Thursday, June 14, 2012

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Banned...Yeah Sure...

So I decided to have a little fun today. I saw the image below and decided that's I'd respond to each point with a little thing called logical and well thought-out arguments since there are an unfortunate number of people who think the points made in this image are solid:


1) Yes, homosexuality is unnatural and serves no real purpose aside from the fulfilling the emotional and physical needs of the individuals involved. Eye-Glasses serve a purpose, they correct the eye-sight of individuals who lack 20/20 vision which is the natural state for vision. Certain people such as myself am unable to see things at a distance. In order to do that I need glasses. Glasses aren't natural I'll grant you that but they serve the purpose of correcting eye-sight. Polyester isn't natural but it serves a purpose of enhancing fibers and clothing, it's a fickle purpose but clothing and fashion are fickles things that don't matter, clothing does indeed matter because we certainly wouldn't want to be naked (especially during the winter) but the style and color of your clothing doesn't matter in the slightest. Air Conditioning is also fickle but it serves the purpose of cooling the house. What purpose does Homosexuality fulfill aside from a personal one? Keep in mind the image made the comparison, NOT ME. Homosexuality can't produce a population (which is the primary reason WHY humans and animals engage in sexual relations)...after all that is the purpose of sex, isn't it ? To produce off-spring? Correct me if I'm wrong but off-spring isn't some unusual side-effect of sex, off-spring is a DIRECT cause of if Homosexuality is valid then what's it purpose outside of just sex?

2) No one intelligent would make such an argument. That's a Straw-Man of the INTELLIGENT position against Homosexuality.

3) I doubt people'll marry their dogs, however there are people who seek to marry their brother/sister, children, cousins, ect. ect. And based on the article I posted previously, you'd have no grounds to deny them the ability to do so.

4) Marriage hasn't changed. Allow Black Men & Women to marry White Men & Women didn't change marriage. Marriage is between an UNRELATED, OF AGE (it's a shame I have to include that in this article) a Man and a Woman. RACE is not specified in the definition of marriage AS DEFINED BY THE PERSON WHO INSTITUTED MARRIAGE GOD HIMSELF. Women are still property in Muslim Countries, so your argument once again fails completely. I agree Women aren't property and The Bible agrees as well, in fact The Bible teaches that there is a mutual ownership of each other 1 Cor 7:2-4. So by Biblical standards Women aren't property and neither are Men. If you wanna argue about Women being property of their husbands then send this to Muslims, I'm sure they'd like to read your explanation. And even in Muslim Countries it's still a Man and a Woman (the stipulations of the marriage are irrelevant). Divorce wasn't even illegal in Biblical times, what did Jesus say about Divorce, Matt 19:8-9, Jesus was against Divorce with the exception of Martial Unfaithfulness, why ? BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT! Once the contract is broken, neither party are held to it's limits and must deal with the penalties stipulated by the contract (hence why you can't be married to your dead wife, because the contract states "Till DEATH do you part"). Also why you can't divorce someone for being injured, poor, or other reasons OUTSIDE of martial unfaithfulness. Ultimately what I'm saying is Divorce doesn't CHANGE marriage but it certainly belittles it each time it happens for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness. And once again the article is attacking a Straw-Man.

5) Marriage is unfortunately already meaningless given the many couples living together, the children born out of wed lock, single parents, the concept of family is completely foreign nowadays. Marriage is supposed to be the apex of Human Relationships and unfortunately it's been reduced to legal benefits and "between two people who love each other", and with such a vague description of marriage it's no wonder that everyone in "love" is clamoring to get married. Hence Britney Spear's 55 hour is just as much of a profane against marriage as Homosexuality is, but in her case it's because she didn't take the contract of marriage (yes, it's a contract) seriously (which is why divorce is a profane against marriage as well). So this argument is invalid, NO ONE is validating Britney's 55 minutes marriage, once again the image is setting up a Straw-Man.

