A lot of information has not yet been transferred from gesundelehre.bplaced.net, therefore please also visit the page there for more information.
A lot of information has not yet been transferred from gesundelehre.bplaced.net, therefore please also visit the page there for more information.
Longer Version: http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/9707137.pdf
There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don't hold up under scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren't necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.
He who defines the terms controls the debate – and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the “gay” movement.
Sophistry, it must be noted, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. The key to overcoming sophistry is to simplify and clarify what the sophists have intentionally made complex and vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts being used in the arguments. One quickly discovers that most arguments advocating “gay rights” depend upon hidden false assumptions and deliberately ambiguous terms. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Among the most common terms and concepts in the “gay rights” debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by “gay” sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, “gay” arguments are easily refuted.
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.
Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay” movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.
After 1986, the “gay” movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new definition, “straights” can choose same-gender sexual relations and “gays” can choose opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true “sexual orientation.”
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.
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.
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” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.
An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sadomasochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc.
By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations – pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.
This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.
Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile's orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.
Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to existing anti-discrimination laws: “This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.
Another purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to “gay” arguments. For one thing it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality.
For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. When reminded of this, “gay” sympathizers say, “Heterosexuals do the same things.” This isn't a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don't make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.
Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.
In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sadomasochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.
A second reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. “Gay” sophists have coined the term “heterosexism” to describe favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as “racism” toward homosexuals.
An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by the premises.
The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized.
The takeover of local governments begins in the local media (where there is never a shortage of “gay” political activists) with a campaign to raise awareness of discrimination against legitimate minorities. A call then goes out to form a Human Relations Commission to study the problem and develop communitybased solutions. The commission is then formed with quasi-governmental authority. The anti-discrimination policy comes next, often without mention of sexual orientation. That is usually added by amendment later.
Opposition is usually minimal because no one wants to be perceived as being in favor of discrimination. This is not a baseless fear. Pro-“gay” activists in both the media and the government greet any opposition with widely-publicized accusations of racism and bigotry.
Invariably, one duty of the commission is to gather, analyze and report statistics on discrimination in the community. (This is probably where the concept of “hate crimes” originated as a “gay” political strategy).
The use of a reporting plan assures two favorable outcomes for homosexuals. First, they gain a measure of legitimacy merely by being listed together with true civil rights minorities (without having to justify their inclusion among those whose status is based on morally neutral criteria such as skin color and ethnicity). Second, the very nature of the reporting process virtually guarantees an increase of discriminatory incidents from one reporting period to the next as people gradually become aware of the system. This appearance of a growing problem bolsters their demands for additional concessions to their agenda.
The takeover of a corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually in-the-closet) homosexual into a hiring position. Other undisclosed “gays” are then hired to fill strategic positions in the company. When the ability to control the process is assured, some of the activists come “out-of-the-closet” and form a “Gay and Lesbian Employees Association.” That group then introduces an amendment to the company anti-discrimination policy to include “sexual orientation.”
Democratically-run organizations (including political parties, labor unions and churches) are targeted based upon their vulnerability to takeover by a unified bloc of voting members. Mass infiltration by activists precedes elections, after which time organizational policy (and bylaws) can be controlled by the new activist leaders, who may or may not disclose that they are “gay.” I have heard it said that this was how the Metropolitan Community Church, an entirely homosexual-controlled “religious denomination” started, beginning with the takeover of the original MCC, which was reportedly a genuine but struggling Christian church. The so-called “mainstream” Christian denominations have been particularly targeted, not only because many congregations have seen steeply declining membership in recent decades (i.e., fewer new “members” are needed to gain a voting majority), but because these denominations have vast property holdings and endowment funds which can be used for activist projects.
Every takeover is followed by consolidation of “gay” power within the organization, starting with some form of “sensitivity training.” Sensitivity training employs proven psychological coercion tactics (i.e. “brainwashing”) to indoctrinate members of the organization in pro-“gay” thinking. By the very nature of the manipulative tactics used, few dare to openly dissent. Those who do are duly noted by the control group and if they are considered a real threat, they are marginalized and may in time be forced out. Sensitivity training is usually mandatory for all members of the organization.
Once the control group has consolidated power, the organization is plundered for its available resources. These include tangible resources such as money and property, but also intangibles such as advertising and vendor contracts and even community goodwill. Charitable giving, too, is exploited, as gifts and grants are diverted away from previously-favored beneficiaries like the Boy Scouts to “gay”-controlled organizations. While some resources benefit the internal control group (i.e. domestic partnership benefits and employee perks), most are focused strategically outside of the organization to further the “gay” political agenda in the community.
All the processes described above are made possible simply by the acceptance of sexual orientation as a theory of human sexuality.
