Dumb Anti-Gay Arguments...

[bulbasaur]

A list of dumb anti-gay arguments...

1.  The Children.  Anti-gay supporters often point to the inability to have children to be a reason not to support gay marriage.  However, if that were the case, then infertile individuals should also be denied.  Moreover, elderly couples who can no longer produce children should have their marriage voided too.  It doesn't make sense. 

2. The Children:Part 2.  Anti-gay supporters often point out that gays do not make good parents.  If that were the case, then any unfit parent or potential parent should be denied marriage.  Moreover, the studies are actually the opposite.  Children of gay parents are often privy to a higher standard of living and opportunities.  It doesn't make sense. 

3.   The Constitution.  Anti-gay supporters often point out the language of the Constitution; it states one "man" and "woman."    This is true.  However, the Constitution also considers a black person 3/5 of a person.  The Constitution has been amended 27 times.  Many of those amendments relate directly to individuals' rights, such as Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 13, 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26.  It is clear that individual rights supersedes the wording of the Constitution. 

4.  Bestiality and Other Weird Marriages.  Anti-gay supporters often point out these possibilities.  However, a dog, cat, chair, etc. are not people.

5.  Polygamy.  Anti-gays supporters like to point this out.  So what?  The current limit for a civil union is 2, but if people want to raise that number, go ahead...as long as everyone has equal rights. 

6.  Natural Law.  Anti-Gay supporters like to say that homosexuality is not natural, and so, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.  However, homosexuality is not illegal.  Moreover, homosexuality exists in other species as well...so there goes that argument. 

7.  Gay is a Choice.  Anti-gays supporters like to point this out.  However, they themselves never made the decision to be straight.  Moreover, why would any kid choose to be gay knowing that it means being bullied and different?  Kids want nothing more than to just fit in.  It just doesn't make any sense.   

8.  Gays are Imposing their Beliefs onto Me!  We hear that one a lot.  However, it is actually the anti-gay supporters imposing their beliefs.  No one is saying that straight people have to be gay to have their rights. 

9.  The Religion Argument.  All I have to say is...Freedom of Religion.  Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe, but the law should be equal to everyone. 

[dlabtsi_os]

I heard both sides before. Both sides have their stupid argument.

List of some Gay arguments. Most of them tends to be appeal of novelty.

1. Homosexuality occurs in Nature. Whether it occurs or not, like Heterosexualit y, or sexual reproduction. It is still is appealing to nature.

2. Gays have been misrepresent, oppress, and kill. Many people throughout in history were mistreated, and torture regardless of your sexuality.

3. If you don't support Gay, then your a bigot. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one zealous belief? Whether this person is a theist or not.

4. If you don't support Gay, then your a homophobic. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one characteristic?

5. If you don't support Gay, you will be like those racist in the 60s. These two events are irrelevant.

6. If you don't support Gay, you will be on the wrong side of history. This is an absurd statement; appeal to novelty.

7. This is the 21st Century, surely we can all accepts Gay. Regardless which century we are in, cultures clashes and changes, or remain the same. It is unpredictable of the men mind.

8. Marriage isn't one man and woman. Therefore gay-marriage is okay. Regardless of the definition. There are no distinct evidence  defining the state of marriage of a straight couple nor a same-sex couple. So gay-marriage is as moot as any other marriage.

9. Equality argument. Perhaps everyone should be treated fair and equal. However, there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality.

[Believe_N_Me]

The MOST stupidest of ALL is the attempt to redefine MARRIAGE when in reality we could've avoided all this demonizing (done by the LEFT) by changing the definition of CIVIL UNIONS. Just give CIVIL UNIONS more benefits - problem solved. This will include all types of relationship arrangements that isn't a marriage. Co-habitating couples (parents) could greatly benefit from this change. Those couples need rights too even if they don't want to enter a marriage.

Gays make it seem like they're the only group that needs MORE benefits.  When in reality, heterosexual couples who aren't married but living together and having children together ALSO NEED laws to accommodate their arrangement. It's what I like to call CIVIL UNIONS.

I'm sure the PH rhetorics in here have never bothered to look at the difference between marriage and civil union. If they did, they'd realize that marriage can stand as it is and all the government needs to do is revamp civil unions.   

[bulbasaur]

I'll rebut some of those...

The majority of what you wrote only describes staunch anti-gay supporters.  People actually have the right to be anti-gay; they don't have the right to deny rights to gays. 

The similarities to the 60's is that this is about equal rights.  Some people are trying to deny these rights, and some people are trying to attain these rights. 

You wrote, "...there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality."  If that were true, then why do straight couples have special protection and rights based on their sexuality?  It's not equal, and that is the argument. 

I heard both sides before. Both sides have their stupid argument.

List of some Gay arguments. Most of them tends to be appeal of novelty.

1. Homosexuality occurs in Nature. Whether it occurs or not, like Heterosexualit y, or sexual reproduction. It is still is appealing to nature.

2. Gays have been misrepresent, oppress, and kill. Many people throughout in history were mistreated, and torture regardless of your sexuality.

