Deciphering ‘Gay’ word-
Scott D. Lively
There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
The
success of so-
He who defines
the terms controls the debate -
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-
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-
After 1986, the "gay" movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable
condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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 -
This is most clearly seen in anti-
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-
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-
In reality, homosexuality
is nothing more than same-
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 favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the
implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as "racism" toward homosexuals.
An anti-
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-
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 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-
Democratically-
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-
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-
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-
Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine
of multi-
Multi-
The very inclusion
of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality
in multi-
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-
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-
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-
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.
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
Ten Rules for Debating "Gay" Arguments (As applied
in a hypothetical conversation).
First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in
which sexual orientation theory, homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality
and homosexuality is assumed (which is just about any discussion you will ever have
on this issue).
"Gay" Advocate: "Can't you see that denying gays the right to marry
is discrimination. Why shouldn't they have the same basic rights as heterosexuals?"
You: "I'm a little confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality
is equivalent to heterosexuality?"
Second. Always make the advocates of the "gay"
position define the critical terms.
"Gay" Advocate: "Of course they are equivalent.
One person is no better than another just because of whom they happen to love."
You:
"I still don't get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality? It's
more than love isn't it?"
Third. Stay on track. Sophists will always change the subject
to avoid having to admit error. The trick is to stay focused until the term in question
is defined. Don't allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address
new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out for the "tag
team" tactic in which a third party will interrupt your discussion to help your opponent
change the subject. Make these parties address your question.)
"Gay" Advocate: "Homosexuality
is just your sexual orientation. It's the way you're born. Some people are straight.
Some are gay. You don't think gay people should be discriminated against just because
they have a different orientation, do you?"
You: "I'd like to answer that question
after we talk about what sexual orientation is, but I'm still not clear on what you
mean by homosexuality. How do you know that it's just the way someone is born?
Fourth.
Don't allow your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to disprove one of
his or her assumptions. The burden of proof is on him or her.
"Gay" Advocate. "Everybody
knows that. There are lots of studies. Besides, who would choose to be gay when there
is so much hatred and homophobia against them?"
You: "Lots of people make choices
that other people hate. That doesn't prove anything. And all the studies that I have
seen have been inconclusive. Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that
gays are born that way?"
Fifth. Always steer the discussion to sexual conduct.
"Gay"
Advocate: "They're out there. But Gay people don't have to prove themselves to deserve
basic rights. You don't have to prove your heterosexuality to get your rights do
you?"
You: "Now we're back where we started on this question of whether homosexuality
is equivalent to heterosexuality. You still haven't defined what homosexuality is
or what heterosexuality is. Isn't it a question of behavior?"
Sixth. Keep the discussion
on what can be objectively observed and measured and away from the subjective. Don't
be diverted into a discussion of abstractions.
"Gay" Advocate: "No, its not about
behavior, its about orientation. I already said that. You can be gay and celibate.
Being gay is when the person you fall in love with is the same sex as you. Being
straight is when you fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. That's it."
You:
"So where does sex come in. If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior,
what stops pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they never
get physical, what does it matter if they fall in love with a child?"
Seventh. Use
affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in the discussion.
"Gay" Advocate:
"Yeah, but pedophilia is illegal."
You: "Right. The behavior is illegal, but not
the thoughts and feelings. That's why its important to be very clear on the definition
of homosexuality and heterosexuality before we decide if they're equal. If we're
only talking about thoughts and feelings, then perhaps they are equal, but then so
are all the other orientations you can think of. If we compare them by the types
of behavior they involve, that's a different story.
Pedophile behavior is illegal
because it harms children. Homosexual behavior is still illegal in many states because
it spreads disease and dysfunction."
Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in
his or her logic.
"Gay" Advocate: "Well heterosexuals engage in the same risky behaviors
as homosexuals."
You: "So would you agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual
conduct is reasonable?"
Nine. Follow the flaw to its illogical conclusion.
"Gay"
Advocate: "No, I don't think its anyone's business what two people do in the privacy
of their own bedroom."
You: "Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals
and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-
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-
"That's why marriage is closed to homosexuals. It is an institution designed
to protect and strengthen the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative
heterosexual design we all share."
Analysis. The preceding hypothetical conversation
is actually a composite of many real discussions between the author and various advocates
of the "gay" position. It accurately and honestly portrays the typical comments and
attitudes of "gay" defenders. What may be gleaned from this exchange is that one
can never truly come to a common understanding with a "gay" sophist, since he or
she cares only about winning and not about the truth. Yet there are many people who
merely parrot "gay" rhetoric and who are really victims of sophistry, not sophists
themselves. These people are persuadable.
The only value in arguing with a true sophist
is to hone your debate skills. Usually, however, you will have an audience. In that
case, take the opportunity to educate your audience and don't be discouraged that
your opponent refuses to see reason.
When all is said and done, the only real solution
to the problems created by "gay" sophistry is to restore a truthful standard in every
institution where the sophists now hold sway. That means that we who have learned
how to defeat "gay" sophisty must actively compete for influence in those institutions
and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the same.
© Scott Lively
-
Scott Lively is uniquely qualified to speak in the defense
of the natural family and against homosexuality. A graduate (magna cum laude) of
Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California, Scott Lively holds the degree of Juris
Doctor, with special emphasis in Human Rights, as well as a certificate in Human
Rights from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. Now
a licensed attorney, Scott is Founder and President of Abiding Truth Ministries and
Director of ATM's Pro-
Scott's additional works include The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party,
co-
Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/conspiracy/conspiracy6.htm
Copyright I Contact us I Top I Next
Copyright | Contact us | Top | Next