Are any of the arguments against the LGBT community based on logic?

Posted by: briantheliberal

Even before the progression of LGBT rights, it seems as if pretty much every argument against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans inidividuals is becoming more and more asinine and illogical. It's as if anti-gay people love to resort to blatant and debunked lies, fear mongering, and logical fallacies. What do you think? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

  • Yes. All or some arguments against the LGBT community are based on logic.

  • No. None of the arguments against the LGBT community are based on logic.

37% 14 votes
63% 24 votes
  • There are rational explanations. The deviants that make up the LGBT community are sticking things into other things that weren't designed to have the first things stuck into them. Those other things have little things called pathogens. Those pathogens spread. A good example is AIDS. It either comes from heroin or sticking something into something you shouldn't have stuck it in. Nice job, guys. Also, the flamboyancy is an eyesore.

  • Uh yea?

  • yes read Leviticus 18:22, but however god hates no man. in the new testament we find that god heals a centurion's servant whom bible and historical scholars believe was gay.

  • You can easily make the argument that it is a mental illness. VERY EASILY!

    Posted by: xhammy
  • Marxist-Leninist arguments against LGBT are based on logic! 1. Marriage [as a concept that has to do with having ownership over another person] is a tyrannical institution that must be abolished so we can all be free of romantic oppression! No marriage for gays and no marriage for straights! No marriage for anybody! Good riddance. Be free people, live without the misery! 2. Homosexuality is a form of hysteria induced by the insanities of the excess imperial atmospheres of a Capitalist society which is approaching its ultimate critical mass! Under a Communist utopia homosexuality would vanish and we'd become transhuman pandrogynous-beings without sexual organs or a desire for our former primate-conceptions of sexual attraction . . .

  • "LGBT" individuals are not bad or wrong, but the mistake commonly associated with these feelings is that it is inherent and people are made "LGBT". This is not true, while many people feel that they were always like this, feelings such as these arise from a subconscious choice made early in life that defined a persons life incorrectly. Also laws guaranteeing blind egalitarianism violate freedom of religion, an inherent right guaranteed by the first amendment. The best way to help "LGBT" people is to explain to them that they are actually not that way and can receive professional help. Also, the rainbow is a promise made by God, not a symbol to be abused. it is very rude that this is used a flag for this movement.

    Posted by: msl101
  • Yes, all of them!

  • Homosexuality is unnatural. Why else do you think the law prevents them from donating blood unless they haven't had same-sex intercourse for 12 months or more? Two men or two women cannot produce an offspring, that is the best logical proof that it is not how humans are designed to live. It seems that a lot of the population believes that homophobia stems from religious beliefs. I personally am not even religious. I've never discriminated against an individual who identifies as LGBTQ+ my entire life, and I never intend to. Not supporting homosexual conduct is simply my opinion, and I do not wish to get discriminated against because of it.

  • Yes, there are innumerable logical arguments against the LGBT community; and not just based on religious beliefs. Rather, they are based on common sense and an appropriate state of mind. You cannot be "born" gay, lesbian, bisexual, or absurdly, a gender that your reproductive organs seem to contradict. It is something that people adopt as they age; they adopt this mental disorder. Feeling sexually attracted to your own gender and/or feeling that you should have been born with a penis instead of a vagina (or vice versa), is ultimately just what it is. A feeling. A pathetic one. You're simply forcing yourself to be someone you're not, and receiving the expected hate for it. Blame yourselves for being ill, and blame yourselves for being rejected in society. Why are you so fixated on how logical the arguments against the LBGT community are, when the concept of LGBT isn't logical itself?

  • Absolutely not. There are perhaps arguments based on one's own religious doctrine or pure disdain for the LGBT, but none of that, unfortunately, is logic. Ad hominems and "because I said so"s are irrelevant in logic, because they are not logical.

    Posted by: Nerox
  • The only anti-LGBT arguments that I can find are all based on religion or personal disdain. Both of these things are not at all based on logic.

  • Yes, as some of the actions that the public wishes to push in favor of the LGBT community would end up alienating these people even more so and worsening their treatment. I am too lazy to give examples. Message me I guess if you're curious, night.

