Homosexuality is as effective as any system for preventing unwanted pregnancies, even abstinence--without the drop out rate that most absitinence programs have. Hence if we encourage more homosexual unions, fewer heterosexual trysts will take place, the need for abortions originating in those trysts will drop, and hence, fewer abortions.
2) Reduce the Sin of Adultery.
The basic definition of adultery is sex between unmarried partners. Since marriage is not allowed between same sex partners--all sex between them is adultorous. Allow them to marry, and you lower the adultery rate.
3) Protect Western Values and Culture.
If there is one unifying belief in all of Western Literature of the last 100 years, it is this--Love Conquers All. There are books and shows, comics and cartoons, where two people in love eventually win out over villians, chance, fate, time, and death.
So do you think thier sexes will keep them apart?
If you attempt to deny their relationship, to ridicule it and belittle it, you are the villian, the one turning you back on centuries of Western Culture, Literature, and Thought.
posted
Now, I understand that you are being facetious, but I'd note that the first two arguments could also be used in favour of death camps. Dead people have no adulterous relationships, or abortions either. And such camps are a more-or-less uniquely Western phenomenon - sure, they've been imitated elsewhere, but we were the originals and still the best. Turning your back on death camps is a blow to Western Culture!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is one unifying belief in all of Western Literature of the last 100 years, it is this--Love Conquers All. There are books and shows, comics and cartoons, where two people in love eventually win out over villians, chance, fate, time, and death.
But there is a similarly large number of works in which love fails to conquer all and leads to tragedy. There's tons of works where love and lust lead to corruption, unhappiness, and unholiness for all parties involved. Romeo and Juliet, for instance. Or Darth Vader. Or just about every horror movie ever, where sex tends to inevitably lead to a horrible death.
Wrongful love is often a very very bad thing in western society.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know how sometimes when someone on your side of an argument posts something needlessly insulting towards the other side and inflammatory, and you kinda cringe when you read it and want to distance yourself from it? That's how I feel about this post, Dan, and particularly your third point. Do you honestly think that's going to change anyone's mind, or serve any purpose other than being rude?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Now, I understand that you are being facetious, but I'd note that the first two arguments could also be used in favour of death camps. Dead people have no adulterous relationships, or abortions either. And such camps are a more-or-less uniquely Western phenomenon - sure, they've been imitated elsewhere, but we were the originals and still the best. Turning your back on death camps is a blow to Western Culture!
Isn't the point of reducing abortions to keep innocent people (fetuses) from dying? So wouldn't using this argument for death camps be counter productive? You'd kill more people than you'd save.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't necessarily think so; it depends on who you put in the camps. A healthy welfare queen is quite capable of having five or six abortions in a year; multiply that over a lifetime, and just that one killing can have stopped several dozen abortions!
Please note : This does not in any way, shape, or form resemble my actual opinion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do you honestly think that's going to change anyone's mind, or serve any purpose other than being rude?"
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean for it to change anyone's mind and he pretty clearly stated in the title that this was going to be a joke. I don't think you should think about the actual issue or your opinion of it when you read it and just appreciate it as a joke. I thought it was funny.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The response this got was so negative I was going to let it die a slow death down through the pages, but Gaal popped it back up.
Thanks Gaal for the defense.
Yes, this is a joke. Its taking the issues and twisting them around just for the odd amusement of seeing where they ended up.
There are some serious underpinnings to them though.
#1 may be a real issue, but in an abortion thread instead of a gay marriage thread. Its a way of determining if the person you are debating against is more concerned with saving young lives, or promoting "Christian" ideals.
The fact that KOM jumps from homosexual relations to death camps is a bit frightening in its own right.
#2 is something I have seen, flopped around. I have seen the argument that all homosexual intercourse is a sin because it is adultery. Yet when those involved wish to get married--unadulterize the situation, they are shut down.
#3 is why I believe that SMM will eventually win out. Love will find a way. Love will conquere all. I am only a silly romantic, but its how I feel.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realized it was meant to be a joke, Gaal and Dan. My position is that when you are calling people who hold a certain position "villians" and saying "Shame on you," it doesn't come off as a joke. My opinion, of course. But if I were against SSM, I would roll my eyes at the opening post and further write off supporters as elitists who are more interested in scoring points than listening to my concerns.
*sigh* I'm becoming a stick-in-the-mud. Maybe I should stay out of everything for awhile.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm thinking about the #1 and wondering something. For those that are against abortion, would it be a good thing if there was a kid born (and for the sake of argument, a kid who grows up to be a good Christian) and another being aborted? Or does the latter cancel out the former? If so, if you increase the ratio of good, christian kids being born to the single aborted kid, would it be good then? I know that is horribly worded, but I hope someone somewhere understands what I mean. If it's really unintelligible, just say so and I'll try to clarify. I don't really expect anyone to answer that question here since you've probably been over abortion a million times here, but could someone who's against abortion just try and comment about what I said? I'm just curious.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need clarification. Are you stipulating that the birth of the one child is somehow dependant on the abortion of the other?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. Hold on, I'm thinking really hard how to put this into clear words...I'm so bad at clarifying...
Edit: Ok. Is aborting a baby more of a sin than giving birth and raising that kid to be a good Christian is a good deed. By Christian standards, would it be considered an improvement to the world if there was a baby aborted and a good Christian born? Or would it be better if neither happened? I don't mean that there would never be another Christian kid born or another kid aborted, I just mean for this scenario. I don't know if this makes anymore sense than it did before. If it doesn't, just forget it. I'm an idiot at communicating ideas.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by ElJay: I realized it was meant to be a joke, Gaal and Dan. My position is that when you are calling people who hold a certain position "villians" and saying "Shame on you," it doesn't come off as a joke.
Oddly enough, it was the "Shame on you," that finally convinced me Dan's tongue was safely in his cheek.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaal, I'm pretty sure that very few people who oppose abortion do so becasue they think there should be more children in the world. Rather, they think that once a child is in the world it's wrong to take it out.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
