• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills [W:142]

SSM will cause an increase in abortions


  • Total voters
    26
This might be the dumbest argument against SSM yet, and that is really saying something

I seriously hope this is included in the oral arguments
 
Ok ok. Point is this,
1.)Paleocon is clearly an authoritarian, and wants to base peoples personal choices such as the right to marry, and no sex he finds "odd" based on his perception and opinion. If you dont want to stick your penis there, dont do it. If your wife doesnt want to do it, then you dont have to do it. If you dont want to marry a man, dont.
2.)You want to ban a flag... A flag....
3.)You seem not to care about levels of authority, and liberty in this country. Why can we clearly violate constitutional rights in one way, but not another? One circumstance but not another? Where does the line of authority drawn in your world?

1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
3) The law of nature limits authority.
 
1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
3) The law of nature limits authority.

1. If we can do it without technology... it is natural.
2. The gay flag? Evil? I hope you are joking...
3. That doesn't even make sense...
 
1. If we can do it without technology... it is natural.
2. The gay flag? Evil? I hope you are joking...
3. That doesn't even make sense...

1. Wrong.
2. Yes, it's evil.
3. Why not?
 
1. Wrong.
2. Yes, it's evil.
3. Why not?

Time for a basic lesson in English apparently...

1. natural
adjective nat·u·ral \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature


Natural | Definition of natural by Merriam-Webster

2. It is a flag about inclusiveness and love. The evil is just inside you buddy... keep it there.
3. Because... it doesn't make sense?
 
1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
Humans carrying out non sexual acts that arent meant to reproduce but for purely pleasure are not natural? Fellatio isnt natural? Homosexual sex isnt natural?

2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
Evil is a subjective term. And ones view of evil is subjective.

3) The law of nature limits authority.
Meaning what... ?
 
Humans carrying out non sexual acts that arent meant to reproduce but for purely pleasure are not natural? Fellatio isnt natural? Homosexual sex isnt natural?

Non-sexual acts are nt supposed to be for reproduction. Sodomy is unnatural because it diverts sex away from its purpose.

Evil is a subjective term. And ones view of evil is subjective.

No, I haven't made any subjective arguments.

Meaning what... ?

Meaning that authority can't violate the natural law.
 
Non-sexual acts are nt supposed to be for reproduction. Sodomy is unnatural because it diverts sex away from its purpose.
Vaginal intercourse is meant to reproduce. But there are several problems here:
1.)we have found way to stop the natural effects/risks of vaginal intercourse (pregnancy) birth control, condoms, (aka contraceptives). Should contraceptives be outlawed becasuse it diverts sex form its original natural purpose? I mean essentially what we have done as humanity is said, "**** this feels good, and its fun, I wish there was a way we could ensure or severly limit the risk of having a child if I dont want one, or not ready for one, oh **** we do have these things! (condoms)". Should we outlaw them?
2.)There are more sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse

No, I haven't made any subjective arguments.
You said a rainbow flag is evil... To label a flag that consists of colors that make up the rainbow as "evil" is subjective.

Meaning that authority can't violate the natural law.
You advocate it all the time. What is "natural" about banning cloth laid out in certain colors on something commonly referred as a flag?
 
Vaginal intercourse is meant to reproduce. But there are several problems here:
1.)we have found way to stop the natural effects/risks of vaginal intercourse (pregnancy) birth control, condoms, (aka contraceptives). Should contraceptives be outlawed becasuse it diverts sex form its original natural purpose? I mean essentially what we have done as humanity is said, "**** this feels good, and its fun, I wish there was a way we could ensure or severly limit the risk of having a child if I dont want one, or not ready for one, oh **** we do have these things! (condoms)". Should we outlaw them?
2.)There are more sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse

1)Yes, contraceptives should be outlawed.
2) which are deviations.


You said a rainbow flag is evil... To label a flag that consists of colors that make up the rainbow as "evil" is subjective.

I didn't make an argument based on my own experiences, so no.

You advocate it all the time. What is "natural" about banning cloth laid out in certain colors on something commonly referred as a flag?

What is against nature about it?
 
1)Yes, contraceptives should be outlawed.
You know contraceptives have been around for 15,000+ years? Where does your definition of "natural" start?

2) which are deviations.
You know oral sex has been around since ancient egypt?

I didn't make an argument based on my own experiences, so no.
How is a rainbow flag naturally evil? How is it evil?
What is against nature about it?
You said you favor to be drawn by the law of nature meaning, "authority can't violate the natural law.".... Whats unnatrual about the rainbow flag?
 
You know contraceptives have been around for 15,000+ years? Where does your definition of "natural" start?


You know oral sex has been around since ancient egypt?

