Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

The success of so-called "gay rights" is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don't hold up under scrutiny. "Gay" sympathizers aren't necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.

He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the "gay" movement.

Sophistry, it must be noted, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. The key to overcoming sophistry is to simplify and clarify what the sophists have intentionally made complex and vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts being used in the arguments. One quickly discovers that most arguments advocating "gay rights" depend upon hidden false assumptions and deliberately ambiguous terms. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Among the most common terms and concepts in the "gay rights" debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by "gay" sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, "gay" arguments are easily refuted.

Some people might be tempted to skip past this section because they think they understand this term. That is the first mistake made by every victim of "gay" sophistry. Failure to clarify the essential terms at the beginning allows one to be trapped by his or her own assumptions. It's like signing a contract to buy a used car without clearly identifying the car.

Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The "gay" movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term "homosexuality" had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.

After 1986, the "gay" movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new definition, "straights" can choose same-gender sexual relations and "gays" can choose opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true "sexual orientation."

1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The "gay" movement had argued that homosexual sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right no different than marital sexual relations. The court firmly rejected that argument.

The constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct remains the law of the land.

Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental right, the "gay" movement turned to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional protection: minority status as a "suspect class." The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics.

This is the secret to understanding why the "gay" movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior-based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and political strategy.

There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is "gay." We must depend entirely upon a person's claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy. Self-declared homosexuals can't even prove that they really believe that their homosexuality is innate. Instead, they argue that homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and incur the resulting social stigma. This argument is invalid, since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. Moreover, there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference.

On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person's inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

In reality, the "gay" movement does not want a biological cause to be found. If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the "race for the cure." (And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.)

Since the "gay" movement can't prove it, the assertion that homosexuals are "born that way" remains nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for abandoning long-standing, experience-tested social policies. Remember, society doesn't have to prove that homosexuality is not innate. "Gay" activists are the ones attempting to change things and the burden of proof is theirs.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not innate. There is a very considerable body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals. These ex-"gays" have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. The "gay" movement's challenge to former homosexuals to, in essence, prove they aren't still innately "gay" is the height of absurdity since homosexual immutability was never proven in the first place.

Why is the question of immutability so important? Because if homosexuality is not innate, it must be acquired. And if it can be acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. If there remains any shadow of doubt as to the cause of homosexuality, we must err on the side of protecting our children. Indeed we must actively discourage them from viewing homosexuality as safe and normal, when in fact it is demonstrably neither safe nor normal. It bears noting here that normalcy is functioning according to nature or design. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion.

In summary, the true definition of homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct. This definition is both logical and intuitively sound.

For the sake of our children and the health of our society, we must not accept the redefinition of these terms. We must force the advocates of the "born that way" argument to admit that they can't prove it, and that since they can't prove it, they must admit the possibility that homosexuality may be acquired. We must never allow a discussion to proceed forward if the immutability of homosexuality is assumed as a premise. We must challenge the premise and force the logical concessions, without allowing the subject to be changed.

"Sexual orientation" is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

An "orientation" describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc..

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The "gay" movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations -- pedophilia, for example -- would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.

Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile's orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.

Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to existing anti-discrimination laws: "This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest." The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.

Another purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to "gay" arguments. For one thing it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality.

For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. When reminded of this, "gay" sympathizers say, "Heterosexuals do the same things." This isn't a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don't make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.

In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

A second reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows "gay" activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. "Gay" sophists have coined the term "heterosexism" to describe favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as "racism" toward homosexuals.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-"gay" assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by the premises.

The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized.

The takeover of local governments begins in the local media (where there is never a shortage of "gay" political activists) with a campaign to raise awareness of discrimination against legitimate minorities. A call then goes out to form a Human Relations Commission to study the problem and develop community-based solutions. The commission is then formed with quasi-governmental authority. The anti-discrimination policy comes next, often without mention of sexual orientation. That is usually added by amendment later. Opposition is usually minimal because no one wants to be perceived as being in favor of discrimination. This is not a baseless fear. Pro-"gay" activists in both the media and the government greet any opposition with widely-publicized accusations of racism and bigotry.

