Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
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….  

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.…

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.
I am currently working on going through the Bible and writing down passages that many Christians are ignorant of, try to avoid or say isn't in there, or haven't considered the connotations of. Perhaps I will submit this later. However, this goes into my reason #9.
Also, I realize I target Christians a lot in this. I do this because it is the biggest religion in the world, I live in a country that's population is mostly christian, and most of the people I know are christian. Many of them use these arguments. My counter arguments can apply to non-Christians as well. A bigot is a bigot, regardless of their religion.
EDIT: I added spacing and paragraphs. I also didn't realize that in just copying and pasting this from an open office file, the quotation marks would get messed up so I fixed those too. Sorry about this being hard to read at first. Hopefully it is better now.
Add a Comment:
midnighteclipse02 Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
In my opinion, I'm alright with homosexual people. I accept them
But what bothers me the most is since I'm straight, people think I'm against gay people, even though I'm not. I mean, I'm not going to be homosexual. And to be quiet honest, if I ever have kids, I really don't want them to be homosexual. I used to be less tolerant of homosexuality. But I've grown more acceptance to it. 
I'm religious, but I think tolerating and accepting people for who they are is a good thing, and to respect that. And they'll respect yours :3
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2015
I'm not sure how people would think you are against gay rights for being straight.  Your preference is not offensive, it's just something beyond your control.  I wouldn't be offended if I were told that someone's preference does not allow them to be attracted to me.  It might sting a little as all rejections do, but people are not obligated to be interested in me.  If someone calls you homophobic for that, then they are ignorant.  
The question I propose to you is if your kids were gay, what would you do?  These are factors that are mostly beyond people's control, unless someone is a bisexual.  I believe people can enter a loving relationship whether it is same sex or otherwise.  If your child's happiness is at stake, what would you do?  It is something to consider.  I'm glad you are thinking about these questions as I once did.  
midnighteclipse02 Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah, it's confusing. I'm not sure why people get offended by me being straight.
Maybe they are just ignorant.
That is a good question. I always thought that people become influenced to become gay
But I read that sometimes they can be born that way. Is that true?
I know a lot of bisexual and gay people, but they where influenced by this one person I know
Because at first, they where straight as anything. Suddenly one day they are gay. 
So that's why I thought it came from influences from the environment.
I'd rather not have them be gay (I hope this isn't offensive, but I'm being honest)
But, really I'm not sure. 
loreshaper-kethal Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015
Well to be fair, a lot of these arguments would be easily countered by anyone who beleives in systematically enforced eugenics.

1. In the past traditional marriage was used as a way to ensure the survival of the human species.
Back when we had to worry about dying from plagues and wild animals and maurading warlords on a daily basis,
our species could not afford to waste resources on absolutely anyone unwilling or unable to reproduce for any reason.

2. You're right, it is natural. Although hurricanes, earthquakes, poison frogs and snakes, smallpox, and cannibalism are also natural things.
Something being natural is not nessesarily a good or bad thing, and just because animals do it doesn't mean we should.

3. This one right here is actually the most important reason of them all. To someone who beleives in systematically enforced eugenics,
the answer is "Should we also prevent infertile people from having relationships of any kind? Yes we most certainly should do exactly that."
This is because a person who beleives in eugenics considers efficiency to be of the utmost importance, and feeding those who are not
able or willing to reproduce are considered "biological waste material" to be disposed of,
 either through denying them access to all resources they need to live so they simply starve to death, or hunting them down and converting their body into soylent green and/or fertilizer.

4. This is one is actually true, but would be considered irrelevant because simply allowing non-reproductive humans to even be alive would be considered an inefficiency to be stamped out.

5. same as number 4.

6. A eugenicist would not consider it "harmless" because the very existance of non-reproductive people reduces the human specie's overall collective ability
 to reproduce just by consuming resources that could have been saved exclusively for the useage of actively reproductive people and no one else.
A eugenicist would imply that these policies would be nessesary in order to prevent the complete extinction of the human species in the wake of one or more disasters that renders society unable to provide for everyone.

