Arguing with pro-gay marriage people is arguing with stupidity*

There is nothing more frustrating than trying to reason with someone who supports homosexual marriage.

You can’t reason with someone who supports something that is so unreasonable that the only logical explanation for their support of it is that they have lost all concept of reason and logic.

The arguments of those who think that the government should send marriage certificates to those who engage in sodomy are based on idiotic claims. Mainly they are that gay marriage does not affect anyone else and that those who support it are progressive, open-minded and polite. Both are myths.

So let’s debunk both those little myths right here and now.

And in order to do that we will have a conversation: a conversation between two people. One stupid. One sane. To make it clear we’ll simply call them Stupid and Sane. **

Stupid: Gee, isn’t it great that the ACT government finally passed laws to support same-sex marriage. I’m so happy that all love is treated equally.

Sane: No, it’s not great. For a start, you don’t even make sense. Not all love is treated equally by the government anyway.

Stupid: Well, all love is treated equally now.

Sane: No, it’s not. The government doesn’t recognise the love between brothers who live together as marriage. It doesn’t recognise the love of mates who share a flat as marriage. It doesn’t recognise the selfish love of an adulterer as marriage, even if a child is born. And it doesn’t recognise the perverted idea of sexual love between an adult and a minor – even if it is consensual – as marriage. In fact, the government will rightly jail those who commit these crimes. Even the more minor infractions, like the young female teacher who sleeps with a 17 year old student, become highly publicised and embarrassing court cases.

Stupid: What’s your point? By the way, it’s just disgusting that you are saying gays are paedophiles.

Sane: I didn’t say that. And my point is that marriage is not primarily about love. It’s about children. The only reason the government should even be interested in marriage, which is a non-government affair, is because it has a vested interest in ensuring the next generation is protected and that families are supported. Without children, there will be no future state. By the way, I’m not married because the government gave me a certificate. I’m married because I promised my wife to be her sole companion until death parts us. I made this promise so that we could start a family.

Stupid: Sir, you’re just a bigot. I didn’t realise people like you even existed anymore.

Sane: That’s just a phrase that people like you throw around when people like me make more sense than you can comprehend. Adding a ‘sir’ to the front doesn’t change this fact. It just makes you sound pretentious.

Stupid: Dude, you’re a bigot. Don’t you get it? You hate everyone. That’s why everyone hates you.

Sane: Oooookay. Did you even listen to what you just said?

Stupid: People like you disgust me. I hope your kids grow up to be gay. No one is forcing you to get gay married. Why can’t you just accept love? Anyone who is in love should be able to get married.

Sane: Again with the love thing. So do you think that three people should be able to get married if they are ‘in love’?

Stupid: Don’t put words in my mouth. You know what I mean. Gay people should be able to marry. I don’t like discrimination.

Sane: So, are you happy to discriminate against polygamists?

Stupid: What a bigot you are. Dwarves should be able to get married as well. It doesn’t matter whether you are black or white, gay or whatever. Love deserves to be recognised.

Sane: Ummm, a polygamist is someone who wants to marry more than one person.

Stupid: Whatever. Gay marriage is just about two people. No one is suggesting that the laws of marriage will ever be changed to make it mean something different. Just this time, we need to change marriage laws so that they don’t discriminate.

Sane: Let’s talk about discrimination. I think we’ve cleared it up enough to understand that you do actually support discrimination in marriage because you won’t let three people get hitched. Do you agree?

Stupid: I’m not discriminatory. You are. I oppose all forms of discrimination, but marriage is for two people.

Sane: Uh huh. Now you are starting to make perfect sense. That was a little ‘in’ joke by the way.

Stupid: I didn’t get it. It can’t have been very funny. Anyway, why do you care? Gay marriage doesn’t affect you.

Sane: Actually, it does. It means that the government equates my marriage with my wife and the children that flowed from this with a relationship that biologically cannot produce any children. It also means that a whole range of things, from education to workplace laws will need to change to accommodate a perverted notion of homosexual unions. At the very least, this will cost money and I pay taxes. Don’t I get a say in the way taxes are spent, or is it only homosexuals that get to do that? What about education? Am I allowed to be concerned that these laws will mean, logically, that children will be exposed to homosexual sex-education in schools?

Stupid: I can’t believe that someone as selfish as you is allowed to breed. Don’t you know that having kids endangers the future of the human race? They have a carbon footprint, you know.

Sane: You didn’t answer my question and I find that comment a little offensive. Are you suggesting that it’s selfish for my wife to give up a career and for me to spend most of my income on the next generation?

Stupid: Yes. Gay people would never do anything as selfish as having kids the way you do.