Invariably, one duty of the commission is to gather, analyze and report statistics on discrimination in the community. (This is probably where the concept of "hate crimes" originated as a "gay" political strategy).

The use of a reporting plan assures two favorable outcomes for homosexuals. First, they gain a measure of legitimacy merely by being listed together with true civil rights minorities (without having to justify their inclusion among those whose status is based on morally neutral criteria such as skin color and ethnicity). Second, the very nature of the reporting process virtually guarantees an increase of discriminatory incidents from one reporting period to the next as people gradually become aware of the system. This appearance of a growing problem bolsters their demands for additional concessions to their agenda.

The takeover of a corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually in-the-closet) homosexual into a hiring position. Other undisclosed "gays" are then hired to fill strategic positions in the company. When the ability to control the process is assured, some of the activists come "out-of-the-closet" and form a "Gay and Lesbian Employees Association." That group then introduces an amendment to the company anti-discrimination policy to include "sexual orientation."

Democratically-run organizations (including political parties, labor unions and churches) are targeted based upon their vulnerability to takeover by a unified bloc of voting members. Mass infiltration by activists precedes elections, after which time organizational policy (and bylaws) can be controlled by the new activist leaders, who may or may not disclose that they are "gay." I have heard it said that this was how the Metropolitan Community Church, an entirely homosexual-controlled "religious denomination" started, beginning with the takeover of the original MCC, which was reportedly a genuine but struggling Christian church. The so-called "mainstream" Christian denominations have been particularly targeted, not only because many congregations have seen steeply declining membership in recent decades (i.e. fewer new "members" are needed to gain a voting majority), but because these denominations have vast property holdings and endowment funds which can be used for activist projects.

Every takeover is followed by consolidation of "gay" power within the organization, starting with some form of "sensitivity training." Sensitivity training employs proven psychological coercion tactics (i.e. "brainwashing") to indoctrinate members of the organization in pro-"gay" thinking. By the very nature of the manipulative tactics used, few dare to openly dissent. Those who do are duly noted by the control group and if they are considered a real threat, they are marginalized and may in time be forced out. Sensitivity training is usually mandatory for all members of the organization.

Once the control group has consolidated power, the organization is plundered for its available resources. These include tangible resources such as money and property, but also intangibles such as advertising and vendor contracts and even community goodwill. Charitable giving, too, is exploited, as gifts and grants are diverted away from previously-favored beneficiaries like the Boy Scouts to "gay"-controlled organizations. While some resources benefit the internal control group (i.e. domestic partnership benefits and employee perks), most are focused strategically outside of the organization to further the "gay" political agenda in the community.

All the processes described above are made possible simply by the acceptance of sexual orientation as a theory of human sexuality.

In summary, sexual orientation is a term that is used by "gay" activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting "gay" presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals' political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become "law" in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to rest of the "gay" agenda becomes much more difficult.

The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of sexual orientation and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. Sexual orientation must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by "gay" political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism. By itself it means only "the variety of things," but as used by the homosexual movement "diversity" is a moral statement about the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honored for its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning.

Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture. The "culture" of homosexuality - a way of life rooted in the practice of sodomy - is not equal to the inherited family-based cultures of African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.

The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multi-culturalism.

This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have fallen victim to "gay" sophistry openly congratulate themselves for being inclusive. This is the same error in a different form. In both cases there is a failure to define the standard of acceptance by which people are welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With no standard, there can be no objectivity in the process and decisions represent merely the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge.

In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality of all diverse cultures in our society under the code-word "diversity." The doctrine's validity depends upon limiting the definition of culture to morally neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally significant sexual behavior in the definition robs multi-culturalism of validity by granting legitimacy to immoral practices. Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some cultures because of their practices (for example cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality of cultures. Failure to articulate a standard by which to determine which cultures should be included compounds the problem by vesting arbitrary authority in whomever holds power.

