birth rate (America, for example). That's why we need people from other countries to do the shit work for us. Ozzie & Harriet and Ward & June are alive and well, but they are now a much smaller cohort in the population.

But here's my main point: There is no benefit to this world from adding yet another consumer. It's what you "do" with your life that counts. If all you leave behind is a trail or receipts for all the shit you purchased, hooray for you, but you've not really contributed to making the world a better or more informed or interesting place. The nuclear families, especially the ones I see around where I live, don't contribute shit to our world.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Who said I managed to?

The logic I've heard is this: Contraceptives and homosex (I love using this term) are counter productive to society and detrimental to the economy because they produce nothing. Without babies, families don't grow. If families don't grow, homes aren't purchased, minivans/SUVs don't sell, diaper production drops, and no fresh children go off to college to become educated and help the country. Or, something like that. The argument was backed with the mention that people that don't have children "are greedy and live their life only for pleasure" when it is obvious that people need to produce for the good of mankind, the future of the economy, and the good of the country. This father of two underlined that it is important for everyone to "give back" to the world by having children and not live with just one's own interests in mind.

None of his argument had any mention of religion, nor is he a religious person. It hurt my head.

It is sure as hell hurting mine as well... at least religion is a good excuse for being stupid or crazy, but "honey, we gotta' get knocked-up for the good of economy!"

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I've heard a lot of people who aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.

You're all sinners, anyway.

Your close. Sex is a sin because it's fun and everything fun is a sin. The catch is, sex is the method of procreation so they have to allow it.
The best they can do is specify that it's only ok if not for fun, which would include homo sex and hetro sex using birth control.

[Undertoad]

Blogger in rural Ohio finds it impossible to get emergency contraception pill

Nobody in the county hospital would prescribe it unless she said she was raped.