Anti-gay arguments

[evil^milk]

Hey guys. For a project I'm doing I've been asked to take the stance of an anti-gay advocate (if you can call it that, not sure if it makes sense), objectively echoing a few arguments that anti-gay advocates may hold on to.

So far, I have these:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.
2. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.
3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.
4. Gay relationships are immoral.
5. Homosexuality is a choice.

If you were an anti-gay advocate, how would hold on to and defend the previous points, with as much reason and argumentation as you could?

 

[Emporius]

Bible
Bible
Bible
Biiiiiiibbbbbbllllle

 

[Raziaar]

God says no gay sex.

END OF STORY!


lol



One thing you can add to that silly list of reasons people give, is transmission of HIV through anal sex between gay men.

 

[Pesmerga]

Biologically, the imperative against gay sex is the destruction of natural procreation. However, gay rates are at about 6% of all males, so it's nothing to be worried about.

Socially, if we allow same-sex marriage, what else are people going to push for? Marriage between non-humans and humans? Inanimate objects and humans? Where does the line stop?

Of course, both these arguments are stupid as hell.

 

[Krynn72]

So far, I have these:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.
2. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.
3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.
4. Gay relationships are immoral.
5. Homosexuality is a choice.

If you were an anti-gay advocate, how would hold on to and defend the previous points, with as much reason and argumentation as you could?

All of those except the last one are pretty much based solely on religious beliefs. You'd have to make religion a major point of your debate. The last one however, I dont think could actually be debated. There is simply no evidence for it.

I think the best argument against homosexuality however is in the case of raising children. Having two gay parents can bring a lot of stress, both from peer ridicule and any sort of effects that occur in the kids personality due to not having a traditional mom/dad relationships.


I remember having to debate shit in class, and it always sucked when you had to argue for a side that any semi-intelligent person knows has no foundation of truth behind it.

 

[PvtRyan]

I was put in the same position a long time ago and all I had was "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" which I couldn't back up at all. So basically, you're fucked.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You could argue that sexuality is a social and political fact, therefore mutable and changeable, therefore 'gay' can 'spread' if the culture permits it to a great enough extent.

This is not an entirely sensical argument.

 

[MJ12]

I always hear the arguement that if gayness between two adults is allowed, then incest between two adults will be allowed.

 

[Sheepo]

Slippery slope argument is all I can imagine.

 

[kineaesth]

Something about it being less safe, and making some diseases easily transmittable? Quoting initially higher rates of HIV and other STI's among the gay male population.

 

[Tyguy]

it's tough to argue a position you don't agree with...

I know it's supposed to open your mind to the oppossing side's justifications but still....it's like being asked to argue in favor of hitlers final solution.

 

[kineaesth]

it's like being asked to argue in favor of hitlers final solution.

Not really, that would be an easier argument.

OH GOD GODWIN'S LAW

 

[Eejit]

They, like, totally wierd out most hetero guys. That just shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Sheepo]

Slippery slope logic is really the only thing I could think of.

 

[Eejit]

You could always try "Raging homos killed my dog, and they'll kill yours too!".

 

[MJ12]

I love when people pull out the Child Molestation arguement out against Homosexuality, and then they find out more Heterosexuals sexually molest children than do Homosexuals.

I remember watching a Docu on Harvey Milk, and the guy arguing against him was like "Well.... what I am saying is... if we ban one, Homosexuality, then we will have less child molestation as a whole"
It was such dumb f*cking logic, and if his arguement were something to go by, then you'd obviously ban the group that has more child molestation (heterosexuality)

 

[Eejit]

Homos are more likely to kill your beloved pet: FACT!

 

[Sheepo]

They're all on your roof.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

gays are gay.

 

[Kadayi]

Dismiss the whole concept of 'homosexuality' as nothing more than a misguided cultural invention. Albeit people have sex for sexual gratification, the main purpose of our genitals is to reproduce the species, anything else is effectively group/consensual masturbation when reduced to it's most basic level. Does how we get our rocks off stand up as a real reason to define us as people? If you recognise Homosexuality, then you effectively have to open up the flood gates for recognising any other sexual preference as a social entity, such as furries, or autoerotics etc.

Attack the fragility of the 'culture'. Do lesbians buy KD Lang albums because they genuinely like the music, or is it because she is a Lesbian, and they feel it legitimises their life choices? Is gay culture really anything more at the end of the day than self promoting posturing adult role play with all of it's stereotypical behaviour (Butch girls, screaming queens, etc etc)?