6) Homosexuals can't produce children (which as we've stated before is a direct cause of sex), Heterosexuals can. Old People can't produce children because of their age NOT because of an active choice NOT TO. Biology specifies that as people get older their chances of reproduction declines, biology also states that two penises or vaginas rubbing together cannot produce a baby, tell me which one is natural. Infertility is also NOT an active choice, it's an unfortunate occurrence and once again it's natural. There is NO similarity between Homosexuals couples, Old People and Infertile Couples, the latter have no choice in their control of producing off-spring due to natural occurrences outside of their control, Homosexuals CHOOSE not to have children regardless of being able to do so. Furthermore the fact that Homosexuals can't have children WITHOUT Heterosexuality invalidates this objection. Old People and Infertile couples in Heterosexual relationships, despite their inability to reproduce posses the correct combination in order to produce off-spring, Homosexuals DO NOT.

7) This just further validates my point, there would be NO GAY PEOPLE WITHOUT STRAIGHT PEOPLE! Furthermore, no one is saying that Gay parents will AUTOMATICALLY raise Gay children, another Straw-Man, HOWEVER...

8) Homosexuality isn't supported by Christianity, hence why we're using our Right of Religious Freedom and Free Speech to speak out against something that differ with our beliefs, and you're using your Freedom of Speech to tell us we're Wrong. We acknowledge that we're not under a theocracy, we're under a democracy and based on Democratic principles we have the right to FOLLOW that Religion. Hence why a Christian Politician can impose a Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, and an Atheist Politician and encourage Same-Sex Marriage. They're both doing so BASED ON THEIR WORLD VIEW! So while one religion is not imposed on America, that doesn't mean that people in high places disregard their religious affiliation.

9) That's a Straw-Man, Children have succeeded in Single Parent households, but we all agree that it's good to have both parents present for the child to be more well-rounded. Furthermore studies have shown that most delinquent behavior can be traced back to an absent parent. Society doesn't forbid single parenthood but it is discouraged and looked upon as an unfortunate situation and usually when a parent finds themselves without the support of another, in most cases the extended family will come together and in support. I can tell you I've spoken to several individuals from single parent households who talked about Uncles, Grandparents, Aunts, ect. ect. essentially raising them in the stead of which ever parent is absent. So this argument is invalid.

10) As if Cars haven't changed the foundation of society ? So all this talk about Hybrid cars and environmentally safe fuel isn't a change in our society...right, gotcha. Oh yeah and let's not forget reduced travel time, that didn't change anything at all.  Yep letters and important documents still take WEEKS to get here, yeah I can totally see how cars HAVEN'T changed the foundation of our society. Okay, I'll stop being sarcastic and address this point. Homosexuality WILL change the foundation of our society for the following reasons:
A) Laws are being made for a BEHAVIOR that will effect people lives.
B) The arguments made for this behavior can be applied to ANY OTHER BEHAVIOR AVAILABLE, hence Homosexuality has NO EXCLUSIVE reason why it should be allowed ABOVE Pedophilia, Incest, ect. ect.
C) Homosexuals have a higher disease rate than Heterosexuals
D) Homosexuality is being encouraged on those who had no inkling to engage in such activities
E) Religious freedoms are being taken away.
F) Opposition to Homosexuality is being seen as Hate Speech ergo destroying Freedom Of Speech

There are MANY MANY more ways that smarter people than I can list better than I can. Car, Service Sector Economy HAVE changed the way our society functions, Homosexuality is doing the same, to ignore that is to ignore society it's self. Furthermore simply adapting to a societal change IS NOT affirming it. I have adapted to the existence of Homosexuals but I don't affirm their homosexuality. We can adapt to a LOT of perversions if we see it frequently enough.

I'd like to close by saying that this image offers nothing but shallow, surface level, worldly comments that don't encourage people to think about the issue, rather construct a Straw-man of the opposing side and beat it with half-truths and snarky logic, when ultimately the things in this image can be applied to something else with a few tweeks, wanna bet, check it out:

You see the shallow, unthinking, surface level, half-truth, snarky logic ? Yeah, I didn't think so.


Anonymous said...

Man, you're stupid.

Ugo Strange said...

Care to elaborate ?

Anonymous said...

Point nine made in your pedophilia edit don't stand up. Children cannot consent due to their lack of understanding of and exposure to the societal and cultural connotations of sex, as well as the direct (and potential) consequences of sex itself. You've chosen one image, made by a single individual, probably without qualification, edited it into a poor strawman, and used it to dismiss an entire social movement. This is, I believe, why Anon called you stupid.