Jak pokonać homopropagandę? (Scott Lively)/en
- 1 The Homosexual Message
- 2 Agenda? What “Gay” Agenda?
- 3 The Illogic of Pro-“Gay” Arguments
- 4 What is Homosexuality?
- 5 Why the change in strategy?
- 6 Sexual Orientation
- 7 The Takeover Process
- 8 Diversity
- 9 Discrimination
- 10 Homophobia
- 11 Tolerance
- 12 Conclusion
- 13 TEN RULES FOR DEBATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
- 14 Hope for Pro-Family Advocates
- 15 Helpful Tips: Recognize “Gay” Weaknesses
- 16 The Triangle of Tolerance
- 17 References
The Homosexual Message
The disordered nature of homosexuality is self-evident; therefore any effort to normalize or legitimize homosexuality must use lies and deception to gain public support. The homosexual appeal for public support includes several standard falsehoods that are repeated constantly by its spokespersons and presented to the public as proven facts:
- “Homosexuality is innate and normal” (often called the “born that way” argument).
- “Homosexuality cannot be changed.”
- “Heterosexual children cannot become homosexual.”
- “Homosexuals and heterosexuals are separate but equal sexual types.”
- “All disapproval of homosexuality is motivated by hate and fear.”
- “Homosexuality is equivalent to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is like racism.”
- “Homosexuals are helpless victims who need special legal protection.”
- “Toleration of homosexuals requires approval of homosexual conduct.”
- “Homosexual suicides and mental health problems are caused by social disapproval.”
An essential task of pro-family advocates is to expose the falsehood of these assertions. People, especially social and political leaders, need to know the truth, and it is our job to inform them. Fortunately, there is a wealth of authoritative documentation to support the pro-family position on these topics; many useful resources are provided in Section Four.
Another factor that helps us articulate the pro-family position is that most of the pro-homosexual arguments are patently illogical. They so completely fail the test of honest scrutiny that the resort to scientific evidence is unnecessary to prove the arguments false.
Agenda? What “Gay” Agenda?
One example of the “gay” movement’s reliance on deception is its audacious insistence that it has no agenda. Homosexual activists and their best-trained allies ritually challenge any reference to the “gay” agenda with an affected tone of incredulity. “What agenda?,” they exclaim, as if the entire homosexual movement, with its hundreds of organizations and thousands of activists, all working to achieve specific political goals, were invisible. What is most interesting about this is not that they want to deceive people into believing that they have no agenda, but that they would insist this is true in the face of reality.
What does it tell you about a group of people obviously organized and working to change society, who not only pretend to have no agenda, but who also make the promotion of this self-evident falsehood a leading tactic in their campaign? They must either be very stupid (which is clearly not the case), or very confident that they can make the public accept the lie. They seem convinced, just like the Nazi propagandists who advocated this tactic, that if they tell the lie long enough and loudly enough, it will supplant the truth. Perhaps it will. Is it really any more of a lie than the assertion (now accepted by a great many otherwise intelligent people) that homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior equivalent to normal sexual relations between husbands and wives?
Unfortunately, most of the deceptive rhetoric used by the “gay” movement is more subtle. If Christians are to restore respect for the truth, they must learn how to recognize and expose these lies.
The Illogic of Pro-“Gay” Arguments
The success of the campaign to propagandize so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of rhetorical manipulation. 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” arsenal 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 almost 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 in 1986, though, unfortunately, the constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
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 back up the claim. 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 sincerely 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. This assertion is supported by a series of recent studies in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the United States which reveal that the primary factors associated with male and female homosexuality are environmental, not genetic, and include such conditions as a permissive social atmosphere, residence in an urban environment during one’s teen years, separation from the same-sex parent, and for women, a college education.
Finally, to the consternation of “gay” propagandists, many people continue to leave homosexuality and become fully heterosexual. Although effective therapies have been developed by mental health professionals like Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, and have allowed many to change away from unwanted homosexuality, others change spontaneously over the course of their lives, and still others leave homosexuality behind through spiritual support and fellowship in groups like Exodus (Christian), JONAH (Jewish), and Courage (Roman Catholic). An interesting development reported on the Exodus website (www.exodusinternational.org, January 2009) is the dramatic upswing in attendance at their conferences now that homosexuality is being increasingly normalized in mainstream society.
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 self-accepting 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 longstanding, 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. As mentioned above, there is a very considerable body of testimony from 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 ought 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 repeating 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 logically 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 cut away the foundation of the “born that way” argument to reveal that it is not supported by science or social reality, and that since it can’t be proved, it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality may be acquired. Unfortunately, the “born that way” notion is one that predates the “gay” movement’s publicity efforts. For centuries people in western societies have assumed that their friends and relatives who exhibited effeminate homosexual traits were born that way, since they seemed unable to change, and since it was often too painful for families to acknowledge the circumstances (such as childhood molestation) which contributed to their homosexuality. Thus we have to fight this conceptual battle on two fronts. 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” 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, officially 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, and, ironically, to suppress the thought and speech of those who object to the promotion of homosexuality. 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. Similarly, employees of an organization which embraces “gay” and lesbian clubs and activities are forbidden to organize Christian clubs on the grounds that their pro-family beliefs might create an uncomfortable environment for homosexuals who want active approval of their lifestyle.