  • Most of the peopleI talk to go on about religious beliefs and how LGBTQ is going against the church, so no, it is, for the most part, not based on logic.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Wylted says2015-06-06T01:13:48.7911218-05:00
I'd say no, but kind of a loaded question, depending on what you mean by against. If against is used as a strawman than I'd say yes.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:13:59.4980529-05:00
If you say 'yes' feel free to explain what those arguments are and how exactly they are valid, and logic-based. And before anyone accuses me of creating a "biased poll" the picture on the left is an actual example of some arguments used against the LGBT community. Just saying that before anyone decides to comment that.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:17:33.4977145-05:00
Wylted, by 'against' I mean arguments used to take away the rights of or oppress the LGBT community, arguments in which the main goal is to condemn lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals. I posted some examples via link in the description.
Wylted says2015-06-06T01:20:19.6853843-05:00
Most of the arguments I see on both sides are crap. Of course any argument trying to villianize LGBT people are stupid, but there are arguments against gay marriage that are logical. Some gay people have no interest in trying to replicate straight culture and are against it for example (just one of a few arguments). Now the position of being anti gay marriage, though often bigoted, is not necessarily bigoted. Though I have fun straw manning liberal positions to get under people's skins, I think it's best to come into an argument thinking of your opponent as a good person. It's called acting in good faith. Listen to their arguments and calmly and logically point out flaws, as well as readily recognizing your own flaws. If you're unwilling to change your mind on a subject, don't be ignorant enough to expect the person you're arguing with to change theirs
Wylted says2015-06-06T01:21:10.7972952-05:00
Okay, I'll look at the link later, if I'm still interested in following this poll
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:33:40.4671269-05:00
"Some" gay people being against gay marriage for "cultural" reasons is still not logical when they don't personally have to get married in the first place. Nobody is saying that because they are gay, and gay marriage is now legal that they have to partake in marriage. If marriage is a legal institution, which it is in the U.S. aside from cultural standards, I see no point in preventing gay couples from taking part if they choose to do so. But being against gay marriage, and trying to or supporting it being outlawed, though correlated, are two different things. I personally have never heard an argument condemning gay people that was based on logic or critical thinking.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:33:58.6737938-05:00
Forthelulz, thank you for proving my point and giving me, yet another, argument against gays that isn't based on logic or reason, but bigotry, lies, prejudice, stereotypes, ignorance, and logical fallacy. Please feel free to express more of this because I love it when people prove me right.
Wylted says2015-06-06T01:42:51.8440711-05:00
It might be more beneficial to address his fallacies than to merely be dismissive of his argument. You could point out his appeal to nature is a logical fallacy for example. I only have libertarian arguments against the other things, so I'm not sure what a liberal who is anti freedom (my conception of it anyway) would say to argue against his other points.
Forthelulz says2015-06-06T01:44:22.7098016-05:00
So... You're dismissing the "point out that the LGBT community gave us AIDS" part altogether. Good to know.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:53:17.9501293-05:00
Wylted, why do you keep calling liberals "anti-freedom" is that not a logical fallacy in itself? Also I will address his points as soon as he provides some evidence for them.
Forthelulz says2015-06-06T01:54:42.4114311-05:00
Well, they don't fit within the norm of how I perceive people should be. That's good enough for me. Closed-mindedness has its benefits.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:55:03.0766256-05:00
Forthelulz, You don't even have any evidence proving that to be true, because it's not. I am really convinced that you are just another DDO troll. For one, your assertion that the LGBT community "are sticking things into other things that weren't designed to have the first things stuck into them" is not only a fallacy appealing to nature as Wylted pointed out, it's also a blatant generalization. You cannot associate any specific form of behavior with an entire group of people who's sexual preferences range and differ just as much as heterosexual, cisgender people who also partake in those behaviors. Not to mention, even if that were true, so what, it's still NOT a logical argument against the LGBT community as a whole. It's none of your business what sexual behaviors, any consenting adult, gay or straight, chooses partake in. And your comment about "the flamboyancy" is also a generalization, and as I previous stated is not a logical reason to condemn the LGBT community as a whole, because it causes no inherent or direct harm to anyone. It's based on prejudice and nothing more.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T01:59:27.9125214-05:00
