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.

People have the right to have sex with others of the same gender if they so choose and the government doesn't have the right to make it illegal.
Where was this right derived and where was it ever exercized. Under the laws of this country you statement is false.

These human rights are spelled out in the declaration of independence.
Please cite any reference to sexual activity in the Declaration.

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.

Who says there has to be a one-to-one mapping between genes and traits? We can easily come up with a definitive genetic test for skin color simply by looking at the genes that map out skin color. At Genetic Control and Melanin look for Skin Colour (about half way down the page). It shows how genes code for skin color. There doesn't have to be a one-to-one gene-to-trait relationship, but there is a one-to-one gene coding-to-trait relationship. There's no known such homosexual genetic coding. There's no combination of genes that code for homosexuality. This can be easily demonstrated in genetic twins where one becomes homosexual, and the other hetrosexual; and this isn't the exception.

-The Hajman-

I find the tone of moral arrogance emanating from some quarters on this thread frankly repellant.

The most morally arrogant statement on this thread comes from you, who condemn others based on your unsupported opinion. Others cite traditional values, religious principles, maintenance of moral order, and upholding the law as reasons to support their viewpoint.

Like Lucifer you arrogate to yourself the authority to condemn others and the right to ignore these principles.

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,

This does not follow, and is a very simple (and incorrect) view of genetic propagation. There are many recessive genes that are persistent in the genome despite offering no reproductive advantage and in some cases a huge reproductive disadvantage. Relevant to homosexuality in particular, the in utero environment during fetal development can impact whether or not a latent gene is expressed in a meaningful way. There is some clinical evidence that homosexuality may in part be caused by environmental factors during fetal development; whether or not this interacts with recessive gene expression is unknown but certainly plausible. Homosexuality is not unique to human animals and very similar expression patterns have been widely documented in other species, including environmental manipulations impact on the expression of homosexual behavior in a population. Any genes that may be involved could therefore flourish unimpeded under many conditions, only resulting in a terminal non-reproductive state under very specific conditions. This is similar to how recessive genetic diseases are persistent in a population even though certain expressions of those genes may kill the person before they reach puberty.

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?

In most places sodomy is illegal, whoever homosexuals engage in it with. The way government enforces the law is usually by fines and imprisonment.

Homosexuality is not unique to human animals and very similar expression patterns have been widely documented in other species, including environmental manipulations impact on the expression of homosexual behavior in a population.

Certainally you're not trying to claim the weak "everyone does it" argument. Even in most animals, it's known as a behavioral pattern, instead of a genetic trait. Other behavioral patterns include mating with mother or father (see lions), mating with other species (see lions and tigers for their liger or tigon offspring, or horses and donkeys for their mule offspring), canabalism (see lions) and what we would consider murder if humans did it (see about every animal).

-The Hajman-

I always found the definition of homosexuality to be a sophistry because where is the sexuality in homosexuality? Where the heck is it when sexuality is a set of behaviors surrounding conception. Sexuality is not merely the sex act, it also includes making children, being pregnant etc... It's a whole set of complex behaviors. Two people of identical sex imitating copulation and calling that sexuality are, in my opinion, floating in an over-imaginative nirvanah, if not, if they take this behavior seriously to civil rights levels, they must be outright mentaly ill.

I made no assumptions. I just think the Perkins story is of interest and pertinence. I conceded that it didn't prove anything conclusively. I don't think homosexuality been proven to be genetic, neither has it been proven to be totally a matter of will. No explanation put forth thus far applies to all cases. As for giving them carte blanche in behavior, homosexuality is not illegal nor, in my opinion, should it be. That does NOT mean one endorses such behavior, because personally I don't. Toleration does not mean acceptance of the practice as normal or wholesome; and of course, toleration in no way extends to militant homosexuals who want to control freedom of speech; nor, most particularly, does it include the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) who advocate criminal behavior.

There are Asians who are darker-skinned than some black people, and some black people who are light enough to pass for white. Anyway, it doesn't matter - lemme ask you this. If there were such a test, that could definitively show someone's ethnicity, should taking that test be a precondition for, say, black folks to receive affirmative action benefits?

There are Asians who are darker-skinned than some black people, and some black people who are light enough to pass for white.

What's your point here? The terms we give for ethnic groups may or may not represent actual skin tone, or genetics. There's not necessarily a direct relationship in what you're comparing.

Anyway, it doesn't matter - lemme ask you this. If there were such a test, that could definitively show someone's ethnicity, should taking that test be a precondition for, say, black folks to receive affirmative action benefits?

The real question is, should there be such a test? If there should be, and we have an easy enough way to test everyone genetically, then the answer would be 'yes'. Otherwise, the answer would be obviously 'no'. However, we don't need such a test for most people, because we can usually tell, through skin tone, or the family tree, what ethnic group they belong to. However, I'm still not sure what this has to do with homosexual behavior. There's no comparable benifits homosexuals should, or do, recieve.

-The Hajman-

He asks gays to "prove" their homosexualtiy is biological. But that's as absurd as it is irrelevant.

Gay rights activists categorize homosexual "orientation" as genetic, in order to manilpulate both the public and the church into accepting homosexuality.
They claim they were born that way, "they can't help themselves". And therefore everybody must accept homosexuality.
So the author's question addresses the very foundation of the gay rights movement, and is completely relevant.

"He asks gays to "prove" their homosexualtiy is biological. But that's as absurd as it is irrelevant."

Hmm...

It occurs to me that this is the central point to be tackled by both sides.

Would it be absurd then to state that other minorties such as Blacks, Hispanic, American Indians, Arabs, Chinese etc etc. can indeed biologically prove their minority status here in America?

Ones biological make-up [The key factor in determining racial & minority status] is a wholly benign characteristic that cannot be chosen.

One's decisions and subsequent actions are not benign. Those would be called "behavioral" characteristics.

That cannot be debated.

You know what...

Today, I proclaimed that I was a Chinese Woman.

My actions were: I layed down a little Tai Chi in my front yard. I prefer a bowl of sezgheun chicken and I thoroughly enjoy mandarin chinese newspapers. I went online and looked for my relatives in china.

But alas...

My proclamation and subsequent actions had no effect.

I just went to the mirror and I am still a lilly white Man.

Dang.

Here's what I'm getting at - the author is essentially accepting, a priori, the logic of group rights, and then drawing the line in such a way as to say that gay people do not constitute a group the way ethnic minorities do. But in so doing, he's essentially giving away the farm, WRT the conservative case against group rights for anyone.

'Twould have been a much better and stronger case if, instead of trying to claim that this was somehow an exception to the logic of group rights, he had taken the time to construct a cogent case against special rights for any minority group. Once you slay that dragon, the issue of special rights for gay folks is a dead letter, as a consequence.

The issue is what freedoms do humans have. What right does a government have to exercise this power over us. BTW not just homosexuals engage in these practices. I sympathize with you if you are in a state that prohibits oral sex or are you one of the hundreds of thousands of regular lawbreakers?

From a practical standpoint, government ignores the laws because they are unenforceable unless they're taping the bedroom activities of citizens or someone is stupid enough to do it in public. So not only is this an abuse of power, it is a violation of a basic human right.

The declaration spells out our right ot life, liberty, and happeness. Perhaps you might find a place for sexual activity in there.

What else can the government do "for" or to you. Choose your dinner, your house, your clothes, your spouse (oh, I forgot, they try to do that already)? If you don't see these as basic human rights, I am unable to show you the way.

The study of identical twins proves two things (1) homosexuality is NOT purely genetic in at least half the cases, and (2) in some environments, certain genetic features make one more likely to develop into a homosexual.

Another important fact is that homosexuals average very low life expectancy.

There is, therefore, a very strong case to be made that society should try to alter the environment of children to make it less likely that they will choose homosexuality.

The most common way societies have chosen to discourage unwanted behavior is to punish it and to prevent any positive depiction of it. Such methods must have some efficacy or the world would not have evolved as it has.

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.