that is the most asinine thing i've ever read. homosexuals cannot reproduce in a homosexual union, PERIOD. if all we had on this planet were homosexuals, the human race would die out. NOT ALL heterosexual couples (married or not) are on birth control. NOT ALL heterosexual couples that are on birth control have it work successfully.
that argument holds ZERO water.
There is the possibility that a couple diagnosed as barren can, by I believe a miracle, have children. I know of one such couple. Had they used contraception, they certainly wouldn't have had a child. What is important is to leave open the possibility of life during the marital act.
This is a discussion we've had in some bible classes.
There are more reasons to oppose homosexual unions than the inability to have children. I have always loathed that argument because it once again puts a stigma on marriages that are barren.
Absolutely, there are more reasons to oppose it. However, as has been (correctly) pointed out, the fact that Christians use contraception is used to attack Christians who (also correctly) point out the impossibility of homosexual unions.
You're kidding, right? You are actually trying to equate this issue with homosexual unions?? That is completely assinine. It's a completely straw argument.
What part of "a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman for that is detestable" do you not understand? The Biblical definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual unions contradicts God's institution of marriage.
Sex is a gift of God given to married couples. Where is Scripture does it state that the sole reason for marriage is the procreation of children? I find it laughable that you would equate a married couple enjoying God's gift with an abomination like homosexuality.
Sigh...I did not equate the two issues. Apparently people are not reading what I'm typing. I said, quote, "more plausibility." Show me where I equated the two? I did not. Do they equate? Absolutely not. However, do they give homosexual activists more ammo? Absolutely. That is all I said. You're making a jump which is not justified. There is a difference between merely strengthening an argument, proving an argument, and equating an argument. People are allowed to discuss opinions with me, you're not allowed to put words in my mouth like that. You, sir, are the one creating a straw man argument here. In fact, I intentionally used weak language here, I do not think contraception justifies homosexual activity, nothing can justify an act clearly called sin in Scripture (as in Romans 1...using the Levitical code to prohibit homosexual activity is pretty easily defeated by the homosexual activists...they have answers for that...it's why I always prefer to go to Romans 1 or Jude). However, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality all ultimately come from the same underlying ideologies, that sexual activity can be separated from its primary function, which is procreation.
Where did I ever say Marriage is the sole reason? Where did I say Scripture said that? Again, you are completely misrepresenting my position. I said it was the
primary aim of marriage (post #16). You can't just reinvent my position like that.
Going to Scripture...
Genesis 1 teaches the two becoming one flesh and the command to be fruitful and multiply. Paul also assigns the highest value to childbearing in 1 Tim 2:15. Sexual pleasure is not viewed as the primary aim of sexual activity by Paul, in fact, there are times where
it could be argued that (I bolded that before you tell me that I said, "Paul is definitely saying") he is conceding sexual pleasure for the better aim of child rearing. In 1 Cor 7. In that chapter I find it difficult to tell whether Paul in 7:3 is referring to the marriage duty as child production or the marriage contract between Jews that obligated the couple to have sex. The first interpretation seems more plausible to me. If so, then it could be very strongly argued that Paul viewed the primary aim of marriage as the production of children, which is not farfetched thing for a 1st century Jew to believe. Sexual pleasure should not be shunned, but, I would argue the
primary aim of sex is conception.
Eph 5:21-33 also presents some interesting points of discussion. Christ held nothing back from the Church when he gave himself for her, I see contraception as holding back part of what God has designed to be given in the marital act. Same in the passage of Corinthians where Paul speaks of the man having control of the woman and the woman of the man. There is a holding back of this in contraception. Obviously I'm reading the text allegorically here, but I believe it's justified as the writer is explicitly using allegory to illustrate a message here.
As far as couples not being able to have children, well Jeremiah 18:20-22 certainly doesn't view couples not having children in a positive way to say the least. Infertility is always seen as a bad thing. I see nothing which says God wants couples to not have children.
I welcome debate on the topic since it has to be had, but in the future, Pastor, please do not put words in my mouth like that. Particularly, don't call my position asinine when it's not even my position to begin with. Not sure why you felt a need to tell me that homosexual unions are wrong, of course they are. Thanks.