Forthelulz, "they don't fit within the norm of how I perceive people should be" - Your closed minded attitude, wilful ignorance, and personal biases are still not logical reasons to condemn the LGBT community. You are entitled to your opinion, however, learn the difference between what your opinions are, and what the facts are, because resorting to blatant lies, and prejudiced stereotypes are in no way logical. So with that being said, thanks again for proving my point.
Wylted says2015-06-06T02:04:40.0745244-05:00
I view freedom the same way as the founders of the United States defined natural rights. Some philosophers call them negative rights. Anarchists call freedom the "non aggression principle". I probably shouldn't say liberals are anti freedom. It is possibly just a philosophical difference of opinions on how we choose to define freedom, but generally speaking, philosophically minded liberals agree with my definition and just believe there should be a balance between equality and freedom. Where as I think a true egalitarian society should strictly focus on maximum freedom (negative rights for people). I want people to have as much autonomy as possible, while philosophical liberals want to balance autonomy with equality.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T02:13:53.0895591-05:00
Wylted, the way I see it is, like you said, the ideological differences between groups are what usually determine our perceptions of freedom. You may call liberals "anti-freedom" for whatever reason but in reality, everyone is anti-freedom in some way, it's not exclusive to liberals, otherwise you're generalizing.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T02:22:33.3127632-05:00
Or being biased, I should say...
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-06-06T07:20:38.9082199-05:00
@brian: I haven't seen you in the opinions section lately, but have you seen the posts by the guy called Reactionary? You can't say they aren't based on logic, even if you may not agree with them.
greatkitteh says2015-06-06T07:28:01.8395936-05:00
The only argjment based on logic is that the kids might be hurt from lack of a mom/dad, but the rest are some transxripted things in the bibke.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T08:28:36.7642387-05:00
Diqiucun_Cunmin, no actually I haven't heard of him/her. But in response to your post, I wouldn't consider the procreation argument valid either. For one, what aspect of it is based on logic seeing as procreation is a very broad term in relation to LGBT issues? One thing is for sure, having children is a personal decision, and many LGBT people do in fact have children, both biologically and via adoption. So personally I don't see what being LGBT has to do with procreation. Could you further explain that point?
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T08:30:26.5747504-05:00
Greatkitteh, the assertion that children don't fare well with parents of the same sex was one of the examples being debunked in the link I provided in the description. When you can, please feel free to take a look at that, it explains why that notion is not logic based.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-06-06T09:08:35.9811766-05:00
@brian: I think we've had the same conversation before, around February, lol. You get into a lot of discussions about the issue, though, so perhaps you've forgotten. The procreation argument (regarding same-sex marriage) is logically sound, based on the premise that non-traditional ways to have children are not the same as having children the traditional way. I do not agree with this premise, but you cannot say that those who use it are categorically wrong.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T09:22:04.4199232-05:00
I am in no way denying that the methods are different. I know two people of the same sex cannot procreate with one another via "traditional" sexual intercourse, however, this is still not a logical argument against the LGBT community. Regardless of whether or not procreation can occur between people of the same sex, which it cannot, I still don't see how this can be used against the LGBT community when you're basically implying that everyone doesn't reproduce is "wrong" or "defective" in some way which is not the case. There are people in heterosexual relationships who either cannot or choose not to procreate and that doesn't dehumanize them in some way. Either way, gay, bisexual, and trans people still deserve to be treated with the same respect, they deserve the same rights, and equal treatment in society. They cause no direct harm to anyone by simply BEING gay, bi, or trans. That was my point overall. I personally haven't heard any reasons based on logic that can be used to condemn gay people, procreation is not a logic-based reason.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T09:26:50.1428666-05:00
I think the procreation argument would hold more water if we lived in a society where reproduction via sexual intercourse was a legal or biological requirement, in this case I can see how that can be used against LGBT individuals. But either than that I just don't see it how it does.
