Posted on 12/14/2002 12:22:41 PM PST by stoney
How to Defeat "Gay" Arguments Written by Scott Douglas Lively, Esq.
Provided by Bob Sperlazzo Informed Christian Digest 12/14/2002
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
(Excerpt) Read more at juntosociety.com ...
No, misdemeanor fines are fine for me. Not teaching it in schools as normal behavior is fine for me. The right of free association in hiring, selling and accommodation is fine for me.
A: The fridge doesn't f@rt when you take the meat out.
I still remember my youngest coming home from school and announcing he was the ONLY one in his class living with his "real" mommy and daddy.
If you ban one, you have to ban them all. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
Marriage between an adult man and adult woman is the only acceptable context for sex.
As soon as you open the door to sex between unmarried "consenting adults" you let in all kinds of deviant behaviours.
No. But the "sexual revolution" opened up a Pandora's box that can only be remedied by a return to traditional values.
If, under the "consenting adults" argument, it's "okay" for unmarried men and women to engage in sexual behaviour, then why not two "consenting adult" men or two "consenting adult" women?
Although these types of behaviours have always existed, the sexual revolution, by condoning non-marital sex, paved the way for the acceptance of more and more deviant activities, until, well, look what we have today.
TRUTH, FACTS, LOGIC. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
Let me take another stab at it.
Major Premise: Non- marital sex of any type should be banned.
Minor Premise: Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and prostitution are non-marital sex.
Conclusion: Therefore, they should be banned.
The following major premises also apply to all four:
Sex between non-married consenting adults.
Sex which is forbidden (by God) in the Bible.
Sex which could result in a sexually transmitted disease.
The following apply only to homosexuality:
Sex between individuals of the same gender.
The following apply only to adultery, fornication and (male-female) prostitution:
Sex which could result in an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Sex which could result in an abortion.
You're right, the STD premise could apply to married people as well. And it could also be used as an argument by homosexuals who have no disease to transmit.
The religious argument, while it may not be accepted by all, may be the strongest one we have, because without it, there is no justification for "forbidding" anything.
Without the "moral" argument, anything goes. It all becomes relative, or just a matter of "preference." How can one person tell another what he/she can or cannot do?
But when you introduce a premise based on "morality," you have to forbid all "immoral" behaviours in order to be consistent.
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.