Bumper Sticker Arguments – LGBT Edition

Try to argue with LGBT advocates and you will often find that their justifications sound a lot like bumper sticker slogans, and seldom go much deeper than that.  This is partly due to the fact that they aren’t offered as rational justifications at all (as though their preferences in these matters were subject to reason), but as a conversation stopper.  Even so, they deserve some response, but given the dismissive way these arguments are usually offered it may be in the interest of your time and their attention span to stick with terse replies.

Here, then, is a list of some of these bumper sticker “arguments,” along with some suggested bumper sticker responses.

“I was born this way”
  • Since it could be said that everyone is born with something, then you seem to be implying that everything is okay.
  • That’s a bold psychological claim. Can you prove it?
  • How does that make it automatically good? 
  • Is it even remotely possible that it could be a defect?
  • Some people are born without limbs. Are you saying they should celebrate that and not try to correct it in any way?
  • Does that mean that if you weren’t actually born that way, it would be bad?
  • A paedophile could make the same claim. What’s your point?

“God made me this way”
  • Oh? You’ve heard from God about this?
  • To which god are you referring, because I don’t know of any religions that suggest that God purposely makes homosexuals, much less delights in them?
  • That’s a pretty robust view of God’s sovereignty. Are you suggesting that every way that people are is God’s doing, and is therefore good?
  • Maybe God made me a homophobe.
  • A paedophile could make the same claim. What’s your point?
“We’re not hurting anyone”
  • If homosexuality is wrong, then practicing it is necessarily hurting someone.
  • A peeping Tom is not “hurting” anyone either.
  • Define “hurt” please.
  • Are you saying that homosexuality has no direct or indirect effects on society that could touch other people?
  • Is that as deep as your moral philosophy goes: not causing physical pain?
  • A paedophile can be gentle. What’s your point?
“It’s not hurting you”
  • Starving children in Africa aren’t hurting me either, but I can still care about that.
  • It’s generally considered noble to care about more than just oneself.
  • It is, in the same way that believing that homosexuality is a sin is hurting you.
  • It’s “hurting” me at least as much as a Nativity hurts an atheist.
  • A paedophile could make the same claim. What’s your point?
“Did you choose to be straight?”
  • No, but I didn’t choose to be born with all my limbs either.
  • Healthy is still healthy whether you are born to it or not.
  • You are presuming that homosexuality is a birth condition, which has not been established.
  • Did you choose to be born a non-paedophile? What’s your point?
“How can love be wrong?”
  • Define “love,” and why does your definition win?
  • Are you agreeing there is such a thing as objective right and wrong, or are we just playing word games here?
  • If you get to define “love” and “wrong” for yourself, then of course there’s no problem.
  • Does “love” between two men require sodomy?
  • A paedophile can ask the same thing. What’s your point?
“I was born in the wrong body”
  • Why do you believe there’s something wrong with your body rather than with your belief about it?
  • What is this “I” that can go into one body vs. another, and where do your beliefs about that come from?
  • Exactly who made the mistake in putting you in this body, and why would you presume to correct it?
  • When did you get put in your body? And, by the way, are you pro-life?
  • What are the boundaries of wrongful birth? Would it be possible to be born in the wrong species, too?
“Many animals are gay”
  • Many animals eat their young, too. What’s your point?
  • So, whatever animals do is okay, right?
  • Are humans categorically different than animals, with distinct moral knowledge? If not, then why appeal to what those “other” animals do?
  • Why assume that it means gay is natural, rather than that animals can also be broken?
  • If your dog humps legs, does that mean he prefers them over the real thing?
  • How do you know they exclusively prefer the same sex, since we can’t ask them?
“Gays exist. Deal with it.”
  • So, everything that exists is good?
  • Paedophiles exist. Deal with it.
“You’re just a homophobe”
  • That implies fear, and since straights vastly outnumber gays, I think I’m pretty safe.
  • Is there an argument here that I’m supposed to respond to or are we just being school children?
  • You’re presuming the most simplistic motives for my objection to homosexuality. Are you even aware that principled objections exist?
  • You’re just a heterophobe.
  • You’re just a paedophobe.
“You’re just a hater”
  • No more than I “hate” alcoholics and the clinically depressed.
  • It may be your practice to hate everyone you disagree with, but it is not mine.
  • What do my possible feelings have to do with the truth of the issue?
