Why is Contraception Considered Morally Acceptable?

[patricius79]

I don't accept that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction in every relationship.

Okay. Would you elaborate?

As for psycho-sexual maturity I don't accept that abstinence necessarily assists in that end.

Okay.

Additionally most couples already abstain for 5-7 days per month as it is.

I suppose that is true. And I think that's good.

 

[patricius79]

I'm curious Patricius; why should contraception be considered immoral?

Before I answer that to the best of my poor ability, I would ask: what is it that makes anythings sexually immoral? What is the objective standard for determining what is sexually immoral? What is the "common denomitator" which makes rape, adultery, fornication, and masturbation all immoral?

As to contraception: contraception is immoral because is does not respect the essentially life-giving meaning of sex. Sex has other purposes besides conception, but its specific purpose is conception.

 

[patricius79]

Perhaps you should start a separate thread on this topic anyway. I don't believe in it, but it sounds fascinating.

Thanks, Cearbhall. I reallly appreciate your civility. "The Future of Adam and Eve" is one of my crucial books. Due to health problems I can't read much, but it is one of the books I read to keep in touch with reality. You know what I mean: like a favorite book. Mary Rosera Joyce and her husband were both philosophers--her husband had a doctorate and she did doctoral studies also---and I find their insights very helpful.

One of the things I've learned through them is how all insight comes from our intuition of being, as being. In other words, our intuition of the existence of things. For example, you and and Quatona and John and Daisy, etc, disagree. But the more important and wondeful fact is that we all are, and that we all exist in this world through the sexual act of our parents.

This respect for being and the gift of life is part of why she opposes contraception, yet has a very positive view of sexuality.

 

[Cearbhall]

It would if the center of our sexuality and intimacy were our genitalia. But the center of our sexuality is our spirituality (our personhood) and our brain, especially the high brain (frontal lobes). Being sexual is expansive and intensive, effecting everything we do. The New Adam and the New Eve never had sexual relations and were completely chaste and pure, but were the most sexual humans in history because of their love. Do you follow, or am I missing something?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the logic of it. You're now saying that physical sexual relations are not necessary for two people to have an ideal sexual relationship. How could contraception possibly interfere with this bond if it's not getting in the way of anything that's essential?

 

[patricius79]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the logic of it. You're now saying that physical sexual relations are not necessary for two people to have an ideal sexual relationship.

Well said. But that doesn't mean that normal marital relations (intercourse) is not beautiful and good.

And normally a couple should have children, because this is a great good of marriage.

How could contraception possibly interfere with this bond if it's not getting in the way of anything that's essential?

Hi Cearbhall,

Ah. Good question. I'm not sure I know how to explain that. It's not absolutely essential for a married couple to have sex. That is true. So you are saying that this would mean that contracepted sex is okay. I guess I'm lost. I don't see your logic either. For one thing, I see sexual restraint as a sexual act. For example, if a man feels sexual desire for his wife, and receives those feelings into an affirming kind of awareness without acting on them for some good reason--such as maybe he knows his wife is very tired--that is a truly sexual act, because it is truly an act of love. But if a man has sex with his wife while using a condom, he is trying to artificially change the very nature of sex, the specific purpose of which is procreation.

In other words, it is normally very important to have children. That is why sexual desire can be so strong. If one tries to separate that sexual desire and sexual genital pleasure from conception, that is the problem, because it tends to become about the pleasure primarily rather than love and life primarilly

I admit I'm not sure if that answers your question well, or even at all. But its the best I can do right now. I'm not smart enough to have all the answers. Maybe--or maybe not--something will come to me later.

Peace,

Pat

 

[Cearbhall]

Before I answer that to the best of my poor ability, I would ask: what is it that makes anythings sexually immoral? What is the objective standard for determining what is sexually immoral?

I don't believe that there is an objective standard. My preferred subjective standard is the BDSM mantra "Safe, sane, and consensual."

Well said. But that doesn't mean that normal marital relations (intercourse) is not beautiful and good.

I'm not sure why you're saying "well said" when I was just mentioning your belief to be clear about what I was responding to. I never said whether I believe it.

 

[patricius79]

I don't believe that there is an objective standard. My preferred subjective standard is the BDSM mantra "Safe, sane, and consensual."

Right. My question there was more for John and other Christians who do believe in objective sexual morality, yet also accept contraception.

I'm not sure why you're saying "well said" when I was just mentioning your belief to be clear about what I was responding to. I never said whether I believe it.

