Five Really Dumb Things the Activists Say
One could easily write an entire book on all the really moronic and senseless things the homosexual activists say when they “argue” with us. Of course one has to use the word “argue” quite loosely here, since what the militants engage in can hardly be described as arguments – more like sophomoric rants in fact.
So as you discuss or debate with these activists, bear in mind they will almost invariably throw some real doozies your way. These remarks will have very little to do with logic and rationality. They will not be actual arguments or well-reasoned claims.
They will just be foolish attacks lacking in any merit. But this is just how the other side operates – time and time again. This is their standard modus operandi. Here then are five of these dopey claims you will likely hear over and over again in such discussions:
1. You are just homophobic
This is a classic from the other side. It is as typical as it is stupid. It is of course just a conversation stopper. It sure beats actually dealing with the issues and mounting an argument. It is simply an ad hominem attack, and the homosexual activists specialise in such attacks. Name-calling, mud-slinging and personal attacks are the primary weapons in their arsenal.
And the term itself is simply vacuous. It means nothing in this debate. No, I do not have a fear of the same, as the term literally means. I do not fear others of the same sex. I do not fear other males. I will tell you what I do fear however: the destruction of marriage and family, the threat to our children, and the risk to society at large when we allow the radical homosexual agenda to run unchecked.
2. You hate homosexuals
More name-calling. What does speaking the truth about homosexuality have to do with hating anyone? Indeed, it is the most loving thing one can do in this case. Telling a homosexual that his dead-end lifestyle is a high-risk and dangerous affair, one that can be avoided if so chosen, is the most loving thing one can tell a homosexual.
If a person is racing toward a cliff with certain death the impending result, the obvious and loving thing anyone can do is warn such a person. Indeed, you will do all you can to alert such a person to the dangers involved, and seek to avert disaster. To fail to do so is a failure to love the other person.
And the simple truth is this: mere disagreement does not equal hate. The very heart of a free and democratic society is the ability to differ, to disagree, to express different points of view, without fear of the other side blasting you for “hate-speech,” and using the heavy hand of the law to shut you up.
That of course is not tolerance. That has nothing to do with acceptance and diversity. That has everything to do with totalitarianism: stamp out any contrary points of view, and criminalise any speech which dares to differ. That it seems to me is real hate.
3. You are really a repressed homosexual
I get this all the time. The activists actually seem to think this is some sort of sensible argument. Really! Indeed, as if to prove my point, I just had a guy post this on my site: “Such vitriol repeatedly directed against homosexuals is almost invariably indicative of repressed homosexuality on the part of its instigator. Bill, how about stepping out of that closet and getting yourself some fresh air?”
To which I replied: “Thanks Todd. Such vitriol repeatedly directed against Christians is almost invariably indicative of repressed Christianity on the part of its instigator. Todd, how about stepping out of that closet and getting yourself some fresh air?
“Actually you must be a Christian, since I find it hard to believe that any homosexual activist would publicly embarrass himself with such a moronic claim. You might as well argue that those who stand against rape are actually rapists, or those who speak against pollution are in fact polluters. No wonder no one takes your side seriously with such imbecility.”
Of course the list is endless here: Those who are concerned about rising crime rates are in fact closet criminals. Those who oppose war are actually repressed militarists. Those who resist the tobacco industry the strongest are in fact three-pack-a-day-ers. Those who stand against racism are really members of the KKK. Those who protest the loudest against Japanese whaling are actually Japanese whalers.
Or as one wit put it on another site: “And surely you’ve noticed all the haughty vegans who condemn all who eat meat? Obviously all of them secretly run butcher shops.” Yet the militants keep on using such incredibly idiotic “arguments”.
4. You are forcing your morality on me
Umm, no – I am not forcing anything on anyone. To stand up for the well-being of children, to stand up for marriage and family, to stand up for the social good and basic morality is not forcing anything. It is called living in a democracy, and having the right to state one’s point of view.
It is in fact the other side which is forcing its morality on everyone else. All over the Western world they are demanding that everyone bow in obeisance to their radical demands. Everywhere they are forcing those who disagree with them to violate their own consciences.
Everywhere we find those who refuse to bow the knee losing their jobs, being fined, and even being jailed. That sounds like forcing one’s morality on others. All we are doing is seeking to defend what we highly value from the relentless attacks of the activists.
And we did not start this fight. We did not unleash a reign of terror on anyone who dares to disagree. But when things we treasure come under such ferocious attack, such as the institutions of marriage and family and the well-being of our children, then of course we will respond; of course we will stand up and defend such things from those attacking them.
5. You should keep the state out of our bedrooms
This is another silly furphy so often thrown out by the militants. If in fact they just wanted to do their thing in the privacy of their own bedrooms, no one would make a peep about it. But this is far more than mere private behaviour, done discreetly, impacting no one.
This is about a very public social revolution in which everyone is impacted. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, we are all at risk because of the radical homosexual agenda. Everywhere the activists are forcing their lifestyle and their demands on hapless populations.
And the demolition job on things like marriage and our social fabric of course is not some mere private activity: it is a very real public activity with some very real public consequences. All societies have a right to withstand such threats and to champion long-held values and norms.
We have a right to stand up for historically proven institutions which help societies, help children, and help couples. Things like marriage are far too valuable to let go of without a fight. And the activists have made it clear that marriage and family and everything else are in fact in their scopes. They are in fact the ones using the state to promote and enforce their agendas.
There are obviously many more such lame remarks which get thrown our way with appalling monotony. This is all standard operating procedure from the militants. They believe that if they keep throwing out these baseless and senseless accusations, they will simply overwhelm us, wear us down, and win by default.
Admittedly it is frustrating and time-consuming to deal with these hollow clichés over and over again, but we must proclaim and defend truth even when it becomes tiresome and tedious. We cannot let the activists win by default. So keep on keeping on, and learn to recognise these thread-bare “arguments” as they get thrown in your face.
26 Replies to “Five Really Dumb Things the Activists Say”
One can repeat this lesson in the ad hominum for the same kind and degree of demeaning, belittling, shaming, dismissing statements that Feminists throw around. Only they do it far more and on a far wider number of issues. And they have done and continue to do far more damage.
The homosexuals are comparative newcomers. They need to be exposed too, of course.
It all sounds very familiar. Thanks for spelling it out well Bill.
My favorite is when they throw out the line “Homosexuality is found in [insert random number] animal species, homophobia is only found in one”.
I thank them for proving my point. You see, there are numerous activities that are found in thousands of animal species, such as cannibalism, eating your own young, killing less dominant males etc. Humans are the only species to fully harness things like electricity, fire, metallurgy, medicine etc. So in essence what they are saying is that homosexuality is nothing more than base animal behaviour. What they call homophobia on the other hand, is the product of an intelligent brain that is capable of logical and rational thought.
Thanks to you, Bill, I have some good answers!
I am always confused about the term “repressed homosexual”, because it appears to have two separate meanings.
(1) A person who consciously has same sex erotic feelings, but has successfully resisted them. Now it is true that, for many people, the sins they have successfully resisted are the ones they are most sensitive to. The reverse is also the case: a lot of people find it easier to see the mote in their neighbour’s eye than the beam in their own. In any case, exactly what evidence is there that everybody who opposes homosexuality is a repressed homosexual?
(2) What Freud called a “covert homosexual”: someone who has so repressed his same sex erotic feelings that he is not even aware that he has them. But under such circumstances, how can anyone know if a person is a covert homosexual, or even whether such a person exists?
In any case, if a person states his case logically, I can’t see how it makes any difference whether he is a repressed anything. That’s why ad hominem arguments are considered fallacies.
Dear Bill, My thoughts on the term “homophobia”: the people who use that term are twisting the Greek language to suit their purposes. Any good English dictionary will tell you there are about 60 different phobias. All except one use the term “phobia” to mean fear, and only fear. The homosexual activists and their allies refuse to see the falsehood of using the term “homophobia”. Yours sincerely, Franklin
What gets me is that homosexual activists actually published their plan in a 1987 article called, “The Overhauling of Straight America”, and have fulfilled it down to the last detail: http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm
The authors wrote, “In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.”
And that’s exactly what they’ve done: censored the truth about their penchant for promiscuous and unhealthy sexual practices; and focussed on being portrayed in the media as just regular couples with pets.
Tellingly, the second author of this article (later expanded into a book), Hunter Madsen, used the pen name “Erastes Pill”. The words erastes is Greek for ‘lover’, and is the root of the word of pederasty.
Says it all about the ultimate goal, doesn’t it.
Ps. Well said, Graham.
I have heard the gay animal thing too. I have heard someone explain that dogs can be gay and go after other dogs etc. But I’ve seen dogs go after legs, stuffed toys and all sorts of things. Gay? Or just confused?
Great read and well written.
Homosexuals and lesbians reject heterosexual marriage, being personally repelled by intimacy with the opposite sex. Likewise heterosexuals reject same sex marriage being personally repelled by intimacy with the same sex. That’s not so say that gays and straights cannot respect each other and be friends. However it is becoming impossible to “live and let live” because of the vindictive animosity of homosexual activists against those who disagree with their agenda. A threat is posed to the welfare of children and future generations. Male/female attraction with the potential to conceive and raise a family and continue the survival of the human race is a fundamental of natural law but it is now considered offensive to affirm this. To remain silent or lukewarm is not an option.
The comments made here would make for a great addendum to your article, Bill. Would that I could memorize all of these well-phrased responses.
Point number 3 in which you’re accused of being a homosexual is hilarious. They accuse you of being homosexual, as though it’s some sort of insult. Ironic.
Bill, I too, am familiar with those 5 arguments.
I am glad you wrote this piece, it confirms those same arguments I’m used to hearing for the last couple decades. It’s almost like you’ve written a short thesis/abstract on that kind of human behavior. The arguments never seem to change apart from the 5 you’ve listed in the article.
Because of that, I’ve had the feeling that most pro homosexual folk read from some canned rehearsed script, something they must have prepared some decades ago, almost like some kind of convention that they may have attended decades ago.