7. Technically a lot of people are not aware that any and all types of sexuality education should be reserved for high school students at the minimum age of 14 or particularly mature middle schoolers at the minmum age of 12.
So long as each individual is allowed to choose what types of sexuality they are and are not taught about during this time, then there is no problem because everyone can choose what they comfortable with.
However A eugenicist would imply that anything other than teaching people of all ages that reproduction is nessesary for humanity's survival is merely an inefficiency to be stamped out.

8. Actually those people at that time did and said exactly that. They did so because a eugenicist actually does beleive that the best way to improve humanity's overall biology is to enforce selective breeding.
In other words a eugenicist actually does think that the human species is weakened, damaged, and contaminated at the biological level if any racial hybrids of any kind are allowed to exist at all.
As such people like that think that humanity needs to be "purified" of any and all of such "contaminations" in order to enhance all of humanity's characteristics and abilities, thereby acheiving "biological perfection".

9. This one is actually wrong, as the original biblical script was mistranslated. the "a man shall not lay with another man for it is an abomination" line in the scripture when properly translated from
the original hebrew and greek says "a man shall not lay with a boy for it is an abomination". Just a simple translation error.
As for the historical implications of all ancient writings, see number 1 for the explantion as to why in the past humanity would have gone extinct if it had not placed survival and reproduction on the very top of their priority list.

Please keep in that I myself personally am NOT a eugenicist, nor do I beleive any of these things to be true, as instead I am just mentioning them because they are the most persistant of any counter arguements you may receive.
red-mohawk Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2015  Student General Artist
Where did you find out about the mis-translation?
M1ZO Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
killbillin Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I support gays and I don't support gay rights. Do you have a problem with this? With that I don't want kids to have two mothers or two fathers?
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2015
I think saying I have a problem with your personal beliefs is a bit of a stretch.  I most likely do not hold your beliefs, and I might even think they may be a bit unfounded.  However, I am pretty sure attacking you for them won't get us anywhere.  I have voiced my opinions, so you know how I think about this issue.  I am a bit confused about what you are saying about your position.  
"I support gays and I don't support gay rights."
How so?  Which rights don't you approve of?  
What exactly are your reasons for thinking children shouldn't have two mothers or two fathers? 
Are these beliefs based on religion and/or traditional views of gender?
killbillin Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ye, I support gays and I don't support gay rights- I don't have a problem with people being gay, like being in love with same gender, doing all the stuff couples do, having sex etc. etc., allthough I don't really think they should have rights to adopt children (also having those born using surogat or sperm bank), get married and list could go on.
My beliefs aren't based on religion, since I'm agnostic atheist. I'm rather conservative, yet it's not the reason too.
My friend nearly killed himself when his mother appeared to be lesbian so...
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2015
You have peeked my curiosity.  I have heard of Agnostics/Athiests who have similar views, although they are quite rare.  I am guessing you probably haven't had a conversation about this issue without feeling attacked.  It is clearly something you have a personal connection to.  I would like to hear what your reasons are for opposing adoption rights and marriage for folks who are in a same sex relationship.  Perhaps, if you wish you could PM me if you don't want to post everything on a public forum.  
killbillin Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well. I'm conservative alright? Also the whole "friend tried to commit suicide because of this" thing... I guess those reasons are clear enough?
bananakieko1 Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2015
Your friend obviously is affected by society...which often condemns same-sex marriage as not being right. Not just that, but any form of family outside the "nuclear" family has some sort of bias towards it.

However, it's also understandable because he probably thought he was concieved through a "normal" marriage. It would be a shock. 
scalpelboy Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"He probably thought" ohhhhhhhhhhh~~

You know nothing about what happened ok?
killbillin Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Maybe he was affected by fact that his, let me say this again HIS mother said that she dates a girl because she is misandric? Wouldn't it hurt you if your mother said that she hates all of your gender?

He was concieved through a normal marriage, just that later his mother turned out to be  misandric, as I've said before, and divorced his father. So yeah, he tried to kill himself, because his mother said that she hates him (not directly but yeah he's male so...) and basically all his friends laughed at him, well now he lives with his father and his stepsister and still gets all the hate because "OOOO OOO YOU LEFT YOUR MOM BECAUSE SHE LOVES A GIRL YOU HOMOPHOBE OOOOO WHAT KIND OF SON ARE YOU".

