Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic
Abiding Truth Ministries ^ | 2002 | Scott Douglas Lively

Posted on 12/29/2002 8:59:44 AM PST by scripter

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 extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, "gay" arguments are easily refuted.

What is Homosexuality?

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.

The definition of homosexuality is not as settled as one might think

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."

Why the change in strategy?

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.

The problem is that they can't prove it.

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.

Sexual Orientation

"Sexual orientation" is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

An "orientation" describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc..

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The "gay" movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations -- pedophilia, for example -- would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.

Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile's orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.

Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to existing anti-discrimination laws: "This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest." The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.

Another purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to "gay" arguments. For one thing it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality.

For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. When reminded of this, "gay" sympathizers say, "Heterosexuals do the same things." This isn't a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don't make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.

In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

A second reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows "gay" activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. "Gay" sophists have coined the term "heterosexism" to describe favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as "racism" toward homosexuals.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-"gay" assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by the premises.

The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized.

The takeover of local governments begins in the local media (where there is never a shortage of "gay" political activists) with a campaign to raise awareness of discrimination against legitimate minorities. A call then goes out to form a Human Relations Commission to study the problem and develop community-based solutions. The commission is then formed with quasi-governmental authority. The anti-discrimination policy comes next, often without mention of sexual orientation. That is usually added by amendment later. Opposition is usually minimal because no one wants to be perceived as being in favor of discrimination. This is not a baseless fear. Pro-"gay" activists in both the media and the government greet any opposition with widely-publicized accusations of racism and bigotry.

Invariably, one duty of the commission is to gather, analyze and report statistics on discrimination in the community. (This is probably where the concept of "hate crimes" originated as a "gay" political strategy).

The use of a reporting plan assures two favorable outcomes for homosexuals. First, they gain a measure of legitimacy merely by being listed together with true civil rights minorities (without having to justify their inclusion among those whose status is based on morally neutral criteria such as skin color and ethnicity). Second, the very nature of the reporting process virtually guarantees an increase of discriminatory incidents from one reporting period to the next as people gradually become aware of the system. This appearance of a growing problem bolsters their demands for additional concessions to their agenda.

The takeover of a corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually in-the-closet) homosexual into a hiring position. Other undisclosed "gays" are then hired to fill strategic positions in the company. When the ability to control the process is assured, some of the activists come "out-of-the-closet" and form a "Gay and Lesbian Employees Association." That group then introduces an amendment to the company anti-discrimination policy to include "sexual orientation."

Democratically-run organizations (including political parties, labor unions and churches) are targeted based upon their vulnerability to takeover by a unified bloc of voting members. Mass infiltration by activists precedes elections, after which time organizational policy (and bylaws) can be controlled by the new activist leaders, who may or may not disclose that they are "gay." I have heard it said that this was how the Metropolitan Community Church, an entirely homosexual-controlled "religious denomination" started, beginning with the takeover of the original MCC, which was reportedly a genuine but struggling Christian church. The so-called "mainstream" Christian denominations have been particularly targeted, not only because many congregations have seen steeply declining membership in recent decades (i.e. fewer new "members" are needed to gain a voting majority), but because these denominations have vast property holdings and endowment funds which can be used for activist projects.

Every takeover is followed by consolidation of "gay" power within the organization, starting with some form of "sensitivity training." Sensitivity training employs proven psychological coercion tactics (i.e. "brainwashing") to indoctrinate members of the organization in pro-"gay" thinking. By the very nature of the manipulative tactics used, few dare to openly dissent. Those who do are duly noted by the control group and if they are considered a real threat, they are marginalized and may in time be forced out. Sensitivity training is usually mandatory for all members of the organization.

Once the control group has consolidated power, the organization is plundered for its available resources. These include tangible resources such as money and property, but also intangibles such as advertising and vendor contracts and even community goodwill. Charitable giving, too, is exploited, as gifts and grants are diverted away from previously-favored beneficiaries like the Boy Scouts to "gay"-controlled organizations. While some resources benefit the internal control group (i.e. domestic partnership benefits and employee perks), most are focused strategically outside of the organization to further the "gay" political agenda in the community.

