Which is worse - A Federal Gay Marriage ban or Extermination of Gay Population?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2012 4:51 AM GMT
    Ok so I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute by asking this disturbing question.

    A vote for Obama is a vote for gay marriage and the protection of Roe vs Wade. A vote for Romney is a vote against gay marriage and a potential overturn of Roe vs Wade if he stacks the SCOTUS.

    Now lets say scientist identify the "gay gene" or whatever it is we believe to be the reason we were "born this way", and it can be detected in utero. What do you think are the possibilities that the 60+ percent of the population that votes against gay marriage in most states decides to abort their gay baby (fetus)?

    Put another way - could voting for pro-abortion Presidents ultimately end up seeing baby's aborted for being gay, greatly reducing the gay population?
    And if so, is the gay man's pro-choice view a smart one? Should gay/bi men be pro-life?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2012 2:11 PM GMT
    Not to be a dick but I'll chime in as to my take on the OPs thread starting post. It's not an issue. Not at all saying it shouldn't be discussed but, if I'm going to have a debate (at least from my perspective) I would want it to be about a current or near term real issue. I just don't see the OPs point (or yours if you've posted about it in the past) as being real.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2012 2:59 AM GMT
    Well, lets see...abortion has been legal for years. Baby's are regularly aborted from any reason ranging from birth defects to "im just not ready to be a parent". And scientist have been looking for the "gay gene" or physical cause for years, with gay groups claiming its there. It could be found any day. And when it is and an in vetro test is found, this will be reality. To say it isn't a very real possibility and something we should be considering is very shortsighted in my opinion.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 13, 2012 3:19 AM GMT
    Many of those who are against gay marriage are pro-life, even when the conception is born out incest and rape. I doubt they would abort a gay baby.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2012 3:19 AM GMT
    All hypothetical discussions. Gays cannot be detected in utero at present. Cross that bridge when we come to it.

    But an interesting dilemma for Republicans, who contend that gay is a choice, not a natural state, and so therefore can be outlawed.

    If being gay can ever be detected in utero, then it proves it's not a choice. But then can you abort a baby to prevent a gay birth, since Republicans oppose all abortions, even for rape?

    An elegant problem for Republicans, if gay or lesbian children are detected in utero. They can't be aborted, but neither are they gay by choice. Maybe Sarah Palin's husband can devise some new reparative therapy to correct their "deviant" sexual orientation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 4:45 AM GMT
    CuriousGreg said And scientist have been looking for the "gay gene" or physical cause for years


    Don't look now but, you're making my point...