The gays openly preach for CHILDREN to be recruited for their sick ideology, then expect normal people to accept them for "themselves". This is exactly what the pedophiles want. The gays are disgusting and openly accept and preach pedophilia.

And after pedophilia, incest will be the natural follow on. Just watch.

God help us and have mercy on the children

Right, and that includes so much of the Catholic Church playing footsy with the homosexuals. They're going to make sure nobody out does them in (false) compassion.

Back when “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest” came out I heard for the first time the phrase, “the inmates have taken over the asylum”.

Can truer words be spoken in this unenlightened age of deviancy?

The road to pedophilia was always the goal. The guy who "designed" the equal logo and was a big voice in the gay marriage push is a pedo. There is a large amount of pedos in the gay activist movement. Look at the sexualization of children that's already happening. It's one final step to ending the law prohibiting the abuse of children. And it will happen because Dems don't care. Look at who they've elected.

It can all be boiled down to this quote by Russian (Orthodox) writer. Fyodor Dostoyevsky:
"If there is no God, everything is permitted".

I often ask leftist pagans how they account for evil in the world. Not just "mistakes" and misbehavior, but stark, raving Evil, the existence of which they won't deny.

If evil is a natural condition of many in society, then why oppose it?

Up until just a few years ago, most young people thought of their heterosexuality as a fixed trait that was part of their essence. Now, many think of sexuality, even their own sexuality, as variable, even fluid. The great exemplar of twenty-first century enlightenment, Barack Obama, was a generation ahead when he considered becoming gay in college. Now, without any principled understanding of essential truths about maleness and femaleness, our world has become unrecognizable.

But three striking things remain. The first is that empires fail and cultures die. We do not have the luxury of an idle hope that things will right themselves. They may not. But on the other hand, as St. Paul says: “Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more” (Rom 5:20). God allows evil that good may come of it. And finally, God has undoubtedly blessed the American experiment in all of its ugliness and glory. We must hope.

Someone asked me recently how did we fall this far? Why does 5% (approx) of the population (LGBT) community ram their agenda down our throats? And now how is .5% of the population (trans) being as successful? Why has the other 95% lost the right to pray in school that they pay for with tax dollars? Why are children allowed to kill there babies without their parents knowledge, but they can't smoke a cigarette, have a drink, be prescribed an aspirin and forced to be covered under the same parents medical plan until they are 26?

It is undoubtedly a multi-variate problem but at its root, the bold audacity of the homosexual and transgendered denial of nature is scaring people into submission, in part because our sense of truth has been so deeply corrupted by the Sexual Revolution and in part because like Adam in the garden, we lack courage.

Amen to that!

Adult/child sex is the endgame. It's the sex (including young blood consumption/injection) which awards occult powers. It's the chosen sex of Silicon Valley and Hollywood - the two (taunt, wound up) knots of power which establish and control nearly every image and word the (fooled and deluded) world calls its own.

The quickened pace of conditioning of our language and imagination has made us numb to the operation, and its end goal. Two, three years from now those ends will be imposed on us.

Question is - will the Catholic Church succumb as it (evidenced by behavior, inaction, and pastoral practice) has with homosexuality? If the Church establishment had noted - and was alarmed - by the danger embedded in the acceptance of homosexuality Pope Francis' sex summit would have had a different outcome.

As it is, Church professionals will be talking - echoing the elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley - about the specialized spirituality (meeting God especially so) in the bedding down of twelve year-olds and the sacramental receiving of traumatized blood of four-yeor olds.

What's to prevent them, now that the deification potential of sodomy is already openly discussed among key Catholic brokers of Power and Principalities within the Church?

It's time to don your Catholic Yellow Vest.

God didn't resort to destroying Sodom until their moral degeneracy had reached "rape mobs exist with the approval of the government." In short, things can get far worse.

I disagree that abolition of slavery is an example of the “dialectic”. The dialectic is what led to the Nebraska Kansas compromise of 1850. That failed compromise is what ultimately led to the Civil War. The Civil War, blood and force, is what led to the abolition of slavery; not dialectic compromise.

The dialectic, as you say, leads to compromise between good and evil. Good cannot compromise with evil. By compromising good with evil, evil prevails.