Sane: Actually, gay people can’t procreate. That’s the whole point. The purpose of marriage is about creating a stable environment with a mother and a father in which children are raised. That’s what a family is. Society is based on families, and it works best when families are strong.

Stupid: You must be a sexist pig to make your wife stay at home. How selfish! But gay people get kids all the time. It’s called surrogacy.

Sane: Again, a little offensive. Actually, it’s her choice. She finds great fulfilment in raising children to be productive members of society. But don’t you think it’s a little sexist to deliberately raise a child without a mother? And don’t you think it’s a little selfish to create a child that will be deliberately raised away from its biological parents?

Stupid: I’m not sexist. I have heaps of gay friends and they are all probably better mothers than most women I know. They are also the most unselfish people I know. That is why they are so careful when choosing who the surrogate parents are. They would never want to raise a child with a disability or anything.

Sane: Raising a child with a disability is about the most compassionate, unselfish work anyone can do.

Stupid: I can’t believe how heartless you are. Who would wish a disability on anyone? It’s because of people like you that there is so much suffering in the world.

Sane: (sigh) I didn’t wish a disability on anyone, I just said that it is unselfish to look after those with disabilities. But we’ll move on. I find it a little hard to understand how a homosexual man can replace a mother.

Stupid: Where’s your proof? You just make outrageous claims and you don’t even have any scientific evidence to back it up. Gay men are great mothers. You just don’t want to open your mind. Also, I will answer your question about schools. There’s nothing icky about being gay. Kids should be taught about it at school. It’s a health issue.

Sane: So you think that children should be taught about the health problems associated with the penetration of the anal cavity by male genitalia?

Stupid: Gross! How can you even talk about things like that. Of course children shouldn’t be taught about that. Only someone disgusting like you would even think of it. Your mind is in the gutter. You’re probably a closet gay. Kids should be taught about love and respect. We should all respect that gay sex is loving. Every child should be taught this.

Sane: So you are saying that my children should be taught that homosexuality is acceptable, even if I disagree as a parent, but that they shouldn’t be taught about the health risks?

Stupid: Don’t be such a bigot. Sex education isn’t about teaching what is right or wrong. It’s about acceptance and it’s an important mental health issue. You don’t need to vilify gay people like the way you want. Don’t you know how it makes them feel to be told that gay sex is unhealthy? We shouldn’t do that.

Sane: As a parent, I would like my children to learn about right and wrong. I want them to have strong moral values – especially when it comes to sexuality.

Stupid: Duh. All kids should learn about right and wrong. That’s why sex education is so important. It teaches them that there is nothing wrong with being gay or whatever. You have no right to teach children that it is wrong. I object to religious teaching in schools that says it is.

Sane: Well, luckily I send my children to a private school and they are taught about morality. That means they are taught that homosexuality is wrong.

Stupid: There should be laws against that. Schools like that are dangerous. We don’t need more bigots growing up like you.

Sane: So you don’t you think that I have any rights as a parent about what my children are taught?

Stupid: Of course you do. No one is saying parents don’t have rights anymore. It’s just that sometimes we need to teach children things differently because parents don’t educate them properly. Like you. You’re a bigot.

Sane: So, let me recap. You don’t like discrimination and think that all love should be treated equally, but you are happy to discriminate against all sorts of love being recognised as marriage. You don’t believe homosexual marriage affects me, but you think that my children should be exposed to sex-education that doesn’t even tell the truth about homosexual acts, regardless of my beliefs. You even think that schools that don’t teach your beliefs should be shut down. You think that homosexual men can be better mothers than women and you called me a selfish, sexist pig because my wife raises our children at home.

Stupid: Yeah, pretty much. You’re a bigot and you just don’t understand the modern world.

Sane: I don’t think you are very logical.

Stupid: How dare you insult me! This conversation is over. I can’t wait until bigots like you die and the world is a better place. There’s no point arguing with you. I don’t even understand what you are saying half the time.

* I think I should follow Mark Twain’s advice.

** This conversation is based on real-life events.

 

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

24 Comments

  1. actually you wont be here for long because you cant reproduce, so I guess we are stupid?