All the processes described above are made possible simply by the acceptance of sexual orientation as a theory of human sexuality.

In summary, sexual orientation is a term that is used by "gay" activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting "gay" presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals' political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become "law" in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to rest of the "gay" agenda becomes much more difficult.

The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of sexual orientation and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. Sexual orientation must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by "gay" political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

Diversity

Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism. By itself it means only "the variety of things," but as used by the homosexual movement "diversity" is a moral statement about the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honored for its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning.

Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture. The "culture" of homosexuality - a way of life rooted in the practice of sodomy - is not equal to the inherited family-based cultures of African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.

The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multi-culturalism.

This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have fallen victim to "gay" sophistry openly congratulate themselves for being inclusive. This is the same error in a different form. In both cases there is a failure to define the standard of acceptance by which people are welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With no standard, there can be no objectivity in the process and decisions represent merely the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge.

In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality of all diverse cultures in our society under the code-word "diversity." The doctrine's validity depends upon limiting the definition of culture to morally neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally significant sexual behavior in the definition robs multi-culturalism of validity by granting legitimacy to immoral practices. Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some cultures because of their practices (for example cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality of cultures. Failure to articulate a standard by which to determine which cultures should be included compounds the problem by vesting arbitrary authority in whomever holds power.

The effective response to a champion of "diversity" is to focus on the definition of multiculturalism and to demand to know the standard for inclusion.

Discrimination

Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of

minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

In summary, discrimination has been useful to "gay" activists because the public is deeply conditioned to associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice. The solution is to add the prefix "rational" or "irrational" to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to consider the significance of the prefix. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination.

Homophobia

This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" sophists. In a way, it shouldn't even be considered sophistry, since it lacks any hint of subtlety. In contrast to the cleverness of most other examples listed here, the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.

Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."

As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. The way to expose this fact is to require the advocates of the "gay" position to state the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal that they accept no opposition to their agenda as legitimate.

Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. "Gay" activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association)

Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.

Collectively, these aspects of homophobia serve to intimidate opponents into silence. When any opposition to homosexuality draws the accusation that one is a mentally-ill bigot equivalent to a racist, few people will dare to openly oppose it. Those who do will tend to be defensive, offering the disclaimer that they are not hateful (implicitly validating hatefulness as the general rule).

The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.

In summary, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by "gay" sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill "gay bashers" and in doing so declares mainstream religious doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. The solution is to reject the term homophobia itself as harmful and illegitimate. Its illegitimacy can be exposed by making pro-"gay" advocates define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality.

Tolerance

Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don't like in order to serve the greater good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society. In the "gay" lexicon, however, tolerance means unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant, even those who treat self-defined "gays" with the utmost courtesy and respect.

Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion. This fosters a climate in which intolerance against legitimate minorities can be more easily justified. As the "gays" have proved, many people just don't think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of race and intolerance of perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the "gays."

To reaffirm the true meaning of tolerance in the face of "gay" sophistry, point out that tolerance is relative. Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech (i.e. the right to say "I'm gay") but low tolerance for harmful behavior (i.e. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce.

Conclusion

The heart of "gay" sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality as a state-of-being and not a form of sexual behavior. This allows the "gay" movement to define homosexuals as a civil rights minority comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority status is based on truly immutable characteristics. In turn, this allows the "gay" movement to inherit and exploit all of the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement for its own ends.

Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for "selling" the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable. It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology. Only by making the design and function of the human body irrelevant can "gay" strategists avoid otherwise self-evident truths about homosexuality.

All of the terms examined in this article, as applied to homosexuals, depend for their validity upon the theory of sexual orientation, which in turn depends upon the redefinition of homosexuality.

In the end, this battle is won by affirming the obvious. The truth about homosexuality is self-evident. Self-evident truths are not taught, they are revealed. Helping people overcome "gay" sophistry does not require teaching them new facts and figures or raising their level of intellectual sophistication. On the contrary, it requires a clearing away of the misinformation that obscures the simple reality of things.