Right. I just meant that you accurately stated what I think. That's why I said "well said". I know you may not agree. Sorry if I used the wrong word. But it seems, perhaps, like miscommunication happens easily on the forums no matter what words are used.

 

[quatona]

Hi Quatona,

I wasn't trying to play a game. We both can ask a lot of questions.

Yes. I ask question for the purpose of finding out what the basis for your assertions regarding the topic is.
Why you asked your series of questions is not clear to me.

You've been very clear that our worldview's and vocabularies are different, so I have to ask some questions.

No. Since it´s all about your assertive claims, you have to clearly define your keywords.

Some of the questions I asked in that post were perhaps not good questions and others were good questions. For example, I asked you what the objective standard is which you are using to evaluate claims.

My objective standard for determining "whether your judgement has any foundation outside your religious beliefs." is simple:
I am trying to find out whether you can get through your argument without - at any point - pointing to your personal and or/religious beliefs.

 

[quatona]

I agree that consent is crucial. But I don't see how it is enough. Soliciting a prostitute is consensual. The prostitute has made a choice. But that doesn't make it right to exploit her choice.

You are free to believe that.

I'm lost. What was I claiming?

The very thing I was directly responding to. Just reread it, ok?

Great. What do you think about the idea that sexual feelings are not, primarily for acting out, but for recieving them chastely into our awareness as energy for becoming better persons?

Apparently that's what sex is primarily about and what it´s primarily not about for you.
For me, it´s not.

I respect that. I also don't understand how someone could deny that rape, at least, is objectively evil.

Then you would be well advised to read the explanations I have given and try to understand them. Don´t try to make me join your broken record mode.

I guess it means that certain acts are always wrong.

According to whom?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. It's not possible to move there because I have other, more-important relationships here which would suffer or be destroyed if I moved.

Sure it´s possible. It´s just not what your preferences suggest or allow you to do.
Other persons´ preferences prompt them to find "limited" sex the best option - given the scenario they find themselves in.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with restricting communication, either, unless by that you mean lying.

But you see something wrong with restricting sexual communication.
Now, if you have two different standards for non-sexual communication and sexual communication (restrictions don´t render communication wrong, but render sexual communication wrong), you would have to explain that. Or it´s not an argument but merely an empty assertion.

Sure. But you are comparing sex to chit-chat.

No. I am comparing sex to other forms of communication. Sometimes and for some people their sexual communication isn´t more than what chit-chat is in verbal communication.

I think setting boundaries to protect oneself is a good idea. For example, not having sex with someone whom one doesn't know, or with someone who is not open to new life.

Cool. "patricius thinks so" isn´t a particularly forceful argument, though.
Besides, the question is not whether these are "good ideas" (I might even find them not so good ideas, either. After all, I don´t find small talk a good idea, myself). Unless, in your terminology, "immoral/wrong" is a synonym for "not a good idea".

 

[patricius79]

Hi Quatona,

Hope you are having a beautiful day. I've been having computer problems, but God is still good and life is still good.

Yes. I ask question for the purpose of finding out what the basis for your assertions regarding the topic is.

That's why I'm asking questions too. I'm trying to understand your beliefs better. You said that my idea of "intuitive reasoning" sounded like a "post hoc rationalization". I asked you why and would like to know your response if you want to reply. But you don't have to reply if you don't want to

Why you asked your series of questions is not clear to me.

I'm sorry.

No. Since it´s all about your assertive claims, you have to clearly define your keywords.

You lost me. I'm just trying to dialogue which involves a two-way responsibility. Neither of us is on trial. We're just have a conversation.

My objective standard for determining "whether your judgement has any foundation outside your religious beliefs." is simple:
I am trying to find out whether you can get through your argument without - at any point - pointing to your personal and or/religious beliefs.

I don't follow you. I'm not sure what you are saying here. From my perspective, I rely on both faith and intuitive reason. When my mind is clouded and I can't see clearly I rely especially on faith. But there there are many reasons why I rely on the authority of the Catholic Church; that is, there are many reasons why I rely on the Faith.

 

[patricius79]

You are free to believe that.

Hi Quatona,

Do you think there is anything rational about the idea that we shouldn't exploit the decision of a prostitute to sell access to her body?

The very thing I was directly responding to. Just reread it, ok?

I'm confused. Could you state your point again?

