Sophistry = A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
Sophist = Group of professional fifth-century
B.C. Greek philosophers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the
sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators
of rhetoric and dialectic.
---
DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF
CONFUSION
By Scott D. Lively, Esq.
NewsWithViews.com
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 favour 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 behaviour.
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 behaviour-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 defence 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 vice 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
behaviour, or behaviour that deviates from the normal design-based function of
the human being.
A second
reason for espousing the demise 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 favouritism 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 favour 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 the favourable
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, labour 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
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-favoured 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
honoured 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
The very
inclusion of behavioural 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 behaviour 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 unequalled. 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
manoeuvring 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 labelled 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 behaviour (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 behaviour. 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
un-persuaded 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 favours 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 behaviour?"
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 behaviour, 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
behaviour, 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 behaviour 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 behaviour they involve, that's a different story.
Pedophile
behaviour is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual behaviour 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 behaviours 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" sophistry must actively compete for
influence in those institutions and to persuade others who share our love for
the truth to do the same.
© Scott
Lively - All Rights Reserved
Scott
Lively is uniquely qualified to speak in the defence of the natural family and
against homosexuality. A graduate (magna cum laude) of
Scott's additional
works include The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, co-authored
with Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams, which documents the homosexual roots of
Nazism and the central role of homosexuals in the Holocaust. Now in its fourth
edition and published in four languages, the official release of The Pink
Swastika was timed to coincide with Scott's speech to the National Association
for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) at its annual convention
in San Francisco, July 29, 1995. In 1997 Scott published The Poisoned Stream:
"Gay" Influence in Human History, Volume
Contact
Scott Lively via his website at www.abidingtruth.com
where you will also find many helpful resources