I don't see what relevance these ages have.

How is a rainbow flag naturally evil? How is it evil?

It's evil because it promotes evil. Obviously this only applies to the modern pro-gay usage.

You said you favor to be drawn by the law of nature meaning, "authority can't violate the natural law.".... Whats unnatrual about the rainbow flag?

What's unnatural about banning it?
 
The article was written on 4/20.

Perhaps there was holy reefer involved in the writing of that article.
 
I don't see what relevance these ages have.
That what was once seen as natural is not longer natural. We have found ways to control nature, and sexual reproduction. We have found ways to enjoy the pleasure of sex while extremly mitigating the consequence of reproduction. Afterall is is natural to find pleasure in sex is it not?
It's evil because it promotes evil. Obviously this only applies to the modern pro-gay usage.
Why is something that represents a natural phenomenon (a rainbow) evil? It also have many different meanings, has a traditional use for peace (is peace evil), also indigenous cultures in Latin America. Gay marriage is just one of them. And how is a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married evil?
What's unnatural about banning it?
That I fail to see how banning a piece of cloth arranged in certain colors is natural... You havent even explained that one. Also how is banning something based solely on your opinion of "what is natural" at all actually natural/law of nature?
 
That what was once seen as natural is not longer natural. We have found ways to control nature, and sexual reproduction. We have found ways to enjoy the pleasure of sex while extremly mitigating the consequence of reproduction. Afterall is is natural to find pleasure in sex is it not?

It's natural to find pleasure in good things such as sex. It's bad to take the good away.

Why is something that represents a natural phenomenon (a rainbow) evil? It also have many different meanings, has a traditional use for peace (is peace evil), also indigenous cultures in Latin America. Gay marriage is just one of them. And how is a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married evil?

Those other usages are not evil. Members of the same sex cannot perform a legitimate sexual act.

That I fail to see how banning a piece of cloth arranged in certain colors is natural... You havent even explained that one. Also how is banning something based solely on your opinion of "what is natural" at all actually natural/law of nature?

It's within the authority of the state.
 
Poll: SSM will cause an increase in abortions


Technically, I say probably Yes it may cause a few instances but no more than heterosexual marriages cause. Im thinking the more likely scenario is cheating spouses that abort to hide the evidence and nothing to do with sexual orientation of those involved. I have know such a woman.

It only leads me to believe that the more people that are married the more likely such scenarios may play out.

I believe their claims however are absurd.
 
1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
3) The law of nature limits authority.

Banned? Good gracious. Who will enforce your ban and what will the punishment be? (penal code transitions to penile code)

Sounds like you want Sharia type law in this land.
 
It's natural to find pleasure in good things such as sex. It's bad to take the good away.
What makes me severly mitigating the chances of having a child when I am not financially or emotionally ready to care for a child by using a condom during sex "taking the good away"?
Those other usages are not evil. Members of the same sex cannot perform a legitimate sexual act.
Why not? Why does it matter if they have sex and you view it cant have a "legitimate sexual act" in your opinion? Why does marriage and your opinion of a "legitimate sexual act" matter? Aterall isnt marriage in its form "unnatural"? I mean I can still have legitimate sex (because based on your opinion its when you can reproduce) when im not married.. What does sex have to do with marriage? And how is marriage natural?

It's within the authority of the state.
But you said the state derives its authority from natural law. So you need to explain how its natural then...
 
WTF? Gay marriages do not produce children, thus they do not cause any abortions. If these religious asshats want to stop abortion, they should be fighting against heterosexual sex. What a bunch of idiots.

Of course they do. Gay people reproduce naturally all the time and also use other means to add children to their families

Altho married gays probably have a better chance of adopting, just like married straight people, so they will likely expand the pool of people looking to adopt and there may be less abortions because of that.
 
So I can be investigated if someone accused me and my partner having consensual anal sex? So I can be investigated if someone accused me and my partner having partaking in sexual fetish actions that involve feet (like a foot job)?

He desires Old Testament Biblical law.

People like him must be in absolute agony living in the US :mrgreen:
 
The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills - The Washington Post

But comes now Gene Schaerr, unsuccessful lawyer for Utah in that state’s case against same-sex marriages, to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of “100 scholars of marriage.”
To wit: Legalizing same-sex marriage devalues marriage and causes fewer heterosexual couples to marry, which leads to a larger number of unmarried women, who have abortions at higher rates than married women. As a result, Schaerr wrote, “nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.”

:lamo :lamo :lamo

The bold is just hysterical. What a low, sad opinion he has of people that believe in marriage, esp. those that are religious. How weak their faith would have to be.

I guess this is *his ultra conservative' understanding of 'science?' :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom