Gay bashers: explain your reasoning.

If the entire population went homosexual and stayed that way, the human race would die out, barring a massive compulsory artificial insemination program or something similar. (Yet another government agency?)

If the entire population went heterosexual and stayed that way, the human race would continue on much as before.

If the continuing existence of the human race is not a positive issue, I don't know what is.

The possible nonexistence of the human race is something negative. And yes I am simple minded, simple enough to see the truth of that.

So, it is clear that the homosexuals depend on the heterosexuals for their very existence, and not the other way around.

Homosexuals are essentially a running joke, a la "You Know How I Know You're Gay" dialog between Paul Rudd and Seth Rogen in The 40 Year Old Virgin, and have been in all my actual life experience. The heterosexuals are expected by political correctness, or whatever you want to call it, to pretend that "gayness" is a legitimate "alternative lifestyle" via the gay media.

Speaking of negative, look at all of the negative expressions that have entered into our vernacular: that sucks, that blows, queer as a three-dollar bill, *beep* etc. each as a pejorative. I can't think of a single non-leering, positive expression that has emerged as a result of the practice of homosexuality or from the homosexual culture.

Also negative in its essence is "gay pride week" and all such efforts to propagandize gayness into legitimacy. Can you imagine "hetero pride week"?

It's no secret, but but something we tend to skirt around or avoid, like discussing sex with our teenage kids

Well, anyway - it's way easier to be gay in the USA. Try being gay in some rough south america country - then you will really see what hatred is.

I don't engage in gay bashing out of any genuine religious or moral principle or because I'm suppressing secret desires. For me, gay bashing is like picking on your little brother. You do it for the sport of it.

I am no gay basher, and I believe that people of same-sex attraction have the same rights as everyone else and should be afforded those rights. Although I believe homosexual acts to fall outside the natural moral law, they should not be prosecutable under any state laws. I do not feel threatened by homosexually inclined people or by their sexual activity. I do however feel threatened by the restriction of freedom that is increasingly being suffered by those who don't approve of homosexual acts or of the gay lifestyle of of same- sex marriage. When a wedding photographer is fined for not taking on a gay wedding, when a doctor is required by law to act against conscience by artificially inseminate a lesbian, when J.P.'s are forced to resign for declining to perform homosexual weddings, when the gay lobby has the power to decide what apps iTunes will carry, when a university dismisses a professor for stating that the Catholic Church holds homosexual acts to be immoral, or in other case a professor is dismissed for saying environment might be a factor in sexual preference, when a student organisation is denied official recognition for upholding biblical sexual values, when a student is expelled from a program for refusing to approve homosexual acts, when a university files a grievance against a student for not writing a pro gay adoption letter to state legislature, Or when a student is forced into diversity-sensitivity training for expressing her view that homosexual acts are immoral, then it is not irrational for people of this belief to feel that their freedom is severely compromised and under further threat. And that time is now. All of the above have occurred in the USA in recent years, and the signs are that it's going to get worse.

A while back I compiled as many reasons as I could find that made legit sense (not the myths/remarks that couldn't be verified through reason or research - those of which are prejudice).

1. CONCERNING HISTORY

The PRO-SIDE presents evidence that past civilizations and Religious Institutions have faced this debate before. The Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have celebrated and same-sex unions. Historians report that Ancient Rome, Egypt, and China all allowed same-sex marriage amongst their citizenry.
The AGAINST-SIDE agrees that past societies, governments, and Religious Institutions have deemed such relationships appropriate. Yet our predecessors also supported and allowed things that we disagree with - our world and societies are not alike so much that we still don't have to reason this debate out as it relates to us here and now. If the past reasons are still relevant by all means use them to support your side but simply the fact that it's occurred in the past doesn't establish the right or wisdom.