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. Thus homosexual orientation is exonerated as far as public regulation policy goes.
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 sexual behaviors spread 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 a congenital deformity that causes them to have both male and female genitalia) 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 unalterably heterosexual in form. 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 would not otherwise apply to them. 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 a homosexual takeover of any organization because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. Following the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protection without regard to moral or public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violation of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually guaranteed. The conclusions are assured by the premises.
The Takeover Process
This 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 Rights 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 highly-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 doubtless 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 homosexuals’ demands for additional concessions to their agenda.
The takeover of a corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually in-the-closet) homosexual in 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 (so that 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 is a code word for the political doctrine of multiculturalism. 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.
Multiculturalism, 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 in areas such as race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture with respect to the deeds they have perpetrated. 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.
There is no comparison between a shared system of values, beliefs and traditions passed down through generations of a group of people bound by genetic and/or religious similarities, and a set of compulsive sexual/emotional behaviors practiced by a group of random individuals who define themselves as a community based on this practice alone. The equality inherent in the concept of multiculturalism cannot be extended to such a group; it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The companion “gayspeak” word to diversity is inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have fallen victim to “gay” sophistry openly congratulate themselves on being inclusive. This is the same confusion we saw in the term “diversity,” only 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. Without a standard, there can be no objectivity in the process, and any decision to include merely represents the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge.
In summary, the doctrine of multiculturalism 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 multiculturalism 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 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 qualifier “rational” or “irrational” to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to consider the significance of the qualifier. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination.
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 patients’ fear of their own homosexual inclinations. “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 challenge 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. (The “gays” outrageous mistreatment of Miss California 2009, Carrie Prejean, for simply giving her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman is illustrative of this fact).
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 (the listing was removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association)
Thirdly, the term can be used as the semantic equivalent of “racist,” helping the “gay” movement further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.
Collectively, these strategic applications of the word “homophobia” serve to intimidate many opponents into silence. When any expression of opposition to homosexuality draws the accusation that one is a mentally-ill bigot equivalent to a racist, few people will venture public opposition. Those who do will tend to be defensive, offering the disclaimer that they are not hateful (unintentionally but implicitly validating the lie that hatefulness is 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, as it is used today, “homophobia” is a nonsense word used by “gay” sophists as a rhetorical weapon against their 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 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 (for example, the right to say “I’m gay”) but low tolerance for harmful behavior (e.g. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it may cause.
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 the foolhardiness of legitimizing it 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” (in the Romans 1:28 sense of being lost to the truth) 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, lie or ignore facts to win.
This is not to suggest that the pro-family position lacks scientific support. Indeed the great preponderance of evidence, from the most respected research studies, affirms our conclusions. (See Section Four).
Defeating “gay” arguments, however, 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 would take less heat if you sought some point of compromise, but you would 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 opt for a determined pro-family stance, they will serve as potent weapons against every form of “gay” sophistry and, if you remain persistent, your courageous stand for truth will ultimately be vindicated.
TEN RULES FOR DEBATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
(As applied during a hypothetical conversation).
“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?”
“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 a question of romantic feelings isn’t it?”
“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?
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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 countries because it spreads disease and dysfunction.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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 a form of voluntary physical conduct.
“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 myself 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.
Hope for Pro-Family Advocates
I will address just three of the many factors which work in our favor in our campaign for change. First, the truth is on our side.
Pro-family people often lament the enormous influence which our adversaries hold over America’s social, cultural and educational institutions. What they fail to recognize is that our adversaries require this level of control. The success of the “gay” agenda depends upon public acceptance of many easily-refuted lies. To maintain this deception, pro-“gay” media must continually reinforce certain essential falsehoods, such as the assertion that science has proved a biological cause of homosexuality. Perpetrating such deception is relatively easy if you control all the major media, but impossible if even a single major (national) media outlet tells the truth. The rise of the Internet as a new information source, and to a lesser extent the success of Fox News, bears this out.
This fact is significant for pro-family advocates: it means that our task is not as daunting as we might think. We don’t need to duplicate what the left has done, we only need to ensure that some part of the major media is forced to tell the truth. The power of the truth itself will do the rest. An excellent illustration of this principle is found in the tactic of pro-lifers who carry large pictures of aborted babies in public demonstrations. Every person who sees these pictures instantly recognizes that abortion kills real babies and not just “blobs of tissue.” All of the millions of dollars spent by abortion advocates to hide the humanity of the unborn can be undone by a single photograph. In like manner, a full, unbiased examination of “gay” claims, such as the claim that homosexuality is innate, would destroy their carefully constructed public image, without which the homosexual political movement would topple like a house of cards. Be encouraged by the fact that patient repetition of the truth, along with people’s practical experience of reality, have begun to turn the tide on the abortion issue.