Indeed, if you find yourself dependent on studies and statistics to persuade someone of the wrongness of homosexuality and that it should not be legitimized in society, you have already lost the debate. Consider: a person who remains unpersuaded by a reminder of the obvious truth has revealed himself to be an intellectual reprobate for whom facts are ultimately meaningless. Yet if you, by retreating to secondary evidence, grant that obvious truth is insufficient to prove your case, you voluntarily invite a debate context which favors those who are willing to cheat and lie to win.

Defeating "gay" arguments, therefore, depends upon asserting the plain truth about homosexuality from the start. If you fail to challenge the presuppositions of the "gay" position, you will forever be at a disadvantage in opposing the many goals of the "gay" agenda. Stand firmly on the truth that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked for this position, because your opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully defeat all of their arguments. You will take less heat for seeking some point of compromise, but you will trade away most of your moral and persuasive authority in the process.

If you decline to stand firm on your pro-family presuppositions, the insights provided in this booklet will not be of much value to you. But if you do, they will serve as potent weapons against every form of "gay" sophistry and your courageous stand for truth will be vindicated.

 

 

APPENDIX A

Ten Rules for Debating "Gay" Arguments

(As applied in a hypothetical conversation).

First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation theory, homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality is assumed (which is just about any discussion you will ever have on this issue).

"Gay" Advocate: "Can't you see that denying gays the right to marry is discrimination. Why shouldn't they have the same basic rights as heterosexuals?"

You: "I'm a little confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?"

Second. Always make the advocates of the "gay" position define the critical terms.

"Gay" Advocate: "Of course they are equivalent. One person is no better than another just because of whom they happen to love."

You: "I still don't get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality? It's more than love isn't it?"

Third. Stay on track. Sophists will always change the subject to avoid having to admit error. The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined. Don't allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out for the "tag team" tactic in which a third party will interrupt your discussion to help your opponent change the subject. Make these parties address your question.)

"Gay" Advocate: "Homosexuality is just your sexual orientation. It's the way you're born. Some people are straight. Some are gay. You don't think gay people should be discriminated against just because they have a different orientation, do you?"

You: "I'd like to answer that question after we talk about what sexual orientation is, but I'm still not clear on what you mean by homosexuality. How do you know that it's just the way someone is born?

Fourth. Don't allow your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to disprove one of his or her assumptions. The burden of proof is on him or her.

"Gay" Advocate. "Everybody knows that. There are lots of studies. Besides, who would choose to be gay when there is so much hatred and homophobia against them?"

You: "Lots of people make choices that other people hate. That doesn't prove anything. And all the studies that I have seen have been inconclusive. Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that gays are born that way?"

Fifth. Always steer the discussion to sexual conduct.

"Gay" Advocate: "They're out there. But Gay people don't have to prove themselves to deserve basic rights. You don't have to prove your heterosexuality to get your rights do you?"

You: "Now we're back where we started on this question of whether homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. You still haven't defined what homosexuality is or what heterosexuality is. Isn't it a question of behavior?"

Sixth. Keep the discussion on what can be objectively observed and measured and away from the subjective. Don't be diverted into a discussion of abstractions.

"Gay" Advocate: "No, its not about behavior, its about orientation. I already said that. You can be gay and celibate. Being gay is when the person you fall in love with is the same sex as you. Being straight is when you fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. That's it."

You: "So where does sex come in. If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they fall in love with a child?"

Seventh. Use affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in the discussion.

"Gay" Advocate: "Yeah, but pedophilia is illegal."

You: "Right. The behavior is illegal, but not the thoughts and feelings. That's why its important to be very clear on the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality before we decide if they're equal. If we're only talking about thoughts and feelings, then perhaps they are equal, but then so are all the other orientations you can think of. If we compare them by the types of behavior they involve, that's a different story.

Pedophile behavior is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual behavior is still illegal in many states because it spreads disease and dysfunction."

Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in his or her logic.

"Gay" Advocate: "Well heterosexuals engage in the same risky behaviors as homosexuals."

You: "So would you agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual conduct is reasonable?"

Nine. Follow the flaw to its illogical conclusion.

"Gay" Advocate: "No, I don't think its anyone's business what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom."

You: "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?"

