.
At a later date I might add gay adoption. This is long enough for me to type in one sitting that adding them is a bit much at the moment.
So without further ado:
Homosexuality is disgusting.
Maybe, maybe not. Disgusting is pretty subjective. For example, I absolutely loathe brussel sprouts, thus I do not eat them. However, I do not attempt to stop other people eating them or having them banned. Trying to ban or criminalise homosexuality because you believe it to be disgusting is in the same league.
Homosexuality is unnatural.
There are a dozen ways you can approach this one and it really depends on your definition of 'natural'. At the most generalised definition, it means that which falls within human experience, making homosexual natural. At a slightly more precise definition of it occuring within nature, homosexuality also fills that definition. The definition which is often used erroneously is simply that it goes against the norm. In the same way, one could define any minority interest as unnatural - for example, if less than the majority liked ice-cream then eating ice-cream would be unnatural under this definition.
It occurs in nature apart from humans, as well. Homosexual behaviour has been noted in over 450 species, including penguins. A common counter-claim to this is that they are not exclusively homosexual or that they are simply going for same-sex mates due to lack of opposite-sex mates, which is not always true; the penguins mentioned in the link above would not leave their current same-sex mate even when female penguins were introduced.
In the debate as a whole, though, whether it is natural or not is moot (though it most certainly is by anything but the wooliest of definitions). Not everything that is natural is good (for example, otters are known to eat their young) and not everything that is unnatural is bad (how many people do you know who refuse to wear glasses when they need them because they don't occur in nature?).
Homosexuals are confused.
This is another one that's based on loose use of words. Confusion indicates that the person is not aware of the standard for their position, or unaware of their behaviour. Homosexuals are aware that the majority of people are heterosexual; they are aware they do not have similar interests and are instead attracted to folks of the same gender; and they aware of any behaviour taken in regards to this, as much as any heterosexual is.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
This is a criticism that slips into the same problem that the 'unnatural' one does - because of an excessively wooly definition, this statement effectively changes the goal posts. It reasons that by going against the standard, it is a disorder. Of course, this means like stated above that ice-cream eating may well be a mental disorder.
Instead, let's get a more precise definition that isn't wooly and is from a profession who knows what they're talking about. The APA (American Psychological Association) defines a mental disorder as:
APA wrote:"a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom."
None of these are inherent in homosexuality any more than heterosexuality, therefore it is not a mental disorder - and that's by a clinical definition, not some incredibly loose definition.
The only reason homosexuality is considered okay now is because of all the homosexual lobbying pressure in the 1970's to have it removed from the DSM.
Homosexual lobbying groups undoubtedly helped, but this claim makes an assertion that it was the only reason and that against all the evidence of it being negative it was still removed. This is utterly wrong. Pressure on the APA will only help if there is no evidence it's inherently a bad thing. For example, paedophilia is still listed as a psychological problem despite NAMBLA's efforts, and for good reason.
I don't think gay men should be allowed, but lesbians are cool as long as they make out in public and stuff lawls! (or equivalent)
"God gave men a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to use one at a time." I'm pretty sure which one is currently operational by people who say this. I imagine it's supposed to be funny, but it's been done before ad nauseum, and is so alpha-male that it was hardly funny to begin with.
I'm okay with homosexuals, but why do they have to flaunt it?
When you think about it, heterosexuality is far more flaunted in society than homosexuality. I know that two guys holding hands is often causes people to gawp around where I live. Many homosexuals don't bother with PDAs because of the harassment.
Contrast this to the number of heterosexual couples walking down the street who hold hands, hug, kiss, etc. Try switching on the TV, or reading a book, or whatever, and sooner or later you'll see some kind of heterosexual romance. Talk to peers, friends or family for any length of time and sooner or later the subject or mention of girlfriends, wives, boyfriends or husbands will crop up.
If anything, heterosexuality is flaunted far more than homosexuality; you simply do not notice it because it is the norm and what you're used to. If you believe that heterosexual flaunting is okay but homosexual flaunting is not because you don't like it, then see 'Homosexuality is disgusting.'
The purpose of life is to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce therefore homosexuality is wrong.
There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically. Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously neccessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.
Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.
The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.
Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.
A disproportionate number of AIDS cases are homosexuals.