Question the whole 'gay gene' thing as well:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm

Which basically casts doubt as to the validity of the earlier research on there being actual definitive genetic differences between straight and gay men (note no research has yet concluded that there are any genetic differences between straight and gay women).

You should find that is an interesting more controversial route to take of reducing the entire 'culture' to little more than a pantomime based around masturbatory preference, rather than something that truly justifies legal and political recognition, such as race. Be aware that you'll most certainly deeply offend any homosexuals in the room going down this route though.

Avoid the bible argument, it's well worn and just invites the opposition to trawl up the cultural redundancies inherent in the old testament as a means to invalidate the argument.


Heh I miss college debates

 

[Krynn72]

Just bring in two penis shaped dildos. When its your turn to speak, say nothing. Just stand up, present the penises, and touch the heads of them together. If that doesnt win the argument, you've been doomed from the start.



EDIT: Oh damn. Kadayi, thats a great one. The opposition wont even know what to do to argue against it, since they've probably been preparing for the bible argument the whole time. Nice. Evil^, do what he said, and then after you make that argument, touch the penises together. There is no way you could lose.

 

[Vegeta897]

I love when people pull out the Child Molestation arguement out against Homosexuality, and then they find out more Heterosexuals sexually molest children than do Homosexuals.

Is this taking into account the fact that homosexuals make up a small percent of the population?

I did some googling and read something that said 35% of child molesters are homosexual. But then, homosexuals make up what, 5 to 10 percent of the total population?

When you look at it comparatively, homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals. In other words, the percentage of child molesters among the homosexuals is higher than the percentage of child molesters among the heterosexuals.

I'm not saying it should be used as an argument against homosexuality, but it's sort of misleading if you don't look at statistics the correct way.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Heh I miss college debates

This is clever, but does surely to be 'anti gay' one's argument has to be moral. None of this seems to be a decent reason for (eg) banning gay marriage.

 

[Kadayi]

This is clever, but does surely to be 'anti gay' one's argument has to be moral. None of this seems to be a decent reason for (eg) banning gay marriage.

evil^milk merely asked for an anti gay argument. There is no mention of it being specifically about gay marriage.

If you reduce the entire 'culture' to nothing of consequence socially or politically, then there is no point of argument. You're not arguing against it, you're completely invalidating it. That's the beauty of the position. To legitimise it, means the opposition have to accept that all manner of other sexual practices (legal and illegal) are viable 'cultures' that deserve legal, social & political recognition. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, except I can't see them having a debate over aesthetics. It would be like 'are you for or against burritos'. It seems like they're all going to be arguing with relation to political and legal problems, civil problems. Your argument invites the opposition to be all libertarian and say "so it's dumb. So what?" Of course, that's far better than inviting the opposition to be all "the bible blah blah", and since the purpose of these debates is also to be inventive and clever, your suggestion is pretty good.

Also...yeah, other sexual practices all have their own (more or less developed) 'cultures'. Clearly.

 

[Kadayi]

Yeah, except I can't see them having a debate over aesthetics. It would be like 'are you for or against burritos'. It seems like they're all going to be arguing with relation to political and legal problems, civil problems. Your argument invites the opposition to be all libertarian and say "so it's dumb. So what?" Of course, that's far better than inviting the opposition to be all "the bible blah blah", and since the purpose of these debates is also to be inventive and clever, your suggestion is pretty good.

Also...yeah, other sexual practices all have their own (more or less developed) 'cultures'. Clearly.

You'd be surprised, they'd more than likely push themselves into a humiliating check mate rather than concede the irrelevance of their position, given the unexpectedness of the angle.

Are you English, Irish, American or Human in reality? Most of our cultural thinking is based around widely accepted all pervasive but largely unquestioned conceits at the end of the day.

I expect a full report from evil^milk on how things go

EDIT: Oh damn. Kadayi, thats a great one. The opposition wont even know what to do to argue against it, since they've probably been preparing for the bible argument the whole time. Nice. Evil^, do what he said, and then after you make that argument, touch the penises together. There is no way you could lose

Glad you like it. I like your suggestion as well, just for the lulz. The image of Evil pulling a couple of big rubber dildos our of a suitcase in front of the class makes me chortle some

 

[evil^milk]

Thanks guys, lots of replies so quickly!

I always hear the arguement that if gayness between two adults is allowed, then incest between two adults will be allowed.

I've been considering this point of view also.

it's tough to argue a position you don't agree with...

I know it's supposed to open your mind to the oppossing side's justifications but still....it's like being asked to argue in favor of hitlers final solution.

