having said that, i must say i'm not against contraceptives, and that twocents is pretty acute in his identifying the oversimplistic link that is sometimes made between marriage and contraception.Originally posted by twocents:I think you're a bit confused.
This is the same confusion engendered by the advertisement, showing that the Lucas article has a certain merit.
Despite the laudable family-planning benefits contraception can bring to married couples, contraception is contraception, marriage is marriage.
Contraception is not marriage, marriage is not contraception.
Marriage is more than just sex with contraception or sex without contraception.
The stability of marriage cannot be reduced to just a contraceptive decision.
The concept of marriage is dealt an injustice if it is reduced to merely the idea of sex with a contraceptive decision waiting to be made.
I got your stance clear from the very beginning,as per my first few posts and it still perturbs me how others cannot understand pluralism as a concept.Originally posted by christcentric:hey sgforum, lucas here.
just to clarify : i did not write against contraceptives. I'm writing against sex toys being marketed as a symbol of matrimony, and against the conspicuous advertisments of such implements.