Five Worst Anti-Gay Arguments

Anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments are nothing new. Many are, and continue to be, meritless arguments. Recently, dot429 posted a picture (below) to its Facebook page.  Since its posting, there have been over 6,000 comments- most positive, and others…not so much.

After reading through some of the negative comments, I decided to make a list (and comment on) of my five most annoying posts (all of which were posted multiple times, by different people).

Homosexuality is not “natural”: It’s hard arguing with ridiculous, but I love a good challenge, – so here goes: One can argue that virtually everything we do is “unnatural,” at least as it relates to the rest of the species we share the earth with. Clothing, cars, eyeglasses, monogamy, and marriage (yes, I’m going there) are things HUMANS “do” which are “unnatural.”

Merriam-Webster defines unnatural as: not being in accordance with nature.

I don’t know about you, but when is the last time you’ve seen any other species of animal (in it’s natural habitat) wearing clothes, eyeglasses, or driving cars?

As for monogamy, I know this might shock you, but there are only 11 species (other than human) that are monogamous or close to it:  Five mammals, a fish, a lizard, and four birds.  To put this into context, there are approximately 1.3 million identified species of animals, making the percentage of monogamous animals roughly .0009%; none of which get married.

I guess by virtue of this argument, one could conclude that marriage is as unnatural as homosexuality.

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce: While this may be true, neither can approximately 16% of heterosexual couples. Should we seek to limit the rights/devalue the self-worth of this subset of Americans who are medically infertile?

Even though gay couples (and a portion of straight couples) are unable to reproduce, there is one important thing they can do: they can provide loving homes for the 150,000+ children put up for adoption each year- children born to heterosexual parents who are unable or unwilling to raise their own children.

The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong: Last I read, there is no clear verse that reads:  “Homosexuality is wrong.” It does have a verse or two that may imply it, but it’s vague at best. And those that claim it does are probably looking through the lens of a confirmation bias.

If I had to guess (and yes, this is a guess), God would have been more clear about the topic of being gay if He (or She, [yes, I also went there]) were truly against it.)

However, several things the Bible clearly outlines as sin which are still legal and/or accepted are: divorce, pre-marital sex, casting judgment on others, adultery, and “Sunday-fun-day.”

Hate to ruin your Sunday folks, but the Bible is so clear about Sunday being a day of rest and the “Lords day” that it’s even one of the Ten Commandments. I don’t think God anticipated people using “his day” for binge drinking, NASCAR, or football (another guess).

God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve: Anyone who uses this argument to justify their anti-gay sentiments is not worth talking to. Turn around, walk away, and don’t look back. Normally, stupidity is not contagious. However, in extreme cases like this, it’s not worth the chance. Entertaining this argument might actually be a sin itself. Approach with caution.

Allowing gays to marry will cause the American society to collapse: This is an old argument, which has been used before. It was used when justifying slavery, banning interracial marriages, and when minorities were denied the right to vote. Last I checked, society is better off since ending those policies; and I’m almost certain that the Roman, Grecian, and the Mayan empires didn’t fall because of gay relationships.

The point of my rant is this: If you don’t agree with same-sex relationships, then don’t be in one. If you don’t agree with gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex.

If you don’t want to vote in favor of gay marriage, then don’t; but quit with the failed logic and nonsensical arguments. I accept the fact that America is a democratic society and people are free to vote however they like.

If you are one of the dwindling people adamantly opposed to gay rights, there are a few things you should keep in mind: 1) You’re going to be on the losing side of history; 2) Your reasoning, religious or not, is flawed and is in most cases hypocritical; 3) There are, or will be, gay people in your life. At some point you will have to accept that being gay is not a choice, and that gays and their relationships are not going to disappear.

About these ads

Advertisers Rush, to say Goodbye

Last week, Rush Limbaugh referred to Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” after she testified before the House of Representatives on why birth control should be made freely available.

Since making his outrageous statement, Limbaugh made a weak apology which, hasn’t stopped eleven advertisers from pulling heir ads from Limbaugh’s show; AOL and Tax Resolution being the largest of the eleven companies.

