These days gay rights are a huge issue for many people. There are many people that are for and against it. I am for gay rights. I see a lot of people against gay rights, because, although I am non-religious, I haven't always been that way and still keep in contact with a lot of Christians via social media. My immediate family is also Christian, and mostly against gay rights, even though they avoid bringing up the issue with me. I have never heard a rational argument against gay rights. In this article I am going to refute some arguments against gay rights.
Just so we're clear on it's medical and psychological effects, here is an article written by the American Psychological Association that talks homosexuality in a little more depth www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-….
Stupid argument #1: We're fighting to protect traditional marriage. Really? I don't see how allowing gay marriage would prevent straight people from getting married. In fact, I don't see how it would affect straight marriage at all.
It is a good idea to say "traditional marriage" instead of "biblical marriage" because in the Bible, you can practice polygamy, you can't get divorced, and you can force your daughter into an arranged marriage. No one wants to protect biblical marriage.
Stupid argument #2: It's unnatural. Actually, no, it isn't. There are plenty of animals that are gay, including penguins, dolphins, chimpanzees. In the Natuaral History Museum in the University of Olso, Norway, there is a exhibitation called Against Nature that documents over 1500 species in the animal kingdom that display homosexual behavior. Here is a link to their front page. www.nhm.uio.no/besok-oss/utsti…
Disregarding that, the argument that if something is unnatural, it must be wrong in itself cannot hold in a rational discussion. Your computer is unnatural. Technology is unnatural. Your clothing is man made, and unnatural as well. Also, just because something is natural doesn't mean it is good. Many animal species devour their own young or abandon them. Two chicks are born in a nest of Bald Eagles, and the stronger chick will kill and devour the weaker one to survive.
But really, what leads Christians to believe homosexuality is unnatural? The Bible says there was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I will get to Bible based arguments against homosexuality later.
Stupid argument #3: Gays can't procreate. So you should also prevent infertile couples from marrying? I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks the idea that sex should only be for procreation is absurd. I have said this many times, but I think this is like saying food is only for nutrition and shouldn't be for pleasure. If it wasn't meant for pleasure, then why does it feel good to people? I am going to give a philosophical reason for why this is wrong. If you don't have a high attention span, I won't be offended if you move on to stupid argument #4. I don't believe in a personal god, so within my worldview, something has value based on the value that you yourself give to it. A child may draw a picture for his or her mother or father that is beautiful to the mother or father, but to anyone else would just look like a bunch of scribbles. Even if you yourself don't give something value, you should accept that it has value to someone else. Long story short, people say that sex for pleasure is wrong because it is not what god intended. If this were the case, then the drawing a child drew for his or her mother or father would only have value based upon the value that god gives it. Although almost any Christian would argue that this picture has value to god, in arguing that things only have value if they have value to god, they are arguing that the value the mother or father places upon it is meaningless. This is not right. If you value bringing pleasure to your partner, then sex has value to you other than procreation. And thus sex can be for pleasure instead of just procreation, or even without the intent of procreation at all.
Stupid argument #4: Gays should have something similar to marriage, but just have it called something else. This is a cop out solution, and it is still discrimination. This is like telling African Americans they can use separate, similar drinking fountains, just have them be called something else.
Stupid argument #5: Churches will be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is allowed. This is an argument that has no basis in reality, and I shouldn't even have to dignify, but I will again refute it. The debate is about whether states should allow gay marriage, as in they would go to the courthouse to get married. There is such a thing as separation of church in state that would protect churches from having to perform gay marriages. Besides there are plenty of churches that are already willing to marry gay couples, so why would they choose to spend what is supposed to be the happiest day in their lives getting married in a church that hates and fears them?
Stupid argument #6: if we accept gays, pedophilia and bestiality should also be accepted. The difference between homosexuality and these other things is that homosexuality occurs between two consenting adults. A child does not understand sex, and is not at an appropriate age to give consent. Furthermore, forcing a child into that can cause a lot of emotional and psychological trauma. Pedophilia is obviously not acceptable in any fair, rational society. Animals also cannot give consent. Homosexuality between to consenting adults does not harm anyone.
Stupid argument #7: states that allow gay marriage went on to teach homosexuality in school to our kids (this was an augment used in an ad for defining marriage as between a man and a woman in Minnesota.) First, kids should be taught to understand our world. How can they if they don't know what homosexuality is? Of course, they don't have to be taught about gay sex yet. They can just be taught that some kids have two mothers or two father, or that two men or two women want to get married. That way, they won't be surprised or afraid when they run into this in the real world. Secondly, teaching kids to accept themselves and each other for who they are is never wrong.
Stupid argument #8: You're trying to force homosexuality on those of us who don't believe it is right. Why can't you accept those of us who believe it is wrong? Imagine if the racists in the 60s had used this argument. "Why can't you accept those of us who believe blacks and whites should be separate" Or what if, around 1967 in the United States when interracial marriage was legalized people would have used this argument and said "Why do you have to force interracial marriage on us? Why can't you tolerate our belief that blacks and whites should not marry?" In the United States, where you have the freedom of speech and expression, you have the right to be a bigot. However, those of us who are rational about this particular issue have the right to call you out on your bullshit. We have the right to tell you that you are wrong, and prevent you from passing legislation that would force your wrong beliefs on others.
Stupid argument #9: It's wrong because the Bible says it is. First, I don't believe in the Bible and many other people don't believe in it. You can't force your beliefs on someone, because no one knows for sure what occurs after death, what god, if any, is real, and what reality exists in our world. You are free to have your theories. In our society, we have rules to help us live together peacefully. Do not kill, do not steal, do not harm others. These rules help us all cohabit and live a happy life. However, forcing others to accept your reality does not help us live together peacefully, but instead needlessly divides others.
Furthermore, people arguing against gay rights often pick and choose which Bible verses they want to believe in. The Bible condones slavery multiple times, gives the death sentence for breaking the Sabbath in the Old Testament, and Jesus himself says that couples should not divorce. Christians have a higher divorce rate than Atheists. Clearly, Christians don't want to force these values on others since they can hardly follow them themselves. We all know deep inside the Bible is not a good judge of morality. The Christian god sends people to an eternity of torture and suffering for simply not believing in him, even though he does not explicitly make his presence known or available to others. God has the power to stop evil, but he doesn't. How is this just?
I don't have a problem with Christians who believe in love and acceptance. If this is your interpretation of the biblical text, that is great. However, if you're going to argue this, be consistent and include gays.