Introduction
I want to begin by saying that this is not
a hate speech. I do not hate gay people or even dislike people for being gay. I
do not try to look down on or hate anyone. But, this does not mean that I just
go around agreeing with everything that everybody says.
“…this is not a hate speech. I do not hate gay people or even dislike people for being gay.”
Opposing
Homosexual Marriage is not Illogical
Certain facts make the belief that
homosexual marriage is wrong not seem so selfish or incapable of being
understood. One fact is that every human being that exists or has ever existed
was developed from a heterosexual relationship. Another fact is that the
genitals of males and females are designed for each other. Genitals only
collaborate between the opposite sexes. This is the only sexual collaboration
that is capable of reproduction. These facts seem to definitely support the
belief that heterosexual marriage is right and homosexual marriage is wrong.
These facts also show that homosexual marriage is not equal to heterosexual
marriage. This is not a new argument against homosexual marriage, but, for some
reason, the use of this argument against homosexual marriage may now be
portrayed as “uneducated” or “lazy.” Today, someone may accuse you of merely
assuming things and not researching all of the “facts."
“Genitals only collaborate between the opposite sexes. This is the only sexual collaboration that is capable of reproduction.”
In the study of logic, researchers analyze
arguments to determine if they are logical or illogical. Some supporters of
homosexual marriage attempt to use this type of logic to make my argument
against homosexual marriage sound illogical. To show how this is done, I will
present my argument in a form that can be analyzed by researchers of logic or
logicians.
Statement 1 -- Heterosexual
marriage is capable of reproduction.
Statement 2 -- Homosexual
marriage is not capable of reproduction.
Conclusion -- Therefore, homosexual
marriage is wrong.
This
argument would be labeled invalid because of my conclusion that something is
wrong. According to the rules of this type of logic, I cannot conclude that
homosexual marriage is wrong from my first two statements. The first two
statements did not mention anything about something being wrong. I only stated
facts about the reproductive capabilities of these types of marriages. So,
basically, this type of logic tells me that homosexual marriage’s incapability
of reproduction does not determine if it is wrong. This means that my argument
would be considered illogical.
If this argument can be considered
unreasonable and incorrect, then this next argument can also be considered
unreasonable and incorrect.
Statement 1 -- Sexual
intercourse between two dogs can create offspring.
Statement 2 -- Sexual
intercourse between a dog and a cat cannot create offspring.
Conclusion -- Therefore, sexual
intercourse between a dog and a cat is wrong.
The
structure of this argument is identical to my first argument and would also be
labeled invalid. But most people would probably not consider someone to be an
illogical bigot or oppressor of animals if he or she says publicly that dogs
are not supposed to have sex with cats. Someone may argue that I don’t have any
proof that sex between a cat and a dog is wrong. If that is the case, I guess I
don’t have any proof that sex between humans and animals is wrong. This example
shows you the limits of this type of logic. It can’t even prove that sex
between different species is wrong. It doesn’t seem capable of proving that
anything is morally wrong or right. Not even the killing of innocent people.
Statement 1 – Killing
innocent people can create more pain.
Statement 2 –
Saving innocent people can create more love.
Conclusion –
Killing innocent people is wrong.
Again,
this argument would be labeled invalid. Argument of what is right or wrong
seems too complex for this type of logic. Argument of what is right or wrong is
based on beliefs. This type of logic does not appear to prove or disprove
certain beliefs. Here are some examples of the beliefs I am talking about.
God is good –
Belief
There is no God
– Belief
Gay marriage is
equal to straight marriage – Belief
Kids deserve a
good education – Belief
You don’t have
the right to speak about these people – Belief
We all deserve
freedom – Belief
People should
care for each other – Belief
The study of
logic is superior to religious beliefs – Belief
Whether
supporters of homosexual marriage admit it or not, argument for the approval or
disapproval of homosexual marriage is an argument of beliefs about what is
right or wrong. Supporters of homosexual marriage say it is wrong for religious
people to impose their “personal” beliefs on people while the imposing of “personal”
beliefs that promote homosexual marriage is abundant through today’s media. This
has me wondering: Why is the study of logic being used to “put down” beliefs in
an argument of what is right or wrong. The study of logic seems capable of
labeling most of society’s beliefs invalid. This type of logic can also “put
down” beliefs that are used to support homosexual marriage.