Ten. Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated the truth for those listening in to your discussion, not by the willingness of your opponent to change his or her mind.

"Gay" Advocate: "I'm not going to let you trap me into some homophobic box. Your problem is that you're a bigot."

You: "Your problem is that you don't understand that homosexuality is very different than heterosexuality. Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed to function as compatible opposite-sex partners. Homosexuality could only be equivalent if it was rooted in a comparable physiological design. Instead, even when engaging in homosexual acts, a person remains inherently and immutably heterosexual by nature. Sexual orientation is just a theoretical model that lets you pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective physical reality.

"That's why marriage is closed to homosexuals. It is an institution designed to protect and strengthen the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative heterosexual design we all share."

Analysis. The preceding hypothetical conversation is actually a composite of many real discussions between the author and various advocates of the "gay" position. It accurately and honestly portrays the typical comments and attitudes of "gay" defenders. What may be gleaned from this exchange is that one can never truly come to a common understanding with a "gay" sophist, since he or she cares only about winning and not about the truth. Yet there are many people who merely parrot "gay" rhetoric and who are really victims of sophistry, not sophists themselves. These people are persuadable.

The only value in arguing with a true sophist is to hone your debate skills. Usually, however, you will have an audience. In that case, take the opportunity to educate your audience and don't be discouraged that your opponent refuses to see reason.

When all is said and done, the only real solution to the problems created by "gay" sophistry is to restore a truthful standard in every institution where the sophists now hold sway. That means that we who have learned how to defeat "gay" sophisty must actively compete for influence in those institutions and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the same..


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; logic; prisoners; sasu; seminarwerewolf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 401-404 next last
Comment #281 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Let’s wrap this up ("Body bag to aisle 4 please...")

Your post presents as "obsessed with anti-Cameron conspiracies". Are you wearing a new pink tin foil hat (worn in SF streets and homes but banished from the AIDS hospices). Every observation springs from Mr C does it?

You are dismissive of the bleeding obvious. Anal sex for either gender is unnatural and abnormal. I cannot/refuse to recognise any excuse/rationale for anal sex, period.

Same Sex attraction is never gonna be 'normal' and like other human vices is a treatable behavioral dysfunction (cite me for using my common sense and not reading APA DSM propaganda to enable one to see the emporer's pink clothes).

Further spouting common sense without recourse to any agit prop, why isn't promiscousity anything to write home about? How many male's sex organs have you inserted into your mouth or anus since you became a homosexual? (I assume you are a homosexual and not simply a homophile/car-wreck-type-spectator.) A lot of adult SSAD sufferers have triple digit numbers -figuratively- carved in their bedheads and a host of medical problems beside simpler b. traits like intolerance and quick tempers. Promiscuous hetero persons, according to me, also have an obvious b. trait.

I have read some surveys from and recommend in particular a local paper I have read: McInnes, D & J Bollen. (2000). "Learning on the Job: Metaphors of Choreography and the Practice of Sex in Sex-On-Premises Venues". Venereology (Journal). [aka Everything you wanted to know about gay bathouses and teen predation but were afraid to ask]. It is approved of by Gay Adocates as it was done by anti-AIDS funders and STD researchers in gay sex practices including glory holes at the public toilets. But what subtext! Sickening and disgusting to a normal/lay person, nothing remarkable to AIDS workers and homophiles. Also Connell and Kippax (1990), "Sexuality in the AIDS Crisis: Patterns of Sexual Practice and Pleasure in a Sample of Australian Gay and Bisexual Men", Journal of Sex Research.

God Bless.

282 posted on 01/06/2003 4:04:29 PM PST by rocknotsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
Sidebar; was there any truth to the statement that APA members would benefit from a gay friendly image... I had a look around and as an aside, this big wheel 'shrink' has written/edited miles of gay sympathetic literature re mental health of gays and pro-gay pamphlets etc and he is just qualified as a welfare worker (not a clinical psychologist let alone getting a touch medical like a Psychiatrist):
http://www.gaypsychotherapy.com
283 posted on 01/06/2003 5:09:21 PM PST by rocknotsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

Comment #284 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
You shrugged off the anal issues and the venerealogy issues and the therapy issues and the obnoxious (and just plain noxious for that matter) oral and anal acts you... deep down you really know that is expressly in opposition to your inner spiritual nature and manhood. You are no woman, no half-man. You in fact are a wonderful whole man created as God's own family. You're just out of touch with God and what He wants to give You. What is normal about all that SSAD baggage that the shrinks cash in on? Why are man's anti-social vices of all kinds so blinding to their basic built in instincts of how to live upright and secure lives?