    Post a Reply
  2. Bernard Gaynor, we need more people like you spreading the key meaning of morality. I myself can’t imagine how people could be so easily believe in same sex marriage. When you have governments forcing wedding cake shops to bake cakes for the same sex, that goes against their own religion and beliefs. As they don’t do it they get a fine, that sounds totally fair. As you may know now same sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states. Which is very unfortunate. Pro-gay marriage supporters are already brainwashing little children to server in their cause. This girl doesn’t know what she is doing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pq3u-Ey5M . When you have Philosophers speaking against same sex marriage or even against same sex activities, no one supports their views. It’s not moral for same sex marriage, I want to live in a world where everything is morally correct not absurd. Speaking of absurd, you are right. The government doesn’t support those, for example a 18 year old wanting to support and marry a 14 year old. Or one who has 2 wife’s. If people like that can’t have that freedom, why should gay people be provided with it. It’s still morally wrong.
    (And sorry for my mediocre English, it’ not that good)

    Post a Reply
  3. If marriage is only for making and raising kids than should infertile couples not be allowed to get married. Should Abraham have ditched Sarah when she couldn’t originally give him a son?(why wasn’t he punished for adultery again?) And if it is about raising children and not love than what about all the kids that weren’t wanted by their procreaters but still wound up in loving homosexual homes(where they were wanted) and were raised well. Are the children that were brought into this world through surrogate mothers or sperm donors fathers that are raised by these people not families and do “loving brothers that live together” want to start a family like this?

    Post a Reply
  4. Mr. Gaynor, I found this article quite wonderful, and yet, it truly is so sad how many brainwashed pro-gay marriage supporters there are. I look forward to reading more of your articles. If I may add my two cents, though, with respect to possibly your religious beliefs playing a role in you saying marriage is also about children, I must point out the fact that not all heterosexual married couples are interested in children, and that’s not such a bad thing, either. Some people, like my husband and I, can’t afford to have children, though in our case, we would like some one day. Rather, I’d say marriage is primarily about MORAL LOVE, not sexual deviancy. I believe there’s a big difference there. Also, the dynamics between a man and woman are far healthier than those couples of the same gender. Each person’s different unique, gender specific qualities compliment each other. I agree though that the government’s only interest in marriage should be to ensure future generations of those who are capable of reproducing in a marriage and support for the family. Sadly, the government seems to only be in it for a twisted agenda and I presume, money. Anyways, again, wonderful article, Mr. Gaynor. You make wonderful points.

    Post a Reply
    • Tiffany,
      Well put, and I agree with you; although a believer, I think your point is well made: moral love as opposed to deviancy captures it nicely.

      Post a Reply
  5. There’s a hint of irony in using the ancient Greek’s dialogue methodology to make your arguments.

    Post a Reply
  6. First off I’m 14 so my writing may not be as supreme as other people and due to my age my opinion will most likely be casted away as possibly “immature” or “invaluable” but never the less I’ll share it.
    I strongly agree with your opinion, I do not wish my children to be affected by such may I say “Disturbing” matters, I also dislike the way Gay people are treated as “heroes” by yet so many. I was raised by my mother and father, both passing down care and gentleness (Mom) and strength (Father) which makes a perfect balance for the best of me. While children raised be Homosexual are limited by the knowledge and skills they can receive from their two fathers , and will probably all turn gay, which leads me to my next statement.
    Gay people are unnatural, I do not believe we were put in this world to lay around and not reproduce, in fact we were made to do so! The “Stupid” say its natural and occurs in the wild (homosexuality that is) and that its yet so natural, but to me and hopefully many others its not, we need to reproduce to move on and to expand, a need of all animals and life in general, fi we did not reproduce none would be here.
    Anyways, I also get frustrated when Pro-gays call anti-gays religious retards and such, insulting both me and millions of others for yet another stupid reason

    I’m hoping that in near future all goes well and that all this propaganda hasn’t done too much damage to our society.

    Sincerely, Peter

    Post a Reply
  7. Bernard,

    Do you know what a straw man looks like?

    If you haven’t seen one before, just reread this fictitious conversation of yours again. It is a textbook definition, albeit a verbose and terribly written one.

    Phyllis

    Post a Reply
  8. Bernard. Your conversation between Sane and Stupid accurately sums up the lack of logic of the advocates of homosexuality. I had a glance of one of the homosexual advocate blog site links on your website that you mentioned in Sane and Stupid. It is disgusting, and a good indication of the quality of the opposition.

    Post a Reply
  9. Hi Bernard, I’m new to your blog but so far very supportive. I saw this elsewhere on web and I think it fits in nicely with your comments:

    **
    Marriage – This is showing the full logical consequences

    “Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”

    “Names?”

    “Tim and Jim Jones.”

    “Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”

    “Yes, we’re brothers.”

    “Brothers?? You can’t get married.”

    “Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”

    “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”

    “Incest?” No, we are not gay.”

    “Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”

    “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”

    “But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”

    “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”

    “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”

    “All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

    “Hi. We are here to get married.”

    “Names?”

    “John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”

    “Who wants to marry whom?”

    “We all want to marry each other.”

    “But there are four of you!”

    “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”

    “But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

    “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”

    “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”

    “Since when are you standing on tradition?”