“Whether supporters of homosexual marriage admit it or not, argument for the approval or disapproval of homosexual marriage is an argument of beliefs about what is right or wrong.”
I decided to research the information that
is considered to be supportive of homosexual marriage and homosexuality. I
decided to research information on people who are considered to be pseudohermaphrodites
or intersex, a term used for “various conditions in which a person is born with
a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical
definitions of female or male” (“What is intersex?”). This appears to be the
information that various media considers to be “the facts.” I argue that these
“facts” are not as logical or “more down to earth” as the media and other
supporters of homosexual marriage try to make it seem.
“…religious people, opposers of homosexual marriage, or “illogical bigots” are not the only people who are assuming things.”
From reading the Intersex Society of North
America’s (ISNA) web pages, I have gathered that the conditions that are considered
to be intersex are rare, intersex is not easily determined or defined, and
doctors’ opinions of what should count as intersex vary substantially.
Supporters of homosexual marriage seem to use this research on sexual ambiguity
to suggest that homosexuality is a “natural” and equal alternative to
heterosexuality. I decided to use information from the ISNA website to present
this argument in a form that can be analyzed.
Statement 1 – Some
people have unfamiliar-looking genitals.
Statement 2 – Some
people have familiar-looking genitals.
Conclusion -- Therefore, Some
people are “naturally” homosexual.
Similar
to the previous arguments I presented, this argument would also be labeled
invalid. The first two statements do not mention anything about anyone being
“naturally” homosexual. This seems to show that religious people, opposers of
homosexual marriage, or “illogical bigots” are not the only people who are
assuming things. Someone may argue that these facts about the study of intersex
are more tangible and “down to earth,” but I disagree. The facts that are used
to oppose homosexual marriage are more clear and definite. Researchers of
intersex have labeled certain people’s genders “difficult to determine” and
claim that some people have the internal sex organs of the opposite sex. An
example would be a man who has male genitals on the outside and female genitals
on the inside. This information does not appear to be clear and concrete. These
researchers seem to be making assumptions about external genitals, internal
genitals, and chromosomes that look unfamiliar to them. Also, none of this
information is true evidence for anyone who reads it. A person would have to
perform his or her own direct research on intersex to determine if this
information was true or accurate. Whether this information is accurate or not,
the clear and definite fact that genitals only collaborate between males and
females still exists. The collaboration of genitals appears to be the main
physical function of sex. This is why reproduction can only result from male
and female relationships. The fact that homosexual marriage is not equal to
heterosexual marriage can be concluded from a clear and tangible analysis of
human anatomy. Belief that homosexual marriage is wrong is not uneducated,
lazy, or illogical. It isn’t bigotry either.
“The fact that homosexual marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage can be concluded from a clear and tangible analysis of human anatomy.”
It
seems that the beliefs of opposers of homosexual marriage have been labeled
false and close-minded by the media. Religious beliefs have been pushed aside
and labeled thoughtless and dogmatic. We may admit that our religious beliefs
are based on faith, but I actually believe that religious beliefs are
understandable and that my faith and beliefs do not blind me from the real
truth. Also, people have believed that homosexuality was wrong before they
discovered the Lord’s disapproval of homosexuality in the Bible. When I look at
the world around me, I am not afraid to analyze it, make assumptions, and
discover facts. Knowledge is not something that I hide from. I am not trying to
be afraid of believing and speaking what I truly believe. I do not just want to
conform to whatever is currently popular and safe.
Gay is the new Black?
