# Will gay acceptance erode the Bible's authority? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414 "2014-02-27T14:10:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/121 "2014-03-03T12:38:39Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **DocCathode** Mark, Luke and Paul also include similar statements condemning remarriage after divorce, and not including the ‘escape clause’ for adultery. The Catholic Church takes these other passages as controlling, which is why they forbid divorce&remarriage even in cases of adultery. > > I think there’s pretty strong internal evidence that the ‘except for unchastity’ is a gloss added by the author of the Gospel or subsequent scribes, and that Jesus didn’t include it in his actual teachings. They do make a lot of exceptions like saying it wan’t a Marriage. and grant dispositions. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/122 "2014-03-03T12:42:20Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Yeah, but I don’t think we’ll see anyone lobbying to legalize that any time soon. (Contrary to what Rick Santorum may think, I doubt there are all that many people out there interested in having “man-on-dog” sex) It takes two to consent or is not considered a valid marriage, since an animal can’t consent it is a far different thing. Just one thing more to make oneself look like a better person like the Pharisees, looking for the speck in their neighbor’s eyes instead of the plank in their own! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/123 "2014-03-03T12:51:19Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > There’s nothing in the bible about contraception. I wouldn’t be shocked about the horse-riding thing but I don’t recall it. > > But giving a shit about the poor is way, way up there in the bible’s priorities. > > ETA: I forgot to add, I think the guy was right about lesbians too. I believe that some churches use the writings of one man who spilled his seed so he wouldn’t impregnate a woman, If I remember correctly it was to bear children for his brother’s wife. and that was considered contraception? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/124 "2014-03-03T14:55:01Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I believe that some churches use the writings of one man who spilled his seed so he wouldn’t impregnate a woman, If I remember correctly it was to bear children for his brother’s wife. and that was considered contraception? Staff Report: [What exactly was the sin of Onan?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan) ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/125 "2014-03-03T16:04:13Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > According to Talmud scholars everywhere, the Bible forbids contraception. OTTOMH > > G-d said “Be fruitful and multiply”. If you use contraception, you’re actively disobeying this command. > > You’re not supposed to waste seed. This includes not only a ban on condoms, but a command that all sex must end in ejaculation in the vagina. You’re wife can perform fellatio as foreplay. But, you can only yeehaw in the hoohah. > > You may recall occasional stories about Orthodox Jewish workers refusing to sell condoms. My extremely Catholic sister is anti-birth control, and her extremely Catholic husband is anti-wankin’ it. However, they happily use the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. Is there any logical consistency there? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/126 "2014-03-03T16:23:47Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > My extremely Catholic sister is anti-birth control, and her extremely Catholic husband is anti-wankin’ it. However, they happily use the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. Is there any logical consistency there? Dunno. Are they simply avoiding sex on her most fertile days? I can’t see anything inconsistent there. If they’re practicing _coitus interruptus_ or withdrawal, I guess I can see an argument for inconsistency, but not a very strong one. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/127 "2014-03-03T17:23:14Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Dunno. Are they simply avoiding sex on her most fertile days? I can’t see anything inconsistent there. If they’re practicing _coitus interruptus_ or withdrawal, I guess I can see an argument for inconsistency, but not a very strong one. I honestly haven’t asked that level of detail, but let’s assume the former. They’re intentionally avoiding sex when they’re the most “fruitful” so they can avoid “multiplying,” while spilling all kinds of seed when they know they’re not at all fruitful. IIRC correctly, their argument was that condoms prevent God’s will from happening, but having sex when they have good reason to think there’s no fertile eggs present doesn’t interfere with God’s will because he could always make her ovulate if he really wanted to, and she’d have no way of knowing. But that seems specious to me, since God could also poke a hole in the condom (they’re only 99% effective, after all) and since the whole motivation behind the rhythm method is that they’re making it as hard as possible for God to work his fertilization magic. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/128 "2014-03-03T17:28:18Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > My extremely Catholic sister is anti-birth control … However, they happily use the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. Is there any logical consistency there? IIUC, that’s consistent with what the Catholic Church commands/teaches, for more or less the reason you gave. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/129 "2014-03-03T17:49:51Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I honestly haven’t asked that level of detail, but let’s assume the former. They’re intentionally avoiding sex when they’re the most “fruitful” so they can avoid “multiplying,” while spilling all kinds of seed when they know they’re not at all fruitful. > > IIRC correctly, their argument was that condoms prevent God’s will from happening, but having sex when they have good reason to think there’s no fertile eggs present doesn’t interfere with God’s will because he could always make her ovulate if he really wanted to, and she’d have no way of knowing. But that seems specious to me, since God could also poke a hole in the condom (they’re only 99% effective, after all) and since the whole motivation behind the rhythm method is that they’re making it as hard as possible for God to work his fertilization magic. Your sister and her husband are entirely copacetic under Catholic moral rules, but I’d phrase their argument a bit differently. Catholic moral teaching about birth control is actually a bit narrower than people sometimes think. I’m not RC, but here is the teaching as I understand it: “To willfully and deliberately render a marital sex act infertile, is to pervert the nature of the sex act, and is (therefore) forbidden.” Here’s what that doesn’t cover. 