Monday, October 15, 2012

Abortion vs. Gay Marriage, A Contemplation About Priorities

I was thinking about this a while back, and asked my friend David and my girlfriend Allison about their thoughts. As usual, both had lucid answers that helped clarify things.

The question was this:
Which would you choose to completely outlaw (doing so in a civil way that takes into account the changing not only of minds but of hearts) gay marriage or abortion if only ONE option were available?
For my part, I would gladly choose the sanctity of life. I realize this is a contentious issue, but my goal is to determine what folks prioritize, particularly in polarized times. So be nice.

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?



  1. I would agree. Abortion all the way. Only because of my undying devotion to the preamble of our constitution- "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." No matter where one stands politically, Abortion is denying "would-be" citizens "life, liberty, and happiness." That is also the same reason I support the legislation for government granted "Gay Marriage"- because gays too have the right to "L,L,POH" in our great country. Amen?

  2. Nick, you're putting 2 equally immoral actions against each other here, where they normally wouldn't be. so the situation is a bit artificial and doesn't represent any reality where I'd have to choose.

    abortion is murder. period. i think most christians would agree.

    the morality of homosexuality have been greatly questioned among christians however. the waters have been muddied very purposely i.m.h.o. The line that was always so clear has been forced to blur by society.

    even though you and I would agree about the immorality of homosexuality, the problem here is that its so obvious that abortion is murder, whilst it is not always obvious where the immorality of homosexuality can lead.

    but homosexuality, when properly understood, can lead to the threatening of the sanctity of life as well. of this, i have no doubt.

    this question actually (unknowingly) muddies the water. I know you don't purposely muddy the water, i just thought i'd alert you to the fact that the question is really setting us up to begin with.

    i will not be forced to choose. both are equally immoral, because both threaten life.

  3. Quick answer: I'd stop genocide over consensual sodomy any day.

    Even if you don't believe life begins at conception, science has not fallen heavily enough on either side to justify erring on the side of potential murder... mass murder... mass murder justified by our culture's slow process of dehumanization due to someone being "underdeveloped". The implications are disturbing.

    Gays & government can't actually 'destroy' marriage. It's [a public] agreement between you, your spouse and God. I think 'gay marriage' is morally wrong (and, really, a completely nonsensical concept), but I'd just as soon keep the government out of marriage altogether. If the government presented legislation that grants agnostics the right to be baptized without conversion, I think we'd all agree doing that was a waste of time and resources.

    That said, if I must to choose one, the choice is obvious: legislate to save the ones who can't defend themselves.

  4. Like I said on facebook, this really isn't contentious.

    I see that Marius refuses to choose on principle (and because the question is artificial to the point of being practically useless). But there can be no question that preventing the murder of innocents would obviously override preventing the consciously chosen sinful actions of free adults.