How To Defeat Gay Arguements

Junto Society ^ | 12/14/2002 | Scott Douglas Lively

[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

[yendu bwam]

Fags are the Achilles Heel of the Left. NOBODY (not blacks, not hispanics, N-O-B-O-D-Y) wants their young sons left alone in a room with a fag.

You're right, LibWhatcker. The liberals and the Democrats can't find the courage to tell their rabid homosexual supporters that it's wrong to put homosexual men in close quarters with teenage boys - as in Boy Scouts, or with gym teachers, or with Big Brothers. But most of America knows it's not only a really bad idea (especially after the homosexual molestations of a couple of thousand Catholic teenage boys), but that it's a fanatical usurpation of parents' rights. Homosexuals have no intrinsic right whatsoever to be in close quarters with other people's kids. Vote for Democrats, and you vote to put homosexual men in close quarters with your sons.

[yendu bwam]

you need leaders with BALLS to do that

Most politicians are functional eunuchs.

[yendu bwam]

I'm sure there's a small percentage of people who really were confused, but the large majority are either straight or gay. I certainly couldn't "choose" to become physically attracted to members of the same sex, could you?

That's because homosexuality is a psychological disorder. Fix the disorder and one reverts to normal sexuality. To become attracted to those of the same sex, you'd have to disorder your normal sexual drive.

[yendu bwam]

5. Gays: "No one can tell us that..." Response: "But you pluke other men in the butt and try to do the same to small boys."

Men who make love to the rectums of other men have a serious, serious problem.

[yendu bwam]

Hmmmm...sure are a lot of dudes around here...spending a lot of time thinking about homos. Gotta make ya wonder....

Yeah, right, hove. Here's why I think about it. My younger son attends a Catholic school where the previous headmaster (a priest) anally raped six boys every other weekend or so for about six years. He told them that this was normal and part of growing up and that their parents had entrusted him to teach them about sex. My older son attends a Catholic high school (one of the best in the country) where two priests have been engaged in homosexual molestation and handing out questionnaires to boys asking if they have engaged in sex with men 'yet.' My sons' Boy Scout troop has been attacked, virulently, for not accepting a homosexual assistant scoutmaster. C'mon.

[EdReform]

Bump

[Dimensio]

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.

I very strongly disagree.

How can one person tell another what he/she can or cannot do?

Simple. If you steal my stereo, I'm not happy. I tell you not to steal my stereo. As incentive, I promise not to steal your stereo (or any other posessions). As further incentive, I and others within society create a system where anyone who steals the posessions of anyone else suffers consequences.

The result is a system where I have some protection against my posessions being stolen, as does everyone else. Sure, you can try to violate the 'arbitrary' rules of the system, but you risk punishment from those who would rather maintain order (and secure their property rights) if you are caught. A similar structure can be set up for various other 'crimes' such as murder.

Perfect? No. But it does form a foundation for laws without religious backing.

There have been thousands of civilizations that never heard of Christianity, but most of them had laws against murder and theft. I think that it's a little less to do with thinking about what 'God' wants and more about protecting your self-interests.

But when you introduce a premise based on "morality," you have to forbid all "immoral" behaviours in order to be consistent.

And what do you do when you meet someone who believes in a system of "morality", but they don't have a moral assignment for homosexuality?

[Dimensio]

And once again you fail to address the issue. You merely repeat my wording as though all of the strong evidence for the theory evaporates if I don't word my statements perfectly. I know that both conservatives and liberals get upset when scientific discoveries contradict preexisting beliefs and that frequently they will try to dismiss any contradictory theories as "junk science" without even examining the issue, but ridicule is not the proper method for refuting a scientific theory.

[BikerNYC]

Perfect? No. But it does form a foundation for laws without religious backing.

I once read a free-market version of punishment in which everyone starts off with, let's say, 100 points. For every crime you commit, you get points deducted from your total. For example, 10 points for shop lifting, 30 points for armed robbery, and for murder, you lose however many points the person had who you killed. Thus, if you kill someone who has his 100 points, you go down to zero, and it would cost someone else nothing to kill you.

[Dimensio]

I'll try to look up the USENET discussion where Kevin Abrams was 'discussing' the book shortly before it was released. As I recall, he raised many historical points which were soundly refuted by real historians, and he degenerated into shouting and namecalling.

(Not that the existence of homosexuals within the higher ranks of the Nazi party proves anything about homosexuals in general. Only an idiot would try to use that to 'prove' that all homosexuals are facist anti-semites).

[Stone Mountain]

And....the word bastard is pretty much "out of service" too since bastardy constitutes the product of what, 70 to 80 percent of the blacks born these days?

I thought it was out of service because most of us realized that it isn't cool to denigrate a child for something he had no control over.

[Sam's Army]

"My older son attends a Catholic high school (one of the best in the country) where two priests have been engaged in homosexual molestation and handing out questionnaires to boys asking if they have engaged in sex with men 'yet.'"

UNREAL!!!

What has the parental response been there?

[Stone Mountain]

My older son attends a Catholic high school (one of the best in the country) where two priests have been engaged in homosexual molestation and handing out questionnaires to boys asking if they have engaged in sex with men 'yet.'

Can you reproduce those questionaires here? Has any of this been reported to the police?

[yendu bwam]

Can you reproduce those questionaires here? Has any of this been reported to the police?

