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.

The author is really very very good.

No, as several have already pointed out, he's not. He uses faulty logic all over the place. Perhaps you think he's really good because you agree with what he's saying.

Just for kicks, go back and read it from a skeptics point of view and you'll see he's full of holes.

Queers and faggots actively and willingly encourage a lifestyle that is twisted and perverted...

What was it you were saying about the demise of intelligent conservative thought?

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. "

Romans 1:24

tdadams,

From your profile page:

"I will not have my beliefs prescribed to me by anyone"

I was wondering, does that include God?

monozygotic (split single ovum) twins studies have shown that only in 51% of the cases were both twins queer.

How's that for intellectual dishonesty! Talk about selective presentation of facts. Won't you tell the crowd what you're not telling us about this study? If anything, this study shows a definite biological element.

Here's what sixtycyclehum omitted: In dizygotic twins (two separate ovum), the correlation falls to only 22%, and in siblings who are not twins, the correlation falls to under 10%.

What were you trying to prove?

This is good:
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.

You made my statement into a support for pedophilia. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but if you're going to add to my argument, them maybe you can have a dialogue with your self. I believe children should be protected and are not included in the right that adults have to sexual activity.

May I assume from your comment, that because some homosexuals have contracted aids, that all homosexuals sex should be illegal. Should it be illegal for homosexual couples have sex exclusively with each other? How would the government enforce your opinions on the populace?

I agree. What "sinple logic" does the author offer? It's not nefarious to redefine terms in congenial ways. Conservatives do it too. Perhaps the rest of the article has something logical in it that is more persuasive than strategic use of language--but I doubt it.

Positive maxim: Live and let live.

Negative maxim: Let each man go to hell in his own way.

even the high skewed 51% clearly shows that there is NO biological link. If it was genetic the numbers would be on the order of 99% or 100%.

Statistics clearly isn't your bag. In any event, I suggest you look up the word "propensity."

the "gay" movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior-based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable...

It is very easy to prove it is not innate or inherited.

If the gene was inherited, it would have been flushed out of the population millions of years ago since the behavior it causes is incompatible with reproduction,

Simple Darwin. Logical, like the article says.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. There are at least three and perhaps four genes involved in skin color and several alleles at each gene producing differing amounts of melanin.

I said that, and it's true. There is no one-to-one mapping between those genes and a person's race. Thus, no definitive genetic test for ethnicity exists. And even if you could have such a thing, then when we start using it as a precondition of receiving, say, affirmative action benefits, then and only then will the author have something resembling a cogent case.

We don't make black people "prove" that they are black in order to receive special benefits from society, and therefore this notion that we should make gay people "prove" that they are gay falls flat on its face.

It's a shame, because you can make a very good case for not singling out groups for preferences - this article isn't it.

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.