Apparently that's what sex is primarily about and what it´s primarily not about for you.
For me, it´s not.

Right so we both have convictions and belief systems.

Then you would be well advised to read the explanations I have given and try to understand them. Don´t try to make me join your broken record mode.

I am trying to understand your perspective. I could use a little more help from you. It seems like some of the people on here just want to ask me questions and put all the burden on me, and get defensive when I ask them questions too. That's fine. It's human nature. I'm just trying to find the middle-ground.

According to whom?

According to people who believe in objective morality, who believe, for example, that there is never any excuse for rape. As I understand it, you believe there could be an excuse for rape, or for adultery? Is that right? (By the way, I don't mean culpability when I say "excuse". Obviously a person may do something objectively wrong but not be responsible for it due to some circumstance, such as being drugged, or mentally ill, etc).

Sure it´s possible.

Well, yes, it's possible but not very practical or a good idea.

It´s just not what your preferences suggest or allow you to do.
Other persons´ preferences prompt them to find "limited" sex the best option - given the scenario they find themselves in.

You are equating the decision to not move closer to one of my friends--who lives a long way off--to the decision to have contracepted sex. I'm sorry. I don't see the analogy.

It sounds sort of circular, like: being open to life, in sex, or being closed to life, in sex, is just a matter of preference, because it is a matter of preference.

Maybe that's not at all what you are saying, but that's how I percieve it.

But you see something wrong with restricting sexual communication.

Well, why would it be right to have contracepted sex?

Now, if you have two different standards for non-sexual communication and sexual communication (restrictions don´t render communication wrong, but render sexual communication wrong), you would have to explain that. Or it´s not an argument but merely an empty assertion.

Can you explain why tolerating a physical, geographical distance between two friends is the same as choosing to have contracepted sex?

No.

Interesting. It seemed plain to me that you were saying that sex can be very light, and even anonymous, like chit chat.

I am comparing sex to other forms of communication.

Including chit-chat?

Sometimes and for some people their sexual communication isn´t more than what chit-chat is in verbal communication.

Okay so clearly you are now comparing sex to chit-chat. Apparently one of the key differences here is that I see sex as something sacred because it is at the source of human life.

Cool. "patricius thinks so" isn´t a particularly forceful argument, though.

Sure. But neither is "Quatona thinks so" a very good argument.

Besides, the question is not whether these are "good ideas" (I might even find them not so good ideas, either. After all, I don´t find small talk a good idea, myself). Unless, in your terminology, "immoral/wrong" is a synonym for "not a good idea".

Not necessarily. But why would you not find small talk a good idea, if you find that casual sex can be a good idea? I'm confused. Am I not understanding your ideas?

Peace,

Pat

 

[quatona]

That's why I'm asking questions too. I'm trying to understand your beliefs better. You said that my idea of "intuitive reasoning" sounded like a "post hoc rationalization". I asked you why and would like to know your response if you want to reply. But you don't have to reply if you don't want to

Unless it has been shown that and how the method of "inductive reasoning" leads to "objective" results, everybody can claim their insights to be the result of "intutiive reasoning".

You lost me. I'm just trying to dialogue which involves a two-way responsibility. Neither of us is on trial. We're just have a conversation.

Yes, we are having a conversation about a certain topic: Your assertive claim that contraception is "(obejctively) immoral".
You either defend it, or it remains, well, unsubstantiated.

I don't follow you. I'm not sure what you are saying here. From my perspective, I rely on both faith and intuitive reason. When my mind is clouded and I can't see clearly I rely especially on faith. But there there are many reasons why I rely on the authority of the Catholic Church; that is, there are many reasons why I rely on the Faith.

Since you rely and appeal to your "faith" and "intuitive reasoning" you would first have to demonstrate these faculties to reiably gain "objective" results (if you want the results to be accepted as "objective").

 

[quatona]

Hi Quatona,

Do you think there is anything rational about the idea that we shouldn't exploit the decision of a prostitute to sell access to her body?

What I think is irrelevant. You made the claim, you support it.

I'm confused. Could you state your point again?

As soon as you will have specified which part of my statement is unclear to you.

Right so we both have convictions and belief systems.

This is certainly so, but you don´t know anything about my belief system. I have merely told you what I don´t believe.
Apart from that, I would never be so bold to present my beliefs and value judgements as "objective".

I am trying to understand your perspective. I could use a little more help from you. It seems like some of the people on here just want to ask me questions and put all the burden on me, and get defensive when I ask them questions too. That's fine. It's human nature.

