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.

These ex-"gays" have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire

This author is all too quick to accept the word of "ex-gays" that they now have heterosexual desires, but is interminably skeptical at the word of gays that their attractions are innate. That seems a bit inconsistent to me.

This author's reasoning comes up a bit short. It seems to me it's a panicked attempt to re-take an argument that those in his school of thought are losing.

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

"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."

The operative words being "conduct" and "participation." I prefer an even stricter definition than the article recommends, one that does not include emotion ("desire"). There is a great difference between an emotion and a behavior. In contrast to "hate crimes," people should only be judged/condemned for what they do, not how they feel.

I don't agree with everything that this gentleman says, but he is right about how the homosexual movement operates. A few points where we disagree are:

1. I don't think that inclusiveness has to be negative. Where I work, inclusiveness has come to mean treating everyone with respect. Obviously, different people have different definitions, and we must not allow the homosexuals to have their definition imposed. However, where I work respect means that people conduct themselves with a proper modesty regardless of how they receive sexual gratification. It also means that we don't engage in name-calling or other mistreatment of homosexuals.

2. I think it's possible that there may be some genetic factor in homosexuality. The studies are inconclusive at this point, but they don't rule out the possibility. Fifteen years ago, the same kind of studies were finding the same kinds of correlations suggesting that alcoholism had a genetic component. Maybe alcoholism does have a genetic component, but that doesn't make it normal, natural, or healthy.

3. Arguing that many homosexuals would secretly like to change themselves is a losing argument. Those who are unhappy blame their unhappiness on society's traditional disapproval of homosexuality. When we start making guesses about "what they are really thinking," they will engage in the same kind of tactics, and all hope of reasonable debate is lost.

Again, the guy makes some interesting points. I think he paints with too broad a brush in some places, but he is very good in others.

WFTR
Bill

Perhaps the case of actor Anthony Perkins might illustrate the "homosexual by choice" controversy. Perkins, a life-long homosexual, became troubled by his sexual orientation and sought and obtained therapy to deal with it. He eventually decided to abandon the "life style" and succeeded in meeting, falling in love with, and marrying a woman when he was 41, entering an extended marriage (19 years) which produced two children. The postscript to this otherwise happy story is that Perkins died at the age of 60 from AIDS-related diseases. His wife died on 9-11 on one of the planes flown into the WTC. Did he carry the HIV virus for 19 years (how likely is that?) or did he, in the course of his marriage, choose to resume his former activities? I guess this true-life anecdote is not as illuminating as I had hoped, probably raising more questions than it answers. It does serve to show once again that there is no pat explanation for this human condition and I don't think there ever will be.

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

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who picked up on that little leap there. He says that deciding whether someone is gay or not is a subjective judgement. It is. But guess what? So is deciding whether or not someone is black. There is no DNA or blood test that I know of that can tell you that someone is black, and there are plenty of folks out there who are light-skinned enough to pass for white.

Doesn't matter whether or not this is a choice or you're born that way. 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. These human rights are spelled out in the declaration of independence. Furthermore, the government does not have this power. It may cease it, but it oversteps those powers given derived by the people.

It does serve to show once again that there is no pat explanation for this human condition and I don't think there ever will be.

I agree with this statement. The question is what we do about it. I don't think that homosexuals should be persecuted or prosecuted for what they do in private. At the same time, those with infectious diseases should be forced to modify their behavior just as we have always done to combat diseases. Likewise, I don't believe that children should be taught that homosexuality is a normal, natural, or healthy condition. This doesn't mean that all homosexuals live in misery or should be miserable. It only means that it shouldn't be encouraged.

WFTR
Bill

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?

Pathetic really. Pedophiles are not engaging in consensual sex. You know that. And SCOTUS by a narrow majority has said that states have the power to criminalize certain sexual acts, including sodomy between male and female and male and male. The length of the half life of that decision probably is not very long. But while the states have the power, should the states excercise it? I find the tone of moral arrogance emanating from some quarters on this thread frankly repellant. It is a tone that does more to damage the intellegent preservation of worthwhile conservative precepts than anything I can think of. Indeed, it is getting close to the point where some of this is simply consigned to dismissive derision.

Assuming that the odds are high that some gays are born that way, and some not, where does that leave us?

You know what they say about the word "assume," right? Anyway, I am responding to this particular reply of yours instead of your other one (cause I don't really understand the other one). This subject really isn't some all encompasing interest of mine, but this article is fascinating and if you click on the link and read the entire article, you might find it to be so too. There is much to be learned and it can be translated into so many more subjects. The author is really very very good.

But back to your comment, "Assuming some are born and some are not...." the author makes the argument that all are born heterosexual, unless they are hermophrodites, because they have the proper equipment so to speak. Now we come to "desire." ..... maybe you should go read the article because I cannot possibly make the author's point any more plain and easy to read and understandable than he does.

He's really got a point.

From The Overhauling of Straight America: "We do not need and cannot expect a full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

Looks to me like there's a bunch of shoulder shruggers posting on this thread.

When you strip away all the hype and hysteria, this becomes pretty simple: Queers and faggots actively and willingly encourage a lifestyle that is twisted and perverted. They cleverly promote something that is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this nation was founded. Their promiscuous behavior spreads incurable diseases and causes agonizing death. I'll not lend credence to a bunch of perverts seeking to hijack this country's moral foundation.

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.