This statement is actually true. However, it's a bad argument for a number of reasons. Firstly, it only applies to heterosexual men. Lesbians are among the group least at risk of being infected by a sexual partner. Heterosexuals are also catching up.
It is also important to note that AIDS is not an inherent part of being homosexual as long as care is taken. It is dangerous - exceptionally dangerous - thinking to believe that AIDS affects mostly homosexuals because they are homosexuals. AIDS does not discriminate.
It also does not follow that if the risk is higher, which it is even if it is not inherent, that it means all homosexuality is wrong. If we were most concerned by what was healthiest or not, we'd be encouraging women to partake in lesbian relationships as much as possible.
In fact, by criminalising homosexuality you simply drive it underground. In the 50's and 60's, there were 'tea rooms' where men went to have sex with men while homosexuality was illegal. A study was done into these tea rooms, and it was discovered that if the clientele were arrested, the damage to families across America would have been serious as many of these men were family men. By criminalising homosexuality, they had taken to anonymous sex with strangers, leading a double life. As you'd imagine, this made AIDS and other venereal diseases a major problem. By bringing it out in the open and keeping it legal, you prevent this kind of stuff from happening.
God disapproves of homosexuality.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I could easily say my God approves of homosexuality, but without lack of rational evidence that would be worthless. Once I see credible evidence that God exists and that he gives a damn about homosexuality, then I'll re-evaluate this argument. It is possible to find claims that the Bible, Qu'ran, etc. does not condemn homosexuality, but I find them pretty flakey and to be honest I don't care for the reason give above.
Alternatively, if we accept "I believe that God disapproves of homosexuality" as a valid argument, then we also have to accept "I believe that God disapproves of heterosexuality" as a valid counter-argument.
Homosexuality a choice.
There is virtually no compelling reason to believe homosexuality is a choice and plenty to suggest it isn't. Firstly, it is absurd to begin with. No homosexual wakes in the morning and decides today it might be nice to prefer the same gender instead. People using this argument; do you genuinely believe you could voluntarily and in full knowledge engage in sexual relations with the same gender? No? Then it's not a choice.
Also, there is increasing biological evidence to say otherwise. For example, a recent study showed that an increasing number of biological brothers increased the chance of the next male being homosexual. Why this points to biological factors is because the brothers had to be biological; it did not matter if the male had unrelated brothers that lived with them or if they biological brothers lived with them or not.
One thing that must be clarified, as it causes a lot of confusion here, is what is a choice and what isn't. The attraction is almost certainly not a choice; the choice to act on them is. However, there is no rational reason not to act on it with another consenting adult and plenty of reasons to do so.
Also, like the natural/unnatural argument, it's highly irrelevant for the choice to determine whether homosexuality is wrong. Even if it was a choice, it is a choice made by an individual that is their own business and is a consensual act between two adults. It being a choice, even if it were true, is not a good argument for the restriction of rights to homosexuals; denying rights based on this would make it equally valid to deny rights to heterosexuals.
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
In this debate, saying that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman is like going into any other debate and propping up your side by saying 'because it is'. The question is whether marriage should be redefined; merely repeating the statement that your side stands for is not sufficient as it does not provide reasons. There is often a hidden clause in there that the definition comes from God; I will address that reasoning shortly. It is also largely mythical because many societies have been polygamous; for example, the Native Indians, or the Nayar people of India.
Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as us; they can marry people of the opposite gender.
This is what is known as sophistry. It appears to make sense, when in reality it does not. It relies on the idea that homosexuals are demanding equal rights alone; this is false. What homosexuals are asking for is the legal recognition to marry individuals of the same gender. To reveal exactly how little sense this makes consider that in the 1950's it could equally be applied to interracial marriage - "People who want to marry someone of the different race have the same rights as us; they can marry people of their own race."
People in favour of homosexual marriage have to bring in a past serious issue like interracial marriage.
Partially true, because it is an excellent method by which to reveal many of the sophistries used by the anti-crowd (as demonstrated above.) What this statement effectively is is a personal attack; it makes no attempt to show why such comparisons are invalid (when they are entirely valid) but rather attempts to make the pro-gay marriage movement look lke they will go to any low to make their point.
God disapproves of same-sex marriage, or God says marriage is between a man and a woman.