Well, I haven´t, don´t and won´t make assertive claims concerning the "morality" or "immorality" of contraception, so I needn´t defend them.

According to people who believe in objective morality, who believe, for example, that there is never any excuse for rape. As I understand it, you believe there could be an excuse for rape, or for adultery? Is that right?

No. I´m not a moralist, and I am not demanding excuses, in the first place.
If - as you claim - you are interested in understanding me, you would have to stop asking leading questions that force me to describe my views in your terminology.
If you´d ask me for my personal subjective opinion about rape, I could go to great lengths verbalizing my disapproval and disgust. But, seeing how you want to defend a supposedly "objective" claim, that´s apparently not what you are asking me.
You don´t regard my personal subjective opinion "objective", do you? Neither do I, and neither do I regard yours as "objective". So there isn´t much point in asking me about my personal subjective convictions, for any intent or purpose of discussing your assertions. My personal subjective beliefs are as irrelevant as yours or the next guy´s when it comes to matters of alleged "objectivity".

Well, yes, it's possible but not very practical or a good idea.

That´s how other people see sex without contraception, given the situation they are in.

You are equating the decision to not move closer to one of my friends--who lives a long way off--to the decision to have contracepted sex. I'm sorry. I don't see the analogy.

You are aware that an analogy doesn´t mean the two things are the same (or else it wouldn´t be an analogy, in the first place), aren´t you?
An analogy serves the purpose of scrutinizing a particular criterium - that´s claimed to be the crucial criterium - by applying it to another situation.

It sounds sort of circular, like: being open to life, in sex, or being closed to life, in sex, is just a matter of preference, because it is a matter of preference.

I´m just giving you my observations: some people prefer this, others prefer this. If this weren´t an accurate observation, the things you call "immoral" wouldn´t even happen.

Well, why would it be right to have contracepted sex?

I don´t know. You would have to ask someone who claims that it´s "right".
"Right and wrong" are your concepts and your terms.

Can you explain why tolerating a physical, geographical distance between two friends is the same as choosing to have contracepted sex?

I didn´t say it´s "the same". An analogy is never about being "the same", or else we wouldn´t call it an analogy. An analogy is isolating a supposedly crucial criterium in order to check out whether it is indeed such a criterium.

Interesting. It seemed plain to me that you were saying that sex can be very light, and even anonymous, like chit chat.

Yes, I said it can. That´s something else than claiming that it is.

Including chit-chat?

Yes, certain forms of sexual communication are comparable to certain forms of verbal communication (e.g. anonymous sex that isn´t interested in getting to know the other person better can be compared to chit-chat, small-talk. Other forms of sexual communication can be compared to a very open personal verbal exchange, others can be compared to polite talk or a therapeutic conversation, others might be even comparable to a prayer etc.etc.).

Okay so clearly you are now comparing sex to chit-chat.

No. You need to pay close attention. There´s a reason I verbalize things the very way I do. Persistently rewording them for me - pretending that that´s what I said - does not really appear to be token of your will to "understand me better" - as you claim is your intention.

Apparently one of the key differences here is that I see sex as something sacred because it is at the source of human life.

Yes. Your opinion is noted - as your personal opinion.

Sure. But neither is "Quatona thinks so" a very good argument.

That´s why I don´t make claims about the "morality" or "immorality" of contraception (even less claiming them to be "objective"), and that´s why I needn´t defend them.

Not necessarily. But why would you not find small talk a good idea, if you find that casual sex can be a good idea? I'm confused. Am I not understanding your ideas?

I didn´t say I find it a good idea.I said some people find it a good idea.
If all you had said were "I don´t find contraception/casual sex/... a good idea in my personal subjective opinion", we wouldn´t have this discussion.
You claimed them to be "(objectively) immoral".

But maybe "I don´t find this a good idea" and "it´s objectively immoral" are identical statements, in your terminology - in which case there has been a misunderstanding that you could have easily solved, had you responded to my request to define your keyterms properly.
I was under the impression that you were making supposedly "objective moral judgements", and not merely intending to compare what everybody feels are good or not so good ideas.

 

[patricius79]

Unless it has been shown that and how the method of "inductive reasoning" leads to "objective" results, everybody can claim their insights to be the result of "intutiive reasoning".

Yes, we are having a conversation about a certain topic: Your assertive claim that contraception is "(obejctively) immoral".
You either defend it, or it remains, well, unsubstantiated.