I can link his account to you if you want to talk to him, he just made dA like one week ago and he isn't really active so I don't know if you catch him up and he probably won't be really willing to talk about this, but yeah, his account is scalpelboy
scalpelboy Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You really think it's cool bringing this story up.
killbillin Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
We've talked about this, and you remember you have agreed. End of discussion.
scalpelboy Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Okay you won, Kazz. But still.
(1 Reply)
sethness Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2014
Your writing is all logical, except for one line where you inadvertently went waaaaay too far:
You wrote "Secondly, teaching kids to accept themselves and each other for who they are is never wrong."

Sure, it's a good thing to give both gay and straight kids a positive self-image, but "never wrong" is going too far because you're not just talking about sexual orientation. What about, for example, kids who torture small animals? Is it OK to tell them to accept themselves if they're torturing small animals, or doing any one of a hundred other genuinely horrible things? Of course not. So "never wrong" is ...ummm...sometimes wrong.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2014
Good point.
I wrote this a while ago so I might need to edit it.  
CorSecAgent Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
It's a good break down. As far as your bible reading goes, though, there's a site called Skeptics Annotated Bible that has already broken down the bible into it's relevant fallacies. I'd recommend checking it out. :-)
KendrixTermina Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
Really. No one is forcing any christian to marry a same-sex person.

But the laws should be for everyone. What if all the muslims in the country got together and decided to ban pork and alcohol for *everyone*?
If you see how pork and alcohol being for sale doesn't stop the muslim from dissaproving of it and not buying it, you should see how gay marriage and reproductive rights being available for those who want them doesn't stop christians from not having anyting to do with it. 

Also, they always speak like "christians" are a monolith, but there's actually a fair amount of non-homophobic, non misogynist christians out there.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2014
Of course.  I always think that more rights are better than less, as long as those rights don't endanger other people.  
It is sad that people think others having freedom is somehow them "forcing it" on them.  
"Also, they always speak like "christians" are a monolith, but there's actually a fair amount of non-homophobic, non misogynist christians out there."  This is so true.  My significant other identifies as Christian, but doesn't believe that homosexuality is a wrong.  My dad is also pretty okay with the idea of them marrying.   I have learned to be a lot more accepting recently, and not let a few bad Christians spoil the bunch.  It is always sad when a few people try to speak for the whole, but really have no idea what they are talking about.  

Vampyrwolf Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2013
Nice. I'm going to add to this.

Stupid argument #1: We're fighting to protect traditional marriage.
Let's not forget the Catholic Church co-opted marriage about 800 years and redefined it to mean between men and women. Before that, marriages occurred in many cultures of many people concerning many different things for many thousands of years before Christianity was ever a blip on the map. It was the joining of families, businesses, countries, kingdoms, taking young girls for the soul purpose of making babies (preferably boys), and a whole big laundry list of crap that has nothing to do with men and women. Of course the religious will claim otherwise, regurgitating the pure and utter shit they've been spoon-fed by their holy person and refer to actual history as "revisionist." Guess what folks, it isn't us reinventing history, it's the religious who are doing so.

Stupid argument #2: It's unnatural.
I just tell them, if it occurs in nature, it's natural. We have observed it in everything from gut worms to whales. Correct, technology isn't natural and I don't give two shits what the Bible says. It claims the earth is flat, animals talk, eating shellfish, wearing different fabrics, and working on the Sabbath are crimes worthy of death, but for some reason people disregard those and focus on homosexuals. Here's the reality of it, they don't care about the other things at all because it doesn't gross them out. So, they cherry pick the Bible to justify their hate and bigotry. I don't think that's what the intent of the BuyBull is...

Stupid argument #3: Gays can't procreate.
Wanna bet? Many gays have children. True, that can't do it like heterosexual couples can, but straight couples who are infertile have to go about it differently too. So what?