For
some years now, a term has traveled and been expressed through media such as
talk shows, radio shows, and websites. This term is that “Gay is the new
Black.” This term can be very offensive. Some people use this term to suggest
that the argument for gay rights is equal to the past argument for the freedom
of Blacks from slavery and the continuing argument for the fair treatment of all
races. These arguments are not equal. It is clear that slavery was wrong and
unfair. It is clear that racial inequality is unfair. It is not clear that
homosexuality is right and that homosexual marriage should be approved. It is
true that people have hated, harmed, and killed people who identified themselves
as gay. These hateful and harmful acts are wrong like the hateful and harmful
acts that were committed against Blacks, but the Gay Rights and Civil Rights
movements still differ. An opposer of homosexual marriage does not have to be
hateful, selfish, or condescending. Oppressors of black people wanted to keep
Blacks down and use them for profit. When Blacks were freed, oppressors wanted
to keep them down to prevent the threat of job competition. Many oppressors
also just wanted to feel superior to black people and “look down” on them. An
opposer of homosexual marriage can honestly disagree with the Gay Rights
Movement’s arguments and beliefs without hate, fear, or a “superiority complex."
“The promotion of homosexual marriage is not an argument for equal rights.”
The Gay Rights Movement is different from
the Civil Rights Movement because it is attempting to achieve a different goal.
The promotion of homosexual marriage is not an argument for equal rights. No
group has had more or less legal rights to marry a person of the same sex than
another group. The promotion of homosexual marriage is an argument for a new
right. They are attempting to have people believe that homosexual marriage
should be a right. To argue that Gay Rights is seeking equal rights, supporters
of homosexual marriage promote a belief. This is the belief that certain people
are “naturally” limited to being homosexual. But everyone does not believe that
only certain people are capable of being homosexual. Sorry for the “Bible thumping”
that everyone seems to dislike, but the Bible does not even tell you that some
people are not capable of performing homosexual acts. The Bible tells you that
homosexuality is wrong. The Gay Rights movement is promoting their beliefs and the
approval of a new right.
Should Gay Marriage be a Right?
This leaves two questions: Should
homosexual marriage be a right and should people adopt the beliefs promoted by
the Gay Rights Movement? I’m not sure if I can “prove” to you that
homosexuality is not a condition that is naturally-limited to a few, but I
assume that many people who consider themselves gay have had no signs of being
intersex, have honestly considered themselves to be straight before, have been
with the opposite sex sexually, and/or are genetically and physically able to
reproduce with members of the opposite sex. Next, to deal with the question of
homosexual marriage becoming a right, I want to point out a fact about the
history of marriage. Various media has attempted to convince people that views
and beliefs about marriage were very different in the past, but certain beliefs
about marriage have lasted since the beginning.
Marriage was based on the belief that it involved relationships between
men and women. If it was a group marriage, men and women were involved. If it
was an economically strategic marriage for profit and status, young boys were
arranged with young girls. If it was a tribal marriage, men may have had
various women. Some articles on the history of marriage seem to imply that
there was a time when sexual morality was not involved with marriage. This does
not appear to be true. Marriage seems to have always been constructed with some
beliefs, morals, and focus on the preservation of families and humans. The
truth is that heterosexual relationships are suitable for marriage. Heterosexual
relationships create families of human beings. Every human being that exists
today has been created by a heterosexual merger. Even if some heterosexual
relationships are not capable of reproduction, the partners still have the
collaborating sexual parts. Male and female partners can perform the main
physical function of sex. This shows that men and women were made for each
other and that collaboration between a man and a woman defines a marriage.
“Every human being that exists today has been created by a heterosexual merger.”