Since you rely and appeal to your "faith" and "intuitive reasoning" you would first have to demonstrate these faculties to reiably gain "objective" results (if you want the results to be accepted as "objective").

Hi Quatona,

We both have to try to support our beliefs. It seems like you keep trying to put all the burden of evidence on me, which suggests that your position is questionable.

But I still haven't seen any evidence that contraception is morally acceptable, or that the burden of proof is primarily on me. You also seem to be claiming that "intuitive reason" isn't objective, or that it can be claimed about anything, but I don't have evidence for that.

Again, what is your objective standard for determining whether something is rational?

I think it's obviously rational to say that the basic purpose of sex is procreation and bonding withing a permanent relationship (marriage).

It's hard for me not so see this, somewhat like it's hard for me to not see that there are actually existent. trees in my yard. Now I can try to systematically doubt this, and wonder whether maybe I'm just living in a fantasy, but I know what I know, even if I don't know how I know.

You have stated that sex is a form of "communication", which can even be done anonymously. What is being communicated through this anonymous or casual sex?

When I talk to my friends, I have some idea of what is being communicated: like shared religious beliefs, or historical information, etc.

Peace,

Pat

 

[patricius79]

Yes, certain forms of sexual communication are comparable to certain forms of verbal communication (e.g. anonymous sex that isn´t interested in getting to know the other person better can be compared to chit-chat, small-talk. Other forms of sexual communication can be compared to a very open personal verbal exchange, others can be compared to polite talk or a therapeutic conversation, others might be even comparable to a prayer etc.etc.).

But what is being communicated through the sexual pleasure of the sex? Why not just chit-chat? What is it that is being communicated specifically through the (casual) sex itself?

 

[quatona]

Hi Quatona,

We both have to try to support our beliefs.

Sure. What are my beliefs? I haven´t expressed any belief regarding the "morality or immorality" of contraception. You did.

It seems like you keep trying to put all the burden of evidence on me, which suggests that your position is questionable.

Which position? I haven´t expressed any position regarding the "morality or immorality" of contraception. You did.

But I still haven't seen any evidence that contraception is morally acceptable, or that the burden of proof is primarily on me.

Neither have I seen any evidence that eating an apple or cutting your toenails is "morally acceptable".
I didn´t make the claim that contraception is "morally acceptable", so I am under no obligation to defend it.

You also seem to be claiming that "intuitive reason" isn't objective, or that it can be claimed about anything, but I don't have evidence for that.

Sure: I could claim that my intuitive reasoning tells me that "contraception is morally acceptable". If it´s your contention that "intuitive reasoning is objective" you would then have to admit that you are wrong about contraception.

Again, what is your objective standard for determining whether something is rational?

I said something different, you asked a different question about it, and I answered it.

I think it's obviously rational to say that the basic purpose of sex is procreation and bonding withing a permanent relationship (marriage).

Your opinion is noted.

It's hard for me not so see this, somewhat like it's hard for me to not see that there are actually existent. trees in my yard. Now I can try to systematically doubt this, and wonder whether maybe I'm just living in a fantasy, but I know what I know, even if I don't know how I know.

There would be simple methods to demonstrate that there´s a tree in your garden. Apparently there aren´t such methods for demonstrating your "moral" convictions to be accurate. Or else you wouldn´t stop at simply claiming them to be true. I understand that this must be frustrating for you, but I fail to see how that´s my problem.
You are free to act upon those convictions just like you are free to act upon your conviction that there´s a tree in your garden. If you want to convince the rest of the world of your convictions you would have to do more than merely claiming them to be true.

You have stated that sex is a form of "communication", which can even be done anonymously. What is being communicated through this anonymous or casual sex?

When I talk to my friends, I have some idea of what is being communicated: like shared religious beliefs, or historical information, etc.

When you talk anonymously you also have some idea what is being communicated. After all, it´s the subject of the given communication.

 

[quatona]

But what is being communicated through the sexual pleasure of the sex?

Depends of the persons, depends of the situation, depends on the sex.

Why not just chit-chat?

If you prefer chit-chat over casual sex, I have no reason to keep you from having just chit-chat.

What is it that is being communicated specifically through the (casual) sex itself?

What is being communicated specifically through anonymous chit-chat? We don´t know in advance - because that´s the reason why people communicate: If the message would be clear to everyone in advance there would be no need for communication.