The effective response to a champion of "diversity" is to focus on the definition of multiculturalism and to demand to know the standard for inclusion.

Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of

In summary, discrimination has been useful to "gay" activists because the public is deeply conditioned to associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice. The solution is to add the prefix "rational" or "irrational" to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to consider the significance of the prefix. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination.

This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" sophists. In a way, it shouldn't even be considered sophistry, since it lacks any hint of subtlety. In contrast to the cleverness of most other examples listed here, the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.

Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."

As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. The way to expose this fact is to require the advocates of the "gay" position to state the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal that they accept no opposition to their agenda as legitimate.

Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. "Gay" activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association)

Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.

Collectively, these aspects of homophobia serve to intimidate opponents into silence. When any opposition to homosexuality draws the accusation that one is a mentally-ill bigot equivalent to a racist, few people will dare to openly oppose it. Those who do will tend to be defensive, offering the disclaimer that they are not hateful (implicitly validating hatefulness as the general rule).

The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.

In summary, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by "gay" sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill "gay bashers" and in doing so declares mainstream religious doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. The solution is to reject the term homophobia itself as harmful and illegitimate. Its illegitimacy can be exposed by making pro-"gay" advocates define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality.

Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don't like in order to serve the greater good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society. In the "gay" lexicon, however, tolerance means unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant, even those who treat self-defined "gays" with the utmost courtesy and respect.

Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion. This fosters a climate in which intolerance against legitimate minorities can be more easily justified. As the "gays" have proved, many people just don't think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of race and intolerance of perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the "gays."

To reaffirm the true meaning of tolerance in the face of "gay" sophistry, point out that tolerance is relative. Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech (i.e. the right to say "I'm gay") but low tolerance for harmful behavior (i.e. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce.

The heart of "gay" sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality as a state-of-being and not a form of sexual behavior. This allows the "gay" movement to define homosexuals as a civil rights minority comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority status is based on truly immutable characteristics. In turn, this allows the "gay" movement to inherit and exploit all of the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement for its own ends.

Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for "selling" the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable. It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology. Only by making the design and function of the human body irrelevant can "gay" strategists avoid otherwise self-evident truths about homosexuality.

All of the terms examined in this article, as applied to homosexuals, depend for their validity upon the theory of sexual orientation, which in turn depends upon the redefinition of homosexuality.

In the end, this battle is won by affirming the obvious. The truth about homosexuality is self-evident. Self-evident truths are not taught, they are revealed. Helping people overcome "gay" sophistry does not require teaching them new facts and figures or raising their level of intellectual sophistication. On the contrary, it requires a clearing away of the misinformation that obscures the simple reality of things.

Indeed, if you find yourself dependent on studies and statistics to persuade someone of the wrongness of homosexuality and that it should not be legitimized in society, you have already lost the debate. Consider: a person who remains unpersuaded by a reminder of the obvious truth has revealed himself to be an intellectual reprobate for whom facts are ultimately meaningless. Yet if you, by retreating to secondary evidence, grant that obvious truth is insufficient to prove your case, you voluntarily invite a debate context which favors those who are willing to cheat and lie to win.

Defeating "gay" arguments, therefore, depends upon asserting the plain truth about homosexuality from the start. If you fail to challenge the presuppositions of the "gay" position, you will forever be at a disadvantage in opposing the many goals of the "gay" agenda. Stand firmly on the truth that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked for this position, because your opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully defeat all of their arguments. You will take less heat for seeking some point of compromise, but you will trade away most of your moral and persuasive authority in the process.

If you decline to stand firm on your pro-family presuppositions, the insights provided in this booklet will not be of much value to you. But if you do, they will serve as potent weapons against every form of "gay" sophistry and your courageous stand for truth will be vindicated.

First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation theory, homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality is assumed (which is just about any discussion you will ever have on this issue).

"Gay" Advocate: "Can't you see that denying gays the right to marry is discrimination. Why shouldn't they have the same basic rights as heterosexuals?"

You: "I'm a little confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?"

Second. Always make the advocates of the "gay" position define the critical terms.