Stupid argument #4: Gays should have something similar to marriage, but just have it called something else.
Why? Because of the traditions bullshit? See point #1.

Stupid argument #5: Churches will be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is allowed.
No they won't. Churches can remain as bigoted as they wish. Guess what folks, there are millions of married Atheist couples who never even acknowledge religion in their weddings. Churches do not determine and regulate legal marriages. The government does. Your wedding is not legal unless it's been through the government. The churches are irrelevant from a purely legal standpoint.

Stupid argument #6: if we accept gays, pedophilia and bestiality should also be accepted.
Wrong. As stated above, children and animals are NOT consenting adults. Also, equating homosexuality to pedophilia is absurd. Pedophilia is about control and domination, and considering that damn near every outed pedo has been a white, straight, middle-aged married man, leaves this argument as stupid as it gets. People also like to toss Polygamy into this one as well. Guess what, I don't have a problem with that either. As long as they are consenting adults who know what they are getting into, if multiple people wish to all get married, it's none of my, or anyone else's business.

Stupid argument #7: states that allow gay marriage went on to teach homosexuality in school to our kids.
Bullshit. I don't even recall heterosexuality being taught to me when I was in school. Personally, I think ALL orientations SHOULD be taught in schools. We usually don't know how kid's orientations are going to turn out, so giving them the tools and knowledge to make their sex live as safe as possible, it's best they have all knowledge we can give them so they can make more informed decisions about how they go about having a safe sex life regardless of who they are with.

Stupid argument #8: You're trying to force homosexuality on those of us who don't believe it is right.
Just as you are trying to force heterosexuality on those who don't believe it's right for them? Sorry, beliefs are irrelevant in this. Gotta love the hypocrisy. It makes ZERO difference whether you or anyone "believes" it's wrong. Fact is there are millions of gay couples all over the planet and not a single one is affecting anyone else no more than any heterosexual couple is.

Stupid argument #9: It's wrong because the Bible says it is.
This one was covered pretty well by you and me up in #2. But what they also fail to realize is that the Bible is not a legal document, nor do most of the planet's population follow it. I'm and Atheist and it plays no part in my life. TO me, it's just another story like Lord Of the Rings. Actually, LOTR is MUCH better and doesn't have any of the absurd "laws" in it.

Anyway, thought I'd add a bit to this. Hope it helps. :aww:
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2013
Thanks. This is very well said.
#1: Agreed. This was also pointed out by the person who commented below you. I also think that this really goes to show how they want to reinvent history instead of observing it objectively. This does not surprise me, given how much fundamentalists have already tried to fuck up science.
#2: What you have to say on this is brilliant! It is so ridiculous how fundamentalists, who disregard or attempt to disprove through flawed science many well proven scientific theories are telling us what is and is not natural.
#3: True, and you don't see these people say that infertile couples shouldn't marry.
#4: Yeah, I think this one has to do with that tradition bullshit. I put it as a separate point in this because it was so stupid it deserved special attention. I hate how they think this is some sort of "compromise," and are telling people like us that we aren't willing to "compromise" because we don't want outright discrimination.
#5: Exactly. Because if this were not the case then Atheists would have no reason to marry.
#6: Yes. Things like pedophilia and bestiality are about control, whereas homosexuality is about two people loving one another. Which is why on their part even comparing the two is extremely hateful and insulting.
#7: To ad to that, it is very harmful to force an individual to be heterosexual. The APA article I linked to in the description was very helpful in describing this.
#8: Agreed. This is blatant hypocrisy.
#9: LOTR is a far better story. From a literature standard, the Bible can get really boring. Several chapters are extremely tedious because they go into detail about stuff that nobody gives a shit about, such as genealogies and the construction of the tabernacle/temple. The old testament laws are extremely tedious and repetitive as well.
Thanks for your input. I really liked what you had to say about this.
Vampyrwolf Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2013
You are welcome. :aww:

Something else no one seems to ever mention is how the discrimination of homosexuals not only affects them, but their friends and family as well. For example; I, along with most of my extended family live in Missouri, where same-sex marriages are illegal. I have a gay cousin, who had to go up to Iowa to marry her partner. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend the wedding because I couldn't, at the time, afford to take the time off work to travel up there for the weekend. So it isn't just unfair for homosexual couples themselves, it affects their loved ones as well.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2013
Yeah, that sounds really frustrating. That is really sad that your family had to go through all that trouble for something that shouldn't have been an issue at all.
It is still illegal in my state (Minnesota), as well as in the state I am from (Wisconsin), in which case if there was a gay friend or family member of mine that would want to get married, he or she would have to go down to Iowa.
xXDeadlyNightshadeXx Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
It's a little hard to read but otherwise I totally agree with you!

