How to Defend Your Views on Gay Rights
Keep your temper in check., Don't belittle the beliefs of others., Rely on the science of human biology., Use logic in your discussion., Turn the hot seat around and have your opponent sit in it for a while., Address the objection, do not dance...
Step-by-Step Guide
-
Step 1: Keep your temper in check.
Although you may become angry, do your best to remain calm and discuss, rather than argue. -
Step 2: Don't belittle the beliefs of others.
It won't win you any points to question anyone's moral or religious beliefs on homosexuality. , Point out that, even though there are no conclusive studies that people are born with a "gay gene," recent studies have found that there are notable differences between the physiology of a straight male and a gay male (researchers believe that being gay is not entirely environmental, but also has a genetic component). , Stress the fact that although there may not be a gay gene, likewise, there is no straight gene either; so if that were the only factor, any person could choose to be gay or straight whenever they wished to. , Ask the person you are discussing the issue with: if a gay person could choose to be straight, then could a straight person choose to be gay? , Address this by explaining to them that evidence from these groups is usually not long term, and that the fall-back rate is staggering and made much worse by the fact that, by the time the so-called "gay" admits that the "cure" didn't stick, s/he might have married and produced children, who will be devastated by divorce.
It might also be the time to point out that the American Psychological Association has said it is unethical to apply pressure to change someone's |sexual orientation and there is no reason to do so except for "societal comfort".
The other person may express that since gay men and women can't reproduce, that will open the door to adoption.
You can address this by calmly recognizing that family is the basis of society, and there are many kids without homes.
Having loving and committed gay (or of course straight) parents is much better for children than to be raised in the foster system, where they are often the victims of sexual predators, or neglect or abuse.
Also, point out that a gay man's penis and a lesbian's vagina are perfectly capable of producing kids.
If the other person expresses the idea that gay parents will raise gay kids, respond with something like "If that were true, then straight parents would only raise straight kids." Again, using logic.
Some people may bring up certain statistics claiming that gay people are more violent/abusive/prone to drugs etc.
Although the accuracy of those reports is usually quite dubious, another way to address this is via logic.
Correlation doesn't imply causality.
Just because two events are correlated, doesn't mean that one causes the other.
Eg.
Correlation:
Joe robs a bank.
Joe is also diabetic.
Irrational causation:
Being diabetic caused Joe to rob banks; or diabetics are bad people who rob banks.
Another one:
Correlation:
The sun sets.
At the same time, the street lights go on.
Irrational Causation:
Turning on street lights causes the sun to set.
When someone brings up statistics about gay people, break it down in a similar manner.
John is gay, John also robs a bank.
Does that mean that being gay caused him to rob banks? Of course not.
Reduce it further and it's more obvious:
John is attracted to other men, thus he will rob banks.
Obviously, this makes absolutely no sense.
John can love football, ice cream, and mathematics, but no one would claim that football lovers and mathematicians were immoral and will all rob banks.
If you are in the USA, remember the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." While the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, it does express the moral sentiments which are legally codified in the Constitution.
Remind the person you are talking with that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee every American the same rights regardless of who they are.
It is to apply equality equally to all American citizens.
The First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If someone brings up God as a reason why same-sex marriage should be banned, remind them that they live in America, and not everyone is Christian.
The very first right of the constitution basically bars religion from entering a debate involving the law. , Often, examples of prohibitions which seem to support their arguments are snipped from the Bible out of context, disregarding verses that do not seem to support their position.
The key here is knowing the material well enough that you can complete the passages that they often truncate.
If the other person uses the Bible as a reason for being against gay rights, then point out that the Bible also condemns the cutting of side hairs, the killing of any creature, and specifies that one may not eat anything that has crawled on the earth.
If the person you are talking with insists that the Bible must be interpreted, reply with, "Yes, that's exactly my point".
Then point out that a message of hate is not what any prophet would want.
Alternatively, note that using the Bible to live your life is fine, but to use it in a debate is circular reasoning.
The veracity of the Bible is supported by the fact that the Bible says that the Bible is true. , Be respectful in allowing them their right to a differing opinion. ,, For example, many people will argue that gay and straight people have exactly equal rights: both can marry partners of the opposite sex; neither can marry partners of the same sex.
This is, technically, true, but rather besides the point.
An analogy might drive this home.
Both Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis have difficulty marrying a Palestinian partner.
The law is not technically discriminatory.
But since a Jewish Israeli is unlikely to want to marry a Palestinian, the law has a discriminatory effect.
And here's a simpler analogy:
In Iran, everyone has the right to worship Allah. -
Step 3: Rely on the science of human biology.
-
Step 4: Use logic in your discussion.
-
Step 5: Turn the hot seat around and have your opponent sit in it for a while.
