Worst Arguments Against Gay Rights

When debating gay rights with someone who opposes gay rights, it is not unusual for them to make arguments

that are logical fallacies and are therefore really bad for their case against it. Of coarse, this is America, and it is fine

if we do not all agree on this issue. I see no problem with someone who personally views gay relationships or any

other type of relationship wrong, even though I disagree with that position. My issue is when people try to limit the

rights of adults to make their own decisions about their relationships. At any rate, below is a short list of what I think

are some of the worst arguments against gay rights and why I think they are wrong.

1. "Allowing gay marriage will open the door to allowing people to marry their pets."

This one is pretty easy to counter. It is an example of a "slippery slope" fallacy. The problem with this argument is

that animals that are not human are incapable of signing contracts with humans. Legal marriage requires the

people who are getting married to give written consent. An animal that is not human is unable to give written or

verbal consent to a contract with person.

2. "Allowing homosexuality will open the door to normalizing pedophilia."

This is another "slippery slope" fallacy. One of the issues with this argument is that when we are talking about gay

rights, we are talking specifically about grownups being allowed to enter into whatever relationship they choose with

each other. Our society has already established that children are not able to consent to intimate relationships,

particularly not with adults. Plus, one could make the same argument about allow straight relationships. Indeed, if

we allow any type of romance, it could be argued that may lead to normalizing just any other type of relationship.

This argument is more of an argument against allowing romance in general than against gay rights specifically, and I

highly doubt that even the most traditional people want to criminalize all romance.

3. "Homosexuality is unnatural."

Even if this were true, it does not make homosexuality inherently bad, let alone something that should be

criminalized. As I talked about in another article on here, not everything that is natural is good and not everything

that is unnatural is bad. For example, every electronic device that we use is unnatural. We use certain things from

nature to build them, but the fact remains that electronic devices do not occur in nature. They have to be built by us

for them to exist. On the other hand, body odor, for example, is natural. It is generally considered though to be one of the grossest things and something people do not want to be close to because it smells so bad.

4. "Homosexuality does not promote procreation."

This is generally true, though gay people can adopt children or have their own biologically children through a

surrogate. Additionally, this is another appeal-to-nature fallacy. It is homosexuality is bad because it seeming does

not serve a natural purpose. This is not an argument against homosexuality specifically. This is an argument against all intimacy that does not promote procreation. Anybody making this argument should also oppose birth control, intimacy between infertile straight couples, kissing, and pretty much all other forms of intimacy that do not promote procreation.

5. "Churches will be required to bless gay unions."

Since churches and other places of worship are both private and non-profit, they do not have to follow civil rights l

laws. Non-profit organizations are typically allowed to make their own policies about who is and is not allowed and

things like that. This change really would only apply to for-profit businesses, which are places of public

accommodation, even if they are private.