A Misleading Agenda
Before ending this speech, I want to
further point out some of the misleading tendencies that are found in
promotions of homosexual marriage and homosexuality. The negative portrayal of
people who are against homosexual marriage has not only appeared in today’s
media. It has also appeared on our college campuses. In recent years at some
college universities, many students have been required to take a mandatory
sexual assault prevention test on their university’s website. Towards the end
of this mandatory test, students are taught to accept and believe the beliefs
of the LBGT community. During the numerous videos of this test, they mainly
portrayed three main student characters. There was the “educated” woman, the
“educated” gay person, and the dumb and confused jock football player. The jock
football player was portrayed as the ignorant guy that just needed a little
“guidance.” So the woman and gay person corrected the dumb jock’s obviously
silly and stereotypical statements with their “accepted” stereotypical
statements. A good example of most of their conversation is when the dumb jock
asked the gay person if people who were against homosexuality were actually
just insecure about their own sexuality. The gay person responded yes and said
that most people who are against homosexuality are homophobic. This test seems
to show how smart some people think college students are and that this video
was more about brainwashing and conformity than voicing real opinions and
facing arguments. It is not a fact that every person who is against homosexuality
is “homophobic.” I do not think that people have to constantly live in fear of
becoming homosexual, but, at the same time, I can understand a person’s choice
to be on guard. If a person believes that homosexuality is wrong and
understands that it is possible for people to become homosexual, it makes sense
that they would be on guard and establish a sense of awareness. People have
argued against “heterosexist” perceptions of sex by saying that “sex is
complex.” But should our awareness of the complexity of sex cause us to become
careless? Should we believe that there is no wrong or right involved with sex? The
past and present has showed us that sex can be abused.
"Should we believe that there is no wrong or right involved with sex?"
Conclusion
Today, if you believe that homosexual
marriage is wrong, someone may call you selfish and, then, tell you that you
shouldn’t care. Someone may tell you to not put your beliefs on everyone else
and, then, tell you to conform to whatever they want you to believe. Someone
may tell you to not be “close-minded” and, then, call you homophobic. Someone
may tell you that you’re assumptions are “unrealistic” when their “facts” are
ambiguous.
As I mentioned in the beginning, this is
not a hate speech. I do not hate people for being gay or supporting gay rights.
I do disagree with their argument, disagree with their beliefs, and dislike how
they label opposers of homosexual marriage falsely and negatively. Homosexual
marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. Homosexual partners do not have
collaborating genitals and cannot create offspring. Heterosexual partners can
perform the main physical function of sex and create offspring. These facts
show that men and woman are made for each other. The incapability of
reproduction in some heterosexual relationships does not suggest that any
relationship that is incapable of reproduction is suitable for marriage. Heterosexual
relationships are suitable for marriage because they involve a man and a woman
who are husband and wife. Analysis of humans supports this belief. Are people
really going to pretend that this is merely a narrow-minded belief? Marriage is
not a mere image or status. Marriage appears to be a response to the
collaboration of a male and female. Marriage was created for men and women. Do
we want to promote a false argument that people attempt to support with false
and unclear facts? Do you really want kids and the generations after them to
grow up in a society that tries to tell them that homosexuality is equal to
heterosexuality?
Why is this speech anonymous?
When I first created this speech, my name
was included. I decided to remove my name because of my family’s concerns. My
family was worried about me being labeled negatively by people and the media.
They figured that this speech may hurt my reputation when searching for jobs.
This shows the environment that is present and possibly being expanded in
America. The false and negative labeling of opposers of gay marriage is
promoting mere conformity. This was shown through the gay controversy that the
Chick-Fil-A restaurant was involved in. The chief operating officer of
Chick-Fil-A announced his religious beliefs and opposition towards homosexual
marriage and supporters of homosexual marriage decided to protest the
restaurant. Why would supporters of homosexual marriage protest a person or
group for their honest beliefs? The chief operating officer’s statements did
not show any hate. The statements showed disagreement and opposition towards
the Gay Rights Movement. Instead of arguing against these statements,
supporters of homosexual marriage protested as if they were already in the
right. I thought that a free society was supposed analyze opposing arguments
and come up with honest solutions, not merely conform to opinions that seem
“popular.”
Cited References
“What
is intersex?” Intersex Society of North
America. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.