2. EFFECTS ON MARRIAGE

The AGAINST-SIDE says that following your sexual desire to defining a relationship is already a problem in almost every traditional marriage. If love is so universal then why is it so important that you follow your specific sexual desires? The rein we give our sexual desires is causing lots of trouble with traditional marriage. Putting another OK on following sexual desire will increase an unhealthy amount of sexually-led relationships. That's not what you intend to happen - for sex and love are intertwined...but based on how humans in our society are operating with their sexuality that is what we think will happen. (And there are some on this side who believe that we need to fix the problems with perceptions of sexuality and traditional marriage to helping the greatest number of people in our society getting back on track rather than focusing so much on this heterosexual/homosexual debate).
The PRO-SIDE says that marriage operates the same for any couple, despite whether they are two men, two women, or man and woman. The divorce rate won't change - one's sexual preference does not affect one's ability to love purely and with endurance. Homosexual and Heterosexual marriages will operate much the same because the relationship is much more dependent on partners' interaction styles and personalities. Though they may be limited in being able to reproduce independently these couples can still adopt a child or have an artificial insemination.


3. CHILD-REARING

The PRO-SIDE says that homosexual couples can be just as able parents as heterosexual couples. Children raised by homosexuals are not turning out to be any less healthy or lacking. They see plenty of examples in society of men and women. They can receive loving care from both parents and do not impose or need other outside influences for their child to be raised well.
The AGAINST-SIDE has said in the past that homosexual parents would lead to homosexual children and that the children of homosexual parents would be lacking of fatherly or motherly influence. Recent studies have proven that children are indeed capable of adjusting to homosexual parenthood without any ill effects but this side still maintains that the ideal representation of parenthood is given through the heterosexual parents because they believe there are differences between men and women that are not just physiological. Human personality/psychological is not compartmentalized away from one's biological design but intertwined.


4. CAN HOMOSEXUALS CHOOSE?

The AGAINST-SIDE says that what desires anyone may feel is involuntary but our behavior, identity, and choice in which desires we feed and give rein to are choice-driven. Having the want/desire to do something does mean that we should, or even have to do it. No matter how powerful one's drive may be there is still some choice in who we want ourselves to be and in turn have reverse effects on our involuntary drives due to our adaptability.
The PRO-SIDE says that homosexuals have no choice in who they feel attracted to. The desire arises as naturally for them as heterosexuals feel their desires. They shouldn't have to ignore this basic drive. Blindly following desires is unhealthy but this attraction doesn't bring about any ill effects. They should not have to choose to be otherwise.


5. PROCREATION?

The PRO-SIDE asks why do we allow sterile/infertile couples to get married? They have as little of a natural chance at procreation as homosexual couples. Homosexuals can get artificial insemination and/or adopt children.
The AGAINST-SIDE says that sterile/infertile couples are limited by a physical condition that they have no control over their inability to procreate while homosexuality, rooted in one's attraction - is based more off of desire than physical condition. Homosexuality is a separation from a natural ability to procreate by choice, not by a medical ailment like being sterile.


6. CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE?

The PRO-SIDE says that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. That society allows transgenders and pedophiles to marry yet denies them the right is a wrongful discrimination. Allowing couples to divorce for no strong reasons but not allowing homosexuals to marry their partner simply because they are the same gender is also discrimination. Unity and love are the only central aspects of marriage. Marriages have many purposes and roles in society but they are all based out of the bonding between the two people in the relationship. Despite whether your partner is the same sex as you or not, that bond can still be as strong and as beneficial as it ever has been.
The AGAINST-SIDE says that homosexuality is not a civil rights issue because it is rooted more in attraction and desire (not race or biological sex). They have a choice in whether or not they follow those desires. Their argument basically boils down to feeling that because the desire is there, it should be followed. Transgenders and pedophile marriages along with our No-fault divorce are all evidence of holes in our current system that need fixing. Just because our system has problems doesn't justify homosexuality. We should be focusing on fixing those problems. Further more, if unity and love are the only central elements to marriage how would we argue against other taboo relationships...such as incest or polygamy? Those could demonstrate love and unity just as well as any marriage you see today. If we use that reasoning to support homosexuality down the road we will be supporting those too.


7. UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENCES

The AGAINST-SIDE says that being able to understand and appreciate differences will help unify us...but if we wander too far from our natural state and biological identity we'll very easily end up on a slippery slope. "The liberal policies of today are the conservative policies of tomorrow." We should understand differences but we feel allowing homosexual marriage would be setting the foundation for an unhealthier future. We should trust to our innate design rather than always be looking to be progressive.
The PRO-SIDE says that being able to understand and appreciate differences will further unify us and make us stronger. Unity and love are the only central aspect of marriage. All other parts of our traditional perspective on marriage are optional and aren't necessary for a marriage to be successful. Being open to taking a hard look and evaluation of past perspectives is vital to creating a healthy future.


8. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

The PRO-SIDE says that marriage based upon sex is discriminatory. Governments can't support such a marriage design since it is unconstitutional. They are forcing you to have a partner who is the opposite sex yet in our Constitution basing decisions only off of someone's gender is in fact prejudice. If the government believes that male and female differences exist beyond their physical/biological make-up then they should use that as their base. And if they are expecting marriage to be a bridging of the gap between differences of the two sexes then why aren't we having to prove our personalities and strengths vary enough for the marriage to be a true team?
The AGAINST-SIDE says sex is not a right as far as the Government is concerned. Our Bill of Rights does not contain anything about marriage or sex. The Constitutional Amendment merely states that rights are not to be denied based on sex (meaning whether you be male or female). The Government's interest in support of homosexual marriage can only come into being by action on part of the people. Some go further to believe that the Government's primary interest is focused on growth - that they can't endorse a lifestyle that doesn't procreate (procreation is an inherent position for them until the American people vote on a change). Marriage based on opposite sex is to bridge the gap between male and female psychology, skills, and mutual combination of each others' strengths.


9. VALUES BEING PRIORITIZED

The AGAINST-SIDE is focused on ideals like tradition, bridging gaps between the sexes, procreation, attachment to our biological identity, and lastly following moral/religious direction (Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.).
The PRO-SIDE is focused on ideals like equality, recognition of each citizen's worth, self-respect, society can survive on it's own processes - not government engineering, and the re-evaluation of traditional perspective/progress.
PERVERSION
The AGAINST-SIDE says that homosexual acts are a common sign of sexual perversion. The cases of a heterosexual individual partaking so much in sexual acts soon becomes addicted and at the deepest levels of addiction the individual starts desiring an individual of their same gender for reasons ranging from the excitement of it's seemingly forbidden to the same gender now arouses more strongly than the naturally driven partners that the individual originally sought out. Many, if not all, homosexuals have had their natural desire twisted so that their desiring of the same gender feels normal and acceptable.
The PRO-SIDE says that homosexuals are not necessarily perverted. For those who naturally desired a partner of the opposite gender homosexuality would be a perversion for them. But there are some who are born with these desires and have not turned homosexual by sexual addiction. For these individuals their homosexual desires are not a perversion.


10. ARGUMENT SUSTAINED

The AGAINST-SIDE says that any argument in favor of same-sex marriage can only be sustained if one argues there is no vast difference between men and women and that we have little choice in who we are. If there is a difference between men and women then homosexual marriage becomes a mimicry of heterosexual relationships, rather than existing in it's own right. If we have choice over our own sexuality than the lifestyle is more built out of sexual perversion.
The PRO-SIDE says that any argument against same-sex marriage can only be sustained with discrimination against homosexuals and their freedom to marry and follow their desire. The vast differences thought to have existed between men and women were pressed from Society's belief to the person...rather than drawn out from the person to Society's open-minded conclusion.


11. PERCEPTIONS OF EACH OTHER'S STANCES

The PRO-SIDE says that the only persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage lie grounded in a normative vision of marriage as an institution. The idea of marriage as a role in society rather than ones based on true love and companionship is keeping us embedded with tradition rather than it's full purpose. Many of our opposition is narrow-minded and not open to the difference. They operate more out of fear and comfort with familiarity than with appreciation and openness. Their strongest arguments are based off procreation...the past importance of offspring in order to survive as a species and that we can't just reason out that part of our biological nature no matter how much progress our society may make.
The AGAINST-SIDE says that the best argument for homosexual marriage is that the individual has the right to choose for themselves. Choice is a strong proponent of our nation's philosophy. The idea that homosexuals can enjoy the same relationship as heterosexuals means that the real difference between two partners isn't based in male/female design but rather in personality/psychological design. Biological designs have a strong influence but are not what really "call the shots" in our decisions, desires, and abilities. Such a distancing apart from our biology leaves us with little anchor as to keep us in check.