    “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”

    “Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! Under the law we are guaranteed equal rights . Give us a marriage license!”

    “All right, all right. Next.”

    “Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”

    “In what names?”

    “David Deets.”

    “And the other man?”

    “That’s all. I want to marry myself.”

    “Marry yourself?? What do you mean?”

    “Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”

    “That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

    Pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it??
    **
    But like you say, you can’t argue with stupid.

    Post a Reply
  10. Sane: I didn’t say that. And my point is that marriage is not primarily about love. It’s about children. The only reason the government should even be interested in marriage, which is a non-government affair, is because it has a vested interest in ensuring the next generation is protected and that families are supported. Without children, there will be no future state. By the way, I’m not married because the government gave me a certificate. I’m married because I promised my wife to be her sole companion until death parts us. I made this promise so that we could start a family.

    =====================================

    2 problems with this point

    (1) when I married my wife we knew I could never have children, marriage was about our love and a desire to make a formal statement to friends, family and the community about our relationship.

    (2 ) my friends are planning to have children, they want the stability of a married relationship for the good of their children, you are arguing that children should be raised in married families then you are saying some people must raise their children outside of marriage.

    And you call that a “Sane” argument ?

    Post a Reply
  11. Bernard I have been married to my beautiful wife for 30 years now, we have shared both good and bad together as a married couple, we have had the strength of that commitment to see us through the hard times and enjoyed the benefits in the good times.

    We have friends who have been in a loving monogamous relationship for the same 30 years, they only difference is they cannot marry because of their gender. How can that be fair ?

    I now have another 2 friends who have been in a loving monogamous relationship for 10 years are expecting their first baby soon, they know children are best raised in married homes with loving parents, they are both loving parents but the law will not allow them to marry.

    Again simply because of their gender.

    How can you say this is not discrimination based on gender ?

    or the deeper question

    Why are you so threatened by someone else’s sexuality ?

    Post a Reply
  12. Hi Bernard,

    Do you realise the extreme irony in quoting Mark Twain, in an attack on marriage equality?

    Post a Reply
    • Tmaahy. Mariage Equality What does that mean?.Lets start with basics shall we? Two men together cannot produce a child the same way to women together cannot produce a child .Thats a fundamental biological reality.A child is produced from a union of a man and a woman.Sex is a call of nature for the species to be reproduced Throws in lust and pleasure for more incentive.The mother and father + newborn form a family and thus maintain the growth and survival of the human species like an incubator This has recognition of marriage
      The homosexual who is attracted and lusts for same cannot reproduce the human species and thus must steal some else’s sperm or steal the child.I think they call it adoption.
      Where does marriage fit into this? What sort of recognition are we seeking

      Post a Reply
  13. This, like most other things that you have on this website is of course, totally one sided. This is the argument i would expect from a ten year old, raised by inconsiderate and discriminating parents.

    You may say yes this is based on a real conversation, which would definitely suit your opinion. You should understand that there is something called evidence which is required to back up any story accusation. One which this conversation based on “real life events” does not have.

    Post a Reply
    • James, you only have to take a quick glance at the twitter comments thrown my way to see every stupid statement made in this post has been flung at me publicly and in real life.

      Post a Reply
      • Stupid comments beget stupid comments.

    • ok well I have seen every single argument–nay, every single LINE–used in actual conversations by real life gay marriage advocates. He’s not mis-representing the other side much at all.

      Post a Reply
  14. And you possibly believe a talking snake said ‘here eat this fruit’ to a chick called Eve who is the mother of us all. Not judging or anything…

    Post a Reply
    • Actually, he said you will not die and that you will become like God. Kind of like those who lie about homosexuality and present it in glowing terms and holiness, when the truth is that is a perversion that can never achieve the power of sexuality – new life. Instead, it has been well documented about how homosexuality results in disease and early death.

      Post a Reply
      • Let me just extemporate on what I just said briefly with a correction. I didn’t realize you were an “Aussie”. In which case I feel for the people of Australia. I figured you were just another totalitarian, right-wing, conservative nutjob American politician with no grasp on reality. Truly you are all those but just insert Aussie instead of American. So I reidderrate: your points are invalid anf unsubstantiated. Not to mention verbose and extremely one-sided and discriminatory. I really hope you are not making any decisions for that country as the fate of their progress towards absolute democracy and freedom of choice would be tainted.

      • Charles,Ladies and school children frequently visit this site,you are quiet welcome to express your views, as Bernard advocates free speech,but please do so with the ladies and children in mind and save the sailor talk for other places. thanks.

      • My apologies for the language. My policy is not to allow bad language on this website. I missed that one.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.