This happened some five or six years ago - and was just recently brought to the police. The priest who handed out these questionnaires (and molested two boys) was then transferred to MY PARISH - where he continued working with adult groups (but NO ONE was informed that he was a homosexual molestor). There was a huge write-up in our local paper, with all the horrific details. We send our son to this school now because we believe they've cleaned up their act (and a thousand parents' eagles eyes are focused on them). My point to hove was that our kids (sons, especially) are in danger from these perverts, and that's one of the main reasons why I'm speaking out against it now. It's gotten crazy. I trust NO priest with my sons. Boy Scouts, in contrast (while one still has to be careful) is a thousand times safer for my teenage sons than my Church is. Unbelievable. Homosexual infiltration of everything involving teenage boys has left us all unable to trust men to be around our sons. What a sick, sick world.

[hove]

" C'mon."

I am sorry to hear about your close family experiences of rape and abuse at the hands of homosexuals. I too have even closer criminal experiences than you describe. Rape is a criminal activity. But I would never make the reverse logic assumption that all homosexuals are criminal because a few commit crimes of rape. If I did, then I would have to say that all heterosexuals are rapists and murderers because a handfull of hetersexuals commit these crimes. A rapist is a rapist. A murderer is a murderer. A criminal is a criminal. There is no more connection between criminal action and sexual preference than there is between criminal action and race or religious belief. There are good people...and there are evil people. This is just as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. Sexual preference is not the issue. The evil the resides in the hearts of man is the issue. But homo haters want to make the connection because homos creep them out. They want to villify all homosexuals. I reject that! Their agenda is crystal clear....and it is simply based on hatred.

[yendu bwam]

There is no more connection between criminal action and sexual preference than there is between criminal action and race or religious belief. There are good people...and there are evil people. This is just as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. Sexual preference is not the issue. The evil the resides in the hearts of man is the issue. But homo haters want to make the connection because homos creep them out. They want to villify all homosexuals. I reject that! Their agenda is crystal clear....and it is simply based on hatred.

First, hove, I appreciate your comments, but I disagree with you on several points. Please note, these things didn't happen to my family - but in the schools that my children attend - and they were horrific - and they were commonplace in the Catholic schools around here. Homosexual men are, as the Catholic scandal so clearly shows, far more likely to molest teenage boys than heterosexual men are teenage girls. In the Catholic scandal, a minority of priests (homosexuals) molested 95% of the kids (almost all teenage boys) which make up the scandal. Many other studies indicate the same. That doesn't make all homosexual men molestors - they aren't. But clearly a great many of them are sexually attracted to teenage boys. Teenage prostitution in NYC is overwhelmingly homosexual, their websites and magazines are full of pictures and ads showing homosexual sex with 'the youngest legally available boys', many homosexual organizations promote sex with teenage boys and such organizations have been working overtime to lower the age of consent for man-boy sex (now 14 in New Mexico and 12 in Holland). The Boy Scouts, even with its strong anti-homosexual-molestation policies (designed to protect teenage boys) suffers from over 150 homosexual molestations of teenage boys each year. We don't send our teenage girls into close contact (locker rooms, Boy Scout campouts, etc. etc.) with heterosexual men. Neither should we allow homosexual men close contact with teenage boys. And as the above shows, it would be even far more imprudent than allowing teenage girls to be in close quarters with heterosexual men. Homosexual organizations are in full drudgeon now vilifying all sorts of good folk for not wanting their teenage sons to be in close quarters with homosexual men. Well, sorry, homosexual men don't have the right to be in close quarters with my sons (and I am NOT a hater or bigot - and neither are the vast majority of Americans). If homosexual men want to engage in their (truly filthy and disgusting) habits, like anal sex, and fisting and all that other stuff, that's their business. To be digusted by their sexual activities is NOT to vilify them. They have a serious problem. My religion teaches to love everyone (including homosexuals). But they have no right to be close to my children. They have no right to teach my children anything I don't want them taught about homosexuality (it's good, it's healthy, it's normal, etc. etc.). I have a right to my beliefs; I have a right to teach my children as I wish; and I have a right to determine who will and who will not be alone and in close quarters with my sons.

[yendu bwam]

What has the parental response been there?

A great many parents have quietly but firmly told the school administration that they want written assurances that there are no known molestors on staff, and that their sons are not to be left alone with any man, nor to be supervised in close quarters (like locker rooms) by known homosexuals. Every overnight outing (like retreats) are now open for fathers to attend (and they do). Parents are watching them like hawks. Virtually no one allows their sons to be alone with a priest - ever. In Boy Scouts, known homosexuals are not allowed access to boys, two adults must always be present with boys, and boys are explicitly warned about homosexual molestors. My Church places the welfare of kids very low - so parents have to now demand the same protections afforded by organizations like the Boy Scouts.

[yendu bwam]

C'mon wai-ming. All moralities are based on certain moral axioms (like geometry is based on certain unprovable axioms). Most people in this world belive that God provides such axioms. Those who don't just make up their own. But those who do believe that homosexual conduct is immoral see quite clearly what they believe is God's wisdom in making it so - it brings, on average, early death, disease, great promiscuity, heartache, loneliness, etc. etc. If your moral code (wherever it comes from) condones homosexual conduct, that's OK with me. Mine doesn't, and I hope that's OK with you.

[yendu bwam]

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.

Sorry, wai-ming about my last post. I misunderstood your position. I agree with what you say above.

[glory]

That's a very important point yendu. Gays only prove how stubbornly, hedonistic people have become. Don't tell me I sin, don't tell me I have a problem and on it goes. We're a nation full of big egos basically and because of it deviancy is rampant and people who really are sick mentally are not getting the treatment they need to live a normal and healthy life.