Responses to Upset Readers of "Fall of Eden"

Everything needs clarification

Not surprisingly, I had a number of upset responses with my Fall of Eden post yesterday.  I took sometime to clarify some things for those seeking an answer on Facebook, and I've decided to put them on here as well because I felt my responses written there would also be useful to clarify on this blog. I realize not everyone has my Matt Aujero FB account to have seen the discussion going on in there.

The following are verbatim responses to me on Facebook, and my response thereafter. 

Individual #1: 
"Wow Matt. You make some important points. Profound truth. But when you denounce contraception and gay relationships in the same breath as abortion you lose me."

My response:
"Thank you for the affirmation. Also, you are definitely right in that all of these things do not have equal levels of consequences. I was simply recognizing that these said topics come from a root contraceptive mentality."

Individual #2:
"Why you gotta pick on the gays? We are very nice people--- and yes when me and my boyfriend [have sex] it's about pleasure and being closer to each other- Tell me again why that's not beautiful? Just because we can't make a baby? (which is actually a huge benefit- cas I have no desire for children what so ever, there hands are always sticky- it's strange) Following catholic logic that implies that queer folks should be denied the ability to bond with their partners? Do you really think that? I love reading your perspective because I find if interesting- but when you dismissed a whole class of people it's strange to me- not because Jesus loves or what not but cause that's based in the dehumanizations of the other- which is against church teachings ( and btw- the one thing I still believe - that there is dignity of the human person )"

My response:
"My dear friend, you and I both know that I have nothing against gay people as I have a number of gay friends, including you. I will never forget how you were there for me when I found out my mom was sick for the first time freshman year. Always grateful for that.

In this post I do not mean to “pick on gays.” In fact, if I’m calling out anything, it’s ALL acts of sex that is solely for pleasure and bonding. So if there are any fingers being pointed, they are also pointed at myself, as I have been there.

As Pope Francis would say, who am I to judge? My intention is not to judge, dismiss, or dehumanize. If that comes across, I apologize. I do not think my friends who watch porn are any less of a person because they watch porn nor do I think people who have sex outside of marriage or use contraceptives are not good people. Instead, I want to explain where the root of all arguments are drawn on these topics ---does love=sex? If it does, then contraceptive mentality makes sense. If sex is more than just about love but also includes (and not just exclusive to) the creation of life, then where I start my argument is different than where another would start theirs."

Individual #3:
"As a lifelong Unitarian Universalist, this reads as a myopic, limited, and limiting view of sex and sexuality. It never has and never will be exclusively about procreation...there are so many other emotional and spiritual facets to human sexuality that really should not be ignored. Check out the UU curriculum on sexuality education if you have the time/interest, I think both a practical and loving way to approach sexuality and sexual relationships from a spiritual perspective". http://www.uua.org/re/owl/

My Response:
I checked out your link and especially the Guidelines PDF. I appreciate how the curriculum really covers EVERYTING about sexuality in a very objective way. I believe part of the problem that the Catholic Church has (and could maybe learn from y’all) is that there is too much “thou shall not” moral ethics, and not enough tactful education, awareness, and discussions on WHY the Church believes what it does. I also agree with you that sex cannot be exclusively about procreation. If it seems like I was giving that impression in my post, I apologize. What I was saying is that sex cannot be exclusively and solely about pleasure and bonding; would you agree? What I may have omitted was what I think what sex is meant for: BOTH relationship and procreation.

--
I think the difference of these discussions is that they are more or less cordial from people with names (on Facebook).  I find it tiresome when I get attacks from "anonymous" comments on this blog.  I think it's healthy and just to have open discussions, but it's a little one-sided when responses are unsigned.  I much rather respond to an actual person.  Much love and God Bless.

Amén.