Posted on 12/29/2002 8:59:44 AM PST by scripter
There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
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.
What is Homosexuality?
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.
The definition of homosexuality is not as settled as one might think
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."
Why the change in strategy?
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.
The problem is that they can't prove it.
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
"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
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
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
minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
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.
Homophobia
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
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.
Conclusion
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.
APPENDIX A
Ten Rules for Debating "Gay" Arguments
(As applied in a hypothetical conversation).
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?"
Fifth. Always steer the discussion to sexual conduct.
"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.
"Gay" Advocate: "Yeah, but pedophilia is illegal."
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."
Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in his or her logic.
"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?"
Nine. Follow the flaw to its illogical conclusion.
"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..
The solution to that is picking one and sticking with it from data-collection to results-presentation.
If we limit the definition to non-incarcerated adults who are exclusively having sex with persons of the same gender, it would probably be about 1-2%.
See, there's an example of not sticking to a definition. From your essay, 1-2% is the number of people who admit to being "homosexual" on surveys. As a non-scientist, while I believe one can reasonably assume those who identified "homosexual" on the survey are exclusively homosexually-active, one cannot assume that everyone who is exclusively homosexually-active would or did respond such. (Please feel free to correct me if you have sources indicating that only 1-2% are exclusively homosexually-active.)
If we expand the definition to include anyone who has ever had sexual contact with, or felt a sexual interest in, another person of the same gender (including current and former prison inmates), it might go as high as 10%.
It's most certainly much higher, especially with a definition so broad. "The Janus Report", "The Kinsey Report", and "The Hite Report" all put it over 20% just for having a single "homosexual encounter", and that's just off the top of my head. (Aside: "homosexual encounter" is another term that would need to be defined to be meaningful -- would it require orgasm or just physical contact? Would kissing a cheek count, or would the situation have to be overtly sexual? What about two boys pleasuring themselves simultaneously to the same copy of Playboy?)
Whatever the definition, consistancy counts from beginning to end.
The circumstances and conditions of the surveys I have cited guaranteed the respondents' absolute privacy, and they seem reliable enough to me.
For example, a 1991 national survey of sexually active adults done by the National Opinion Research Center shows that 98.4% of adults were exclusively heterosexual. (Smith TW. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989." Family Planning Perspectives 1991, 23: 104.) A 1993 survey by the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers found that only 1.1% of all Americans are exclusively homosexual. (Rensberger B. "How Many Men in US Are Gay?" Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1.)
A survey conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 1993 found that 1% of men consider themselves exclusively homosexual. (Barringer F. "Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay." New York Times, April 15, 1993, p. A-1.) And a 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey at the University of Chicago found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. (Vobejda B. "Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid." Washington Post, October 7, 1994, p. A-1.)
A March 1994 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry cites several surveys of American men showing the prevalence of homosexuality. For example, the National Survey of Men found that only 1.1% of men had been exclusively homosexual during the preceding ten years. Another study found that 2.4% of men are currently homosexual. (Cited by Seidman SN & Rieder RO. "A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States." American Journal of Psychiatry 1994, 151: 339.)
The purpose was to find the most "normal" group of homosexuals Hooker could find, and represent them as "typical." It was unnecessary to tell them how to act. By telling them that the purpose of the study was to determine whether homosexuals functioned normally in society, Hooker enabled anyone in the study group to skew the results if he believed homosexuality is normal.
Any mental health professional can confirm that mentally ill persons often conceal their symptoms and pretend to be perfectly normal. No one is more skilled at such pretending than a homosexual who was once in the closet.
The fact that homosexuals respond differently to that type of PROJECTIVE test is unsurprising, and is certainly not evidence of a pathology; but it does not provide the goal of presenting EQUIVALENT examples.
Oh, yes, it is indeed evidence of a pathology: obsession with sex, or sexual addiction.
That's debatable, especially in the case of Hooker. Landess certainly hasn't demonstrated Hooker's work to be "deeply flawed."
It is beyond debate. Hooker deliberately skewed the sample to present more "normal" homosexuals, then advised them of the purpose of the study, allowing them to modify their responses and skew the results even more.
Logical inconsistency. Kinsey was indeed a trained SCIENTIST, but you wish to invalidate him for expanding his scope.
It's clear that you wish to invalidate Landess for "expanding his scope." Remember, Landess wasn't conducting research. He was simply pointing out the methodological flaws and the bias in Hooker's research. As I said, that can be done by anyone who paid attention in a freshman biology class.
By the way, some sort of freshman-level lab science course is required to obtain a bachelor's degree at most universities. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Landess had at least that level of rudimentary training in the scientific method. It does not "bury my argument."
[Herek has ...] (PERTINENT credentials that Landess can only dream about.)
Cameron and Reisman have similar credentials. So does Socarides at NARTH. They all have very good credentials. Even Cameron, the "disgraced researcher" who resigned from the APA, is still a licensed mental health professional and therefore has better credentials than Kinsey, a zoologist. Cameron, Reisman and Socarides are all licensed psychiatrists and psychologists.
And yet you want to dismiss them with a wave of your hand.
If a "gay" site does it, it's a "bad" thing; but when a group that YOU like does it, you defend them to the hilt.
madg, I'm simply pointing out the deep and profound level of your own hypocrisy. You bleat, whine and squeal about the bias of such organizations as FRC. But you cite sources like Herek and QRD, which are equally biased.
