Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

Abiding Truth Ministries ^ | 2002 | Scott Douglas Lively

[Saundra Duffy]

BUMP for Scott Lively who stayed in our home in Fresno one night. A true American hero. And is he smart!!! His kids are pro life activists, too. For victory & freedom!!!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]

Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.

To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...

To bolster some of my assertions:

-

"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."

About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

-

The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.

Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.

The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.

In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...

BEFORE YOU BLINDLY REACT, THINK ABOUT WHY I SAY THIS...

The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.

The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.

This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.

An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.

Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." Your "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.

The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols... LIKEWISE, societal practice of the Gay Religion of homosexuality is an idolatrous vanity of pagan practice based not on any biological foundation of human reproductive science, but based upon inductive arguments, informal fallacies, invalid argument forms in both categorical and propositional logic...

[johnb838]

Hi there -- I wanted to apologize for kind of going off yesterday. I'm not really a hater or a homophobe either. It's just that I have some beliefs and convictions that I suspect would condemn me to that status in the eyes of some of the current gay activists. I think that the rise of gay power has created a climate that has contributed to the moral decline in America. I think I AM tolerant. But that's a far cry from being willing to say that it's perfectly natural and normal, and that gays should have equal status with heterosexuals, and unlimited access to children. I think it's a sin but we're all sinners -- I just wish they would admit it. I do NOT think that they should be able to claim to be married. I think before we allowed that we should redefine marriage so as to not give any advantages to being married unless there are children. And I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt.

[JoshGray]

Actually, I was referring to your rather fluid definition of the word "homosexual". Either a homosexual is someone who claims to be homosexual or a homosexual is someone who performs one or more homosexual acts -- you can't have both.

[visualops]

The term homophobic is used to imply [that if you're against gay rights]what you're really afraid of is that you have 'gay' tendencies yourself, which you have repressed because you are so uptight. Since most [straight]men (IMHO) certainly don't want to appear concerned about their own sexuality re: hetero/maleness; this tactic is designed to get men/people to declare they certainly have no problem with gays or gay rights.

[visualops]

This is not in defense of or in response to the 'Rage' lady, but simply clarification.
My understanding of "fag-hag" is that it's a straight woman who likes hanging around with gays. Many gay men behave, in speech affectations, gestures, etc, as a charicature of a female, which lots of women find not only entertaining, but also affords them the 'higher' status of being the 'real' woman in the group.

[William Terrell]

I'm afraid that you're not making much sense to me. First of all, what do you mean by "material" reality? "Material" as opposed to what?

You really don't know what I mean by "material reality"? Look around. Creatures come in male and female, with natal operating systems to match. All creatures conform to that paradign. Do you know of any natural hermaphroditic creature above the microscopic level? Do you know any natural homosexual species? Of course you don't, if there were, there wouldn't be for long. Instances of supposed homosexuality in animals are as deviant as they are in human beings.

Material as opposed to non-material, I guess. What's your point?

Next, you infer that it's okay for YOU to make presumptions, but from me you expect scientific proof. Isn't that a little... ummm... inconsistent?

Oh my, no, it's not me making the assumptions. It is the entire human race for the multi-millennial span of it's existence on Earth that make the assumption. And they make it based on observations of the way material reality (as I defined above) works.

I can't imagine the weight of "scientific proof" it would take to disprove it, especially when all one has to do is wordlessly point out the physiology and psychology of every damn mammal and insect on the planet.

Evidently, you can't imagine it either.

As far as "evidence" being "in everybody's face every minute of every day," that is an excellent depiction of why homosexuality as a pathology CANNOT be scientifically justified, insofar as there are MILLIONS of gays (in this country alone) that are living happy, useful, well adjusted lives. If there are any presumptions to be made, the non-pathological nature of sexual orientation (homo-bi-hetero) would be the most logical.

One can't assume homosexuals are gay; I've seen much unhappiness and confusion in the homosexual relationships I've observed, where I could observe them in their more natural moments.

The only thing one can assume is that there are millions of homosexuals in the country. One can't assume that any portion of them are "living happy, useful, well adjusted lives" because one can't know each "couple" or "triple" or "whatever" intimately.

People put on happy faces for the public, which is what you must be basing your assumption on. So you are just making wild statements you have no evidence for at all.

What is a "sexual orientation"? You are either male or female, or physically deformed. If you are one, you can't become the other; all you can do is mutilate your body. In the paradign of material reality, as applied to creatures, certain instincts and behaviors come with its matching physiology.

If you are one of the two and are "oriented" (turned on sexually) toward the same sex, you are screwed up with an identity crisis, because your natural programing is and has to be toward the complimenting physiology, but you have overlaid it with a result of a nurture trauma.