"Gay" Advocate: "Of course they are equivalent. One person is no better than another just because of whom they happen to love."

You: "I still don't get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality? It's more than love isn't it?"

Third. Stay on track. Sophists will always change the subject to avoid having to admit error. The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined. Don't allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out for the "tag team" tactic in which a third party will interrupt your discussion to help your opponent change the subject. Make these parties address your question.)

"Gay" Advocate: "Homosexuality is just your sexual orientation. It's the way you're born. Some people are straight. Some are gay. You don't think gay people should be discriminated against just because they have a different orientation, do you?"

You: "I'd like to answer that question after we talk about what sexual orientation is, but I'm still not clear on what you mean by homosexuality. How do you know that it's just the way someone is born?

Fourth. Don't allow your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to disprove one of his or her assumptions. The burden of proof is on him or her.

"Gay" Advocate. "Everybody knows that. There are lots of studies. Besides, who would choose to be gay when there is so much hatred and homophobia against them?"

You: "Lots of people make choices that other people hate. That doesn't prove anything. And all the studies that I have seen have been inconclusive. Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that gays are born that way?"

"Gay" Advocate: "They're out there. But Gay people don't have to prove themselves to deserve basic rights. You don't have to prove your heterosexuality to get your rights do you?"

You: "Now we're back where we started on this question of whether homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. You still haven't defined what homosexuality is or what heterosexuality is. Isn't it a question of behavior?"

Sixth. Keep the discussion on what can be objectively observed and measured and away from the subjective. Don't be diverted into a discussion of abstractions.

"Gay" Advocate: "No, its not about behavior, its about orientation. I already said that. You can be gay and celibate. Being gay is when the person you fall in love with is the same sex as you. Being straight is when you fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. That's it."

You: "So where does sex come in. If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they fall in love with a child?"

Seventh. Use affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in the discussion.

You: "Right. The behavior is illegal, but not the thoughts and feelings. That's why its important to be very clear on the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality before we decide if they're equal. If we're only talking about thoughts and feelings, then perhaps they are equal, but then so are all the other orientations you can think of. If we compare them by the types of behavior they involve, that's a different story.

Pedophile behavior is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual behavior is still illegal in many states because it spreads disease and dysfunction."

"Gay" Advocate: "Well heterosexuals engage in the same risky behaviors as homosexuals."

You: "So would you agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual conduct is reasonable?"

"Gay" Advocate: "No, I don't think its anyone's business what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom."

You: "Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens the public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?"

Ten. Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated the truth for those listening in to your discussion, not by the willingness of your opponent to change his or her mind.

"Gay" Advocate: "I'm not going to let you trap me into some homophobic box. Your problem is that you're a bigot."

You: "Your problem is that you don't understand that homosexuality is very different than heterosexuality. Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed to function as compatible opposite-sex partners. Homosexuality could only be equivalent if it was rooted in a comparable physiological design. Instead, even when engaging in homosexual acts, a person remains inherently and immutably heterosexual by nature. Sexual orientation is just a theoretical model that lets you pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective physical reality.

"That's why marriage is closed to homosexuals. It is an institution designed to protect and strengthen the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative heterosexual design we all share."

Analysis. The preceding hypothetical conversation is actually a composite of many real discussions between the author and various advocates of the "gay" position. It accurately and honestly portrays the typical comments and attitudes of "gay" defenders. What may be gleaned from this exchange is that one can never truly come to a common understanding with a "gay" sophist, since he or she cares only about winning and not about the truth. Yet there are many people who merely parrot "gay" rhetoric and who are really victims of sophistry, not sophists themselves. These people are persuadable.

The only value in arguing with a true sophist is to hone your debate skills. Usually, however, you will have an audience. In that case, take the opportunity to educate your audience and don't be discouraged that your opponent refuses to see reason.

When all is said and done, the only real solution to the problems created by "gay" sophistry is to restore a truthful standard in every institution where the sophists now hold sway. That means that we who have learned how to defeat "gay" sophisty must actively compete for influence in those institutions and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the same..

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...

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.