June has become what is now known as Pride Month, in celebration of the cultural and political advancement of the LGBT agenda. If you have followed my articles in the past, you already know I am not at all in support of this celebration, and I am about to logically explain why, through a made-up conversation, but offering very real questions and responses that many of us have heard before. Conservative radio show host, Glenn Beck, wrote a book years ago called Arguing with idiots, where he provided a conversation between himself and, well… the idiot (in Beck’s words) to demonstrate how you can discuss a topic, logically, with the opposing side. I’m going to provide a similar conversation, without the word “idiot” being in the title. I don’t think that is helpful in a conversation. You will find the question from the opposing side in BOLD, followed by my response to each statement and/or question.
Keep this in mind, I typically enjoy having conversations in person because I like to ask questions, rather than respond to questions. But since I’m playing devils advocate with myself, I can only work with what I have. I will do my best to respond from the perspective of someone within the LGBT community as accurately as possible. So, here we go!
It’s not up to you to tell someone who they can and can’t love.
I agree. But that’s not what is happening here. No one, especially me, is attempting to dictate who an individual can and can’t love. In fact, can you explain to me how I, or anyone that espouses my view, has attempted to dictate who someone can and can’t love?
You are telling a same-sex couple that they can’t get married, that’s how.
Well, let’s begin with this first. What is marriage to you?
When two people love each other and want to create a civil contract to express that.
Alright, let’s start there. Why do you need the government to tell you who you can and can’t love? Because that is what you’re doing now. You are asking the government to validate your love life and asking the government permission to make it official.
Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.
Now I must ask, why do you want to get married?
Because its marriage equality! You can’t deny someone their right to love another person.
We already established that you can love whomever you want, just don’t ask the government for permission to enter your bedroom, because that’s exactly what you are doing here, and that includes heterosexual couples. Are you looking for tax benefits through a civil union?
That is one of many benefits, yes.
If tax benefits are the main reason, that’s a different conversation from marriage altogether. Now you are talking civil unions. If you’re going to advocate for civil unions, then open it up to family members and friends who are looking for the same benefits.
But same-sex couples are different from those relationships you just mentioned. Same-sex couples are in a romantic and loving relationship.
Whether or not you are in a romantic relationship is irrelevant. Your claim is that you are in a loving relationship and want the financial benefits of marriage to go with it. We have already established that marriage is a religious institution and should only be facilitated by churches and other religious groups. If your reason for marriage is tax benefits, then we will have a different discussion.
I just don’t like people being judged for who they love. We need inclusion and acceptance.
Can you please define “judging”?
Yes, when someone tells another person that they are wrong for what they are doing or who they are because they are different.
Okay… So, based on your definition of “judging”, are parents wrong for telling their child not to lie?
Of course not, that’s ridiculous. What I mean is, you can’t just tell someone they’re wrong because they’re different then you. The example you provided is crazy, they are a kid and need to learn that lying is wrong.
But what if they’re born to lie? Why should they be told they are wrong when it’s possible that is how they were born? If science has already proven that being homosexual is not a choice, do you concede that lying could also be proven to be part of who you are at birth? What if it’s a chemical imbalance that can’t be controlled, but has yet to be studied?
That’s just ridiculous, lying hurts people. Being homosexual does not hurt.
Whether or not lying hurts someone is irrelevant. If there’s a chance they are born with the inability to tell the truth, then why should they be judge based on what they can’t control?
According to my knowledge, no study has been done on whether lying is a birth trait or not. So that’s a baseless argument.
Interesting. Prior to the 1990’s, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Fast forward 30 years, and now its cool, hip, and even promoted. So, what makes you think lying or anything else that we consider bad, won’t be acceptable 5, 10, or 30 years from now, just like homosexuality was?
That’s not going to happen. Most people understanding lying is wrong and hurts others.
You seem very confident that this won’t happen, when our current cultural trajectory shows the complete opposite. But let’s move on to this inclusion and acceptance part that you mentioned earlier.
Yeah, gay rights should be accepted and celebrated.
Well, I’m not sure what isn’t being accepted today. Right now, we have libraries strongly advocating for drag-queen story time, major cities celebrating “Pride month” with parades, businesses putting up rainbow flags at their front door, popular/mainstream Facebook pages putting rainbow circles on their profiles, video games, music, and movies all promoting same-sex attraction, and even business being sued by LGBT activists and their reputations being destroyed because they won’t provide a service that violates their faith. But you are telling me the LGBT community is struggling with being accepted today?
It’s about time. We have suffered discrimination for too long. It’s our time to be recognized and celebrated.
Then you do agree that you’re not being oppressed. You agree with my comment earlier?
We’ve made progress, but have a long way to go.
Okay, where exactly does this “progress” end? Because right now, civil rights are being trampled upon by Americans who do not agree with your view. Are you hoping to convince and covert every single person to accept the LGBT community?
No, we just want equal rights. We want equality.
Well, “rights” are all enumerated in the Constitution, and you already have the rights you were born with. They’re called Natural Rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights”. “Gay” is originally defined as “happy, jovial, joyful”. What you’re really saying is you believe in “happy rights”, which is sort of weird, but okay. “Gay rights” is found nowhere in the Constitution.
