I'm not going to contest your removal of the thread because honestly I thought that was best from the beginning, but if the forum policy is anything like the message wall policy, swearing is not a legitimate reason to remove a thread. I'm perfectly allowed to swear, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. Oh, but for the record, that "won't contest" promise does not extend to this post I am making now. Nobody can make you read it, & I'm not interested in an argument anyway, but I won't have it be censored.
On another note, since I already typed it up, just this 1 time, I'm going to respond to your "evidence." After this, if you quote arguments at me again, I'm going to tell you that if you can so easily find anti-gay arguments, you can bloody well look up the counterarguments.
Before I even click this link, I can already see a problem. It's a one-sided argument, you're not looking at the facts of the matter, but at attempts to prop up a specific agenda. This is reflected by the poster in question, who merely says it's a list of arguments with no supporting evidence--the mere presence of arguments does not make them valid, you can argue anything you want.
Scrolling through this, most of the 72 responses appear to be rebuttals to the initial arguments. If your own link is arguing against you, I don't think that's a good sign. As for the actual list, it's a pretty classic gish gallop, a collecting of arguments without regard for how weak or untrue they are, a strategic ploy done because it takes much more time to refute a bunch of claims than to simply state them. Without further ado:
Gay marriage lowers the status of women. Men and women serve equally important roles in a society. Stating that a man can do a woman's nurturing job is the ultimate insult to women.
Homophobic AND sexist. Saying that men can nurture children is not "the ultimate insult to women," it's saying that as humans, we all possess capacity for self-determination. It is in fact this argument that lowers the status of women, saying their "place" in society is as unpaid domestic servants & nothing else.
The same argument for gay marriage can be applied to significantly worse marriage arrangements, such as incestual marriages, plural marriages, and bestiality.
No, it literally can't. The argument for government recognition of gay marriage (because there is no law against unofficial marriage) is to give a same sex pair of consenting adults equivalent legal status to an opposite sex pair. Family members already have legal privileges, & the other 2 are not covered under "2 consenting adults." These are, in fact, separate issues that require separate arguments. That said, "worse" is not defined here, I hardly think 3 people involved in mutually supportive relationships is "worse" than say a wife with an abusive husband.
Attraction between males and females is natural and effortless. A person that is gay, has failed at the most basic level of humanity; attraction to the opposite sex. A society should not be endorsing people that have this block.
Circular argument, next.
Gay marriage dilutes the value of marriage. It will further weaken the family bonds that society is trying to maintain.
If your neighbor's marriage has an effect on your own, you're doing something wrong. Next.
Civil rights are based on socio-economic changes rather than emotional wants. This thought process breeds ignorance of socio-economic issues and emphasizes knee-jerk meme reactions.
This doesn't even make sense, so by this person's argument should interracial marriage not have been unbanned because it was "just an emotional want, a knee-jerk meme reaction"?
Replaying the 60's civil rights movement by crossing out "civil" and replacing it with "gay" does not solve anything.
Sure does, solves discrimination against gay people. Next.
No one is being denied civil rights as long as homosexuals have the same access to marriage (as currently defined) as heterosexuals. They may not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they're not barred from it.
This is a particularly facile equivocation* fallacy that can be used to justify almost anything. You could just as easily make the argument that it wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights if the government executed Christians, because everyone has the equal right to not be a Christian.
=This is when someone changes the usage of a word during the middle of an argument to make it look like a point which hasn't been refuted has. Here, they're equivocating equality of outcome with equality in the sense of the government not privileging some groups of people over others for arbitrary reasons. E.g. this same argument was once used against interracial marriage, "everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race," but then segregation was found to be unconstitutional & that whole notion went belly-up.
Healthy mental sexual reproduction is the core basis for raising children.
No it isn't, the core basis for raising children is to supply for their needs & teach them what they need to know in life, regardless of how they come into your stewardship. Also, this whole section is conflating child rearing with marriage, when they are actually 2 separate issues. Plenty of married couples choose not to have children, while plenty of unmarried couples do. Both are legally permissible.
Children who are not raised by both their biological parents are at a disadvantage to those whom are.
Unless you are arguing to ban adoption, this is not even worth further examination, because to allow straight parents to adopt but say it's only bad when gay parents do so is a blatant double standard.