I, myself, am a strong proponent of the idea that our choices show and shape us into who we really are; far more than our traditions, desires, and biology. It is because of that belief in choice being so strong that I do not support homosexuality. Too much of the arguments I've seen for the Pro-side can only be supported if we don't have choices in who we are. How much choice do we have in who we are? If we have a lot of choice in who we are then justifying the pro-homosexual debate will not work (only if we are more run by desires and drives than choice can that lifestyle be seen as inseparable from simply being human).

I'm afraid your question verges on the rhetorical. Without resort to faith no person could justify bashing - verbally or otherwise - another human for their sexual preferences in anything approaching a satisfactory manner.

The 2 main themes that seem to be running through this thread are-

1) That homosexuality is an unnatural practice therefore it is wrong. Unnatural has been defined (by this thread) as meaning either (i) sexual acts that do not involve the production of a child or (ii) relationships that do not adhere to a model of a family unit that is characterised by procreating (apparently monogomous) same sex partnerships and the resultant offspring.

2) That equality laws - i.e. that everyone in society should be treated in the same way - enable minority groups to hold sway over the majority. These arguments seem to fall into two categories: (i) that people expressing a hatred of other are prevented from doing so. For example; Christians are not allowed to convene groups that condemn homosexuals and state that they are going to hell forever for expressing their sexuality. (ii) A dislike of an individual's behaviour. For example; a person finding it offensive that a man would walk down the street with his top off during a gay pride march.

My reasoned rebuttal to this is:

1i) Puritanical nonsense! - hope you've never given/received oral sex or you my friend are an unnatural deviant. Anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuals neither is rampant promiscuity, AIDS or other STD's. Love, companionship and monogamy are not the exclusive domain of heterosexuals.

ii) There is no 'natural' family unit. This is a socially constructed idea and will vary from decade to decade and country to country if not state to state. A child that is brought up by people who loves and supports them is far better than forcing people to conform to some stereotype invented by ad execs in the 1950's. Would a pair of people who are the same sex but not in a sexual relationship and raising a child together be considered to be unnatural? If not, why does it matter whether they are having sex or not?

2i) There seem to be a few issue at play here - an acceptance that a statement no matter how hateful and abhorrent is justified if it is a religious belief; i) There is no proof of the existence of the supernatural (ii) Would it be acceptable if it was a Muslim group stating that all non Muslims should be executed? (iii) Threatening people with an eternity of torture for expressing themselves is acceptable (iv) That homosexuality is a belief or lifestyle choice. Heterosexuality is not a belief or lifestyle. There may be certain beliefs or lifestyles that define themselves as being heterosexual but one does not follow the other. For example a man may have a sexual relationship with a woman and also watch football. This does not mean that watching football is a heterosexual past time. The media may represent football as a heterosexual past time but that does not make it so.

ii) Condemning a whole subsection of society because of the actions of a few is pretty ignorant. Or do you have empirical evidence that all homosexuals behave in this way?

In conclusion, having hopefully relied on reason and logic I will now engage in some unsubstantiated and wild speculation. - the chat about the hardwiring of hatred towards homosexuals seems to be pretty ridiculous in justifying bigotry and providing a salacious hetero fantasy; firstly I'm sure the straight cavemen would have been happy to oblige the local cavewoman; secondly I doubt whether cavemen identified as being gay or straight - they may well have engaged in both homo and heterosexual relationships. As mentioned already I have no evidence and have read very little on the matter but would speculate that homosexual behaviour does serve a purpose in terms of human evolution and it is undeniable that homosexual individuals and communities have hugely enriched human society in innumerable ways.

Apparently ardent support for polygamy and incest are legitimate reasons to gay bash.

"I don't like black people in general"

This is a very good example as to why the gay rights struggle is almost over. People like you have helped to clearly establish who truly has right on their side. Good luck in your personal struggles to marry your sister or your mother.

[deleted]