You want equality. You are asking for the same privilege that any heterosexual has, which is to get married. As long as marriage is under government control, it is the government that decides who is allowed to love who, not you. Do you agree?
Your logic seems sound, but I still should be able to love whomever I wish.
Well of course, you’re welcome to do that. Your love is not defined by the government’s approval, which is what you are asking for. You are welcome to fall in love with whomever you wish, go to the bedroom, and do whatever you wish. This goes for anyone, regardless of who they love. So, why do you want the government, via a signed piece of paper, telling you who you can and can’t love? Just go out to dinner and go to your bedroom, and keep it private. I say the same thing to heterosexual couples.
It is not the government telling me who I can’t marry, its right-wing Christians who are trying to oppose us and take away our rights.
How exactly are Christians trying to take away your rights and what rights exactly are they attempting to take away?
I already told you, gay rights. They are telling us we can’t get married.
We already established the fact that there are no such thing as gay rights. There is nothing about marriage in the Constitution. Therefore, Christians can’t take away what does not exist. You are fighting for equality, when you are already equal. What you are asking for is permission from someone else, whether that be the government or the church, to confirm your love with your partner. You are already at liberty to be intimate and spend time with one another. You are at liberty to live as any other couple. Where is the issue here?
Yeah, you keep bringing up the Constitution, but that document is outdated and written by old men with archaic beliefs.
I bring up the Constitution because you keep bringing up the term “rights”, yet you have not given me a standard by which rights are defined and defined. My standard is the Constitution. Our Founders understood the concept of Natural Rights, which are expressed in the Constitution. They also understood the proper role of government, both at the federal and state level. Marriage was not under the purview of either one.
Yeah, whatever. The issue is that straight couples can get married and we cannot.
We have also already established that marriage belongs with the church, not the government. If you really want the government to have the authority to approve of your marriage, then the government will have the ability to take away that right to marry as well, right? Do you want that?
That won’t happen, times are changing in favor of acceptance and inclusion.
Are they though? Perhaps acceptance and inclusion for one group of people, but not for another, like straight couples, or anyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda.
How so? It’s not like straight couples are experiencing what gay couples have experienced for decades and even centuries.
They’re not? Business owners are being sued, social media accounts are being shut down, people are being fired, students in school being mocked and shunned, and reputations being destroyed, for merely speaking out in favor of marriage between and man and woman.
Welcome to our world. It’s not fun, is it? Now you know how we feel.
Oh, I’m sorry, I was unaware this was a movement about retribution. I was told for the last 15 years this is about acceptable and inclusion. After all, is that not what you just said earlier?
Yes, it is. However, speech against the LGBT community has become dangerous and hostile. It needs to stop.
I completely agree! You should take a look at Islamic countries who throw homosexuals off the top of buildings and behead them. Isn’t that awful? Do you speak out against those countries?
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the right-wing movement to harm the LGBT community.
Do you know any right-wing people who have thrown a homosexual off a roof or beheaded them in America?
No, but I’m sure they would if they could.
That’s quite judgmental of you to consider a Christian as a potential murderer, simply because they disagree with your identified sexuality.
No, you know what’s judgmental? How Christian conservatives treat us!
And how exactly do they treat you?
They mock, ridicule, and oppose gay rights.
I don’t know many Christians that mock and ridicule someone for being homosexual. But even those that do, that’s freedom of speech. Are you telling me you want to remove the First Amendment right of anyone who opposes your life and belief?
If its hostile and potential dangerous, yes.
There is nothing hostile and dangerous about speaking out against someone’s belief and/or opinion. But there is something very hostile and dangerous about asking the government to either imprison or even execute someone for expressing their opinion.
I never said people should be executed or imprisoned for expressing their view.
You claimed that the opinions of Christians are becoming dangerous and hostile, and that it needs to be stopped. If their opinion is hostile and dangerous, then are you justified to stop it, in order to prevent violence?
At some point, yes. It is hate speech and we all know where hate speech eventually leads to.
So how are you going to stop this hate speech?
It should be regulated and perhaps even banned.
So you want to repeal the First Amendment and only make it illegal to speak as long as it is not hateful.
I didn’t say repeal the First Amendment, I said regulate it and perhaps ban “hate” speech, not all speech.
Who defines what “hate” speech is?
Dude, anything that is hostile and harmful to an individual! Hate speech is so hurtful to people and needs to be stopped.
Unless someone is calling for the execution or physical harm of a homosexual, I fail to see how it is hostile and puts the individual in danger.
It can also be mental harmful and affect their mental state for the rest of their life.
That’s on you to control, not the person speaking. Lots of people have harmful things said to them, but they move on and they get over it. Life isn’t all roses and pretty. People say hurtful things, but its not against the law to say mean things.
Yep, a bigot that hates gay people and wishes harm on them would say that!
This was not a conversation that I have had with anyone, just to remind readers. It is a combined list of arguments that I have heard used over the years. This is not how every conversation will go. I am sure there are points that an advocate of the LGBT community would look at and be ready and willing to offer a rebuttal. I attempted to highlight some of the major points and illustrate at least a reasonable and realistic conversation. But this conversation is offered to illustrate how to logically question the LGBT agenda.