3. If you don't support Gay, then your a bigot. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one zealous belief? Whether this person is a theist or not.

4. If you don't support Gay, then your a homophobic. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one characteristic?

5. If you don't support Gay, you will be like those racist in the 60s. These two events are irrelevant.

6. If you don't support Gay, you will be on the wrong side of history. This is an absurd statement; appeal to novelty.

7. This is the 21st Century, surely we can all accepts Gay. Regardless which century we are in, cultures clashes and changes, or remain the same. It is unpredictable of the men mind.

8. Marriage isn't one man and woman. Therefore gay-marriage is okay. Regardless of the definition. There are no distinct evidence  defining the state of marriage of a straight couple nor a same-sex couple. So gay-marriage is as moot as any other marriage.

9. Equality argument. Perhaps everyone should be treated fair and equal. However, there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality.

[bulbasaur]

Refer to #3. 

The MOST stupidest of ALL is the attempt to redefine MARRIAGE when in reality we could've avoided all this demonizing (done by the LEFT) by changing the definition of CIVIL UNIONS. Just give CIVIL UNIONS more benefits - problem solved. This will include all types of relationship arrangements that isn't a marriage. Co-habitating couples (parents) could greatly benefit from this change. Those couples need rights too even if they don't want to enter a marriage.

Gays make it seem like they're the only group that needs MORE benefits.  When in reality, heterosexual couples who aren't married but living together and having children together ALSO NEED laws to accommodate their arrangement. It's what I like to call CIVIL UNIONS.

I'm sure the PH rhetorics in here have never bothered to look at the difference between marriage and civil union. If they did, they'd realize that marriage can stand as it is and all the government needs to do is revamp civil unions.   

[dlabtsi_os]

I'll rebut some of those...

The majority of what you wrote only describes staunch anti-gay supporters.  People actually have the right to be anti-gay; they don't have the right to deny rights to gays. 

The similarities to the 60's is that this is about equal rights.  Some people are trying to deny these rights, and some people are trying to attain these rights. 

You wrote, "...there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality."  If that were true, then why do straight couples have special protection and rights based on their sexuality?  It's not equal, and that is the argument.

I laugh when people try to make excuse compare the f*cking 60s. Civil rights were just leftovers and turds ideals after great wars like WW1, WW2. 1950s and 1960s allow America to spread economically, it just f*cking happen that White American were dominate. And really it was mostly about Economic Opportunity. No surprise, nor care. As for denial, many people that glorify Civil Rights will not admit that it also started caused the collapse of the American f*cking economy. It was great, blacks lives improve dramatically. However, as more diversity spreads major city, wealthy folks left to suburban, thus caused major high bills to pay. Also you know the 1970s where America were in sh*thole like the 1973 Oil Crisis? Why do you think cities like Detroit are in sh*tholes? I know this is off-tangent, but in the Egalitarian means sh*t if it doesn't benefit economically.

And honestly, I could careless whether you conclude that anti-gay use the rebuttal on my post because all of yours and mines example argument circular reasoning to begin with. Secondly, I could careless about those who support or against gays right. In the end only those who are butthurt are the Egalitarian, Liberals, Conservative and others bigot Zealots.

In the end it's nothing but a show of America vs Russia. Hint* Russia is winning.

[bulbasaur]

Whew.  You got issues.  I'm not gonna bother to point out how absurdly unrelated most of it is.   

I laugh when people try to make excuse compare the f*cking 60s. Civil rights were just leftovers and turds ideals after great wars like WW1, WW2. 1950s and 1960s allow America to spread economically, it just f*cking happen that White American were dominate. And really it was mostly about Economic Opportunity. No surprise, nor care. As for denial, many people that glorify Civil Rights will not admit that it also started caused the collapse of the American f*cking economy. It was great, blacks lives improve dramatically. However, as more diversity spreads major city, wealthy folks left to suburban, thus caused major high bills to pay. Also you know the 1970s where America were in sh*thole like the 1973 Oil Crisis? Why do you think cities like Detroit are in sh*tholes? I know this is off-tangent, but in the Egalitarian means sh*t if it doesn't benefit economically.

And honestly, I could careless whether you conclude that anti-gay use the rebuttal on my post because all of yours and mines example argument circular reasoning to begin with. Secondly, I could careless about those who support or against gays right. In the end only those who are butthurt are the Egalitarian, Liberals, Conservative and others bigot Zealots.

In the end it's nothing but a show of America vs Russia. Hint* Russia is winning.

[dlabtsi_os]

Whew.  You got issues.  I'm not gonna bother to point out how absurdly unrelated most of it is.   

Don't worry you don't have to. People tends to pay more attention about the absurdity of unrelated Economic points I made over your correlated rant of your egalitarian any day. So yeah, not much further us to discuss in this thread then.....

Have a nice day bulbasaur.

[santi]

Whew.  You got issues.  I'm not gonna bother to point out how absurdly unrelated most of it is.   

You do realized you just debated with a mentally challenged person right? Dude just uses big words he doesn't understand in hopes that people will not see how dumb he is. Like.. Oh I egalitarian this thread.