FRC and other organizations that oppose the gay normalization agenda certainly have an agenda of their own. And they look for evidence that supports that agenda. There's plenty of it to be had.
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.
I already did that. I again direct your attention to Posts #113-120 on this thread, where I posted an abundance of compelling, valid and peer-reviewed research, by the most renowned names in the mental health professions ... none of whom were named Cameron.
Of course you think so; you wouldn't be using them otherwise. To quote from your own essay: "Psychologist Abraham Maslow also observed that Kinsey’s work, like all sex surveys, had a high margin of 'volunteer' error because many people are not honest or willing to talk about their most intimate sexual secrets." (Emphasis mine. I tend to believe, and feel free to disagree, that such "intimate sexual secrets" are going to lie in the direction of societal unnacceptability.)
My own research, which isn't limited to sites of a certain... idealogical point-of-view... indicate a larger span of results.
Micro: your personal reliance on experts identifying or classifying sexual aberration percentiles and pronouncing opinions that do or do not agree with your personal prediliction is a feature of this era. Your vice was removed from the list of pathologies on a political basis but you fail to acknowledge it and ignore anything that is not orthodox gay propaganda. You say it was only a pathology by mistake and that this mistake was degrading to your fellow perversionists, so it had to be removed regardless. You want the other posters to prove why that pathology should be listed in the first place. The other 'non-faith' side of the posts asks why a patently unnatural and disturbed lifestyle was removed without any scientific study showing that it was not a pathology... you stay in your bedroom and chant 'I can't hear you'. You log off after reading the thread and continue your degrading and unnatural acts in the bedroom ignoring the world outside. You want God to be kept outside or put in the closet. You want Him to say 'I can't hear you, I can't see you'. Filibuster and froth at the mouth but you cannot change your DNA and you cannot silence your own conscience. Accept it. The APA can't, this thread can't, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance can't, the FRC can't, and I can't. Only you can deal with the deep down you.
Back to macro: I mentioned before that this type of thing is a feature, a mark, of our era. Others like you with all manner of other vices do precisely the same thing: collecting supportive articles and straws of hope. They are elated with a new report or new book this year because it validly and 'scientifically' vindicates their vice, they are disgusted and dismayed with an equally 'scientific' new report next year. We have seen it all over and over. And in the longview, these people need these secular crutches and screens to bolster their various depths of denial. Your posts sound typically confident and self-assured just as many with vices are... but God knows your inner need to be humble and at peace, and to dwell with Him: to be righteous. One day I pray that this is your choice. Your choice for now, to support -or even to personally indulge your vice- at bathouses or public toilets or exclusive west-hollywood private functions or quiet weekends with a 'partner' (of consential age) on your yacht or whatever is killing 'you' deep down. Please repent of it and go with God -and with life. Clean house!
It's already been demonstrated. But I thought I might add the following — again, from Bell & Weinberg:
WHM = white homosexual male
BHM = black homosexual male
WHF = white homosexual female
BHF = black homosexual female
Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners (Table 7 p. 308):
Proportion of Lifetime Sexual Partners Who Were Strangers (p. 308):
|
There's no "discrediting" of Bell & Weinberg required. No matter how random the sample of respondents in 1970s San Francisco is, the fact remains that they are in 1970s San Francisco. Ignoring any changes in the activities of the homosexual population in the 20+ years of AIDS, the fact further remains that there is no statistician or researcher worth his salt that would claim that a single-city survey is in any way representative of anything other than that city. Bell & Weinberg acknowledged that, even if you don't.
As I said, Bell & Weinberg went to great lengths to get a representative sample. And it's my opinion that to a very large extent, they succeeded. Many of their statistics are a close match with statistics produced by other studies.
For example, their survey revealed that 25% of white male homosexuals in the survey sample had sex with boys 15 years of age or younger, while they themselves were aged 18 or older. An identical question posed to one of the many Kinsey survey samples (and one of the few confirmed by Gebhard & Johnson to be methodologically sound) produced a figure of 26.5% -- very, very close.
The research results I've posted on this thread run from the 1940s to 2001. They consistently show that throughout the period, homosexuals have displayed a disproportionately high level of several different pathologies, most notably promiscuity and sexual contacts with children.
Bryan’s “take the exceptions and make them the norm” isn’t good enough ...
When 91% of white male homosexuals have had 25 or more sexual partners, and 75% have had 100 or more, promiscuity isn't the exception. It's the norm.
There are several other pathologies commonly exhibited by a very large minority of homosexuals. Some overlap between these minorities is to be expected. There will be some homosexuals, for example, who have sex with minors and also exhibit signs of depression or anxiety. There will be some who commit domestic violence and are also alcoholics.
Nevertheless, even though some homosexuals exhibit more than one pathology, others will exhibit just one. And this means that some will only exhibit the pathology of drug addiction; others will only exhibit depression or anxiety; and so forth, gradually chipping away at the population of homosexuals that you so desperately want to identify as "normal."
How many will be left when all this chipping away is done? What proportion of the gay and bisexual community is completely free from other pathologies? Five percent? Ten? Two?
Or none at all?
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.