Tell me about it... it puts me in a difficult spot to be honest.

I expect a full report from evil^milk on how things go

Will do. The point you presented would've never occured to me. This will be very interesting Also lol, Krynn. Would be hilarious.

 

[Kadayi]

Will do. The point you presented would've never occured to me. This will be very interesting Also lol, Krynn. Would be hilarious.

Well I hope it does well. Print off the arguments you've gotten, write them out in your own words. Remember to reference points that tie your audience into your position (bed it down with regular cultural references people can tap into to follow your line of thinking), formulate a position and then take a leaf out of reservoir dogs and be Mr Orange practising the commode story, and tell it again and again and again to yourself until it becomes second nature. The given to the argument is that you're the 'bad guy' (the bigot) so confounding their expectations by being the coldly objective guy should make for an interesting debate. You might not 'win' but as you're already cast as the bad guy you probably wouldn't anyway, but at least you'll make a splash.

If you get to go first, it's probably a good idea to also rubbish biblical references yourself in order to rob the opposition of their bible bashing ammunition from the off :-

'Typically in these debates it's all to easy to turn to religious works as a point of reference to argue against, but I think we can avoid going down those well worn corridors of discussion. Instead I'd like to consider things from a different perspective.....'

 

[Pete]

Personally i salute gay people, it means there's more women for us straight guys

 

[The Monkey]

You were given that as an assignment? That's silly...

 

[Raziaar]

Personally i salute gay people, it means there's more women for us straight guys

What about gay women making less women for straight guys.

There you go, there's another silly argument.

Makes fewer women available to needy guys!

You were given that as an assignment? That's silly...

Yeah... at least give him an argument where each side has legitimate and non stupid reasons to support it.

 

[diluted]

 

[nurizeko]

Hey guys. For a project I'm doing I've been asked to take the stance of an anti-gay advocate (if you can call it that, not sure if it makes sense), objectively echoing a few arguments that anti-gay advocates may hold on to.

So far, I have these:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.
2. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.
3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.
4. Gay relationships are immoral.
5. Homosexuality is a choice.

If you were an anti-gay advocate, how would hold on to and defend the previous points, with as much reason and argumentation as you could?

I'd tell the person running the project that you cant lower yourself that far to convincingly argue such flawed and erroneous positions.

 

[Acepilotf14]

*Gays are too much fun
*The locker room is really gay, yet men go in there all the time.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Michael Stipe is gay.

 

[Ennui]

I would ****ing annihilate the argument of any teacher trying to get me to do this project. Go up to the front of the class or whatever and when you're supposed to start arguing from the anti-gay viewpoint just say "There's no logical or reasonable argument to be made here" and stare down anyone who tries to argue with you.

Or you could be funny about it and use only the argument that the bible says homosexuality is wrong, and go on to point out that women should be ultra-subservient and that slaves are a-OK and all that other crazy old testament shit.

 

[Acepilotf14]

We had to do that last year.. luckily our group didn't get it. We got the nuclear proliferation subject.

 

[kineaesth]

I'd tell the person running the project that you cant lower yourself that far to convincingly argue such flawed and erroneous positions.

I would ****ing annihilate the argument of any teacher trying to get me to do this project.

Get over it? It's clearly an exercise - it's meant to be a difficult and potentially controversial point to argue as practice for arguing other, similarly difficult points. There's no real reason for complaining/whining to the teacher, or trying to be clever by choosing to not speak.

 

[Pesmerga]

I have to agree with KA.

No, I'm literally forced to, he's got a hold of my manjunk and is threatening to not give me a good dicking.

 

[Ennui]

Get over it? It's clearly an exercise - it's meant to be a difficult and potentially controversial point to argue as practice for arguing other, similarly difficult points. There's no real reason for complaining/whining to the teacher, or trying to be clever by choosing to not speak.

I've had plenty of teachers make me do this sort of thing, although usually in my experience they ask you your opinion on a particular issue and then make you argue for the opposite side, rather than just randomly assign you one. There's plenty of reason to complain or whine or make some kind of scene about it, because I'll be damned if I'm going to argue against gay rights regardless of whether or not it's for some mental exercise. That's like asking students to argue in favor of slavery or against women's suffrage; very socially insensitive and in direct violation of my system of values. It's not the same as other common polarized issues like capital punishment or the like because while I can understand and even to some degree empathize with those who disagree with me on those issues, when it comes to gay rights there's no excuse for being a prejudiced ****tard.

Yes, I know the stands I make and those I pass can seem very arbitrary, but to me they aren't.