Another thing I would like to point out too is that people like to throw the phrase "sanctity of marriage" around, and I have yet to find one person that clearly defines this for me. Marriage and what constitutes as marriage has been edited and tweaked with throughout history. Polygamy was the norm much longer before monogamy was thought up, you could trade your daughter for livestock, you couldn't marry someone outside of your class, your religion, etc. We don't believe in that anymore, so obviously the definition of marriage was changed throughout time, so will gay people hurt the "sanctity of marriage"? No more than straight people have, but that's something else I could go on about, and this is getting lengthy as it is.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
You make a great point there. To add to that, the Bible describes a very outdated version of marriage because it was written a long time ago when, as you described, people's standards were different. Since we all but throw out the other aspects of marriage it presents, I don't understand religious culture still clings to what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
xXDeadlyNightshadeXx Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You're right, it doesn't make sense today. Honestly if they're going to say that the sanctity of marriage will be ruined by gay people, they better go after adulterers too since it explicitly says in the ten commandments that thou shalt not commit adultery and it is very much stressed on. Where are the protests against adulters? Oh that's right, they like to cherry pick what they read, they like to stress on some things and completely ignore other things. I mean, it only makes sense, right? :b
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
Exactly. I see some Christians get upset about adultery, but they don't turn it into a political issue like they do with gay rights. It's strange. I'd almost say Christians pick and choose verses they are going to talk about based on what verses apply to them, but it seems that many are actually gays hiding in the closet or "ex-gays" trying to deny their own nature (or at least pretending to do so for the public.)
orcbruto Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
Wow! Great! You write quite well...
I just think the arguments should be separated by more visible paragraphs... It's easy to get lost in the text words so near each other... =D
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
Thanks. I will probably edit the paragraphs later.
FelixtheFailure Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
*enthusiastic clap* good job! I like it.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
Thank you!
Mephistophilez Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013   Traditional Artist
Good stuff :) If you want an interesting take on homosexuality in the bible, this is a pretty thorough explanation of the few verses which Christians use to gay bash [link] . I think it's a fascinating interpretation, but maybe a bit of a cop-out or stretch on a few points. As you pointed out, given all the other silly rules (even two sets of ten commandments, and different ways to take them [link] ), and the crazy immorality in the bible [link] I find their arguing from the bible generally absurd (with all things, but this in particular). And their biblical interpretations should never be allowed to dictate laws for the entire country.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
Interesting. I have heard a gay pastor talk about these verses as well (can't seem to find it as of now.) However, I also find arguing from the Bible totally absurd. Most Christians hardly ever pick up the book except to read their pet passages. My mom has read through the entire Bible aloud to me and my brother many times, and there were so many passages in there that were wrong on so many levels. Even as a kid growing up in a totally religious environment, I understood this. Many Christians know this too, which is why they'll go to great lengths to explain them away. Others will go to great lengths to justify them. It was really a relief for me to just reject Biblical text as a basis for morality altogether.
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013
Solid argumentation, although it could use more spacing, more paragraphs.
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
Thank you. I will fix the spacing and paragraphs asap.
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
sonikkuruzu Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
This is brilliant
HeldUpInTheAir Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2013
sonikkuruzu Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
You're welcome :meow:
Add a Comment:

:iconheldupintheair: More from HeldUpInTheAir

Featured in Collections

stories fanfics and other written work by dragongirl117

Hot Topics- Politics, Relgions, Social Issues by Katzztar

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
April 6, 2013
File Size
8.9 KB


34 (who?)