FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: If Contraception, Why Not Gay Marriage?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2


An old one from Crisis Magazine. What do y'all think of the logic here?:



July 7, 2011
If Contraception, Why Not Gay Marriage?
by Howard Kainz



In his book Heretics, G. K. Chesterton writes,
[html]
Quote: There are some people — and I am one of them — who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.
[/html]
Chesterton is making the point that one’s general system of values is an all-important factor in the choices he makes. For example, someone who subscribes to Ayn Rand’s “philosophy of selfishness,” or to Peter Singer’s judgment that infanticide is permissible because of utilitarian values, or to Christopher Hitchens’s view that religion is the most dangerous thing on earth, or to theologian Rev. Richard McBrien’s claim that popes have no authority in morals, can be expected to act in certain ways and take certain positions when confronted with choices. If we know their world view, we do not have 100 percent certainty about particular choices they might make under particular circumstances — but we do have high probability.

The Catholic analytic philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe (1919-2001), whose 1958 article “Modern Moral Philosophy” instigated new movements in “virtue ethics” and renewed interest in natural law, astonished her academic colleagues at Cambridge University in 1979 by publishing Contraception and Chastity, a defense of the Catholic Church’s position on contraception. Anscombe’s influence is still being felt in the United States via the Anscombe Society at Princeton University.

Analytic philosophy is famous for investigating logical connections, even in ethics, and Anscombe draws out the inescapable deductions that can be made from a value system accepting contraception:
[html]
Quote: If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery, when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? … But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition…. For in contraceptive intercourse you intend to perform a sexual act which, if it has a chance of being fertile, you render infertile. Qua your intentional action, then, what you do is something intrinsically unapt for generation (emphasis added).
[/html]
In other words, Anscombe is saying that, if you believe you have a right to non-procreative sexual intercourse, you have no right to criticize non-procreative sex by others — for example, by a gay couple. You may justify your personal practices on the basis of your genuine mutual love and commitment to lifelong fidelity. But homosexuals may be even more intensely in love with each other and even more firmly committed to mutual fidelity. They may even be more open to procreation than you are, through adoption or through in vitro fertilization. To want to have sex without the possibility of offspring, and condemn others for similarly non-procreative sex, would be blatantly inconsistent.

According to polls, more than 80 percent of Catholic married couples are using various kinds of contraceptives in order to prevent or separate births. But there is no necessary connection between control of births and contraception. Natural family planning (NFP), which is approved by the Church and often used by couples who want to identify a woman’s fertile periods in order to have children, can also be used to space out births without contraceptives. NFP has been shown in various studies to be just as effective as the contraceptive pill. Systematic development and improvement of the Billings method of NFP over the years has been carried out at Creighton University. The Pope Paul VI institute at Creighton has a good history of assisting married and unmarried women with irregular cycles and other problems.

A variety of objections to gay marriage have been offered. Some oppose it because it arbitrarily redefines marriage, or because it is not suitable for children to have gay parents, or because it will involve greater taxpayer burdens for Medicare and Social Security down the line, and so forth. But if we are part of that 80 percent of Catholics who are also involved in non-procreative sex, we cannot take the “high road” and be opposed to gay marriage because of “immorality.” At the very least, Catholics who choose artificial contraceptive methods, in the interests of consistency, should modify their opposition to gay marriage. If and when they follow the Church’s teaching on contraception, which has not changed over two thousand years and was reiterated by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, they will have a more secure moral justification for their opposition.

The author is right. In a culture that allows contracepted sex, there is no good, logical reason why gay marriage should be disallowed.

Good point.
When he had just come to Quebec as cardinal, Card. Ouellet made this point and became front page news for saying that if the condition for legitimizing an act is mutual consent, we will go from gay rights to gay marriage to adults having sex with children, to adults having sex with animals, and on, and on. He said we will see grown men and women marry animals if we were to continue. It seemed shocking at the time, but logical. And he was right. As it stands, animals can inherit in California, and I know of at least one woman who had her dogs act as "bridesmaids" at a wedding in the US.

America used to be the last stronghold against this sort of  foolishness. But that was before they embraced Obama's world.
(02-24-2014, 02:57 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Good point.
When he had just come to Quebec as cardinal, Card. Ouellet made this point and became front page news for saying that if the condition for legitimizing an act is mutual consent, we will go from gay rights to gay marriage to adults having sex with children, to adults having sex with animals, and on, and on. He said we will see grown men and women marry animals if we were to continue. It seemed shocking at the time, but logical. And he was right. As it stands, animals can inherit in California, and I know of at least one woman who had her dogs act as "bridesmaids" at a wedding in the US.

America used to be the last stronghold against this sort of  foolishness. But that was before they embraced Obama's world.

The foolishness came way before Obama was even a glint in his mother's eye. 