  • I’m new at this. Am I supposed to call you a name now, or do we move on to discussing the actual issue?
  • Doctors can think someone has a problem and have compassion for them. Why can’t I?
  • You disapprove of paedophilia (I hope). Is it just because you’re a “hater,” or do you have a principled reason for that?
“You probably haven’t gotten to know any gays”
  • As a matter of fact…
  • I’ve never gotten to know a rapist, but I’m still entitled to believe that’s wrong.
  • If I were emotionally swayed by my fondness for a gay loved one, wouldn’t that just make me biased about this issue?
  • Are you suggesting that if someone is publicly nice, then everything they do in private is good?
  • You’ve just never gotten to know any paedophiles.
“Most gays are productive and talented citizens”
  • Are you suggesting that they are better than heterosexuals?
  • Nazi Germany was the most productive and creative nation in the world. I think there’s more to morality than that.
  • That may be true, but is that caused by their sexual preferences or in spite of them?
  • This might be said of paedophiles as well. What’s your point?
“The Bible says not to judge”
  • So, why are you judging me?
  • Well, guess I better rethink my opposition to racism and injustice.
  • You mean the same Bible that had John the Baptist criticizing Herod, and Jesus fighting mad in the Temple?
  • Are you implying that you take the Bible as a source of moral authority that we can use in this whole dispute?
  • Are you suggesting that homosexuality is wrong, but that it’s simply not our place to judge it?
  • A paedophile can play the same trump card.
“Jesus never condemned homosexuality”
  • He certainly didn’t speak in favor of it.
  • Do you know who we believe Jesus is and how we believe the Bible was inspired? If so, then I’ve got some passages from Leviticus and Paul I’d like to share.
  • If condemnation of homosexuality were completely uncontroversial up to His time, why do you suppose He’d need to speak to it?
  • He didn’t speak against paedophilia either.
“Why are you so obsessed with this issue?”
  • Because you are.
  • Because this is one of the few sins that people celebrate.
  • In debates on abortion, evolution, global warming, religious pluralism, and Christian orthodoxy, they think I’m obsessed with those things, too.
  • It’s possible to be both obsessed and right at the same time.
  • Lincoln was obsessed with emancipating the slaves. Shall we think badly of him for it?
  • If adulterers had pride marches, wanted to teach our children moral equivalence between adultery and fidelity, and named schools after serial adulterers, then we’d be equally obsessed with that issue, too.
“Stop comparing us to paedophiles”
  • Stop comparing us to the KKK, Muslims, and Nazis.
  • If I compared you to something nice, then it wouldn’t be much of an argument, would it?
  • I’m not comparing you, I’m comparing your ideas.
  • Stop making arguments that paedophiles could also make.
“This is a civil rights issue”
  • What are “rights” and where do they come from?
  • Don’t you mean it’s a preference issue?
  • I’m guessing Rosa Parks would be unimpressed by your gay rights parades.
  • The word “rights” isn’t moral pixie dust to be sprinkled on anything you like.
  • Fighting for the right to do your own thing is one thing, but requiring all persons to celebrate it and all children to live within your social experiment is quite another.
“We just want marriage equality”
  • I think you misunderstand the concept of “equal.” If traditional and same-sex marriage were truly equal, then there’d be no special class looking for the right to it.
  • As long as we’re redefining logical operators, can the rocks in my back yard be “equal” to gold?
  • Men and women are about as categorically distinct as humans come. In what way would you say that one of each is “equal” to two of the same?
  • We are equal! I don’t have the right to marry someone of the same sex any more than you do.
  • Yeah! And a man with four women, a 30 year old with a 12 year old, and a girl with a horse are “equal” too.
  • Do you? Which would you rather have: all of society’s approval with a dictator that didn’t allow you a state sanctioned marriage, or society’s disapproval with a liberal dictator permitting you official marriage?
“What consenting adults do is nobody’s business”
  • So, you’re okay with drug deals, prostitution, and suicide pacts?
  • Why consenting? Why just adults? Why just people? How many people? Why your criteria for these things?
  • Do you think it’s possible for adults to consent to immoral things?

Posted on May 6, 2015, in Homosexuality and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Stalwart Sam

    You know, I found some of your retorts to be hilarious. Not sure why, but I did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


A place where ideas, not people, are under assault.


...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal

%d bloggers like this: