##ten rules for debating “gay” arguments##

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
**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:“Lotsofpeoplemakechoicesthatotherpeoplehate. Thatdoesn’tproveanything. Andallthestudies 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. Youstillhaven’tdefinedwhathomosexualityisorwhatheterosexualityis. Isn’titaquestion 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 clearonthedefinitionofhomosexualityandheterosexualitybeforewedecideifthey’reequal. Ifwe’reonly 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-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engageinthesametypesofsexualconduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens the public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?”

Ten. Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated the truth for those listening in to your discussion, not by the willingness of your opponent to change his or her mind.

“Gay”Advocate:“I’mnotgoingtoletyoutrapmeintosomehomophobicbox. Yourproblemisthatyou’re a bigot.”
You: “Your problem is that you don’t understand that homosexuality is very different than heterosexuality. Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed to function as compatible opposite-sex partners. Homosexuality could only be equivalent if it was rooted in a comparable physiological design. Instead, even when engaging in homosexual acts, a person remains inherently and immutably heterosexual by nature. Sexual orientation is just a theoretical model that lets you pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective physical reality.
“That’s why marriage is closed to homosexuals. It is an institution designed to protect and strengthen the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative heterosexual design we all share.”

All this can be found here*defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/9707137.pdf

What do you think? Anyone going to help me hone my bigoted homophobia skills? :)*
 
Refer to homosexual unions, not marriages. Continue using this language.

“There is no equality between a marriage and a union involving two persons of the same sex. They are fundamentally different things, and pretending that they are the same is indulging in fantasy.” (from Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages by Catholic Answers)
 
When the term “discrimination” is used, always distinguish between just and unjust discrimination. For example, the signs at amusement parks reading “You must be THIS tall to ride this ride” acknowledge discrimination, but it is a just one. (If you are not THIS tall, it is not safe for you to ride this ride.)
To say that a person cannot, say, answer phones in an office because he is gay is an example of unjust discrimination. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his ability to do that job.

Or anti miscegenation laws—they focused on race, which is not essential to marriage. However, sex IS relevant to marriage. The “marital act” is impossible for same-sex couples!
 
I also like this answer

Would you say heterosexual couples in which they are doing so primarily to procreate and form a family holds little to no value over other couples? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once in human history, but it’s not important now?
 
If the homosexualist goes into ad hominems and strawmen, attack the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top