An "anti-gay" stance...

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

    Mar 08, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
    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... pro-gay by the way), 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.

    I realize that you may find these "arguments" to be fundamentally flawed, but 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?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 10:38 PM GMT
    Another issue Fundamentalists bring up is the fact that same-sex couples cannot help create the next generation... Only couples which can procreation or have the potential to do so should be allowed protections and legal rights... aka only heterosexuals.

    I disagree... but that is what a lot of them say. No gay marriage until two gays can create a child natrually!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 10:42 PM GMT
    Well, let's see...

    1. Your doing a project on anti-gay.

    2. You joined this site today and decided this would be your very first post.

    3. Your screen name that you picked is evilmilk.

    4. Your profile is not filled in at all except your age (20) and where you live (Eagle Pass, Texas).

    5. You haven't even tried to upload any pictures.

    6. You seem to want our opinion on being anti-gay?

    Just how stupid are you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 10:46 PM GMT
    Trying to defend the indefensible is pretty ridiculous.

    None of those are based on any sort of fact. And so, you do not have to use facts to support a completely subjective spew of bull shit. However, if you want to make your entire argument subjective then why not go with number four. You could argue that all morality is relative, and relative to a certain group of neanderthals homosexuality is immoral.

    I am sure others wouldn't stand for topics that are just as repugnant.
    The Holocaust: Good or Bad?
    Lynching: Just The White Man Helping Out
    Women: The Lesser Sex

    But hey, have fun with it.

    Oh, and what Growingbig said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 10:54 PM GMT
    This is fun. Actually, it would help in a debate to have an understanding and empathy toward the enemy. The devil's advocate could be an angel in disguise if you learn this right.

    1. MIAIBOMAOW: early marriages were arranged, had to do with the distribution of wealth, land, livestock; basically a treaty between the father-in-law and the husband. In this treaty, the descendants owe their fealty to this arrangement, and extend the father-in-law's family. In same-sex relationships, without the assumption of ancestor-descendant treaties, a marriage is a meaningless affirmation of affection, without property distribution and community building commitments.
    2. SSMWTTIOM: because children are brought into or created in this environment with the inclusion of a tertiary donor (womb or sperm), the third party's rights (partial custody of inheritors) will impinge upon the Same-Sex couple's claim to land title and non-land property. A rewrite of probate laws will catastrophically unravel current inheritance priorities.
    3. SSCATOEIWTRC: Same-Sex couples are more likely to work outside of the home, requiring daycare with strangers. The absence of active (daytime) parenting is comparable to working single-parent household quality of care, which is not endorsed by most child-care experts as optimum.
    4. GRAI: a greater percentage of homosexuals were exposed to and engage in activities that are not discussed in public school health curriculum; gay parents are not likely to discourage behavior that the parents themselves engage in (possibly unsafe or multi-partner sex). Difficulties in encouraging moral behavior can be compared to smoking parents who attempt to discourage their children from smoking.
    5. HIAC: More importantly, engaging in homosexual acts is a choice. For an individual to engage in such activities, some relaxing of standards of conformity has to be undertaken. Such a willful act can be compared to the proclivities of smokers, prostitutes, drug addicts and highway speeders.
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    Mar 08, 2009 10:55 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidTrying to defend the indefensible is pretty ridiculous.

    None of those are based on any sort of fact. And so, you do not have to use facts to support a completely subjective spew of bull shit. However, if you want to make your entire argument subjective then why not go with number four. You could argue that all morality is relative, and relative to a certain group of neanderthals homosexuality is immoral.

    I am sure others wouldn't stand for topics that are just as repugnant.
    The Holocaust: Good or Bad?
    Lynching: Just The White Man Helping Out
    Women: The Lesser Sex

    But hey, have fun with it.

    Oh, and what Growingbig said.


    LOL...can I...can I have your babies?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 10:56 PM GMT
    Actually, it doesn't matter if the OP is a troll or not. Anyone can easily argue against the fallacies that my post above lays out. But, shouldn't you be prepared to know your enemy better?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 10:57 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidOh, and what Growingbig said. ["Just how stupid are you?"]

    These pseudo-research studies tick me off. I don't know what their true motivation is, but I refuse to play their game. I hope no one else participates in this charade, either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2009 11:04 PM GMT
    Go to your teacher/preceptor/whatever and tell them you just can't figure out any valid arguments that are 'anti-gay' that wouldn't be the equivalent of being anti-black or anti-groupofotherpeople. Let them know you asked around at a lot of gay places lol.


    ...You might get better answers from the church/mosque/temple/etc, btw.
  • Rookz

    Posts: 947

    Mar 08, 2009 11:13 PM GMT
    Here's an answer to number 6, have you made the choice to suck your teacher/pastor/the-puppetter-behind-yous cock today?
  • Rookz

    Posts: 947

    Mar 08, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
    It's ok, always answer a question with your own question. It helps to make people go away, well, at least with nosey relatives and strangers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2009 1:24 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    MunchingZombie saidOh, and what Growingbig said. ["Just how stupid are you?"]

    These pseudo-research studies tick me off. I don't know what their true motivation is, but I refuse to play their game. I hope no one else participates in this charade, either.


    See that's the thing. If one was to actually do research on this topic wouldn't it be better to go to one of those anti websites and find out information from those that hate? Now a pro-gay topic I could see. Though a pro-gay topic dealing with fitness would be better suited for this website.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2009 2:00 AM GMT


    WE'D LIKE TO INTERRUPT THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPIC TO WELCOME BACK


    CJCSCUBA1984




    ....HEY MAN, WE'RE REALLY GLAD TO SEE YOU!!!!


    -Doug n Bill



    ok , resume discussion....
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 09, 2009 2:07 AM GMT
    The only plausible legal argument is that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual contract and that the tradition is sufficient legal precedent.

    Obviously to us gay folk, the flaw in this argument is that norms, regardless of how old the tradition, are not legally binding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2009 2:11 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    WE'D LIKE TO INTERRUPT THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPIC TO WELCOME BACK

    CJCSCUBA1984

    ....HEY MAN, WE'RE REALLY GLAD TO SEE YOU!!!!

    -Doug n Bill

    ok , resume discussion....

    OMG, I'm so used to seeing him in these threads, I forgot he was gone for a while!!! Like big DUH!!!!!

    Thanks for snapping me out of my daze, and yes...

    WELCOME BACK CJCSCUBA1984!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2009 2:19 AM GMT
    -Why would any straight person vote for the legalization of same sex marriage? They have absolutely nothing to gain from it. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

    -California voters already voted against same sex marriage back in 2000 when it was called Proposition 22. 61% of the voters in California didn't want to legalize it, but Supreme Court went against the will of the people and overturned the voter's decision.

    -After looking at a few arguments against same sex marriage I'm so sure that marriage is a "right" for anyone. Yes, straight people are free to marry each other as many times as they wish, but I don't think it's a right. It's a privilege that's taken for granted. We do, however have the right to pursue whatever makes us happy, no matter what that may be.