Cut thru the confrontation get back to basics with God personally. Think of your parents or perhaps some other husband and wife, perhaps your brother and his wife and kids. Of course its a difficult life and marriage takes a lot of work thats for sure, but its really worthwhile trying to get a firm grip on. Don't give it up. Maybe I'm annoying you here talking marriage as being the big prize when its just taken for granted by so many who have it without even realising the priceless treasure they have... I may be giving you a free kick or I may be giving you a tiny bit of hope... but I will not be silent around those wearing the emporer's pink clothes as I mentioned before and I cannot believe some people are stuck in the nightmarish life as seen in Deliverance and American Beauty. You can change and you can do so much better with this life. Whether its depression, addiction, adultery, gambling, violence and cruelty, perversion, heresy, whatever because with faith in God and prayer nothing is impossible: you can get out of your present predicament. Give prayer another try please. Gods Grace will be with You. Nothing stands between Him and You except your pride and your past. Dump the baggage of the past as I did, and dump your regrets with it. Clean house!

285 posted on 01/07/2003 2:54:51 AM PST by rocknotsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: madg
You argue well, but Bryan is arguing for a Christian viewpoint, and I assume you are not a Christian. In the end, it comes down to what the Lord has told us through the Bible. Homosexual behavior is a sin.
286 posted on 01/07/2003 5:27:47 PM PST by reborn22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage; ArGee
You are missing the point. John O said that homosexuality is a 'mental illness' because it does not lead to having children.

sorry for the delay in responding. I don't have time to check the thread for the exact quote (My wife had brain surgery this week and I'm just briefly checking in. Surgery went very well Praise God)

I believe that I pointed out that since H. doesn't have the possiblity of producing children it is an unnatural/abnormal condition. It is a mental illness due to its source in trauma. (and yes habitual masturbation is also a disorder. sexual addiction and all that)

GSA(P)

287 posted on 01/07/2003 8:18:19 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
Can you prove that?

look at the physiology. It's self evident. Man was designed to fit with woman, not with another man.

GSA(P)

288 posted on 01/07/2003 8:19:57 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: madg
Since we're talking about orientation and not behavior, I'm not even going to respond to that.

Actually we are discussing the tendency of those practicing homosexual behavior (and their supporters) to go to any lengths to try to control the conversation in order to avoid talking about the behavior. And since 'homosexuality' only makes itself known by the chosen behavior, homosexuality 'is' only the behavior

You prove the author's contentions admirably. thanks

GSA(P)

289 posted on 01/07/2003 8:24:54 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
There are a couple of references to men that could be taken that way. NONE about women.

In the Bible, as in standard english, the general male tense always includes the female tense. So when the bible talks about a man laying with a man as being abomination, it includes the female tense (woman laying with a woman)

GSA(P)

290 posted on 01/07/2003 8:29:06 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
This is what I get for trying to respond to you people and be nice....FREAKS.

Sorry BiaR, You're the one advancing unnatural acts and sexual perversion as normal and you call us freaks? That dog don't hunt.

GSA(P)

291 posted on 01/07/2003 8:34:03 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Ghlade
I don't see why nature's "intentions" (which in itself ascribes anthropomorphic characteristics to nature) should matter at all when making moral judgements on actions

I wasn't ascribing anything to nature. I was pointing out that God designed man to 'fit' with woman and reproduce with woman, not with man. Making a moral judgement on actions can only be done when a moral foundation exists, A moral foundation can only exist in the presence of God.

GSA(P)

292 posted on 01/07/2003 8:36:20 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Yes...but there is also plenty of heterosexual behavior that it also disordered.

True but we were discussing the tendency of those who practice homosexual behavior to try to turn the conversation rather than to let their behavior be discussed.

