Birth Control the same thing as Abortion?

[Reijin]

Fixed, I guess.

Start? It's already happening. http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/k...ce784.html

I don't see him saying it would "start" happening anywhere in his post. Just that it would become an even larger problem than it currently is. All this "ban" will do is exacerbate the situation.

[Pink Underoo]

I don't see him saying it would "start" happening anywhere in his post. Just that it would become an even larger problem than it currently is. All this "ban" will do is exacerbate the situation.

Ah, I'm getting tired and I'm not reading straight.

But I see what you're saying.

<dead babies>http://www.christiangallery.com/garbaget.gif</img>

This is much more civilized. ^_^

[Bojack]

Well, I'd say that females living in ghettos or other poverty-stricken areas should stop having so much sex that they're defying the odds of modern contraception (as well as stop having babies just so they can collect welfare checks, which I have known people that have done that before)

this

EDIT: Wow. Could have done without the dead baby trash bag.

[Lucifer]

Well, I'd say that females living in ghettos or other poverty-stricken areas should stop having so much sex that they're defying the odds of modern contraception (as well as stop having babies just so they can collect welfare checks, which I have known people that have done that before), but hey I'm just a God-fearing conservative and thus my vastly inferior brain meats just can't comprehend the brilliance of birth contol - which is in fact early abortion.

edit The argument against gay marriage is that it is a religious institution. The only reason a marriage is given legal authority and a tax break is to promote natural procreation and stability of the household for the caretaking of children. Since gays can't naturally procreate within the confines of their union and you don't support gay parenthood, I'm left wondering why exactly you don't stand against homosexual unions o_O

Agreed (though I strictly talking legal unions here) but in an increasingly secular age people should be entitled to legal unions irrespective of faith. I'm not talking tax breaks, I'm talking rights to be treated as a spouse in such things as separation, hospital visitation and any number of other important things, shockingly, only granted through legal union.

I'm not one of those people who want to wave my arms in the air and shout "you have to call it marriage" either, you could call it Queercon 2008 for all I care.

I respect marriage as a religious institution insofar as it takes place within the Church, but we simply live in an age where commited couples need the security that a legal partnership brings. I am just as opposed to pressuring Churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies as I'm opposed to legally forcing religious adoption agencies to cater to gay couples.

Sadly, things would be a lot simpler if the homosexual community at large didn't tend to pass around the same brain cell when addressing this issue. Unfortunately, there's a bit too much of a commitment to an "all or nothing" mentality. Ironically the majority believe that their freedom to express themselves is of greater merit than that of the religions they oppose, which is sad, and which has and will do much to poison this issue.

The gays are messing up the marriage debate in much the same way a pro-choice advocate would if they insisted all women had abortions.

[Pink Underoo]

Guys, the pic was key to the point. Isn't it what you want? Out of sight, out of mind I guess. u_u

Agreed (though I strictly talking legal unions here) but in an increasingly secular age people should be entitled to legal unions irrespective of faith. I'm not talking tax breaks, I'm talking rights to be treated as a spouse in such things as separation, hospital visitation and any number of other important things, shockingly, only granted through legal union.

I'm not one of those people who want to wave my arms in the air and shout "you have to call it marriage" either, you could call it Queercon 2008 for all I care.

I respect marriage as a religious institution insofar as it takes place within the Church, but we simply live in an age where commited couples need the security that a legal partnership brings. I am just as opposed to pressuring Churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies as I'm opposed to legally forcing religious adoption agencies to cater to gay couples.

Sadly, things would be a lot simpler if the homosexual community at large didn't tend to pass around the same brain cell when addressing this issue. Unfortunately, there's a bit too much of a commitment to an "all or nothing" mentality. Ironically the majority believe that their freedom to express themselves is of greater merit than that of the religions they oppose, which is sad, and which has and will do much to poison this issue.

The gays are messing up the marriage debate in much the same way a pro-choice advocate would if they insisted all women had abortions.

If that's all you're talking about then it's not even an issue. If homosexuals want to bring in all the joy that a contractual obligation brings into a relationship, there's nothing that can stop them. Goods and finances can be shared by force of law. All they have to do is draw up a contract, then have it signed and notarized. Also, hospitals aren't required by law to permit only family to see patients: my mother works at a hospital and she's explained to me that it's up to the individual hospital policy, and I've heard the same from others. (if there is such a law then I have yet to even hear about it) If not for the want of calling it "marriage" and having religion approve of it by force, then I don't see what the issue could possibly be.

edit: also, your post made me think of this for some reason

[Lucifer]

I guess what I'm actually talking about is a same sex union.

Secular, but still a celebration of relationship commitment. Recognised as partners by the law and so on and so forth.

I'm British, so I'm not totally savvy with how things work over there. As far as I'm aware gay unions are decided on by individual states, but a large force wants an outright ban.

Also, that's an actual picture picture from a recent debate in San Fransisco.

[Violet]

Wrong thread, Will, lol. <3

[Lucifer]

Not really, since what we're discussing is all in the same vein.

[Reijin]

I found it similar enough to be worth mentioning to supplement the topic, but the thread wasn't entirely intended to discuss the rights or wrongs of allowing gay marriage. As long as comments related towards gay marriage are relevant to the central topic of the above link, I don't mind.