• 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

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,583
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.”
Myself, I think this argument is as crazy as an outhouse rat.
Anyone wish to disagree?
 
They have reached a new low in ridiculousness.
 
That's whack.

#1 He's assuming that gay couples won't be gay couples in the absence of marriage and thus, if gay marriage was outlawed then these gay people will suddenly become straight and procreate with those of the opposite sex.

#2 He's assuming that with gay marriage, there would be more abortions due to more single women which is also bull**** because of #1 and the fact that he's ignoring the fact (goddamn repetitiveness!) that lesbians would marry and not get pregnant in the first place/will be inseminated but will NOT be single.

In other words...

SSM and its legalization will not increase abortions because gay couples will be gay couples with or without marriage (but with marriage they would be a lot happier and more productive as well as enjoy the same privileges/rights that heterosexual married couples get including tax deductions and the like), and thus, the number of single women (who apparently have higher abortion rates) would remain the same with or without SSM.
 
Last edited:
Bigots will always find a way to justify their bigotry in public. They can't come out an just say "I'm a bigot" because that is looked down upon so they come up with all kinds of covers for their true intentions and ever time one of their covers is ripped down, they come up with a new one.

This is nonsense just like every other argument against SSM from "what about the children" to "it'll hurt tradition". The fact is that, at this point, people who oppose SSM are bigoted against same-sex couples. It's simple. No matter how much they protest the label and whine about "tolerance", that's who and what they are no matter how much they try to hide it.
 
Methinks it would be the most perfect question to ask any Republican candidate for President.
If I was a journalist I would be in there like a dirty shirt.
Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx what is your opinion on this?
 
What a ****ing dumb argument.
 
:confused: where in the world did they get those stats?
 
Anything to stop perversion from becoming state-sanctioned across the country.

Anything. Perhaps reeducation camps? Conversion therapy, jail sentences, chemical castration, or a pink triangle worn on all clothing.
Which would you object to?
 
Anything. Perhaps reeducation camps? Conversion therapy, jail sentences, chemical castration, or a pink triangle worn on all clothing.
Which would you object to?

I dont think you really wanna know that answer
 
slippery slope with an extra dose of retardation at its best = this lawyer's logic

/thread
 
Should we outlaw swinging? Water sports? Foot worship? BDSM?

Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

Unless there's some sexual reference I'm missing, I have no idea why you think water sports are perverted.

Anything. Perhaps reeducation camps? Conversion therapy, jail sentences, chemical castration, or a pink triangle worn on all clothing.
Which would you object to?

Define "reeducation camps". Define "conversion therapy". No objection to jail sentences. Objection to chemical castration. And no moral objection to pink triangles, but it'd seem counterintuitive.
 
Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

Unless there's some sexual reference I'm missing, I have no idea why you think water sports are perverted.
Peeing on eachother in a sexual manner.....
Also since you consider these things "perversions" are you in favor of the government outlawing them? And is so by what means? And if so whats the punishment?
 
Is there a DP rule I don't know about that dictates members on this forum must respond to that guy?
 
Peeing on eachother in a sexual manner.....
Also since you consider these things "perversions" are you in favor of the government outlawing them? And is so by what means? And if so whats the punishment?

Oh ... ick.

I'm in favor of all sexual activity outside marriage, as well as any within marriage which involves force, contraception, or sodomy being outlawed.

I think the appropriate penalty would vary depending on the heinousness of the act. Incest, sodomy, rape, and adultery should probably carry a maximum penalty of death. While seduction and simple fornication should probably be punished with lighter penalties.
 
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.
 
Oh ... ick.

I'm in favor of all sexual activity outside marriage, as well as any within marriage which involves force, contraception, or sodomy being outlawed.

I think the appropriate penalty would vary depending on the heinousness of the act. Incest, sodomy, rape, and adultery should probably carry a maximum penalty of death. While seduction and simple fornication should probably be punished with lighter penalties.

So how do you enforce and ensure that people are ****ing in the style and manner you want them to ****?
 
So how do you enforce and ensure that people are ****ing in the style and manner you want them to ****?

The same way other laws against private behavior are enforced.
 
Back
Top Bottom