reece says2015-06-06T10:13:03.0351994-05:00
@Diqiucun_Cunmin Whats the procreation argument? Or is pretty much what it sounds like?
reece says2015-06-06T10:24:43.5306124-05:00
@Diqiucun_Cunmin After reading your discussion with Brian i can see it's not even an argument. It's a void fact. By the way adoption is common in nature.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-06-06T10:29:43.3865884-05:00
@brian: I apologise. I think I may have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking us whether there are valid arguments to refute ideas put forward by the LGBT community (e.G. Gay marriage, laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc.) It seems you are asking if there are sound arguments to attack LGBT *people*. If that is the case, then I'll switch to No.
TBR says2015-06-06T11:48:52.2245008-05:00
I agree Brian. The idea that marriage is for procreation is the only way to make that argument work. Even if you said the purpose of marriage was to rear children, it wouldn't work for anti-same sex arguments.
Najs says2015-06-06T16:04:20.6384165-05:00
Arguments against the LGBT community are based on ignorance and prejudice. To strip them of their rights would be against freedom and not for it.
xhammy says2015-06-06T16:59:22.0670949-05:00
You can easily make the argument that it is a mental illness.
TBR says2015-06-06T19:19:19.1428203-05:00
@xhammy - Give it a shot.
Stefy says2015-06-06T19:21:15.0916580-05:00
Xhammy: Even if we were to say it was a mental illness (which it isnt and thats a disgusting and mean spirited thing to say) still an illogical argument because strait people with mental illnesses are allowed to get married.
Varrack says2015-06-06T19:25:07.8464667-05:00
I know three good opposing arguments of gay marriage, although I've only been using one in the past. (The CVM) but it depends, I've seen some gays who oppose SSM, and so it's really subjective as to whether it's an argument for/against the lgbt community.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T21:02:25.5286549-05:00
Xhammy, if it's so easy where is your argument? I also want valid, peer reviewed studies written by experts in psychology to support your assertions seeing as you made a medical analysis, there has to be evidence to support it somewhere. But before you do that let me make something clear... A mental illness is defined medically as a condition characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning. As far as the majority of medical experts are concerned, LGBT individuals (transgender is still being debated) do not inherently possess any of the characteristics associated with mental illness. And as someone who does have a mental illness (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and a member of the LGBT community, I can assure you that what you are saying is incredibly ignorant and offensive because you're basically using the concept of mental illness as slur or insult to justify condemning LGBT people. Even if being LGBT was a mental illness, do we somehow deserve to be treated with disrespect, and disdain because of it? Especially because it causes no inherent or direct harm to anyone around us. I'll wait for you to respond, but take these things into consideration before you do.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T21:04:12.6666027-05:00
Paulsilasmills, the Bible is not a logic-based argument against the LGBT community either, especially the Old Testament of all things.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T21:05:13.5424259-05:00
Reeseroni, "Uh yea?" - I'm waiting for them if you have any.
TBR says2015-06-06T21:32:43.7062874-05:00
Yea, I am hoping to see this "mental illness" argument of xhammy's. I;m sure it will be logic based and on sound science. Sure hope he can make it back.
xhammy says2015-06-06T21:37:35.8852021-05:00
The purpose of any known species is to reproduce and spread on genes, homosexuality halts this by preventing the specimen from breeding with the opposite sex, meaning it is a bad thing in terms of animals and natural selection. However, humans unlike animals do many things, even deliberately, that make no sense towards reproduction and spreading genes which could easily shatter this argument; however this is not unique to humans, many species engage in homosexuality. Next based on the well executed argument that they are born this ensures that it is hard wired into the brain, and unlike a preference, cannot change; preferences can change easily, mental disorders cannot. Also, it is commonly known (or believed) that homosexuals act, in some cases, drastically more feminine: high pitch voices, stereotyped fashion sense and more, could lead to the possibility of a hormone imbalance. However I really don't expect to change your opinion at all, because we all have bias. Theoretically, saying homosexuality is in fact a disorder, I could never change your opinion, and vice versa. So I expect a apposing argument in no time at all.
TBR says2015-06-06T21:42:44.5877144-05:00
So, no argument from you then. But you seemed so confident before. "VERY EASILY!" right?
xhammy says2015-06-06T21:45:04.2315169-05:00