Jesus said, “I did not come to bring peace but the sword”. Good must be defended by force and sometimes with violence. Evil will advance to the extent Christians are unwilling to support pure good with their lives.

Which will lead to bestiality, which will lead to incest, which will lead to plural marriages, which will lead to group marriages, which will lead to orgies, which will lead to Hell. Satan loves what is happening.

Quibble: polygamy would not be as bad as some of the things which are already legal.

It is all sick and perverted Andrew. Polygamy is just an excuse for a man not to stray from his wife. It can have it all. Being a woman I would not want my husband to be messing around with other women. It is very unclean. It is sick and unnatural and I don't see how it can work, unless the women are so dependent on that man.

I agree. It's just that we're far past the point where polygamy being controversial makes any sense. I was expecting polygamy to be accepted before gay marriage.

Polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament, but with today's mentality, how can one permit polygamy and not permit polyandry?

You couldn't, but in a way, we're already there with no-fault divorce and de facto legalized adultery. Still not nearly as perverse as the crimes against nature like sodomy.

And if we finally approve of pedophilia, then does that mean that all of these lawsuits and incarceration of Roman Catholic priests, and Jewish Rabbi's and Baptist ministers, will have to be reversed? I mean, if this kind of behavior is finally deemed "normal", then how can they be prosectued for it ?

I have a hypothesis and I pray it's wrong, but I think the perverts who want to prey on children will try to use the whole notion of "consent" as a way to make it legal. If one looks at the mainstream sex ed for even lower grades, it seems to all be centred around "consent" - this is a gigantic red flag that few seem to see. They will focus so hard on this notion that within 20 years they may desensitize the mainstream culture to accept ending the age of consent.
We must remember that things that were unthinkable 50 years ago are now accepted by the mainstream culture. And its getting sicker by the day.

They're already doing it. They encourage sex play among children. I wonder if one day sex ed will require children to have sex in front of the class in order to pass. Huxley's Brave New World was right: if you raise children from infancy to believe this is normal, they will never question it. Never mind what pedophiles would do with it, it would be terrible enough when ten year-old girls are getting pregnant by their classmates.

And after that, even sheep will be considered to have given consent. This vile evil/sickness has no viable end in sight.

This article is interesting, but one very important thing is missing - the motivation that decides which direction society will go when faced with dialectic opposites. We might have become stricter about sexual morality, as happened in the UK under Queen Victoria. Religious values triumphed over the increasingly amoral "lifestyle choices" of the 18th century, and the pendulum swung back to stronger public morality. In the last 50 years we've witnessed society caving in to the demands of the LGBT lobby and now we have the transgender mess. What made the difference may have been related to the huge increase in drug abuse during the 60s. Baby-boomers lost their way, abandoned religion, and took up self-gratification on a huge scale. Let's hope it is not too late for society to wake up and realize what is happening - and then move back to the laws of God, for the sake of mankind's future.

The only difference between sexual perversion and drug abuse is that in the case of sexual perversion, the intoxicants are produced by your own body. Honestly, I'm wondering how long it'll be before somebody decides to skip the middleman and start abusing dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin directly.

Even that Disgusting Picture of one of the so called Pride Things is enough to show the Decadence that goes with this behaviour. When Abraham pleaded with The Lord not to Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and started out with 50 just Men to find i really think that we're getting to that stage now . Not all of the People in Sodom and Gomorrah were Perverts but none of them it seems disagreed with the Practicing Homosexual way of life .
Having just read about Joe Biden who said Mike Pence was a good man but then backtracked when the Deviants attacked him and said that Mike Pence was that BS word Homophobic it seems we're not far from those days just now.
As for the normalisation of Pedophilia am sure that will come within the next couple of years. The Perverts are on a role and they are certainly not going to alter their Lifestyles. No its us who must alter our views to go along with their Lies.

Biden should retire from politics, even refuse to attend the Democratic National Convention. He would not be exposing Christ and the Church to shame, nor scandalizing the country, if he were not seeking to advance his political career. He's set for life already, and he seems willing to obey Christ and the Church in his private life; this alone he lacks: Accepting the responsibility of Catholic officials in government to uphold natural law, do justice, and protect the Church from her enemies. Perhaps the Socialists will force Biden to confront what the Democratic Party has become, and make him understand that a Catholic can have no part in it.