Our task is not small, but it is achievable. However, it is not enough that existing pro-family media tell the truth, it must also be presented by a mainstream source that the secular public trusts. In other words, our goal should not be to try to compete with the media industry; it should be to take control of some part of it.
Second, there are more activists on our side than there are on our adversaries’ side. When you consider that homosexuals currently make up somewhere from two to five percent of the population, and that not every homosexual is politically active, the total number of “gay” activists in America must be quite small relative to their power. On the other hand, pro-family activists are relatively numerous. We just aren’t organized. The goal of pro-family advocates, therefore, should not be to try to convert every member of the faith community into a political activist, but to identify the existing activists and begin to work more closely together with them. This is a much more achievable goal.
Third, the “mushy middle” of the American population will support our agenda as readily as it now supports the homosexual agenda once we have regained control of our social (and some media) institutions. We must remember that most people are simply unconcerned about issues which are not directly relevant to their own daily lives. The average person generally goes along with the prevailing social trend. This is just human nature. It was true of the colonists during the American Revolution. It was true of the German people under Hitler. It is true of our society today. This is bad news for traditional conservatives, but very good news for missionary-minded pro-family activists. It means that we don’t need to persuade the entire population to our way of thinking: we only need to take back control of the institutions that most influence their lives and the people will, so to speak, persuade themselves.
Helpful Tips: Recognize “Gay” Weaknesses
“Gay” power depends upon public sympathy for homosexuals as victims of societal prejudice. This is why the pro-“gay” media religiously suppress all information which reflects negatively on homosexuals and their behavior. This is also why the “gay” movement insists, and the media confirms, that homosexuality is innate -- because fair-minded people (i.e. most people) are reluctant to disapprove of homosexuals for engaging in behavior that they can’t control. If the media told the truth about homosexuality, the “gay” movement, and the “gay” political agenda, the public would not be predisposed to accept either the movement or the agenda.
The problem is how to get the public to look at the facts when we have little or no power to change the media. The first step is to understand why the public is susceptible to “gay” deception.
Public sympathy for “gays” as victims is not grounded in logic, but in emotion. This is one reason why more women (who tend to be interested in emotional and relationship factors) than men embrace the “gay” cause. In fact, the some people’s attempts to bring out the more graphic and disturbing facts about homosexuality have reinforced the idea in the minds of “gay” protectors that pro-family advocates hate homosexuals. Long ago I stopped trying to educate pro-“gay” sympathizers about the unpleasant particulars of “gay” behavior, because it only made them angrier. The facts must be told, but only after a person has become willing to consider that there are two sides to this issue.
An effective strategy is to emphasize the issue of homosexual recruitment of children. The protection of children trumps any argument for “gays” as societal victims. Once parents and grandparents accept that recruitment of children is possible, they become interested in seeing all the evidence against the idea of “gay” legitimacy. This strategy is becoming increasingly powerful as parents and grandparents witness the blatant promotion of homosexuality to their children in public schools (often presented by homosexual activists and accompanied by suggestions that children should experiment to determine their sexual “orientation”), and as research data from numerous countries show that homosexual behavior and self-identification can be elicited by one’s environment.
The Triangle of Tolerance
“Gay” apologists misrepresent the concept of tolerance to suggest that “being tolerant” requires unconditional acceptance of all aspects of homosexual “orientation” and conduct. However, tolerance really means “putting up with” what we don’t like in the interest of preserving civility. The amount of tolerance we extend depends on the amount of harm or benefit society receives from the thing in question. For example, as the above graph shows, we have zero tolerance for violent crime, but absolute tolerance for freedom of thought.
Applying this logic, we should extend reasonably high tolerance for people who choose to publicly disclose their homosexual “orientation,” because the social benefit we all enjoy from freedom of speech outweighs the harm of their disclosure. But conversely, the negative public health and moral ramifications of “gay” sex outweigh any supposed social benefit associated with sexual “freedom.”
- Hansen, Trayce, Ph.D., Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality: Research Provides Significant Evidence, reproduced on NARTH website, updated Oct. 14, 2008, (LINK)
- Satinover, Jeffrey, M.S., M.D., The ‘Trojan Couch:’ How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science, p. 11, reproduced on NARTH website, accessed Jan. 2009, (LINK)
This is an excerpt of the book Redeeming the Rainbow written by Scott Lively.
Copies of this book may be downloaded from www.defendthefamily.com
Thanks to Scott Lively for granting permission to publish this excerpt here.