I am straight and proud, but I’m not posting that shit on my timeline.
It’s amazing what Facebook turns up. The above picture appeared in a post that was subsequently shared by others (who presumably brought into it) and ended up on my newsfeed. It comes with a little text too, which I will look at a little of shortly.
Firstly, in the image:
“[…] its now seen as intolerant to be straight and proud […]”
No, it is seen as intolerant to be homophobic, believe it or not, I’m straight and proud, but have no issues with homosexuality. This is an obvious straw man argument, they claim the argument to be something other than it is, to make their point.
” […] if you stand against the promotion of gay rights, you are intolerant and bigoted […]”
Damn straight! What’s the issue?
In the text:
“When the ‘rights’ of a group that comprise less than 3% of the global population become ‘special rights’ and are forced onto the majority via the media, governments and well funded ‘lobby groups’ then you know there is a sinister agenda driving the campaign for sinister reasons.”
“then it is clearly part of a concerted effort to force the normalisation of something that much more than 3% of the worlds population don’t want their children exposed to.”
This is an appeal to popular opinion. Popular opinion doesn’t make an idea correct. When Copernicus suggested a helio-centric universe, less than 3% of the global populace likely agreed, and most people believed in geo-centricism instead, this didn’t make the solar system geo-centric.
The diction seems to be aiming at discrediting anyone who might disagree with them as being part of something evil or “sinister,” which seems like an ad hominum attack. Even if the people pushing the issue do have political agendas, which they probably do, it doesn’t automatically make them incorrect or “sinister” for pushing this one.
Then the rest goes on about pushing political agendas like this one, really? It has nothing to do with treating people in a fair manner which gives them the greatest degree of opportunity for equality and happiness? It isn’t about giving people the right to choose how they live their lives? The rights of people are nothing more than a political agenda? This sounds like another straw man argument.
And right at the end, they make an analogy to women’s rights, just to prove what a bad idea gay rights are. I’m not sure what their reasoning behind this is, though, women probably comprise around 50% of the global population, so it seems like a bad analogy anyway.
This was just interesting, and I’ve filed it under debate tactics, because it’s a good example of bad debating tactics. There are likely two straw man arguments, an appeal to popular opinion, an ad hominum argument, and possibly a faulty analogy.
What’s your two cents?
And, of course, I invite you to post this to your wall if you agree. 😉