I am under the impression that they control the media and the academic circle like the DSME publications. They never deviated from the wording, either in academic circles or verbal arguments, and they were quick to shut down after some carefully logical arguments to lovingly show them the error or their living; instead They stop listening to you, like some immature kid that puts his hands over his ears and says nah nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you..
It’s the same tiring arguments, and there is truly nothing new to add to the discussion.
Bill, a question out of curiosity, you have an astute understanding of human behavior, what is your background in human sciences?
I remember when i was about 18 – 19 yrs a then famous female blues singer and piano player (who’s name i cant recall) came to Australia to appear on the Don Lane show in Sydney. This lady was much hyped by Lane prior to her arrival and when she finally performed it was fantastic.
She had a pet saying that follows me when i go shopping for cloths, “think pink” She would extol this saying during and after each performance.
What a great slogan that would be for the gay lobby, can you imagine, finally instead of their rantings being just “black, black, black they could inject a modicum of the alternative color, then they would be “black pink, black pink, black pink how radical could that be?
Can I add a sixth – “The government shouldn’t be telling us who we can love”. I know a five year old who could punch holes in that one.
I have to agree, point three is a crack up.
I was at a conference yesterday where Andrew Comisky of Restore Hope, spoke. A British MP, Geraint Davies, who is trying to get a bill through Parliament that suppresses all forms of gay-to-straight reorientation therapy, was given the opportunity to address the meeting as well. The buzz phrases in his speech were: ‘the imposed goals of religious fundamentalists’, ‘cultural expectations of the heterosexual community’, and ‘100% of the evidence backs our (his) cause’.
A phobia is not just a fear, but is normally understood as an irrational fear. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists it as “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”. The U.S. MedlinePlus lists a phobia as “a type of anxiety disorder. It is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no real danger.”. So calling someone homophobic is not just accusing them of being afraid, but also of being irrationally so.
The person who coined the term “homophobia” meant it to be an irrational fear. See here for more.
Since Freud, “phobias” have had uncomfortable psychiatric implications: Is the fear of God “clean fear”, as Psalm 19 has it, or is it just another pathological “phobia”? What about those who somehow develop a fear and loathing of a thing called “sin”?
Clearly, the medicalising of legitimate fears into “phobias” has not a little to do with fearing man more than one fears God!
Your article is spot on. With regard to tactic number three, this seems to be an instance of the heuristic of representativeness described in cognitive psychology. The heuristic uncritically assumes that the cause is like the effect. A colourful example of this would be the yarn (or parody?) about the Freudian who, on observing a company of soldiers marching off to war and possible death, surmised that what drove them was the “Death Instinct”. That of course is pseudo-explanation. Human motivation is complex.
The main tactic of gay activists and apologists is to try and make you feel bad about questioning them or dissenting from their views. Usually the manipulation comes in the form of transparent clap trap about “homophobia”. The tactic is counterproductive and persuades no one. But let them continue as the manner of it compromises their case.
Further, John Wigg. A phobia is not essentially irrational. A true phobia is atavistic and centred on things in the environment that in our early human era could kill us. So we are afraid of heights, and of spiders and snakes or even being caught out in the open. It is rational to have regard for these and many other mild threats. However the difference is that of the many, many things that could kill us or harm us we have to have many exposures and learn in the usual human learning manner. With phobias we do not need that multi-exposure, learning. One single event or exposure can trigger a profound response, One that is accompanied by intense fear and a compulsion to escape.. Indeed, an associated event can trigger it. Rationality does not come into it at all, and neither does its opposite.
That is what sets a ‘phobia’ apart in a special category.
The suffix ‘phobia’ is grossly misused these days. It is used by the ignoratti to mean any fear at all – even irrational ones – and even things we simply do not like or take exception toward, like having particular ideas forced upon us, or the misuse of words. perhaps someone will accuse me of have phobia phobia.
We do not have fears, irrational or otherwise for taxi-cabs and martinis or bow ties. Or homosexuals.
Thanks for the article. It was very timely for me as I was just debating with someone online and they used four of the “rants” you described. (Unfortunately, in South Carolina we have a House democrat who filed a proposal that would allow same-sex couples who were married in other states to file joint state tax returns. This is despite the fact that South Carolina has a marriage amendment to its constitution stating that marriage is between a man and a woman)
However, the one that is thrown out most often is “equal right” even though they have the same rights as every other citizen. What they really want is extra rights and for society to approve of their behavior.
Also, I was wondering if you could point me to some of the best websites/articles that show the advantages of having a mother and a father. When debating it is often claimed that there is no difference for children being raise by heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. Thanks.
Thanks Brandon. There is plenty of info on the importance of the biological two-parent family. A summary of the data can be found in this two-part article:
And I write often on this issue, including in my forthcoming book. Some sites would include:
Only one thing to say here Bill, dumb and dumber!
The homosexual community also cries out against ‘bullying’ but it is their viscous attacks on any one who even hints at calling it ‘sin’ exposes their hypocrisy by their hatred.
The most natural creatures on the planet are animals and birds. Why aren’t they perverted like humans. Why aren’t they born with freaky sexual tendencies? Why aren’t some of them born with gay genes in them? Perhaps the gay brigade have an explanation.