Even though some people get a gag reflex if they see two guys kiss, GLBT(think i got that right) couples are simply as creepingly love struck as any heterosexual couple. Most importantly they aren't hurting anyone!
On the other hand there are children being killed every day by mothers who are inconvenienced by having a child. Killing kids, just not cool...
So say one day us silly republicans finally ban abortions BUT we also accept GLBT marriages, followed by letting them adopt the excess of children that are being born. Granted such a black and white scenario will never happen, but would you find it HYPOTHETICALLY acceptable?
2007-02-26 16:00:47 · 11 answers · asked by TJ815 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry PW, i'm taken. Thanks for the offer <3
2007-02-26 16:08:54 · update #1
I think that in a perfect world, what you suggest sounds wonderful and I fully support it, but this isn't a perfect world. It will be a very very long time before people accept that abortion is killing and that gay folks are allowed to be happy as well. I've got a friend from highschool who is gay and theres not a day that goes by where I don't stop and think 'man he'd make a great dad'.
The probably isn't silly republicans as you put it, but just people in general. People who think that it is fine to be happy doing what they want no matter what it is, but don't think its alrigth to give someone else the change to be happy as well.
Abortion has been a hot topic for what is it now? Thirty years? I don't think it's going to be going away any time soon. As soon as its banned people are either going to do back alley abortions (really scary dangerous) or they are giong to fight to have it legalized again.
2007-02-26 16:14:02 · answer #1 · answered by Hito 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like your theory behind this question and it is a very good question. I'm not sure that I'm the right person to answer it though for I agree with gay marriage, and (restricted) abortion.
My problem with banning abortion completely is that it takes away the option for rape victims who are then with child (how would you feel about having the product of rape growing in you), or for those parents who know their child is so disabled (physically or mentally - which I';ve seen) that they will never have any decent quality of life, or if the pregnancy creates a life threatening danger to the child or mother's life.
I think that you have the right idea, but I think abortion shouldn't be banned completely, just more restrictive and highly regulated.
It's a huge trade off, but I don't think you can say we'll do one, if you give us the other. Laws don't work like that, and neither do people. Each law has to find its own place.
2007-02-26 16:14:33 · answer #2 · answered by Riley 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, you're hurting people (both unwanted children and reluctant parents) by banning abortion. I would even argue that banning abortion would cause more pain than an absolute ban on gay marriage. After all, gays can still be together without a civil union, and many heterosexual couples don't even bother to tie the knot legally. You can't ignore a newborn human quite so easily.
2007-02-26 16:07:22 · answer #3 · answered by answerator 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
since you must trade off something for other things, yes compromise is needed! But the question is that gay issue and abortion issues cover different people! Your option will generate many troubles for us later! What is unfair soon make disaster! You decide these issues on different rounds to avoid conflict!
2007-02-26 16:13:11 · answer #4 · answered by holyfire 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
absolutely! I could support that right now, and I'm a Republican.
I actually voted AGAINST a recent constitutional amendment in my state that would have banned gay marriages. I figured that constitutions exist to GIVE people rights, not take them away, so I voted against the proposal. Unfortunately, it passed anyway, by over 70%. :-(
2007-02-26 16:04:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
taking up deepest sector classes- If deepest employer ought to grant public products without screwing the entire element up for a jiffy period earnings, we would not ought to. making new guidelines- So cons may reason yet another monetary meltdown? no thanks. increasing costs- are you able to are making this a touch extra imprecise? provide up protecting union graft and corruption- you're a pair many years late, unions are the most heavily financially monitored businesses interior the country
2016-12-05 00:23:46 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it acceptible to trade off rights with removal of discrimination? No. It's not acceptible to trade off rights in general. It's even worse when you're trading off a right (the right to control your own body) to remedy a social ill (discrimination against homosexuals) that shouldn't exist anyway.
2007-02-26 16:07:06 · answer #7 · answered by bdunn91 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No.
Many gay couples would and do adopt children except in places where laws have been enacted to prevent them from doing so.
2007-02-26 16:08:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Umm, no. Allowing the gay community to only have kids that no one else wants? What an insult.
2007-02-26 16:09:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Finally, someone in this world who isn't crazy or blindly devoted to the left or the right! Will you marry me?
bdun... don't get started on that "right to control your own body" crap. Fine, I can use the word "discriminate" too to make my point. You are discriminating against unborn babies. That is the sickest kind of discrimination I've ever heard of.
2007-02-26 16:07:07 · answer #10 · answered by PW 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