 

[patricius79]

Sure. What are my beliefs? I haven´t expressed any belief regarding the "morality or immorality" of contraception. You did.

I thought you said that sex is a form of communication and that you don't have any evidence that contraception is wrong, and that sex can be casual.

Neither have I seen any evidence that eating an apple is "morally acceptable".

How is eating an apple comparable to having contracepted sex?

Sure: I could claim that my intuitive reasoning tells me that "contraception is morally acceptable".

Do you claim that?

There would be simple methods to demonstrate that there´s a tree in your garden.

I don't see how these methods would be any more obvious than it is obvious that sex is about procreation

Depends of the persons, depends of the situation, depends on the sex.

Can you give me any idea of what is supposedly being "communicated" through anonymous or casual sex?

 

[quatona]

I thought you said that sex is a form of communication

Yes, that´s how I think about it.

and that you don't have any evidence that contraception is wrong,

Yes. It´s a fact that I don´t have it. I´m open to be given it.

and that sex can be casual.

Yes, that´s my observation: Some people have casual sex.

How is eating an apple comparable to having contracepted sex?

Do you even follow the conversation, do you even try to understand why I am saying what I am saying - or is all you can do ask irrelevant questions in order to distract from the fact that you can´t or won´t substantiate your claim that "contraception is wrong"?
I didn´t compare these two issues.
You were demanding evidence for the idea that "contrapection is morally acceptable". I have no idea how one could possibly go about showing that something is "morally acceptable". So I took the a very simple issue (of which I am assuming you find it "morally acceptable") and asked you to give evidence that it is "morally acceptable", just so I get an idea how giving evidence that something is "morally acceptable" is done, in your method.

Do you claim that?

No, of course I don´t. Again, the point flew right over your head.
When it´s possible that two people make contradicting claims and both are pointing to their "intuitive reasoning", it´s obvious that "I have arrived at my opinion through intuitive reasoning" isn´t evidence of their claims being correct.

I don't see how these methods would be any more obvious than it is obvious that sex is about procreation

Well, that´s your problem, not mine.
I have never had any problems convincing people of the existence of a certain physical object like a tree. Maybe you are doing it wrong?

Can you give me any idea of what is supposedly being "communicated" through anonymous or casual sex?

What do I know? I am not involved in that kind of communication. Just like I am not really familiar with chit-chat and can´t for the life of me understand what people get out of it, why they do it or why they find these bits worth communicating.

 

[patricius79]

Yes, that´s how I think about it.

Yes. It´s a fact that I don´t have it. I´m open to be given it.

Yes, that´s my observation: Some people have casual sex.




Do you even follow the conversation, do you even try to understand why I am saying what I am saying - or is all you can do ask irrelevant questions in order to distract from the fact that you can´t or won´t substantiate your claim that "contraception is wrong"?
I didn´t compare these two issues.
You were demanding evidence for the idea that "contrapection is morally acceptable". I have no idea how one could possibly go about showing that something is "morally acceptable". So I took the a very simple issue (of which I am assuming you find it "morally acceptable") and asked you to give evidence that it is "morally acceptable", just so I get an idea how giving evidence that something is "morally acceptable" is done, in your method.




No, of course I don´t. Again, the point flew right over your head.
When it´s possible that two people make contradicting claims and both are pointing to their "intuitive reasoning", it´s obvious that "I have arrived at my opinion through intuitive reasoning" isn´t evidence of their claims being correct.




Well, that´s your problem, not mine.
I have never had any problems convincing people of the existence of a certain physical object like a tree. Maybe you are doing it wrong?




What do I know? I am not involved in that kind of communication. Just like I am not really familiar with chit-chat and can´t for the life of me understand what people get out of it, why they do it or why they find these bits worth communicating.

Well, eating an apple would be morally acceptable because it is obviously a food--food being necessary for survival--and is apparently not poisonous or harmful, unless ingested in large amounts.

I don't know of any evidence that extra-marital or contracepted sex is necessary for survival.

As far as the tree issue... your basic approach seems to be to claim--without evidence--that you have no position, and that I am the only one obliged to offer evidence, which may be rejected by you at will, as if that proves that evidence has not been provided.

Likewise, if you were here, I could show you the tree in my yard and you could deny that the tree is there. It may sound far-fetched, but not so far-fetched when compared to people not seeing the intrinsic connection between sex and children, or people not knowing that people of the same sex can't get married, etc.