Response to Bernard Gaynor’s “More illogical gems from the gay marriage crowd”

In your piece you force a dichotomy. One of you being logical and the people you are arguing against being illogical. Throughout your piece you refer to the ‘pro-homosexuals’ and ‘pro-transgenders’. The way in which you use these terms could be interpreted as absolute – as broadly encompassing. For example: if someone espouses pro-homosexual views they are, by the very definition you insist upon them, culpable of all the critical things you state.

By the fact that you have generalised in such a way you have committed a rookie mistake. You have committed the logical fallacies of hasty and faulty generalisation. Most illogical, Bernard. What exactly is your definition of logic?

To address your points I shan’t commit the same mistake that you made, and shall speak only subjectively and state my own position.

Pro-homosexuals seem to think that they are open-minded. Yet they continually claim that Christianity should be excluded from debate.

I think I am fairly open-minded but don’t let any old stuff in. My logic and reason filter has filtered out the authority of the bible. It doesn’t hold for me. Perhaps I have too high an expectation for evidence? Perhaps not? Perhaps I am right. What I do attribute, though, to my ‘open-mindedness’ is a level of tolerance. I tolerate people. Actually, I don’t like the word tolerate. I respect people for being people. Sure, some people may think things that I don’t agree with, but all the luck to them. Provided, of course, that thinking isn’t detrimental to others. Unjustified murder. I think it’s wrong and will speak strongly against it. Why? Because not all interests are considered. Interests have been breached. Speaking strongly against homosexuality. I think it’s wrong and will speak strongly against it. Why? Because it is a human condition – nobodies fault. Because there is good evidence to show that intolerance of it can have a serious effect on people’s lives.

Pro-homosexuals like to pretend that they are nice people. But they constantly use words and terms that any nice person would refrain from.

I think you’re confusing unpleasantness or rudeness with frustration. A likely reason ‘pro-homosexuals’ are up in your grill is because of your writing and the sentiment it breeds interferes with their life. Perhaps your should interfere less?

Pro-homosexual people, like Steve, think that it is perfectly logical to tell me that I can’t tell another person what to do.

You may not tell people what to do, but you suggest that they do is wrong and punishable in some extreme way. This has a huge carry on effect. If I knew that my disagreement with the bible lead to people damage religious people’s property, violence or suicide, I’d be more careful in how I conducted myself.

Pro-homosexuals like to make claims that those who do not support their activities hate them. I don’t. On the contrary, a little more debate about Islam would be a good thing for this country.

Glad to hear it. Just be wary about the end what you say may lead to in others. And, sure. Why not? Let’s debate everything and see if we can come to some fair conclusion.

Pro-homosexuals believe that they are positive people. But just because you are ‘for’ something, it does not mean that your position is positive. Just as pro-legalised drug advocates support a position that undermines society, so do pro-homosexual people. There is nothing good that can come from homosexual activity. Nothing. Even if it is just a private affair. Homosexuality produces nothing good at all. On the other hand, marriage is completely different. It produces children and is the best way to raise the next generation. That’s not bad at all, and that’s why I support it so strongly.

Hmm. This is a loaded claim, Bernard. You generalise, again… (To generalise is to be illogical, don’t forget.) You argue, ergo, children are what is good. Perhaps your friends in the Catholic church took this assertion a little far. (A little joke there.) Many won’t agree with you on this. Many will claim that there are other good things such as pleasure and love and the universe and sunny days and rainbows and tomato and basil (killer combination!) Can you not see why people would be upset by you claiming that their private relationship is “nothing good”? And, what’s more, as a former aspiring politician, you sought a position where you could influence public policy… not just some bloke’s personal views?

Pro-transgender people like to think that LTCOL McGregor is professional. He is not. No one who signs off on emails with the words ‘Cate McGregor AM – suck on that f**kwit’ is professional. He is also not a woman and anyone who claims otherwise is supporting a lie. 

Yeah, calling you a bad name isn’t cool. But again, probably frustration with a dusting of alienation.

The medical fraternity will disagree with you over her definition. But you can believe what you wish in that area – it doesn’t really affect you or I.

Pro-transgender people like to think that thinking something makes it true.  

This is true of everybody. Hence, we need a rigorous method through which to verify claims. Such as science and logic and reason. Do you have an alternative?

Pro-homosexual people like to make fun of my last name. I’m glad it brings such mirth and merriment. However, once again I’ll point out that if the substance of an attack against you is a comment ridiculing your last name, it’s a good sign that you have won the debate.

It’s a bit infantile, isn’t it? And it doesn’t give credibility to their argument. But hey, we all have our moments. Titmouse, hehehehhe.

Advertisements