Men and women are born with innate psychological differences, and children should be influenced by a male and female role model.
There are few psychological differences between boys & girls, & role models do not have to be parents, children will have other relatives, teachers, etc. As they say, it takes a village to raise a child.
Gay men/women will not provide a traditional paternal/maternal role model, to the detriment of the child.
Merely restating the previous argument to make the list look bigger than it actually is. Next.
Gay men and women have higher histories of childhood sexual trauma than others. Two people trying to raise a family based on their previous sexual traumas will be the detriment of the child.
This is a claim that was pulled out of someone's ass to "explain the cause of homosexuality," it's a theory that has long been discredited. It also has the same double standard problem as the adoption argument, straight people with sexual trauma are not banned from being parents.
People that are homosexuals significantly contract and spread more HIV, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and other STDs than the rest of society.
As I said, STD rates are affected by various sociological factors, not orientation itself. One particular thing propagandists like to do is ignore that lesbians actually have the lowest STD rates of any orientation category, due to the combination of women engaging in less risky behaviors on average & most sex practices common to lesbians having very low risk of contact between bodily fluids & mico-tears.
Women that are lesbians are more prone to violence than women that are heterosexual.
People that are homosexuals are at substantially higher risk for emotional problems, including clinical depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse, and suicidality; even in regions where homosexuality is not stigmatised.
Even after decades of acceptance in many parts of the world, people that are homosexuals by and large still practice extremely risky sexual behaviour.
What "regions where homosexuality is not stigmatized"? Gay marriage is an extremely recent phenomenon, & even in places that have it, there are often other forms of stigmatization, such as employment discrimination.
Gay marriage is anti-evolution and completely against nature.
ALL marriage is "against nature," it's something we invented. Animals just have sex & they don't particularly care about the circumstances. Hence why an estimated 1500 species & counting have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. As far as "anti-evolution" goes, this completely fails to understand what the theory of evolution even is. It's a description of the natural world, it doesn't prescribe behavior. In fact, many things animals do that enhance their evolutionary fitness are completely reprehensible, such as killing infants fathered by a rival male or rape.
All major religions of the world are opposed to it.
This completely contradicts the claim that there are areas where homosexuality isn't stigmatized, but aside from that, no, this is a gross oversimplification. For example, Buddhists have different opinions on it depending on their sect, & modern day Jews are the most accepting of gay marriage on average, aside from atheists. Also, who cares how many people's imaginary friends are in agreement? In fact, ditto that for the next couple of arguments.
As a future society, we will look back on the witch hunt that was used against religious institutions to support this cause and be filled with shame. The movement to support gay marriage has strong parallels to McCarthyism in the 1950s.
This is literally a bald faced lie, in fact if you look into the history of McCarthyism, gay people were another group they targeted along with communists. This is literally the religious right straight up lying about something they did & claiming someone else is doing it. There is no "witch hunt," nobody is trying to ban religious people from anything, in all alleged cases of anti-religious persecution in America (other countries don't actually guarantee separation of church & state, so the point is moot there), without exception, 1 of 2 things happened:
1. The courts sided with the religious person.
2. The courts said that the right to religious expression does not trump other legal rights granted by the government. So if the local government says public businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, religious beliefs are not a valid excuse to not serve gay people.
I just took a look at that. Anyway, wouldn't this be a great way to unleash Timothy and turn him back to normal?
Obviously no and that's not going to happen. Leo has to fall in love with Karai (or maybe Kiba), because she's Splinter's biological daughter and Leo's adoptive sister, girlfriend, sweetheart and love interest.
Welcome to Avatar Wiki! Thanks for your edit to Thread:1322737#1322821|My Avatar Theories, and for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so we hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.
Wiki Activity is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing.
Questions? Need help? Don't know what to do? See if S.O.S. editing can help you, or just leave me a message!
Have an opinion? Read the latest blog posts and meet other knowledgeable fans. Discuss the series and the movie to a depth that you'd have never imagined.
Like fan fiction? Visit our fanon portal. You can read the quality works of others. You can even write your own, and share your stories with all the readers here.
Follow our policies, to make sure that all of us get along harmoniously.
Sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognize you.
Sign your comments by typing ~~~~ when posting on one of our forum threads. This adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!
We're really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Have fun!