| Defeating "Gay" Arguments with Simple
Logic
by Scott Douglas Lively, Esq.
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 sadomasochist
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, sadomasochism, 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 multi-culturalism 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.
|
