Your Facebook argument is illogical

Chris Slattery

Okay, so the last time I wrote a column in response to something I saw on Facebook, many distasteful names were thrown at me, so I’ll choose my words carefully this time around. This is in part a reaction to a string of opinions posted on Facebook (of which everyone is entitled to), and also as a retort to the recent veto that happened in New Jersey.

Gay marriage: it’s a subject that has been discussed to death and back and I would only join in if I knew I had something different to say. So, to get everything out of the way:

OPPOSITION: It’s a sin, destroys the sanctity of marriage, Perez Hilton

SUPPORT: Just call it “marriage,” basic human rights, Neil Patrick Harris

Because all of these points (regardless of validity) have already been made countless times, I just want to talk about a few of these Facebook viewpoints, which — due to space restrictions — can’t include full context:

“Gay’s [sic] can’t make babies, so their [sic] isn’t a need to give them the distinction of marriage or the privileges that go along with it. In essence, gay individuals are ‘instictually’ [sic] challenged, or defunct.”

Since that first clause is completely untrue — it’s not as if gay men don’t have sperm and gay women don’t have functioning uteri — there is no basis for the second. I mean, yes, as far as I’m aware a dude can’t get another dude pregnant, but donors and surrogates are everywhere to help “facilitat[e] in making babies” (mentioned earlier). In essence, gay individuals aren’t defunct at all.

“I now understand why people don’t like gays[.] [O]n the most basic level I don’t want to compete for resources or assist in anyway [sic] someone who by choice or defect is absolutely removed from the evolutionary gene pool with no possibility of perpetuating the human race and[/]or a societies [sic] sovereignty.”

Okay, ignoring the point made earlier, as well as the fact that no one here is competing for resources at the moment, let’s take a dip in the gene pool for a second. Is this to say that people who suffer from infertility (approximately 10 to 15 percent of Americans) and many celibate religious figures — from monks to priests — should suffer the same hatred at gays? Or should we instead not concern ourselves entirely with continuing to populate an already-crowded planet and treat human beings like human beings?

“I imagine that to perpetuate sovereignty as technology advances the country who will rule the world is the one who invents a weapon to turn other country’s [sic] populations homosexual so that they can’t recreate[.]”

Yeah, I think Apple is working on developing that technology right now…

Listen, it’s not my place to say whom I think deserves equal rights (I mean, technically this is exactly my place, below the editorial cartoon), and I don’t want to push any agenda on individuals who may feel differently. It just irks me when people use faulty logic to hurt others.

Unless this writer was using satire. [email protected]