I think these ones suck-
Gay people are born that way.
So? In the mind of a homophobic person, that doesn't make it okay. Weak argument.
It's all about love.
So? In the mind of a homophobic person, that love is still perverted. Weak argument.
Think about the children of gay couples!
"Think about the children" is an emotional appeal- In other words, a logical fallacy. Weak argument.
You're just homophobic.
So? Just because the person is homophobic, doesn't mean their argument is incorrect. Weak argument.
We have the good arguments. There is no reason to use any of these ones.
What are some of the best arguments?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Posts: 2,796
Threads: 39
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
I'm a : Gay Man in an Open Gay Relationship
Starsign:  Virgo
Mood:
Just because homophobes would reject these arguments, doesn't necessarily make them weak arguments.
As by definition, homophobes will reject any argument for equality as they are against it because of reasons other than rational argument.
The first three of those can be useful in certain contexts.
•
Genersis Wrote:Just because homophobes would reject these arguments, doesn't necessarily make them weak arguments.
As by definition, homophobes will reject any argument for equality as they are against it because of reasons other than rational argument.
The first three of those can be useful in certain contexts.
They're weak arguments because they are emotional appeals or statements that do not prove anything positive about gay people.
The worst one is "it's all about love" because it has been said so many times that it has become utterly meaningless and it's even annoying to me, a gay guy.
•
Posts: 2,796
Threads: 39
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
I'm a : Gay Man in an Open Gay Relationship
Starsign: Virgo
Mood:
08-19-2013, 12:03 AM
(Edited 08-19-2013, 12:06 AM by Genersis.)
Arkansota Wrote:They're weak arguments because they are emotional appeals or statements that do not prove anything about gay people. They do contain some emotional appeal, but they are also true, and are often forgotten.
Many times I've had to remind people gays aren't out to destroy the world/marriage, do actually have children, and that it's not a choice; why? because these realities normally poke massive holes in the oppositions arguments.
Though, yes, they do not work as arguments unless expanded upon.
•
Bie no! 
Arkansota, here's the thing, those aren't even Arguements, but opinions and yes, opinions are based somewhat heavily so on emotions.
An Arguement or Debate, yes is based or supposed to be comprised of logistics, however in this case, you merely provided opinions people give in an answer to something.
Guy 1: Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible
Guy 2: That may be, however, in that very same Bible you speak of, it is a Sin to eat shellfish, indulge in lust and fall victim to envy, so by literal definition, would this not too make you a Sinner to the 3rd Degree and a Hypocrite?
That is an Arguement or Debate, no where am I including my opinion or emotional view.
However, I know with Autism comes Apathetic tendencies, and while not a judgement or belittlement of any kind but merely a academic fact, it does prove hard for many here to appreciate where it is you are coming from.
And I've noticed you've yet to directly respond to me in any thread I've replied to you in...could this be a pattern or coincedence? Forgive my curiosity 
•
Sylph Wrote:Bie no!
Arkansota, here's the thing, those aren't even Arguements, but opinions and yes, opinions are based somewhat heavily so on emotions.
An Arguement or Debate, yes is based or supposed to be comprised of logistics, however in this case, you merely provided opinions people give in an answer to something.
Guy 1: Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible
Guy 2: That may be, however, in that very same Bible you speak of, it is a Sin to eat shellfish, indulge in lust and fall victim to envy, so by literal definition, would this not too make you a Sinner to the 3rd Degree and a Hypocrite?
That is an Arguement or Debate, no where am I including my opinion or emotional view.
However, I know with Autism comes Apathetic tendencies, and while not a judgement or belittlement of any kind but merely a academic fact, it does prove hard for many here to appreciate where it is you are coming from.
And I've noticed you've yet to directly respond to me in any thread I've replied to you in...could this be a pattern or coincedence? Forgive my curiosity
What I'm saying is that facts should be the only components of arguments. And we have all the facts.
•
Arkansota Wrote:What I'm saying is that facts should be the only components of arguments. And we have all the facts.
Yes, as I asserted previously, facts are derivative of knowledge and not so much emotions or if at all, which is a prime component for opinions and bias, so yes, as I pretty much said already, Arguements should not be based on Emotive Opinions, however, I was just pointing out the fact that you are the one who used them as if they were something but opinions.
To say : I was born this way - essentially is an opinion and I would never use it as an Arguement, as it is not one. I personally believe it, however, I would not use it as a point of debate.
Something you did, which I was trying to point out. You called it a weak Arguement, but alas, an Arguement it never was to be considered weak...
Just sayin Gurlie 
•
When dealing with homophobes I only deal with arguments about equality under the law. It's a waste of time to mess with anything else, and I don't care what they feel, only that they leave us alone. I'm the same way about racism, if people suck so bad they need to be racist then that's their problem, but I generally don't feel bothered as long as their bigotry isn't codified into law.
•
Arkansota Wrote:What I'm saying is that facts should be the only components of arguments. And we have all the facts.
We don't have all the facts though. The nature Vs. nurture argument is still running rampant. We know of a few genes which occur in some gay men, but don't in others, we know the hair sworl going left instead of right is a common feature - but again many gay men don't have it, and many straight do. Without solid facts we can't make the kind of argument you're looking for Arkansota, and the facts just aren't there yet.
At the end of the day, homophobes themselves don't exactly rely on facts anyway, they rely on mostly-unwavering beliefs that usually require no evidence on their part. And just like many Christians who oppose the idea of the big bang, and all the science that disproves the bible, even if a homophobe was given a solid argument against their belief, it wouldn't change it.
They don't care about facts, they care about opinion - their own. And there's no argument that can force a person to change their mind, especially when it's something they believe so strongly about (as some homophobes seem to). Even if we could prove people are born gay, it's not a choice, it's in our genes (whatever) it wouldn't make them think it was "right" - and I don't think there's any argument that would sadly.
•
The term "logical fallacy" isn't being used properly here.
1. Gay people being born this way. This is relevant to American jurisprudence which does consider immutability as an important grounds for protection against discrimination.
2. This is totally relevant to arguments that gay relationships are illegitimate because they do not involve actual love.
3. Think about the children of gay couples, again relevant to direct criticism of the impact of gay rights on the children of straight couples. Not to mention the importance of thinking about the gay children.
•
|
