I like to look at the positions of others from their perspective. I like to understand what they must be thinking in order to decide how best to counter their argument. I do this with most arguments I hear. I can generally come up with an argument for my opponent’s position which is head and shoulders above the argument they come up with themselves. I really enjoy arguing Christian Apologetics with my fellow atheists, for sport. Gives me a chance to practice straight rhetoric. Give it a try sometime, argue a position you oppose. If you can do that well, you will probably win any argument against those holding that position.
I gave this tactic a try on the gay issue. I am a big supporter of gay rights so I tried to come up with a sound, non-religious, argument against the gays. I was woefully unsuccessful. Try yourself and hit me up with what you have got. No one here will think you are a closet homophobe, worry not. Or, if you are against gays drop me a line and let me know why. I love a rousing debate.
Let’s say there were some (any) evidence that gay marriage were harmful to society as a whole. Well, we would need to show how that is the case and then we can debate the relative loss of freedom compared with the additional benefit to society.
Thus far no one has put forth a logical argument as to how gay marriage hurts society. Maybe it is ‘gross’ or ‘unnatural’ like calamari or microwaves. Perhaps it hurts the youth…. But how? Does the homosexual lifestyle look so enticing that our young people that we are powerless to stop this contagion?
Let’s look at this avenue of thought. There are some hidden premises here. First, that gay sex is really enticing to everyone. Second, that once you try gay you never stray. Otherwise it poses no threat. So here is the anti gay argument as I see it:
P1-Gay sex is better than straight sex.
P2-No one will think of having gay sex without a role model.
P3-Gay sex is really really bad (for some reason or other).
P4-Gays exhibit the gay lifestyle (glamorize?)
These are the four premises and the conclusion if the P1, P2 thing was unclear.
I cannot see another argument that supports their position. The religious right must think that gay sex is so much better that no one given the chance would refuse. I am not arguing that homophobes are closet homosexuals but the logic is sound. And if you take the last few Republican sex scandals as emblematic of the party you might make that conclusion.