1. Estrogen and/or progesterone taken for medical rather than contraceptive purposes. Here, the infertility is a side effect rather than a deliberately chosen outcome. (Actually, since birth control protects against ovarian cancer, some people have argued that just about _every_ woman could legitimately invoke the medical exception, and be morally in the clear). 2. People engaged in nonmarital sex acts (premarital, extramarital, homosexual, etc.) who use condoms or birth control pills. Here, Catholic teaching already forbids the sex act itself, and you aren’t making it any _worse_ by using contraception. The entire Catholic objection to birth control is that it denatures the marital sex act, but here there is no legitimate sex act to be denatured. The Catholic church is, as far as I know, silent on whether or not people engaged in premarital sex, adultery, etc. should use contraception or not: as they put it, their business is not telling people how to sin more or less safely. 3. Natural family planning. Here, you are simply choosing to engage in sex acts you know will be sterile: you aren’t taking a potentially fertile sex act and _rendering_ it sterile. The Catholic church grounds its teaching against birth control (at least, currently) on neo-Aristotelian reasoning about ends and purposes, it doesn’t ground it on ‘be fruitful and multiply’, and it has no objection to family planning and small families in principle (though there is a teaching that all marriages should be geared towards childrearing). 4. Taking birth control protectively, against the danger of rape (e.g. for women who live in environments with high rape risk, like war zones). Here, the woman is not choosing to engage in a sex act, she is running the risk of having one forced upon her, so again, there is (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) no legitimate marital sex act which is being denatured. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/130 "2014-03-03T17:52:38Z")
Also, "natural family planning " =/= “rhythm method”. We know a lot more about human reproductive physiology now than in the 1930s. Modern natural family planning methods may use a variety of indicators of ovulation (basal body temperature, vaginal mucus consistency, presence of particular hormones in the urine), and don’t simply rely on looking at the calendar. The most recent studies on state-of-the-art NFP suggests that they are a bit less effective than the pill (under typical use), but probably as good or better than the condom. I can furnish cites on request. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/131 "2014-03-03T17:53:47Z")
There are potential reasons to use NFP even if you’re not Catholic (for example, some women find they don’t like side effects of the Pill like weight gain or decreased libido). ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/132 "2014-03-03T18:21:43Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Natural family planning. Here, you are simply choosing to engage in sex acts you know will be sterile: you aren’t taking a potentially fertile sex act and _rendering_ it sterile. The Catholic church grounds its teaching against birth control (at least, currently) on neo-Aristotelian reasoning about ends and purposes, it doesn’t ground it on ‘be fruitful and multiply’, and it has no objection to family planning and small families in principle (though there is a teaching that all marriages should be geared towards childrearing). Interesting, thanks. So is the prohibition against birth control unrelated to the prohibition against masturbation? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/133 "2014-03-03T19:00:32Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Interesting, thanks. So is the prohibition against birth control unrelated to the prohibition against masturbation? As far as I know, they’re both related (considered sexual sins, and specifically unnatural sexual sins.) In both cases you’re deriving sexual pleasure from a misuse of the sexual faculty (masturbation, obviously, is a sterile ‘sex act’). Aquinas isn’t an official doctrinal/dogmatic source (only Popes and Ecumenical Councils have that authority, I think), but he’s certainly one of the most influential Catholic moralists, so this is what he says on the topic: “I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.” Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.” Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.” ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/134 "2014-03-03T19:14:53Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > According to Talmud scholars everywhere, the Bible forbids contraception. OTTOMH > > G-d said “Be fruitful and multiply”. If you use contraception, you’re actively disobeying this command. > > You’re not supposed to waste seed. This includes not only a ban on condoms, but a command that all sex must end in ejaculation in the vagina. You’re wife can perform fellatio as foreplay. But, you can only yeehaw in the hoohah. > > You may recall occasional stories about Orthodox Jewish workers refusing to sell condoms. Aren’t you disobeying the command to be fruitful and multiply any time you’re not actively procreating? If I’ve already had five kids, can I start using contraception at that point, since I’ve already multiplied? Do Jewish scholars have any scriptural basis for the prohibition of contraception aside from the “Be fruitful” command? Do they use the story of Onan, which is… of debatable relevance? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/135 "2014-03-03T21:27:42Z")