Nope. The next sexual taboo to be legalised will be polygamy and other less stable sexual relationships, enabled by the welfare state, and the normalization of polyandry in western dating habits and the emasculation of western secular men.

Support for polygamy has skyrocketed amongst secular people under 30.

https://news.gallup.com/opi....

We are witnessing the creation of a useless cohort of manchildren raised by single mothers and feminists, who dont have a single masculine bone in their body, who cant whoo a woman and make her knees weak like the older gen of men, are impoverished or jobless, and lack meaning and direction in their lives. Modern secular women are empowered and want to do better. Unfortunately, with their rejection of Christian mores, they tend to make bad dating choices and want to have their cake and eat it too, or are refusing to mate with the very men their feminist predecessors had a hand in moulding. Now godless women dont care about marriage, the nuclear family or monogamy, and wouldnt mind sharing the few decent, or attractive but irresponsible men, even if it means their children having no stable father figure in their lives. The degenerate secular state then has a bigger role to play in the shaping of our youth. Feminists also promote this as empowering because it feeds in to their agenda. This is what has happened in feminist progressive welfare states like Norway, where a quarter of men and growing, are in this category, and where children are raised and brainwashed by the tyranical progressive state.

http://sciencenordic.com/qu...

Pedophilia wont ever be legalised but we will see the destruction of the family, the traditional male provider and monogamy, which will have even worse social and political consequences. Remember, for those scaremongering about pedophilia and transgenderism whilst ignoring the sexual habits of normal young women and men , most pedophile victims were children who lived in fatherless homes. Their mothers partners, tend to be the culprit. Single motherhood, even amongst WASPS is predicted to explode and become the status quo in the next few decades. With the destruction of traditional Christian monogamy, we are opening up a dangerous Pandora box which will be hard to close.

Good points but regrettably I disagree that it won't be legalized. I think that is exactly the end goal of all this.
We have seen the beginnings- the child marriage practices of certain immigrant cultures, the sexualization and grooming of children by the media and even children's media, the great lengths many homosexual clergy have gone to protect each other's pederasty, the focus of children's sex ed on "consent" instead of morality-
It's coming. It's the dream of many degenerates who have their allies now in the courts and education systems who want a new sodom and gomarrah.
Personally I believe this may well be the last straw for the Lord.

Children 16 or younger getting married is still legal with parental consent in most States. Some states even have a carve-out in their statutory rape laws which make being married to the alleged victim at the time of (or even in some cases at any time after) the sexual encounter a positive defense against statutory rape. Furthermore, common law holds that marriage automatically makes you a legal adult if you aren't already (as does joining the military).

Of course, this entire concept of adolescence is a relatively recent development. Getting married in your mid-teens used to be a lot more common, and neither revelation nor natural law say anything against it. The bride and groom must understand and freely consent to the covenant of marriage and be physically capable of consummating it, and Catholics are bound by the laws of the Church. So yes, it would be invalid for a prepubescent child to marry, or for a Catholic who has not attained the minimum age established in Canon Law to marry, but that secular society does not consider one to become an adult until age 18 or 21 has nothing to do with when a person is able to consent to marriage. That is not to say that getting married as a teenager is wise in many cases, but wisdom is not a requirement for a valid marriage. God consecrates even foolish marriages, provided that the couple genuinely did commit to live as husband and wife until death do them part.

Excellent ...concise and cogent observations...more must be done to expose the diabolical fraud Kinsey perpetrated on humanity.

If our government keeps following along with our cultural decline, it will lose the respect of the people. At some point, people will start to think, "How can we get rid of our government and what should we replace it with?" I am not one who would go along with violence, but others would. We need to incorporate some aspects of the natural law into our constitution before it's too late.

it is very important to stand up against these aberrations. each time we capitulate they gain ground & never back up--family & biblical values lose. The bible's values become denigrated, even tho they've been the same for 2000 years--now they're "evolving". The church itself & the leaders need to stand up to the Fr Martins & others & say "NO"!