I guess someone should remind Mr. Limbaugh, those who live in drug addict houses shouldn’t throw rocks.  Just because you have money and your drug of choice was Oxycontin, doesn’t mean you’re better than anyone else.

Oxycontin is a pharmaceutical equivalent to heroin, who is he to judge?

PS – He’s also had 4 wives and has no children…and uses viagra (which is covered bu his insurance)…I think it’s fair to assume he’s been using contraception as well.

As Promised, Christie Vetoed Gay Marriage Bill

Last Friday, Gov. Christie made good on his promise by vetoing the bill which would have legalized gay marriage.  Christie stated, “An issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide.”

The governor’s veto was conditional, asking the State Legislature to amend the bill, so that rather than legalizing same-sex marriages, it would establish an overseer to handle complaints that the state’s five-year-old civil union law did not provide gay and lesbian couples the same protections that marriage would.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I have sent the following email to Governor Christie, feel free to reuse it if you’d like:

Dear Gov Christie,

By vetoing gay marriage, you’ve attempted to make a class of people (whose personal life affect you in no way), feel bad or “less-equal” because they’re gay.

Here’s an idea, worry about the fact that you’re at least 100lbs overweight which, DOES affect others in the form of increased health insurance premiums.

You wanna make change? Join our First Lady and encourage responsible dieting and exercising. People will live longer and health insurance premiums for everyone will decrease.

Stay out of my personal life, who I want to marry has nothing to do with you.

Very truly yours,

Bill Hansen

 

The Religious Right: What can they learn from the religion-less left?

By Bill Hansen

Everyday the news is littered with stories from the family value/religious right protesting the actions of the “religion-less” nature of the Democratic left.  I am often times left wondering, how would Jesus feel about their protests.  Would Jesus be a Republican, or a Democrat?

First of all, I must admit that although being raised Catholic, I have become more skeptical of religion and as of late have found that religion plays no role in my daily life.  Generally speaking, I cannot get over the scientific contradictions, but more importantly, the hypocrisy, which is currently embedded on all religions, is too much for me to ignore.

Fiscal Ideology: I guess I should begin with the fiscal ideology of the right v. the left.  I know this is a broad generalization, however, the thought from the right is, I got mine, you get yours.  Despite the fact that Republican Administrations are responsible for the highest tax increases in recent history, they continue to preach about lower taxes, minimal welfare, and small government.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been consistent with their message:  the people who have, should help the people who have-not.  Not in a communist or socialist kind of way, but generally, they like seeing the government provide for the poor or temporarily impaired, and don’t mind paying slightly higher taxes to do so.

What would Jesus do?  My guess is he would not vote to cut back funding to programs that provide housing, food, medical services, and other important services to the poor.  I would also guess he would not be opposed to paying slightly higher taxes if it meant the net effect was good.

Gay Rights/Social Issues: Republicans believe that gays should not be allowed to marry.  They are not for funding programs like Planned Parenthood, and generally, would not support anything, which is prohibited in the bible; except divorce, pre-marital sex, adultery, profanity, and a number of things they deem “more forgivable.”

Democrats do believe gays should be allowed to marry.  They also belive programs like Planned Parenthood are useful despite the fact that 3% of what they do is related to abortions, and they are more concerned about doing what is right and best for society.

What would Jesus say about gay marriage?  Would he call for gays to be set aside and labeled as outcasts with less rights than everyone else, or would he embrace them and allow them to have the ability to solidify their love like straight couples?  My guess is the latter.  I also suspect Jesus would want to keep programs like Planned Parenthood funded because of the extraordinary amount of good they provide to people who fall as much as 125% below the poverty level.

Healthcare:  Healthcare in my opinion is the most important and biggest issue Republicans fall short on.

Republicans believe healthcare is privilege, not a right.  They have opposed every single attempt to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it, citing that it is too costly relieving them of their obligation to ensure everyone.

Democrats however, believe healthcare is not a question of money; it’s a question of morality.  To keep it brief, Democrats believe the US should not (and does not) allow the uninsured to die after car accidents, that we should not allow people to die from diseases we could otherwise cure if money was not the deciding factor, and our current methods are inefficient and often leave hospitals unpaid for services provided to people without insurance.  Democrats understand that we can do better for cheaper, even if that means looking to our European allies and improving a system they already have in place.

