What is worse? Homosexual sex OR Heterosexual sex outside marriage without birth control?

As far as I know, the only coherent answer to that question is the one that the Catholic church teaches. Basically, this says that sex is something which God designed and it has specific purposes that are intrinsic to its nature. By its nature, sex is uniative (a man and woman come together as one flesh, strenghtening the bonds betweem them) and is also the means of procreation.

When sex is stripped of these purposes, it becomes debased - reduced to something that is just a meaningless way of seeking pleasure. The two purposes of sex find their proper place in marriage. It strengthens the bond in which the husband and wife have vowed themselves to each other for life, and this strong marriage bond provides the core of a family in which children may be raised.

This teaching provides a clear rationale that can shed light on the whole of traditional Christian sexual ethics. Homosexual acts are wrong because they are intrinsically infertile. Masturbation is wrong because it is self-centred and infertile.

Fornication is wrong because it does not properly reflect the significance of man and wife being united as 'one flesh' and it does not provide a proper environment for the children produced by fertile sexuality. But there is one other implication as well - attempting to frustrate the fertility of sex by deliberate use of artificial contraception is also immoral. This is the sticking point for many non-Catholic churches, because almost every one of them has abandoned the traditional Christian teaching that artificial contraception is wrong.

And once this point is rejcted, the rest of Christian sexual ethics becomes an arbitrary list of do's and don'ts without an coherent underlying logic. I should point out, to avoid confusion, that this teaching does not say that every sexual act should be intended to produce children, or should be actually fertile. All it requires is that the act is one that, in the normal course of things, could be fertile.

If the couple are naturally infertile and the chances of actual conception are very low, that does not make a moral difference, provide the couple do not deliberately chose an act of artificial contraception. The point is illustrated by Biblical cases like that of Abraham and Sarah, who desired fertility and were granted it by God despite what had appeared to be hopeless infertility.

The amount of pain and suffering in this world because of sex outside of marriage is staggering! Just open your eyes. If anyone wants to do it, they better be prepared for the consequences.

And the consequences exist because God exists. There are at least 2 million dead in Africa due to sex outside of marriage (HIV) leaving behind 12 million orphans. STD's are becoming drug resistant.

The term "safe sex" implies that there is a dangerous sex, and dangerous sex only applies to sex outside of marriage. Can you take a hint? In a world overflowing with grief and pain and destruction from sex outside of marriage, how can you ask if it is bad?

Besides the fact that God says it is a sin and that He will judge it, doesn't reality clearly answer that question for you?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.