Did you do that on purpose or just not refresh the screen in a while? TBR
TBR says2015-06-06T21:47:14.8630682-05:00
Tell you what xhammy. I will have some time free by the end of the week. How about a debate on the subject.
briantheliberal says2015-06-06T22:39:25.9041836-05:00
I would very much like to see this debate if it happens between you guys. TBR, I hope you don't hesitate to demolish his stereotypical assertions of gay men being "more feminine" and having "high pitch voices, fashion sense" as a result of a "hormone imbalance". This alone shows that he has probably never met a gay male in his life.
TBR says2015-06-06T22:50:05.3801858-05:00
Briantheliberal - I look forward to the "queer eye for the straight guy" tact. That's some solid stereotyping right there.
ThelemicKnight says2015-06-07T01:08:22.9873835-05:00
I think my vote-comment is the real winner here.
briantheliberal says2015-06-07T02:32:54.6917144-05:00
ThelemicKnight, "No marriage for gays and no marriage for straights! No marriage for anybody! Good riddance" - If this applies to everyone, how is this an argument against the LGBT community? "Homosexuality is a form of hysteria induced by the insanities of the excess imperial atmospheres of a Capitalist society which is approaching its ultimate critical mass!" - This doesn't make any sense, do you have evidence for any of this? The term 'hysteria' is defined to be an exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people: so how does this apply to homosexuality? "Under a Communist utopia homosexuality would vanish" - Well that certainly wasn't the case in every communist society that has ever existed. Quite honestly, none of your claims seem to be logic-based.
ThelemicKnight says2015-06-07T02:36:59.0080127-05:00
I didn't say they were my claims and I didn't say they were logic based.
briantheliberal says2015-06-07T02:49:15.4981757-05:00
The entire point of this poll was for people to present arguments against the LGBT community that were logic-based, it's literally in the title. If they aren't your claims and you don't believe they are based on logic what is the point of presenting them in the first place?
ThelemicKnight says2015-06-07T03:33:54.9519878-05:00
Because they ARE claims and they ARE claimed to be based on logic. The poll didn't ask me what I thought about it in particular but rather, "are there any logical arguments against LGBT?" I offered up that, yes, there could be: 1. Marxism-Leninism as a social science that the early Bolsheviks subscribed to was against LGBT rights as they saw that specific behavior as an outgrowth of bourgeois degeneracy fostered by exploitative, capitalist, and religious society and other such oppressive and repressive influences. Furthermore, as an ideal pretty much in line with anarchist tendencies within the early Bolsheviks for they believed that "rights" such as marriage were part of institutions that were illegitimate as they originated from Church or capitalist notions of contracts and ownership. 2. A materialist-reductionist as well as scientific dialectic of evolution and natural selection which today with the advent of technology has unfolded into the Transhumanist movement as put forward by such people as Google's head engineer Ray Kurzweil and many other top/leading scientists and engineers who posit we're heading toward the Singularity where we'll be able to use technology to adapt/augment ourselves and fully integrate with our technology so as to become-post human. This translates into a slicker version of the Marxist-Leninist utopia and meshes nicely with that economic/product-oriented ideology. So then why fight for gay rights? We don't need them. A hundred years from now there may not be gay people because as many transhumanist supporters say, "human beings and their social constructs have become superfluous". Become more superfluous every day. We will be replaced by machines. I'll be Devil's Advocate. To say the various Marxist-Leninist theories aren't based in logic doesn't cut it. They are logical in the sense of the study of purely economic factors and the effects they have on social factors. Marxist theory is a bona fide scientific theory that is applied widely in various fields including sociology, archaeology, and various others. So why couldn't this argument be logical? It is, in fact, the very same logic (as the first point numbered) by which gay marriage and gay rights are prohibited in Communist Cuba and Communist China. Humans as machines assimilated into the collective to serve a fully integrated, economic/product-oriented Organic State. If they can't reproduce [as gays] --- if they can't replicate --- then they are superfluous to the State. Furthermore, to say that transhumanism is not logic is to contradict some of the most esteemed scientific minds that are presently of utmost relevance to fortune 500 tech-companies. Why would these arguments not be applicable? If human rights and human sexuality are obsolete then why argue for human sexuality and human rights? Why not vote against LGBT then?
TBR says2015-06-07T10:16:43.5627700-05:00
Xhammy - Are we going to do this debate, or are you sticking with the rock-solid "fags sound all faggie" for your logic-based mental illness argument?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.