If we are going to be pharisees about it, we might as well stop eating bacon cheeseburgers (one of America’s greatest contributions to global cuisine) and loving our neighbors. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/136 "2014-03-04T00:39:02Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Aren’t you disobeying the command to be fruitful and multiply any time you’re not actively procreating? What do you mean by “not actively procreating”? Keep in mind, in traditional Jewish communities arranged marriages are common. Once you reach the age of majority, you’ll be married and procreating soon. > [@](#): > > If I’ve already had five kids, can I start using contraception at that point, since I’ve already multiplied? No, you can’t. > [@](#): > > Do Jewish scholars have any scriptural basis for the prohibition of contraception aside from the “Be fruitful” command? Do they use the story of Onan, which is… of debatable relevance? As I recall they do have other basis, I just can’t remember what it is right now. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/137 "2014-03-04T13:56:33Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Your sister and her husband are entirely copacetic under Catholic moral rules, but I’d phrase their argument a bit differently. > > Catholic moral teaching about birth control is actually a bit narrower than people sometimes think. I’m not RC, but here is the teaching as I understand it: > > “To willfully and deliberately render a marital sex act infertile, is to pervert the nature of the sex act, and is (therefore) forbidden.” > > Here’s what that doesn’t cover. > > 1. Estrogen and/or progesterone taken for medical rather than contraceptive purposes. Here, the infertility is a side effect rather than a deliberately chosen outcome. (Actually, since birth control protects against ovarian cancer, some people have argued that just about _every_ woman could legitimately invoke the medical exception, and be morally in the clear). > > 2. People engaged in nonmarital sex acts (premarital, extramarital, homosexual, etc.) who use condoms or birth control pills. Here, Catholic teaching already forbids the sex act itself, and you aren’t making it any _worse_ by using contraception. The entire Catholic objection to birth control is that it denatures the marital sex act, but here there is no legitimate sex act to be denatured. The Catholic church is, as far as I know, silent on whether or not people engaged in premarital sex, adultery, etc. should use contraception or not: as they put it, their business is not telling people how to sin more or less safely. > > 3. Natural family planning. Here, you are simply choosing to engage in sex acts you know will be sterile: you aren’t taking a potentially fertile sex act and _rendering_ it sterile. The Catholic church grounds its teaching against birth control (at least, currently) on neo-Aristotelian reasoning about ends and purposes, it doesn’t ground it on ‘be fruitful and multiply’, and it has no objection to family planning and small families in principle (though there is a teaching that all marriages should be geared towards childrearing). > > 4. Taking birth control protectively, against the danger of rape (e.g. for women who live in environments with high rape risk, like war zones). Here, the woman is not choosing to engage in a sex act, she is running the risk of having one forced upon her, so again, there is (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) no legitimate marital sex act which is being denatured. Only having sex when one cannot conceive is the most unnatural thing there is, as far as birth control is concerned, and had made many Marriages for a lot of people I know a lot of unhappy couples. Just as surgery is an unnatural thing or going without food . If person has a low sex drive waiting may be okay for them, but the natural thing is for couples to have sex when the mood strikes both of them. A couple should be able to use the mind they were given and not be told when they can have martial relations, mind control just doesn’t work for the good of a person. Perhaps the R C C’s teachings on Birth control is a way of putting a guilt trip on a couple. may also be the cause of the problems of being a priest? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/138 "2014-03-04T15:33:00Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Only having sex when one cannot conceive is the most unnatural thing there is…A couple should be able to use the mind they were given While I don’t disagree that there might well be strong undercurrent of guilt and forcible subservience in the RCC, those two sentences of yours above are really interesting. First it’s “unnatural” to not boink whenever we want, but then we should be expected to use our sentience to overcome our base instincts. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/139 "2014-03-04T18:41:49Z")
> [@andros](#): > > While I don’t disagree that there might well be strong undercurrent of guilt and forcible subservience in the RCC, those two sentences of yours above are really interesting. > > First it’s “unnatural” to not boink whenever we want, but then we should be expected to use our sentience to overcome our base instincts. Which is it? I’m not **monavis** , but she didn’t say anything about sexual desire being a base instinct that must be overcome. She said that married couples should be able to decide for themselves when to have sex: > [@monavis](#): > > A couple should be able to use the mind they were given **and not be told when they can have martial relations** , mind control just doesn’t work for the good of a person. (Emphasis added.) ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/140 "2014-03-04T19:08:07Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > Assuming gay acceptance continues its trend and eventually becomes a non-issue, will the Bible be taken less seriously as a source of authority? > > The argument I see that leads to “yes” is that a society that openly accepts gays goes against the word of the bible. > > However it seems there is a modern tendency to clear up loose ends through interpretations of convenience, so maybe the Bible will emerge unscathed. > > My opinion: this is too big a concession. I think the bible will lose some amount of authority. The bible lost that battle a long time ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414.md?page=8)