In summary, sexual orientation is a term that is used by “gay” activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting “gay” presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals' political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become “law” in antidiscrimination 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 multi-culturalism. By itself it means only “the variety of things,” but as used by the homosexual movement “diversity” is a moral statement about the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honored for its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning.
Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture. The “culture” of homosexuality – a way of life rooted in the practice of sodomy – is not equal to the inherited family-based cultures of African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.
The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multi-culturalism.
This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have fallen victim to “gay” sophistry openly congratulate themselves for being inclusive. This is the same error in a different form. In both cases there is a failure to define the standard of acceptance by which people are welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With no standard, there can be no objectivity in the process and decisions represent merely the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge.
In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality of all diverse cultures in our society under the code-word “diversity.” The doctrine's validity depends upon limiting the definition of culture to morally neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally significant sexual behavior in the definition robs multi-culturalism of validity by granting legitimacy to immoral practices. Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some cultures because of their practices (for example cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality of cultures. Failure to articulate a standard by which to determine which cultures should be included compounds the problem by vesting arbitrary authority in whomever holds power.
The effective response to a champion of “diversity” is to focus on the definition of multi-culturalism and to demand to know the standard for inclusion.
Discrimination 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.
This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the “gay” sophists. In a way, it shouldn't even be considered sophistry, since it lacks any hint of subtlety. In contrast to the cleverness of most other examples listed here, the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.
Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. “Gay” activists simply stole the term and redefined it as “hate and/or fear of homosexuals.”
As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. The way to expose this fact is to require the advocates of the “gay” position to state the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal that they accept no opposition to their agenda as legitimate.
Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. “Gay” activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association).
Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of “racist,” helping the “gay” movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.
Collectively, these aspects of homophobia serve to intimidate opponents into silence. When any opposition to homosexuality draws the accusation that one is a mentally-ill bigot equivalent to a racist, few people will dare to openly oppose it. Those who do will tend to be defensive, offering the disclaimer that they are not hateful (implicitly validating hatefulness as the general rule).
The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.
In summary, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by “gay” sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill “gay bashers” and in doing so declares mainstream religious doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. The solution is to reject the term homophobia itself as harmful and illegitimate. Its illegitimacy can be exposed by making pro-“gay” advocates define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality.
Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don't like in order to serve the greater good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society. In the “gay” lexicon, however, tolerance means unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant, even those who treat self-defined “gays” with the utmost courtesy and respect.
Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion. This fosters a climate in which intolerance against legitimate minorities can be more easily justified. As the “gays” have proved, many people just don't think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of race and intolerance of perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the “gays.”
To reaffirm the true meaning of tolerance in the face of “gay” sophistry, point out that tolerance is relative. Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech (i.e. the right to say “I'm gay”) but low tolerance for harmful behavior (i.e. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce.
The heart of “gay” sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality as a state-ofbeing and not a form of sexual behavior. This allows the “gay” movement to define homosexuals as a civil rights minority comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority status is based on truly immutable characteristics. In turn, this allows the “gay” movement to inherit and exploit all of the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement for its own ends.
Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for “selling” the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable. It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology. Only by making the design and function of the human body irrelevant can “gay” strategists avoid otherwise self-evident truths about homosexuality.
All of the terms examined in this article, as applied to homosexuals, depend for their validity upon the theory of sexual orientation, which in turn depends upon the redefinition of homosexuality.
In the end, this battle is won by affirming the obvious. The truth about homosexuality is self-evident. Self-evident truths are not taught, they are revealed. Helping people overcome “gay” sophistry does not require teaching them new facts and figures or raising their level of intellectual sophistication. On the contrary, it requires a clearing away of the misinformation that obscures the simple reality of things.
Indeed, if you find yourself dependent on studies and statistics to persuade someone of the wrongness of homosexuality and that it should not be legitimized in society, you have already lost the debate. Consider: a person who remains unpersuaded by a reminder of the obvious truth has revealed himself to be an intellectual reprobate for whom facts are ultimately meaningless. Yet if you, by retreating to secondary evidence, grant that obvious truth is insufficient to prove your case, you voluntarily invite a debate context which favors those who are willing to cheat and lie to win.
Defeating “gay” arguments, therefore, depends upon asserting the plain truth about homosexuality from the start. If you fail to challenge the presuppositions of the “gay” position, you will forever be at a disadvantage in opposing the many goals of the “gay” agenda. Stand firmly on the truth that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked for this position, because your opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully defeat all of their arguments. You will take less heat for seeking some point of compromise, but you will trade away most of your moral and persuasive authority in the process.
If you decline to stand firm on your pro-family presuppositions, the insights provided in this booklet will not be of much value to you. But if you do, they will serve as potent weapons against every form of “gay” sophistry and your courageous stand for truth will be vindicated.