Created Term
Main
physical function of sex – the collaboration of male and female genitals
+People to People Ambassador Programs +NBC News +Breaking News +BBC News +Chicago Mayor's Office +Chick Fila +ABC News +News Wall +CBS News +Barack Obama +The White House +The Huffington Post +Huffington Post Politics +HuffPost Science +Joe Scarborough +Discover Magazine +The Nature Conservancy +GOOD +National Writing Project +National Geographic +AFP news agency +State of Utah: Utah.gov +Nature Publishing Group +CosmoQuest +Scientific American +Carin Bondar +Mother Jones +TEDMED +TED-Ed +Peter Shumlin +US National Archives +Zoo Atlanta +Henry Reich +KCRW +Harvard Business Review +Andrij Harasewych +Truthloader +Philip DeFranco +YouTube Creators +Brittani Louise Taylor +Epic Rap Battles of History +Dartmouth +Mother Nature +Machinima +Seattle Aquarium +The Globe and Mail +The EdReach Network +Al Gore +Kiki Sanford +Smosh Games +The Heritage Foundation +DS2DIO +Cornell University +VetNet HQ +Tech Feed +Project Syndicate +StarTalk +The Weather Channel +Meet The Press +Howard Pinsky +Smosh +TIME +FOX43 +Rep. Mike Honda +World Economic Forum +WIGS +Marques Brownlee +Veterans United +edX +Jennifer Ouellette +Slate +Bruno Mars +General Assembly +The U.S. Army +Jeanne Garbarino +VEVO +Indy Mogul +World Politics Review +Joe Penna +University of Houston +Talking Points Memo +Rev3Games +Smithsonian Magazine +Northwestern Alumni Association +Esquire Network +People to People Ambassador Programs +The Guardian +Hello Style +U.S. Department of Education +CNN en Español +Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) +University of California, Berkeley +EdSurge +Lumosity +C2MTL +Katie Couric +Science Bulletins at AMNH +6abc Action News +United Nations +Alexandra Chang +Rosetta Stone +Joe's Daily +National Association for Music Education +The Economist +Herb Greenberg +University of Florida +The Wall Street Journal +Sesame Street +ClassBadges +The New York Times +Allison Sekuler +TheFineBros +Erin Kane +Michelle Li +Shedd Aquarium +Jim Cramer +Tim Pool +Italian Practice Hangouts +Shut Up! Cartoons +Education Week +National Aquarium +Kina Grannis +Coursera +Russian Practice Hangouts +FAWN +U.S. Department of State +Dubspot +Space Fans +MarketWatch +Red Bull +Turkish Practice Hangouts +FOX43 +Fox News +DARPA +Film Riot +U.S. Navy +Olga Kay +TEDx +U.S. Environmental Protection Agency +John Stossel +Washington Post +This Week in Science (TWIS) +ArtistWorks +Geek & Sundry +Think Progress +Arianna Huffington +University of Utah +Random House Books +Los Angeles Times +Mandarin Practice Hangouts +Nicholas Kristof +Rajini Rao +The Daily Show +European Commission +David Choi +AAAS +Reuters +Crochet Geek +University of Kentucky +Just For Laughs Gags +Astronomers Without Borders +Columbia University +deadmau5 +Muffin Songs +ITN +POLITICO +The TerraMar Project +ASL Practice Hangouts +USA TODAY +Mike Bloomberg +Duke University +Google Lunar XPRIZE +United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) +SB Nation +CNBC +Annoying Orange +charlieissocoollike +University of Pennsylvania +CBC Radio One +The New York Public Library +Maria Bartiromo +Berkeley Lab +Weather Underground +NPR Politics +NASA +The Associated Press +PBS +Udacity +Shane Dawson +Edutopia +Nicholas Thompson +Ride Channel +Governor Sean Parnell +Laura in the Kitchen +Universe Today +ENTV +Bernie Sanders +Brookings Institution +Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee +Congressman Xavier Becerra +Congressman Joe Walsh +Congressman Jim Himes +The US Supreme Court & Constitutional Law News 