There is plenty of sexual activity that doesn't result in procreation that is not biologically wrong, unnatural or immoral.

a biblical case can be built that any sexual activity other than heterosexual intercourse is immoral. A case can be built that any sexual activity other than heterosexual intercourse is biologically wrong. ( A man was designed to 'fit' into only one place on a woman. Only that place is designed with the proper characteristics to recieve a man). Therefore these same acts can be called unnatural.

GSA(P)

293 posted on 01/07/2003 8:47:54 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage; Bryan
Take a Hike and take your little facist SWAT team with you. I'm not playing your little game anymore, Mister. Nobody is falling for it. This is AMERICA and people have rights here. If you don't like it, you best move to Cuba if that's not where you are already. Get a life.

When you can't control the terms of the discussion or the course of the discussion. Go on personal attack. Exactly as the author states.

GSA(P)

294 posted on 01/07/2003 8:51:26 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: madg
If homosexuality were a pathology, then 100% of homosexuals would be mentally ill.

100% of 'homosexuals' practice homosexual behavior. This behvaior is known to be unnatural and the result of trauma. Therefore all 'homosexuals' are mentally ill.

The abnormal behavior is the evidence of the disease, just as compulsive behavior is the evidence of obsessive/compulsive disorder

GSA(P)

295 posted on 01/07/2003 8:59:43 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: John O
Just in case some of you missed my earlier post.

Sorry for the delay in responding. My wife just underwent a temporal lobectomy to cure her epilepsy. Operation went very well praise God and she is recovering nicely. As such I won't be around much, very hit and miss. If it takes a while to respond don't take it personally.

God Save America (Please)

296 posted on 01/07/2003 9:05:57 PM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: John O
Sorry to see your year starting off like that. All the best for your wife. Thank God that she will rid her of the malady and back with you soon.
297 posted on 01/07/2003 10:23:27 PM PST by rocknotsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: madg
Cameron-inspired crap. There’s not a lick of truth to that.

A recent Oxford University study has revealed that 20-year-old homosexual males have a life expectancy eight to 20 years shorter than 20-year-old heterosexual males. (Hogg RS et al. ‘‘Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality In Gay and Bisexual Men.’’ International Journal of Epidemiology 1997, 26: 657-661.)

Once again, Paul Cameron was not the author.

Overstated and irrelevant. What you would call “promiscuity” is, in and of itself, not necessarily an indicator of mental illness. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a homosexual orientation CAUSES promiscuity. Additionally, the fact that promiscuous persons (homosexual or otherwise) have additional STD exposure risk is entirely unremarkable and completely irrelevant to a diagnosis of mental illness. Finally, such promiscuity is not even close to being a universal trait.

A survey by The Advocate, found that most homosexuals have had more than 30 sex partners over their lifetime, and about a third (35%) report more than 100 partners. The survey also found that homosexual men use condoms only one time in four. (Lever J. ‘‘Sexual Revelations: The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships.’’ The Advocate, August 23, 1994, pp. 21-22.)

Bell & Weinberg found that the average gay man had 500 different ‘‘lifetime’’ partners, while 28% had over 1000 partners. In addition, 79% of gay men in this study said more than half their partners were total strangers. (Bell AP & Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)

By comparison, a 1988-1990 General Social Survey found that 91% of men 25-29 years of age are heterosexually active. Nineteen percent of these men have had only one lifetime sex partner, 55% have had two to 19 lifetime partners, and 25% have had 20 or more lifetime partners. (Cited by Seidman SN & Rieder RO. ‘‘A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States.’’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 1994, 151: 335.)

Paul Cameron wasn't the author of any of these studies.

The Molestation Libel is utter, detestable, politically-driven crap; as the scientific and medical communities well know.

Bell & Weinberg (supra) found that 25% of white male homosexuals had sexual relations with someone aged 15 or less while they were aged 18 or older.

The Kinsey investigators indexed sex with the underaged two ways. First, 171 (26.5%) of 646 male homosexuals and 4 (1.8%) of 222 female homosexuals reported having had homosexual sex with someone aged 15 or less and 91 (14.1%) of the 646 male homosexuals and none of the 222 female homosexuals reported having had homosexual sex with someone aged 13 or less since they were aged 18 or older (Gebhard PH & Johnson AB. The Kinsey Data. New York: Saunders, 1979, p. 512).