-
Step 6: Address the objection
-
Step 7: do not dance around it: The other person may remark that gay men and women have sought treatment and changed their sexual orientation.
-
Step 8: Require your opponent to abide by his or her own rules.
-
Step 9: Listen to the other person's argument.
-
Step 10: Decide that what you believe makes the most sense after reflecting on the discussion.
-
Step 11: Be aware of fallacies commonly used by the other side.
Detailed Guide
Although you may become angry, do your best to remain calm and discuss, rather than argue.
It won't win you any points to question anyone's moral or religious beliefs on homosexuality. , Point out that, even though there are no conclusive studies that people are born with a "gay gene," recent studies have found that there are notable differences between the physiology of a straight male and a gay male (researchers believe that being gay is not entirely environmental, but also has a genetic component). , Stress the fact that although there may not be a gay gene, likewise, there is no straight gene either; so if that were the only factor, any person could choose to be gay or straight whenever they wished to. , Ask the person you are discussing the issue with: if a gay person could choose to be straight, then could a straight person choose to be gay? , Address this by explaining to them that evidence from these groups is usually not long term, and that the fall-back rate is staggering and made much worse by the fact that, by the time the so-called "gay" admits that the "cure" didn't stick, s/he might have married and produced children, who will be devastated by divorce.
It might also be the time to point out that the American Psychological Association has said it is unethical to apply pressure to change someone's |sexual orientation and there is no reason to do so except for "societal comfort".
The other person may express that since gay men and women can't reproduce, that will open the door to adoption.
You can address this by calmly recognizing that family is the basis of society, and there are many kids without homes.
Having loving and committed gay (or of course straight) parents is much better for children than to be raised in the foster system, where they are often the victims of sexual predators, or neglect or abuse.
Also, point out that a gay man's penis and a lesbian's vagina are perfectly capable of producing kids.
If the other person expresses the idea that gay parents will raise gay kids, respond with something like "If that were true, then straight parents would only raise straight kids." Again, using logic.
Some people may bring up certain statistics claiming that gay people are more violent/abusive/prone to drugs etc.
Although the accuracy of those reports is usually quite dubious, another way to address this is via logic.
Correlation doesn't imply causality.
Just because two events are correlated, doesn't mean that one causes the other.
Eg.
Correlation:
Joe robs a bank.
Joe is also diabetic.
Irrational causation:
Being diabetic caused Joe to rob banks; or diabetics are bad people who rob banks.
Another one:
Correlation:
The sun sets.
At the same time, the street lights go on.
Irrational Causation:
Turning on street lights causes the sun to set.
When someone brings up statistics about gay people, break it down in a similar manner.
John is gay, John also robs a bank.
Does that mean that being gay caused him to rob banks? Of course not.
Reduce it further and it's more obvious:
John is attracted to other men, thus he will rob banks.
Obviously, this makes absolutely no sense.
John can love football, ice cream, and mathematics, but no one would claim that football lovers and mathematicians were immoral and will all rob banks.
If you are in the USA, remember the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." While the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, it does express the moral sentiments which are legally codified in the Constitution.
Remind the person you are talking with that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee every American the same rights regardless of who they are.
It is to apply equality equally to all American citizens.
The First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If someone brings up God as a reason why same-sex marriage should be banned, remind them that they live in America, and not everyone is Christian.
The very first right of the constitution basically bars religion from entering a debate involving the law. , Often, examples of prohibitions which seem to support their arguments are snipped from the Bible out of context, disregarding verses that do not seem to support their position.
The key here is knowing the material well enough that you can complete the passages that they often truncate.
If the other person uses the Bible as a reason for being against gay rights, then point out that the Bible also condemns the cutting of side hairs, the killing of any creature, and specifies that one may not eat anything that has crawled on the earth.
If the person you are talking with insists that the Bible must be interpreted, reply with, "Yes, that's exactly my point".
Then point out that a message of hate is not what any prophet would want.
Alternatively, note that using the Bible to live your life is fine, but to use it in a debate is circular reasoning.
The veracity of the Bible is supported by the fact that the Bible says that the Bible is true. , Be respectful in allowing them their right to a differing opinion. ,, For example, many people will argue that gay and straight people have exactly equal rights: both can marry partners of the opposite sex; neither can marry partners of the same sex.
This is, technically, true, but rather besides the point.
An analogy might drive this home.
Both Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis have difficulty marrying a Palestinian partner.
The law is not technically discriminatory.
But since a Jewish Israeli is unlikely to want to marry a Palestinian, the law has a discriminatory effect.
And here's a simpler analogy:
In Iran, everyone has the right to worship Allah.
About the Author
Helen Griffin
Writer and educator with a focus on practical cooking knowledge.
Rate This Guide
How helpful was this guide? Click to rate: