Defeating "Gay" Arguments with Simple Logic

Pro-Family Law Center ^ | 2002 | Scott D. Lively, Esq.

[tdadams]

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.

[tdadams]

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?

[SkyPilot]

"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

[SkyPilot]

tdadams,

From your profile page:

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

I was wondering, does that include God?

[tdadams]

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?

[ChadGore]

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.

[breakem]

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?

[Hagrid]

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.

[Torie]

and tax drains

One thing gays are demonstrably not as a group are tax drains. LOL.

[Torie]

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."

[Torie]

Think of all the social security money that is saved. How about educational expenses? What is the median income of gays? How much do they pay in taxes?

[zeebee]

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.

[general_re]

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.