This is proved by the very fact that you had to ask me what material reality was and how it worked, when it is acted out everywhere on the planet every day of your life. Only traumas have the charateristics by which observations of material presence can be occulded.

There you go with that "material reality" again. Yes, homosexuality (and bisexuality) is most certainly consistent and harmonious with some creatures; and, at least in civil society, is (and should be) "equivalent to heterosexuality."

Words are cheap. I can say that pink elephants dance on water, but I'd need a photograph and witnesses.

In a paradign where all creatures, without exception, on the Earth is either male or female, or deformed; where population density is vital to the perpetuity of a species; where the only way to continue a species under the paradign is to mate the two opposite sexes together; where the only sexual expression of two same sexes require the use of body parts in incompatable and frequently dangerous configurations and produce thereby only ephemeral orgasmic jerks and nothing else, the latter is pathological in contrast.

Common sense, conventional wisdom, and the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is NOT a pathology. Those that assert otherwise have the burder of proof.

Commonsense is the awareness of the natural order of things. That's why it's called "commonsense". Conventional wisdom follows the natural order of things, that's why it's called "conventional wisdom". And both say that homosexuality is a deviant behavior with respect to the way physical beings are designed and operate.

(Incidentally, Thailand has finally joined the growing list of countries that have delisted homosexuality as a disorder, correctly noting that they were long overdue in doing so.)

Why, yes, let us follow in kind. And while we're at it lets round pi off to 3 to make geometry easier to calculate; and, since, frozen water is the main danger in winter, lets reduce the freezing point thereof to 0 degrees Faharenheit.

[gitmo]

I see nothing militant in the article. It is simply an examination of the logic flaws that are being presented by the modern homosexual advocates.

[Eastbound]

Well, I've read everything posted so far. Very informative. So at the risk of being kicked in the head by both sides here, I'd like to comment.

Why don't everyone just give up all activities designed to culminate with orgasm for the next 20 years?

Think of the benefits:

1 - All sexual diseases would be eradicated from the face of the earth.
2 - Honesty in all relationships would flourish because sexual pre-motivation would not be the driving force.
3 - Wars around the world would end because there would be no next generation to fight them. You can bet the old men are not going to return to the battlefield.
4 - After 20 years without babies, how the world would again treasure the infants.

I'm outta here!

[EdReform]

Well said - Bump

[EdReform]

Thanks!

[Kevin Curry]

You are a master at identifying the illogical, yet you cannot discern why one man having anal or oral sexual congress with another man is illogical?

Your "insights" are worthless. You have no credibility.

[William Terrell]

Speaking of which, you have still failed to meet your burden of proof. Here's another reminder:

So why don’t you make this easy and just post the compelling, valid, and peer-reviewed evidence that supports your assertion of sexual orientation as a pathology? Go ahead… make your case.

You keep reposting this statement to these guys. You posted it to me once and I showed you clearly that the burden of proof for an extrordinary claim is on you.

If the burden is on you, and it is simply by virtue of the fact that homosexuals are less than 3% of any population and heterosexuals are more than 97% of any population and nothing else, how can you keep demanding it of anyone else?

[EdReform]

Homosexual authors Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote in The Overhauling of Straight America:

"... The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that the public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere! ..."

[EdReform]

From "Homosexual Priests: A Time for Truth":

"... The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize perverse behavior. This is apparent in the all-too-common need of homosexuals to declare their sexuality rather than simply do the job they sign on to do.

This is extremely detrimental—first, it creates conflict with others as most believe homosexuality to be wrong, and it shows that the full efforts of the employed homosexual are not going towards performing the task at hand but largely to declaring their lifestyle. When it comes to serious concerns such as the Church, schools, and the Boy Scouts that involve our children, we can’t take the risk of giving them this power to destroy the values we as parents try to instill, nor can we put our country’s welfare at stake by turning these pivotal foundational institutions and our military into homosexual social experiments.

The homosexual movement is marked by two major tendencies: the tendency to continually infiltrate all good aspects of society; and once they have achieved that, the tendency to destroy this good. Public education, the Boy Scouts, the military, and now the Catholic Church have been targeted, and all have been hurt by the effects of homosexuality. The media and the Church must break its silence towards this enemy. If they do not, the people themselves must rise up and expose it..."

[William Terrell]

Unfortunately, it only takes homosexuals contantly talking to achieve the ends you post. It does not take a dialog. Homosexuals constantly putting out inaccuracies unchallenged is a lot worse than homosexuals being challenged.