By comparison, 79 (3.3%) of 2393 heterosexual men and 2 (0.1%) of 1840 heterosexual women reported coitus with someone aged 15 or less and 10 (0.4%) of the 2393 male heterosexuals and 1 (0.05%) of the 1840 female heterosexuals reported coitus with someone aged 13 or under since they were aged 18 or older. (Gebhard & Johnson, supra, p. 289).

This suggests a far greater incidence of sexual involvement with the underaged by homosexuals. Please compare 26.5% with 3.3%. Then compare 14.1% with 0.4%. And then compare 14.1% with 0.1%.

A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia reveals: (1) 30% of the offenders studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and (2) 91% of molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual. In other words, their sexual orientation was clearly homosexual. (Marshall WL et al. ‘‘Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters.’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1991, 6: 323-336.)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles. (Freund K et al. ‘‘Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality.’’ Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1984, 10: 193-200.)

Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and ‘‘40% to 45%’’ of child molesters have had ‘‘significant homosexual experiences.’’ (Quoted by A Bass, Boston Globe, August 8, 1988.) A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (Wassermann J et al. ‘‘Adolescent Sex Offenders -- Vermont, 1984.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association 1986, 255: 181-2.)

Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (Marshall WL et al. ‘‘Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters.’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1991, 6: 323-336.) Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (Bradford JMW et al. ‘‘The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia.’’ Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 1988, 13: 217-226.)

Bell & Weinberg found that the most common reported cause for a suicide attempt among adult homosexuals (47%) was a dispute with a lover. (Bell & Weinberg, supra.)

Once again, Paul Cameron wasn't the author of any of these studies.

I'm not going to waste bandwidth posting the many studies that were not written by Paul Cameron, proving that homosexuals have a vastly higher incidence of HIV, hepatitis and othe STDs than heterosexuals, that they are more likely to commit domestic battery and other violent crimes, that they are more likely to become alcoholics and drug addicts, and that they are more likely to suffer from such emotional disorders as depression, anxiety and paranoia.

You've seen them, I'm sure.

Now come on. Any group displaying this many different pathologies with this frequency should never have been removed from the DSM's list of emotional disorders in the first place, without conclusive proof that the pathologies were unrelated to the group's shared characteristic.

There wasn't any conclusive proof. In fact, there was no proof at all. There was just a lot of political pressure, deception and intimidation by gay rights activists.

298 posted on 01/08/2003 1:55:59 AM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Bryan
Blah blah blah blah.

A recent Oxford University study has revealed that 20-year-old homosexual males have a life expectancy eight to 20 years shorter than 20-year-old heterosexual males. (Hogg RS et al. ‘‘Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality In Gay and Bisexual Men.’’ International Journal of Epidemiology 1997, 26: 657-661.)

I s'pose heterosexual men with HIV Disease live longer?

A survey by... Ah, "The Advocate". Last bastion of science and research in an increasingly cynical world.

Bell & Weinberg found that the average gay man had 500 different ‘‘lifetime’’ partners, while 28% had over 1000 partners. In addition, 79% of gay men in this study said more than half their partners were total strangers. (Bell AP & Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)

The "average gay man" of course hangs out in the bars, sex-clubs, and bathhouses in 1970s San Francisco.

The Kinsey investigators... Yes, yes, we know quite well how reliable and statistically accurate Kinsey was.

A study of Canadians imprisoned... What was your operating definition of "homosexual", again? I seem to have lost it in all your posts.

Bell & Weinberg found that the most common reported cause for a suicide attempt among adult homosexuals (47%) was a dispute with a lover. And what's the most common cause foe a suicide attempt among adult heterosexuals? Running out of gas? Losing the Superbowl?

I'm not going to waste bandwidth posting the many studies that were not written by Paul Cameron...

Good. How much more bandwidth are you going to waste posting Cameron's interpretations of studies not written by Cameron?

299 posted on 01/08/2003 6:55:00 AM PST by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

Comment #300 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 401-404 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson