Smart answers to idiotic arguments

The Box Turtle Bulletin is well worth a visit for everyone who in one way or another is interested in gender issues, especially lgbt questions.
Gabriel Arana of the BTB has written a series of five blog posts analyzing and answering arguments made by amateur anti-gay pundits. The series is called Anti-Gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should).

Part one deals with the argument that

Any man — even a gay one — can marry a woman. Therefore, it is not discriminatory to deny marriage rights to members of the same sex given that a straight man can’t marry a man, either.

Arana's answer is, in part: The real argument that proponents of LGBT rights are making is that the “fundamental right” in question is the right to marry the person one loves, not to marry someone of the other sex.

Part two analyzes the "slippery slope" -argument:

If you let gays marry, then you will have to allow polygamous, incestuous or inter-species marriage.

Arana argues: It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong. [...] The argument against incest — preventing genetic abnormalities — is sufficient enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage. [...] Marriages are partnerships and animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one.

Part three deals with the argument cluster

Being gay is against the natural order of things; it is against evolution; if everyone were gay humanity would end.

Arana writes: The central fact that I have trouble getting across is that evolution has no transcendent goal; it is epiphenomenonal. [...] what we call evolution is an observation of the natural world, a statement of the facts; it is not prescriptive. It is silly to say something is wrong because it “goes against evolution” because “evolution” couldn’t care less. [...] A more pithy response to the if-everyone-were-gay-then-humanity-would-end argument is: if everyone were a woman, humanity would also end, but that doesn’t make being a woman wrong.

Part four deals with the statement that

Being gay is a choice.

It is really a two-part question, according to Arana. First, are homosexual feelings a choice? Second, is engaging in “homosexual acts” a choice?
1. The debate is really about whether being gay is a central, immutable component of one’s identity or whether it is malleable, subject to change. Even ex-gay therapists acknowledge that homosexual feelings aren’t chosen, but they do think you can choose to change them. [...]
2. It is, however, a choice to engage in “homosexual acts.”
But the burden is really on those who hold anti-gay views to show why it is wrong for gay people to express themselves sexually. Sexual expression is a natural human inclination — and a basic feature of adult life. Depriving someone of this strikes at the heart of human dignity. [...]
Anti-gay activists say being gay is a choice because they imagine a false dichotomy: you either live a morally upright straight life or you descend into the miasma of sex, drugs, disease and death that is the gay world. The real choice is between living a lie and not.

Lastly, we have the fifth argument:

If you pass pro-gay legislation, pastors and private citizens will not be able to voice opposing views.

Arana writes: Adopting gay marriage — or passing any other pro-gay legislation, for that matter — does not change the legal standard of what constitutes free speech [...]. It might, if attitudes change over time, help relegate anti-gay views to the periphery of public discourse, but this is a social consequence, not a legal one. There is no connection between allowing gay marriage and people losing their right to freedom of speech.

These are excellent, well written texts. But don't take my word for it; read Arana's posts in their entirety - here, I've obviously only sampled them.