• 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
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.

The state. Punishments would depend on the severity of the crime.

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"?

Procreation is the purpose of sex. So too separate procreation from sex removes the good of sex and makes it evil.

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?

Marriage proceeds from man's natural urge to provide for his children. You can procreate without marriage, but not well.

But you said the state derives its authority from natural law. So you need to explain how its natural then...

Not everything the state does follows from the first principles of nature.

Would gay couples have to be 'caught in the act' to be prosecuted?

Unless there was other proof.
 
Meaning that authority can't violate the natural law.

Your appeal to 'natural law' as an end run to avoid admitting you are referring to religion and specifically Catholicism is fooling no one.

There is no such thing as natural law and its usage is still a recognition of a higher being or force driving the natural world...which does not exist.

The only natural laws are those of biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. And they are driven by nothing but natural forces, not some higher power.

You should really give this attempted argument up, someone calls you out on it everytime.
 
Last edited:
Your appeal to 'natural law' as an end run to avoid admitting you are referring to religion and specifically Catholiscm is fooling no one.

There is no such thing as natural law and it's usage is still a recognition of a higher being or force driving the natural world...which does not exist.

The only natural laws are those of biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. And they are driven by nothing but natural forces, not some higher power.

You should really give this attempted argument up, someone calls you out on it everytime.

Your obsession with my religion is not relevant to anything that's been said.
 
Your obsession with my religion is not relevant to anything that's been said.

Of course it is. I just removed the whole 'natural law' mumbo jumbo as legitimate support for your argument. Because there's nothing legitimate about it.
 
A confession, a recording, etc.

Ah good. So a gay couple living together just the same as straight couples would not be persecuted by the authorities. Nice to know.
 
Of course it is. I just removed the whole 'natural law' mumbo jumbo as legitimate support for your argument. Because there's nothing legitimate about it.

This isn't about Catholicism, no matter how much you want it to be.

It sure as hell is.

No it isn't.

Ah good. So a gay couple living together just the same as straight couples would not be persecuted by the authorities. Nice to know.

Only if they kept it secret . . .
 
Only if they kept it secret . . .

So you lied then? 2 gay men or women living together would be prosecuted? Without any evidence of sexual activity?
 
This isn't about Catholicism, no matter how much you want it to be.

Meh, then whatever distorted, repressive, and depressing religion you've chosen to devote yourself too.

The Westboro Church claims to be affiliated with Christianity and there's zero Christianity in their appalling and malicious acts or beliefs.
 
So you lied then? 2 gay men or women living together would be prosecuted? Without any evidence of sexual activity?

So you're asking about if they were openly homosexual partners, but denied having sex?

Meh, then whatever distorted, repressive, and depressing religion you've chosen to devote yourself too.

The Westboro Church claims to be affiliated with Christianity and there's zero Christianity in their appalling and malicious acts or beliefs.

I am Catholic. But that's not the topic here.
 
So you're asking about if they were openly homosexual partners, but denied having sex?

What is 'openly homosexual' about 2 people of the same sex living together? Why would they be asked if they had sex? Would you ask a heterosexual couple living together? Oh wait, if they werent married you'd have them stoned too, right?
 
What is 'openly homosexual' about 2 people of the same sex living together? Why would they be asked if they had sex? Would you ask a heterosexual couple living together? Oh wait, if they werent married you'd have them stoned too, right?

I assumed you meant two people who were openly homosexual. If two men are living together, there's nothing suspicious about that. I don't think simple fornication should be punishable by death. It should be punished less severely.
 
I assumed you meant two people who were openly homosexual. If two men are living together, there's nothing suspicious about that. I don't think simple fornication should be punishable by death. It should be punished less severely.

What is 'openly homosexual?' And if they did hold hands or something...then they would be persecuted? And prosecuted?

For having a relationship that harms no one? Yeah, I want to join YOUR religion :doh
 
What is 'openly homosexual?' And if they did hold hands or something...then they would be persecuted? And prosecuted?

For having a relationship that harms no one? Yeah, I want to join YOUR religion :doh

Holding hands would not be illegal. And you know what openly homosexual means.
 
Myself, I think this argument is as crazy as an outhouse rat.


uhm that fits ALL arguments against equal rights. They have all be debunked and proven to be nothing more than mentally retarded hateful bigotry. The people actively trying to stop equal rights (SSM) are basically no different than the KKK trying to stop blacks and Nazis trying to stop jews :shrug:

nobody honest educated and objective takes those loons seriously we all just laugh at them
 
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.

But since they are specifically saying that gay marriage will cause MORE abortions, that's not helping their claim. There are no accidental, unwanted pregnancies in gay marriages. There are no pregnancies at all for male homosexual relationships and among lesbians, it has go be specifically wanted and planned for. There are zero abortions with regard to adoptions. I'm still wondering where this claim makes any sense at all.
 
He desires Old Testament Biblical law.

People like him must be in absolute agony living in the US :mrgreen:

People like him must be in absolute agony living in the 21st century.
 
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.

the death penalty for a blowjob?...are you ****ing kidding me?
 
it's nothing that can't be cured with a lil sodomy..

We already know that the people who complain the loudest about homosexuality often come out as gay in the long run. I think that's probably just as true here regarding our most ardent anti-gay crusaders.
 
Back
Top Bottom