What would Jesus do about healthcare?  Would he vote to let people die?  Would he vote to deny treatment to those who need it?  My guess is this:  If Jesus was an elected official, listening to Republicans speak about healthcare, he’d reach across the aisle (because he’d obviously be seated with the Democrats) and bitch-slap any Republican preaching for reduced services of any kind.

The Bible is clear about very few things.  One thing the Bible is clear about: SIN WILL HAPPEN; which is why you are given the opportunity to repent and subsequently forgiven.

I think it’s time for the Republicans to examine their message and really ask themselves, “what would Jesus do?”  I think they’ll find that the “religion-less” left isn’t as religion-less as they thought.

Man of the Day: Offensive or Not Offensive?

When Instinct Magazine posted its article, “Facebook Reinstates “Man Of The Day” Page Following Controversial Suspension,” to its Facebook page, I was left wondering what planet its writer was on.

While I don’t find the images offensive, I can see why the page would be flagged, and reinstated after further investigation.

To claim the page is not “sexually suggestive,” or the actions were the result of Facebook’s need to bow down to the religious right is ridiculous, and completely without merit.

Lets get real.  That page’s sole purpose is to give gay men something to stare and “share,” when they really should be working.

Claiming the pics are about “art” is like saying to read Playgirl for its editorial.

Get real, Facebook did the right thing.

PS – In case you haven’t heard, half of Facebook’s employees are gay (well not half, but a large amount); I’m quite certain they are not concerned with who you crawl into bed with.

Was The Ugly Duckling A Gay Virgin?

A brief article written Samantha Gilweit, of dot429 seems to think so.

Mid-week, dot429 posted a quick read stating, Hans Christen Anderson was closeted homosexual.

Initially, I didn’t know what to think after reading the headline.  I was left with a quick decision: read, or not to read?  Choosing the former, I have to admit, if what Gilweit wrote is true, Anderson may have been.

Gilweit wrote:

“Fairytale author and novelist Hans Christian Andersen was a homosexual virgin and chronic masturbator, who had a love life as tormented and unrequited as his Little Mermaid. The 19th Century writer loved both men and women, but tragically was never able to act upon any of his longings, according to his biographer, Elias Bredsdorff. Even famed sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, took an interest in Andersen, uncovering hidden homosexual leanings in his writings.

Although revelations about Andersen’s personal life are far from new, his sexuality is once again being revisited as a controversial “Gay Week” has been proposed to attract gay tourists to his home island of Funen in Denmark. The issue is still being debated and has brought Andersen back into an uncomfortable spotlight.

Hans Christian Andersen was born in 1805 in Odense, Denmark, and through a stringent education, rose from a working class childhood to become a literary sensation. Although popular in his own lifetime, Andersen’s diaries portray a man constantly in search of love and never finding it.  He once wrote to his longtime crush, a young man named Edvard Cullin,…”

Click here to read the full article.

Mainstream Media: Asleep At Wheel Or Working Hard For The LGBT Community?

I read an Op-ed this morning on Advocate.com whereby the author, Jim Morrison asserts that mainstream media has not done enough to help gays; more specifically by stating the media does an inadequate job of pointing out and discussing the ridiculous nature of statements made by Republican Candidates.

After some thought, I disagree.

The media has done an “ok” job at pointing out the ridiculous nature of homophobia. They may not interview each candidate and grill them one-on-one, but interview after interview, headline after headline discusses the short comings of their irresponsible statements/assertions being made about LGBT issues (and other topics alike).

There is other news occurring in the world that not only effects everyone, but has more serious implications. News stations cannot spend hour, after hour, after hour, discussing every ridiculous statement being made by candidates and their staff.

As for Obama, he has done a good job creating an environment best suited for positive change, and lets not forget, he has another year in office.

Would I like to see more coverage? Perhaps. Do I think it’s as bad as Morrison claims? No.

People are out of work, in some areas of the world slaughtered by their governments, our soldiers are at war, and we are now in an election year; I don’t mind sharing the news hour with others. Do you?