The typical response is, “well, that’s your belief, I am not a Christian”. Yet, as with abortion, we can make sustainable arguments with science, biology and nature (the natural law).

The head of the snake is contraception.

St. Peter Damian included contraception and masturbation as acts of sodomy.

You seem to be suggesting that acceptance of contraception means that it is more difficult to call homosexual acts immoral. If so this is a dangerous notion, the complementarity between men and women cannot be reduced to sex or procreation, even if the occasional sex-obsessed Catholic seems to think so. It is also perilously close to the idea advanced by some that sex is inherently wrong, redeemed only by procreation.

The possibility of having children is indeed part of the complementarity, and a foundation for marriage. That said, allowing non-procreative sex, which is built into God’s design for men and women (and how NFP works), does not mean homosexual sex is fine.

Such thinking also shows disrespect for Scripture, where homosexuality is definitely condemned, but separating sex and procreation in principle is not.

Yes, Mr. Cooper, JesuCorSanctissimum is suggesting that accepting contraception leads to accepting the LGBT ideology. And he's right. You can see one succinct explanation for why over here.
Not even us 'sex-obsessed Catholics' think that the complimentarity of man and woman can be reduced to sex or procreation. Otherwise, we wouldn't condemn audultery as contrary to the natural law (and we do).
And FYI, NFP and contraception are not ipso facto equivalent.

Your link makes a silly analogy because the TV is a unitasker that delivers most if not all its value when it is performing that one narrow task. Sex between a husband and wife on rare occasions is procreative, but most of the time merely supports the relationship that is overall fruitful. In other words, it still has value even when unplugged.

And yes, NFP is contraception, and it has nothing to do with the abstinence part. Rather it is leveraging the naturally contraceptive nature of the woman’s body most of the month. This makes it difficult to claim that artificially inducing the same thing is wrong. To be consistent you would have to be against artificial light making it possible to play sports at night, against artificial sweeteners, etc.

You obviously don't understand the analogy, Mr. Cooper. The point is not in its value but in its meaning, in the sense of its grounding telos. And it's exactly once we completely remove the principle undergirding why the thing exists that the various features associated with it lose their meaning. That should have been easy for you to grasp, but instead you changed the subject and straw-manned the original argument in the same swoop.

And your new attempt to equate NFP with contraception is even more egregious.
1. A woman's body is not 'naturally contraceptive,' even when infertile. To say so is to abuse the English language, since 'contraceptive' means 'opposed to conception,' whereas infertility is not per seagainst conception in the first place.
2. You should know without being told the distinction between using something in a way contrary to its natural ends, and using it in a way which is different from its natural ends.
3. You should also know the difference between actively interfering with nature's purposes, and simply acting under certain kinds of circumstances.
4. The natural law theory is not opposed to things that are artificial per se. The real question is whether the things in question are being used to subvert nature's purposes. Your examples of artificial lighting and sweeteners are laughable.
I'm pretty sure I could say more against this, but instead I'm going to ask you to go and watch this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryn...

(I'd send you the paper this was based off of, but Google Drive is making things difficult for me right now.)

Feser's paper can be found here.

Interesting that you were all confidence and bluster, then suddenly went silent. This has happened multiple times at about the same point when the topic of natural law comes up though. Both known authors with formal training such as Steve Skojechttps://disqus.com/home/dis... and matthewchoffmanhttps://disqus.com/home/dis..., then anonymous but well-versed amateurs like jonnybeeski3https://disqus.com/home/dis..., Rocío Matamoroshttps://disqus.com/home/dis... , and Nickhttps://disqus.com/home/dis... have quietly slipped away.

To be fair to the experts, about a year ago caththeologian wrote an article for Crisishttps://www.crisismagazine.... where he admitted with refreshing honesty that many of the usual natural law arguments against contraception are weak, but then supported (based on Germain Grisez) newer ones that are no better https://disqus.com/home/dis... . It’s not clear that John M. Vella understands this issue, but if he does that’s one article he should wish he had back.

So feel free to explore around those links and see if you can find anything that helps you, but if you can’t then at least man-up and admit you might need to reconsider some things.