One of the funnier posts I saw on the facebook one time was a woman who said that if we were really about protecting marriage we should be for outlawing divorce.  Then someone reminded the young lady that at one time no-fault divorce was illegal in all states.  I hate slippery slope arguments but there is perhaps the most valid one ever.  Contraception is legalized following Griswold vs. Conn. (1965), then California gets no-fault divorces in 1969 followed by the rest of the nation by the mid 70s, followed by in vitro fertilization, adoptions by single people, widespread cohabitation all the way down to the current situation.  Lowering age of consent laws will probably be next as part of a series of gradual wide sweeping social reforms which include drug liberalization, further promotion of sterilization, masturbation, furries and other "alternative" sexualities, euthanasia, regular suicides as well, because in America we don't do thing minimally we do  things big. When people say that we have bigger issues than keeping gays from marrying, it is true, but gay marriage is a symptom of a larger problem. We have a broken society which is why there is widespread poverty. violence, addictions, etc.  The world is a stage and we all have our parts the problem is people don't know what part they have, particularly men.
There is a book called "The Naked Communist" (its not inappropriate). It was published back in the 50's. Here are the communist goals:

U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
Do away with all loyalty oaths.
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Gain control of all student newspapers.
Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
Control art critics and directors of art museums.
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
Internationalize the Panama Canal.
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

We have pretty much hit on all those in some shape or form and the idiot American's don't even realize it. Ironically Russian is staying the Christian course at least in face.
(02-24-2014, 02:57 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Good point.
When he had just come to Quebec as cardinal, Card. Ouellet made this point and became front page news for saying that if the condition for legitimizing an act is mutual consent, we will go from gay rights to gay marriage to adults having sex with children, to adults having sex with animals, and on, and on. He said we will see grown men and women marry animals if we were to continue. It seemed shocking at the time, but logical. And he was right. As it stands, animals can inherit in California, and I know of at least one woman who had her dogs act as "bridesmaids" at a wedding in the US.

America used to be the last stronghold against this sort of  foolishness. But that was before they embraced Obama's world.


Great post, thanks.
I think sin does darken the intellect. It wasn't until I stopped sinning that I understood Christianity. The more a people sin, I think, the less they can understand the things of God and the natural law.

It's so obvious that sex is for reproduction. We can see it in the animal kingdom too. Animals have children. Someone will then point out bonobos, but that is an exception and not the rule. A dog also eats his own vomit, should we?

If sex is for whatever purpose you deem it to be, all sorts things are OK. But if there is a God then it's obvious He designed sex for reproduction. God has the right to tell us what is right or wrong and what the meaning of things are. He created us.
Quote:In other words, Anscombe is saying that, if you believe you have a right to non-procreative sexual intercourse, you have no right to criticize non-procreative sex by others — for example, by a gay couple. You may justify your personal practices on the basis of your genuine mutual love and commitment to lifelong fidelity. But homosexuals may be even more intensely in love with each other and even more firmly committed to mutual fidelity. They may even be more open to procreation than you are, through adoption or through in vitro fertilization. To want to have sex without the possibility of offspring, and condemn others for similarly non-procreative sex, would be blatantly inconsistent.

Older couples and sterile couples have non-procreative sex. The Church does not forbid marrying them. Non-procreative sex is not sinful (as long as there is no artificial contraception). But we certainly can criticize so called gay marriage because homosexual couples cannot become “one flesh” the way a man and woman can. Because the Bible said “male and female he created them" and calls the other “unnatural.”

What do I think of the logic here? I think these modern apologists and moral theologians go too far. They are reacting to our homoerotic culture and the contraception crisis. Their zeal is understandable but misplaced. Marriage does not always lead to childbearing, but the marital act is still holy, a sign of Christ and the Church, a source of unity and joy for the couple.
(02-25-2014, 11:53 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:In other words, Anscombe is saying that, if you believe you have a right to non-procreative sexual intercourse, you have no right to criticize non-procreative sex by others — for example, by a gay couple. You may justify your personal practices on the basis of your genuine mutual love and commitment to lifelong fidelity. But homosexuals may be even more intensely in love with each other and even more firmly committed to mutual fidelity. They may even be more open to procreation than you are, through adoption or through in vitro fertilization. To want to have sex without the possibility of offspring, and condemn others for similarly non-procreative sex, would be blatantly inconsistent.

Older couples and sterile couples have non-procreative sex. The Church does not forbid marrying them. Non-procreative sex is not sinful (as long as there is no artificial contraception). But we certainly can criticize so called gay marriage because homosexual couples cannot become “one flesh” the way a man and woman can. Because the Bible said “male and female he created them" and calls the other “unnatural.”

What do I think of the logic here? I think these modern apologists and moral theologians go too far. They are reacting to our homoerotic culture and the contraception crisis. Their zeal is understandable but misplaced. Marriage does not always lead to childbearing, but the marital act is still holy, a sign of Christ and the Church, a source of unity and joy for the couple.

If we've already taken a step way from the holiness of the marital act being ratified in its fruitfulness, there's no way to go except the direction mortal theologians have gone. We're Christian - the central mitzvah is not to be fruitful and multiply, it's to love Christ the Messiah (God in our neighbour, God in Himself).
There is still a principle difference. When people bring up infertility, pregnancy or old age they are talking about being nonprocreative by situation or defect. Same sex couples cannot procreate in principle.
Pages: 1 2