Lol. I just ignore his postings. 

[dlabtsi_os]

You do realized you just debated with a mentally challenged person right? Dude just uses big words he doesn't understand in hopes that people will not see how dumb he is. Like.. Oh I egalitarian this thread.

Lol. I just ignore his postings.

No, I don't recalled using big word santi. I am confident that I am not mentally challenged either. However, I am confident that you assure others only if they share the same opinion as you. I've seen some of your post and topics before. There really isn't much to discuss, other than blowing hot air of how stupid humanity is in the Debate Section. Which is true to a certain extent.

And for the record, Egalitarian is not a big word. Basically, egalitarian are just people tends that concern with Equality over everything else. And it just so happens not every human support egalitarian.

And really I don't mind being called upon as fool. There is much to learn than squabbling about ones vocabulary skills.

[HUNG TU LO]

A list of dumb anti-gay arguments...

7.  Gay is a Choice.  Anti-gays supporters like to point this out.  However, they themselves never made the decision to be straight.  Moreover, why would any kid choose to be gay knowing that it means being bullied and different?  Kids want nothing more than to just fit in.  It just doesn't make any sense.

Homosexual demographics suggests that the majority of gay people are overwhelmingly within the category of white, wealthy, and urban. Are there poor gays and Asian and black gays? Of course there are. But when an overwhelming majority of gays are usually white, urban, from a background that offers choice, personal liberty, freedom to explore because of wealth, you have to acknowledge that it is inconclusive that homosexuality is thoroughly biological and innate (genetic).

Because if that were the case, that homosexuality simply "just happens" and it's not a choice, there would be equal participation. ..er, let's just call it numbers...acro ss the board spanning beyond social class, age, income, cultural, and racial lines.

[Evil_K_Man]

Homosexual demographics suggests that the majority of gay people are overwhelmingly within the category of white, wealthy, and urban. Are there poor gays and Asian and black gays? Of course there are. But when an overwhelming majority of gays are usually white, urban, from a background that offers choice, personal liberty, freedom to explore because of wealth, you have to acknowledge that it is inconclusive that homosexuality is thoroughly biological and innate (genetic).

Because if that were the case, that homosexuality simply "just happens" and it's not a choice, there would be equal participation. ..er, let's just call it numbers...acro ss the board spanning beyond social class, age, income, cultural, and racial lines.

That logic would hold true assuming that data collected from Asian/Blacks were more complete. Have you considered that  the data is skewed because most of these urban wealthy white people come from backgrounds where being gay is not oppressed or considered a taboo, thus encouraging more of them to be open about their sexuality versus cultures like Asians/Blacks which irrefutably oppress and discourage those who are gay?  Also for those whites who come from less progressive backgrounds (i.e. Catholics/Christians/Islam), being rich as they are, they have the luxury of being able to break away regardless of the social consequences inflicted upon them by their peers.  The fact that there even exist poor non-urban gay Asians/blacks affirms genetics.  If no such groups existed, then “choice” would be a more plausible explanation, assuming you ignore environmental factors such as cultural conditioning.

I'm sure if you include the 'closet cases"...the data would suggest that "gayness" is more wide spread then it seems.

[MilesDaddy]

The MOST stupidest of ALL is the attempt to redefine MARRIAGE when in reality we could've avoided all this demonizing (done by the LEFT) by changing the definition of CIVIL UNIONS. Just give CIVIL UNIONS more benefits - problem solved. This will include all types of relationship arrangements that isn't a marriage. Co-habitating couples (parents) could greatly benefit from this change. Those couples need rights too even if they don't want to enter a marriage.

Gays make it seem like they're the only group that needs MORE benefits.  When in reality, heterosexual couples who aren't married but living together and having children together ALSO NEED laws to accommodate their arrangement. It's what I like to call CIVIL UNIONS.

I'm sure the PH rhetorics in here have never bothered to look at the difference between marriage and civil union. If they did, they'd realize that marriage can stand as it is and all the government needs to do is revamp civil unions.   

I AGREE 100% with this.

[bulbasaur]

That's a flawed logic. 

First, being openly gay and being gay are not the same thing.  Your demographic only shows who is openly gay. 

Second, if it is a choice...Refer to #7.

Third, whether it is a choice or not, it is a side argument that doesn't justify denying rights to individuals.

Homosexual demographics suggests that the majority of gay people are overwhelmingly within the category of white, wealthy, and urban. Are there poor gays and Asian and black gays? Of course there are. But when an overwhelming majority of gays are usually white, urban, from a background that offers choice, personal liberty, freedom to explore because of wealth, you have to acknowledge that it is inconclusive that homosexuality is thoroughly biological and innate (genetic).

Because if that were the case, that homosexuality simply "just happens" and it's not a choice, there would be equal participation. ..er, let's just call it numbers...acro ss the board spanning beyond social class, age, income, cultural, and racial lines.

[bulbasaur]

You are agreeing to a falsehood.  No one is asking to have more benefits; they are asking for equal benefits. 

I AGREE 100% with this.