I had written a reply to you, but I only found out today that the system removed it as spam. Here I'm giving you a shortened version of it:
1. By definition, steril sex does not contribute to the propagation of any species, though I don't dispute your claim that it can help keep a marriage stable. Your original mistake was in treating procreation and unification as if they were entirely independent and on a par. But procreation is more important; it's the reason why sexual union exists. Your assumption is false. I doubt you meant to turn away from that assumption.
2. You already know the natural law does not condemn 'artificiality' per se. In the same vein, the results of an action do not define the act's moral status. In that light, my distinction between contraception and NFP is clearly valid; they may have the same (proximate) results, but they differ according to their means in a critical way (which I will spell out if this response gets to you).
3. You raise a fair question when you ask why it is intrinsically wrong to use a faculty contrary to its natural ends. However, it goes too far afield of the original questions, which were «Are NFP and contraception different?» and «Is NFP compatible with the natural law?» We can worry about this if we ever come to a solution on the other two questions.
4. Your examples are still laughable. Start with lighting. Just because people can abuse something does not show that the thing is evil in itself. Hence, these lights are not evil if we’re using them in a way that doesn’t conflict with what you call ‘nature’s purpose of rest.’ Moreover, there’s nothing per se wrong in refusing to exercise a faculty at some time. If I get enough rest by making my bedroom dark in the middle of the day, I’m not frustrating ‘nature’s purpose of resting.’ Now onto treadmills. In the worst case, your legs are being put to a purpose other than their natural one. But even if we grant that you are using them in a way contrary to their end, given that the resultant evils are minor, we have strong reason to believe that using a treadmill is only a very minor evil at most.

Please, go and actually study what the natural law tradition actually says. I originally said I respect you too much to continue tolerating your ignorance. I still respect you in that way for raising these questions and trying to settle these issues fairly. All the same, because you jumped to conclusions about me and repeated your mistakes after being called out for them, I respect you slightly less.

Part 1:

I had written a reply to you, but I only found out today that the system removed it as spam.

Try splitting long posts into two parts, with the second replying to the first.

Your original mistake was in treating procreation and unification as if they were entirely independent and on a par.

Where exactly? The observation that the ends are separable for individual sex acts is independent of the question of which is more important. Note also, if it makes you more comfortable, that sterile sex can advance the procreative end by strengthening the relationship, as proper procreation in humans includes raising the children in a good environment. CatholicKniggit raised some interesting points here a few days ago https://disqus.com/home/dis... .

natural law does not condemn 'artificiality' per se.

True.

the results of an action do not define the act's moral status.

Maybe not alone.

my distinction between contraception and NFP is clearly valid ... which I will spell out if this response gets to you

Doesn’t follow, and did you forget to spell it out?

Part 2:

You raise a fair question when you ask why it is intrinsically wrong to use a faculty contrary to its natural ends.

With contraception sex is not being used contrary to its natural ends, rather an end is being set aside. The intrinsic morality of such, or even using contrary to, is the key question. It is the point where most proponents of the natural law argument against contraception go silent, or less commonly spin off into multiple digressions and smokescreens.

Hence, these lights are not evil if we’re using them in a way that doesn’t conflict with what you call ‘nature’s purpose of rest.’

They do if used say for playing baseball at night. Do you have any idea what time those kids are getting to bed?

Moreover, there’s nothing per se wrong in refusing to exercise a faculty at some time.

Bingo, but you are arguing against yourself now.

... we have strong reason to believe that using a treadmill is only a very minor evil at most.

Your willingness to even entertain the evil of treadmills rather than question your other assumptions is telling. It really comes down to “contrary” vs. “other ends”. Both contraception and treadmills are the latter, although when used properly they can indirectly support the more important end. Abortion and a treadmill that crippled you would be the former.

Here’s why this really matters: Opposition to non-abortifacient contraception is not a legitimate pro-life issue. It blurs the clear line that life begins at conception, and introduces all sorts of fallacious and specious arguments that only damage the credibility of those who propose them, thus making ending abortion more difficult.