To read the Op-ed by Mr. Morrison, click here.

GOP…Still Not A Gay Ally

Just when you think the GOP has made their position clear, they knock it up a notch.

It would appear the Christian based party does not care that it’s Christmas, a time for peace and loving, however, one would think they would.

Over the last two weeks, the candidates have been stepping up their anti-gay rhetoric.

In case you’ve missed it, here are some of the highlights (or low-lights):

Michelle Bachmann: On Tuesday, while campaigning in Council Bluffs IA,  Bachmann made the following statement:  “Mitt Romney has defended gay marriage and even signed marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and Ron Paul doesn’t believe the government should protect the institution of marriage,” she said. “I have a record of defending life, marriage, and the family, and I’ll protect them as president of the United States.”

Newt Gingrich: Our lovely adulterous candidate told a gay man last week, that if gay marriage is important to him, he should take his vote elsewhere.  While he has the right to trash marry and divorce as often as he likes, Gingrich has a solid track record stating his belief that gay couples do not.

Ron Paul: Generally speaking, Paul has a record of being pro-gay marriage, campaigning for less government intrusion in the everyday life of Americans.

This week however, reports have surfaced that he’s quite homophobic (or has been in the past).  While he’s not looking to limit the rights of gays, one has to wonder what his real stance is.  Typically, I subscribe to the belief of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”  Reports seem vague and let’s be real, the chances of Paul winning the republican nomination are slim-to-none, but one has to wonder, what is wrong with the republican party?  Are they trying to become obsolete?

Dear Newt, You Suck

*Written in October 2011 for dot429.com

A few nights ago I was painfully listening to Newt Gingrich’s interview on Face the Nation and couldn’t help but to wonder: who takes this guy seriously and how does someone like this get enough support for a presidential run?

We all know Gingrich sucks for many reasons; however, I’ve never seen a straight male so comfortable with sucking so hard; If you’re wondering why he sucks, let me tell you!

Three BIG reasons Gingrich sucks:

Reason number 1:  Lets take a trip back to the Clinton era.  Gingrich, who was Speaker of the House at the time, led the charge to impeach Clinton for lying about his involvement with Monica Lewinski.

Seems reasonable I suppose.  Clinton lied under oath about an affair he was having with an intern, an action unbecoming of a sitting President.

Problem: Gingrich was cheating on his second wife, with who is now his third wife, and bashed Clinton openly for his involvement with Lewinski as well as for lying about it.

Somewhere between lying to his second wife and banging his third, one would imagine Gingrich could have gone to someone else to lead the Clinton-bashing charge.  But hey, at least he broke with the Republican norm and slept with a woman…Republicans love having affairs with men yet are unapologetically anti-gay, very odd.

Reason number 2:  His performance on Meet the Press was comical to say the least.

Gingrich has the innate ability to mislead his listeners.

For example, while bashing the March on Wall Street protesters, Gingrich stated that Americans have a “strain of hostility to free enterprise”.

The problem:  “Wall Street” is not a “free enterprise”.

Dictionary.com defines a free enterprise as: “an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.”

I’m quite certain “minimal intervention” is not defined as, nor was intended to be defined as the US tax payers bailing out large financial institutions, who found a way to make a boat load of money by preying on the middle and poor classes’ desire to own a home, using methods so complex most people who worked for the financial institutions had no clue they were leading the US to guaranteed failure.

People are mad because they are losing their homes and jobs, not because they are “hostile towards free enterprise” (sadly most Americans probably cannot define free enterprise).

Reason number 3:  Gingrich is a bigot.

A few years ago he made the following statement about the gay rights movement: “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.”

I’m still waiting to see this violent movement break out.  The most violence I’ve seen at a gay event is the violent gyrating of hips when Lady Gaga’s latest hit is played.

Who knew a class of people looking for equal rights and protections under the laws could be seen in such a way.  Way to go Newt.

In short, American politics suck because we look to trash like Gingrich to solve America’s problems.

I have an idea, if you want to fix America, stop looking to people who lack compassion, who are morally corrupt, and who actually have plans instead of outrageous statements feeding their need to be heard.

Newt Gingrich, you suck.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.