Is Contraceptive Sex Different From Same-Sex Sex?
What would be an evangelical theological response be to the notion that sex using artificial contraception is no different than sex between homosexuals? If gay sex is unnatural how is contraceptive sex natural?
Gay marriage has come to be widely accepted because our society stopped thinking of marriage as a conjugal union decades ago.
Between five and six decades ago, to be precise. That’s when the birth control pill — first made available to consumers for the treatment of menstrual disorders in 1957 and approved by the FDA for contraceptive use three years later — began to transform sexual relationships, and hence marriage, in the United States. Once pregnancy was decoupled from intercourse, pre-marital sex became far more common, which removed one powerful incentive to marry young (or marry at all). It likewise became far more common for newlyweds to give themselves an extended childless honeymoon (with some couples choosing never to have kids).
From a different angle, the biggest inconsistency is birth control pill using Christians arguing against gay marriage, some people are now arguing. Talking about morality divorced from redemptive history only muddles the discussion. So, arguing on the basis of immorality in the public square will fail every time. This is why Anderson and Robert George (see below) have focused on mothering and fathering as unique natural phenomena with respect to children. It’s not that they are simply against gay marriage morally (which is the only argument evangelicals have) but that human sexuality is about procreation and parenting. Hence, Vincent Palozzi’s Yahoo News article link above. Birth control pills (and other artificial contraceptives) made sex about something else other than its original design which established the “fairness” proposition in the gay marriage debate. Evangelicals seem ignorant (perhaps because they are unfamiliar with theological ethics) that the moral norms in Scripture are not arbitrary but normally point to creational norms with covenantal and redemptive purposes. Again, in Christian ethics, for example, the morality of human sexuality is a means of revealing a biblical theologically reality that is derivative of the doctrines of creation and redemption. Evangelicals aren’t even asking WHY God might have designed marriage and family the way he did (the ethics of the Pentateuch alone should make that clear as well as what theological and eschatological relaties those moral norms point to, etc.) Biblical ethics norms exists for reasons. . . .
As long as evangelicals argue about the morality of marriage divorced from biblical theology, as is currently being done, they will have no basis to argue about the ineffectiveness of the George/Anderson approach. Many are arguing that as soon as Christians started using artificial birth control, esp. the pill, they sacrificed their biblical theology of the body on the altar of America secular pragmatism and gave marriage away–hence the high divorce rate and now this issue (by divorcing sex from procreation). My guess is that evangelicals will not argue theologically against the Anderson/George approach on theological grounds (esp. if they have a robust doctrine of creation) but will rely on the secularist sexual pragmatist Western argument (explaining, in effect, why children get in the way of career pursuits and the attainment of the American dream).