Mr. Cooper:
I decided I was going to wait before spelling it out to make sure that the system didn’t delete the response. When the longer original was removed, it looked like it was accepted. But since it went through, I’ll begin by spelling out my claim.
Now, I did not say my distinction between NFP and contraception follows from the facts I presented, that (1) Natural law theory does not condemn artificiality, and (2) does not consign moral status based on results.* I only said that it is valid: it is consistent with what has been said so far and has a place in our ongoing argument. This is straightforward: from (2), your argument that the two are equivalent because they have the same results does not hold. And of course, from (1), the problem is not that one employs artificial means. Instead, the two are different because contraception actively interferes with the procreative end of our sexual faculties, even when used only as a precaution, while NFP does not. As can be seen, the former is inconsistent with the principles touched upon, that (a) it is intrinsically evil to actively use a faculty in a way contrary to its natural ends (b) it is intrinsically evil to actively interfere with a faculty in such a way as to frustrate its natural ends.** Obviously, this is not enough to show that NFP is okay, but if it is intrinsically wrong, it can’t be because it violates these principles. Nick gave a link to the essay I wanted to send you. I’d advise reading the whole thing so that you know where Dr. Feser and I are coming from, but his defense begins on page 398 (the 23rd page).
You accused me of arguing against myself in saying «there’s nothing per se wrong in refusing to exercise a faculty at some time. » This is a misunderstanding on your part. You’re separating procreation from unity as if they were distinct faculties, when they are in fact intimately connected ends of one faculty: our sexual powers. The point was that there is nothing wrong in refraining from having sexual relations. That’s completely different from what you implied I was saying.
* Since you responded, «Maybe not alone, » I’ll point out that in the classical natural law theory Aristotelians embrace, the witness of natural consequences is not an appeal to the results of an action. The idea is that behaviors that go against the grain of our nature as rational animals will consistently lead to negative results, and that these serve as a punishment for such behaviors.
** I’m writing two principles in an attempt to clarify what has been said earlier, since it seems that some of what you say later on rests on a misinterpretation of the original statement. I’m also replacing ‘intrinsically wrong’ with ‘intrinsically evil’ since I realized that ‘wrong’ implies more about agency and circumstances than I would like to suggest. And to qualify the latter principle, the principle of totality allows for amputations and similar acts if there are grave reasons (e.g. saving a life).

Part 2:
You implied that the procreative and unitive ends are independent and on a par when you said, «In other words, [sex] still has value even when unplugged. » Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this argument. The fact is, if the unitive end is subordinate to the procreative end, then the connection Daniel Moody drew between contraception and accepting perversion follows, for:
P1. If the features of a system are arbitrary, then we can licitly change them on a whim.
P2. If we can licitly change the features on a whim, we can change anything else bearing on these features (e.g. context).
P3. If the features of our sexual faculties are not teleologically grounded, then they are arbitrary.
C. If the features of our sexual faculties are not grounded teleologically, then we can licitly change them and anything else bearing on them on a whim.
If procreation is the ground for our sexual powers, then because contraception negates this ground, we wind up saying that our sexual faculties are not teleologically grounded. They become arbitrary, which you don’t want to admit. You need another teleological ground to avoid this syllogism, and it seems to be unity between the spouses.* And whether the two functions are on a par or not bears heavily to the questions we started with. If the ends are not separable, then in denying the procreative end, you must also throw out the unitive end. If the two are separable, then you might be able to sacrifice one and keep the other.
As I had said before, I won’t dispute that sterile sex might strengthen a marriage. I’ll only make two remarks. First, even this claim is true, it is not sufficient reason to force the sexual act to be sterile. Second, since ancient Christian writers simply told people who decided not to have more children to abstain, I find it unnecessary for fostering a good environment for children.
* I’m curious how this unity can be defended as a purely heterosexual thing. You can’t intend to ground this unity solely in terms of an emotional bond, lest we grant that homosexual relationships are in principle legitimate. It’s not a question of the ‘value’ of the act.