As with the homosexuality in general, arguments of a religious nature are irrelevant. With the lack of proof behind various faiths there is nothing that distinguishes these kind of arguments from those that say 'because I say so'. Even if they were valid, separation of church and state means they would have little impact on any decision.
But surely marriage is a religious institution?
Another idea that is highly contested. Some believe it has it's origin in religion; others, merely a practical civil arrangement. Anthropologists have tried to trace it both ways but evidence for either is severely lacking. In the earliest known documents on the subject it is known as an established custom. Such debates are highly irrelevant in actual fact. In modern society, marriage is no longer inherently religious in nature. An atheist couple can get married in a registry office. Regardless of the origins of marriage, it is in modern terms a civil institution and religious components are entirely optional.
Shouldn't religions have some say in who they marry?
I actually agree on this point. I am against forcing Churches to marry a homosexual couple if it is against their religious beliefs. What I am against is attempts to deny homosexuals legal recognition of their relationship in the form of civil marriage.
Homosexuals can have Civil Unions instead.
This is closely linked to the above idea of marriage being a religious institution. It is reasoned that marriage is a religious institution, but they still recognise the desire for homosexuals to have their relationship legally recognised. It is important to note, however, that separate but equal really isn't equal at all. If you saw two separate drinking fountains that were identical in terms of water quality but different in how visually attractive they were, but group A could only drink from the shabbier one and group B the more appealing one, would you conclude that both groups were equal?
Homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage.
First, the obvious; with around a 50% divorce rate, marriage is doing a very fine job of 'destroying' itself as it stands. This claim is usually entirely devoid of any facts, proofs or reasoning behind it and merely made as an assertion. One must all question the view that two people of the same gender getting married damages someone else's marriage; if it does affect their marriage, they must have a very weak relationship.
A changing institution is not the same as a destroyed one. Consider this; anti-gay marriage individuals claim that they support traditional marriage, but I imagine many of them would be opposed to the really traditional marriage; marrying for social or financial status rather than any form of romantic love. To argue that tradition means that something is correct is a fallacy.
Homosexual marriage will damage society.
Another argument that is typically vastly lacking in any justification. A very simple example will disprove this; Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and the state of Massachusetts have all legalised same-sex marriage and as far as I am aware none of them are suffering mass societal breakdown. To argue that homosexual marriage is a symptom of societal breakdown is also fallacious because it is circular; homosexual marriage damages society because homosexual marriage damages society.
Homosexual marriage will confuse children.
This argument makes the mistake of treating children like idiots. Children with same-sex parents don't spend their time being confused and wishing they had 'real parents'. If they see homosexual marriage in normal society they won't think it is 'weird', in the same way that children in predominantly polygamous societies don't wonder why all their parents are living in such bizarre living arrangements. This argument also often covers confused sexual identity; there is no evidence whatsoever of this and I will be covering this in greater detail in my gay adoption FAQ.
But surely if you let homosexuals marry, you'll have to allow polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.
This is known as a slippery slope and unsurprisingly is also a logical fallacy. It would not be a logical fallacy is there was no reason why those would not become permitted; however there is. In the case of polygamy, I am not opposed to that at all as it remains a consensual agreement between adults. As for bestiality and polygamy, neither animals nor minors can consent to a marriage contract or to sexual activity.
The purpose of marriage is procreation and having a family.
Another argument that can be attacked from several positions. Firstly, the obvious; whether marriage is for procreation is highly contentious and considering that heterosexual but sterile couples or couples who choose to remain childless can still marry seems a little strange. A second point of attack is that homosexuals can and do have families; either by children with a previous partner, adopted children, or via IVF and surrogacy. There is no relevant difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples in this regard at all, even if you consider it significant.
Gay marriages are less stable than heterosexual ones.
Questionable. As gay marriages are largely a a new phenomena to measure, few statistics exist on the matter for either side of the fence. The logical default in lack of positive evidence to suggest they are less stable is to go with the view that they are not. It is also irrelevant to the matter at hand; if they are less stable, which is a pretty high target to set considering contemporary divorce rates, that does not mean they can be denied.
________________________________________
There may be more. I've probably missed off a fair few, so if you see one that is missing do me a favour and post it and I'll get about addressing. My next homosexuality-related FAQ will be related to gay adoption and raising children, since some people seem to be a stickler for that.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