Part 3
You claim that «With contraception sex is not being used contrary to its natural ends, rather an end is being set aside. » You’re being sophistical in saying that. The very act of setting an end aside in this way just is to put the faculty to an end contrary to its nature (see part 1, principle (b)). There are ways to set aside an end, but deliberately forcing the situation so that the faculty cannot attain its end when it otherwise would does more than that; it also violates principle (b). So saying, while you are right that «It really comes down to “contrary” vs. “other ends”, » you are seriously, seriously wrong to say that contraception is a case of putting a faculty to an end other than its natural one.
I have little confidence in your observation that the key question is whether putting a faculty to an end contrary to its natural one, not because it is suspect, but because this raising the question here is a red herring; when asked «Do A, B, and C entail D? » we lose our place in asking «Are A, B, and C true? » I have even less confidence in your claim that proponents of natural law theory «spin off into multiple digressions and smokescreens» when you raise this new question. You’ve already shown me that you don’t know this tradition very well, so what you think are just irrelevant distractions are probably not so. (And doubtless, given how you don’t know natural law theory, you’re in no position to complain about specious arguments.) Certainly not with people who have tried to be consistent with the natural law theory, rather than just using it as an ad hoc excuse to uphold one Church teaching.
You later complain, «Your willingness to even entertain the evil of treadmills rather than question your other assumptions is telling. » Considering that these principles are espoused by the Church, and I have what I consider strong reasons for adhering to her teachings, I’d consider it wiser to derive a conclusion that seems strange to moderns than give up on the larger body of my beliefs. That’s perfectly rational. Either way, it should have been obvious to you and anyone else that I only made that concession to cover my bases (and because you’re being as stubborn as I am). I did, after all, explain why treadmills are not evil. But then, I’m starting to expect bad faith out of you. Your attempt to show that artificial lights are evil is one more reason for that expectation. You said, «They do if used say for playing baseball at night. Do you have any idea what time those kids are getting to bed? » This is a blatant red herring; I had already acknowledged the potential for abuse, and then pointed out that such a potential is not enough for saying that something is contrary to the natural law. Instead, you go back and appeal to a potential abuse, and one which isn’t very clear, for it assumes too much. I have no problem admitting that NFP can be abused (it was first suggested as a concession, with abstinence being preferred, and I side with this preference), but that wasn’t one of our opening issues anyway.
You close by saying, «Opposition to non-abortifacient contraception is not a legitimate pro-life issue. It blurs the clear line that life begins at conception. » Both claims are false. In the second, the two are so obviously unrelated that you have no right to assert it without argument. On the first, abortion and contraception are closely related. If we want it to die. You can see that following these links:
https://www.firstthings.com...
https://www.commonwealmagaz...
With how long these dialogues are becoming, something will have to be cut out in the future. I'm also going to try to employ something more syllogistic in the future.

Part 1:

your argument that the two are equivalent because they have the same results does not hold

Where?

contraception actively interferes with the procreative end of our sexual faculties ... while NFP does not.

It absolutely does, the fact is it uses the woman’s natural biology which by its nature interferes with the procreative end. This is no different from using the natural impermeability of rubber. You are making a distinction without merit.

Dr. Feser ... defense begins on page 398 (the 23rd page)

There is nothing new there - it boils down to waving his hands at the “metaphysics”, and counterexamples such as the treadmill make him dead in the water.

You implied that the procreative and unitive ends are independent and on a par when you said, «In other words, [sex] still has value even when unplugged. »

Just separable for individual acts. That does not imply arbitrary, etc.

I’m curious how this unity can be defended as a purely heterosexual thing.

It supports a relationship that is procreative overall and complementary roles that are a foundation of society. Using weak arguments from natural law just undermines the case against homosexuality.

Part 2:

The very act of setting an end aside in this way just is to put the faculty to an end contrary to its nature (see part 1, principle (b)).

You’re appealing to a principle that has not been demonstrated to be true.

Considering that these principles are espoused by the Church, and I have what I consider strong reasons for adhering to her teachings ...

That’s fine, but if you want to rely on an appeal to authority just go there, don’t try to dress it up with sketchy arguments. You can oppose homosexuality merely on an appeal to Scriptural authority, which in the Christian context is much stronger than constantly evolving Catholic philosophical flights of fancy.

Your attempt to show that artificial lights are evil ...

No. If you are correct that subverting nature’s purpose is wrong and thus contraception is intrinsically evil then so is night baseball. That is clearly preposterous though, so you are unlikely to be right.

This story is applicable: http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/...