Chapter 8
Christians Must Join the Debate on "Gay Rights:"
How to Prepare
|
Contents
Contra factum non valet argumentum.
"Arguing against facts is an exercise in futility."
Introduction.
Coming to Your Community Soon: The Battle. In the three decades of the fight over "gay rights," pro-family activists have learned a stern and painful lesson — that the battle will inevitably come to those who most desperately desire to avoid it.
This is not unjust, and it is not unfair. This is simply the way the world works because of our fallen human nature. Evil is insatiable; no matter how much ground it conquers, no matter how many millions of lives it ruins or destroys, it will inevitably continue to spread. It will never be appeased until it completely dominates or exterminates the good, because good and moral people will always plague the consciences of evil and immoral people. The only way to keep evil out of our nations, out of our cities, and out of our very souls is to constantly and energetically resist it.
If we fail to do this, we will have only ourselves to blame as evil pollutes and corrupts every aspect of our lives. The longer we wait to take concrete action, the harder the fight will be.
As the "gay rights" agenda inexorably progresses, Catholic adoption agencies are being forced by law to give children to homosexual "couples;" Protestant pastors are being jailed for preaching against sodomy; those who oppose homosexual "marriage" are losing their jobs and their livelihoods; and in some nations it is illegal to publicly say anything at all unfavorable about homosexuality.
The time to speak out is now — while it is still legal to do so! For if the homosexual rights agenda is allowed to progress beyond the censorship stage to the coercion stage, it will be too late. We will be forced to attend "gay pride" parades, as some have been compelled to do in Canada and Scotland. We will be forced to applaud homosexuality, as many school children and college students are now required to do. We will be forced to undergo homosexual-led brainwashing, as many government employees (including this author) have been obliged to do.
The cost of speaking out will be much, much higher if the "gay agenda" progresses much further.
|
The Many Benefits of Learning How to Debate. Over a period of many years, experienced pro-family debaters have developed and refined time-tested tactics that greatly increase their chances for success before the general public.
The ability to speak and reason logically is not only invaluable to the pro-family social movement in general, but is greatly beneficial to an individual's career and self-confidence.
It is critical that every pro-family (or anti-"gay rights") activist know how to debate the homosexual rights issue, even if he never plans to enter into formal debate with an opponent. This is important because, as soon as a person becomes known as an individual who opposes the "gay rights" agenda, people who have been indoctrinated by the secular media will come to him with objections, advice, and comments. These people will include family members, friends, co-workers, and fellow churchgoers.
Each person who hears the truth about the radical homosexual movement is one more person on the pro-family side, unless he is completely close-minded. Additionally, every pro-family activist who answers questions quickly and concisely makes a good impression on people, benefiting not only himself but the pro-family movement as well.
However, simply gathering information does nobody any good. What if a person studied medicine for years at the best medical college in the world, but then decided not to practice? The great mass of knowledge this person possessed after thousands of hours of study would not be of value to anyone unless it was applied in real life.
The same principle applies to learning the "gay rights" issue. In order for society and the family to benefit, you must get out there and put your knowledge and skills to work.
On the Other Side ... The average pro-family activist possesses a fairly high degree of self-discipline, in contrast to the average homosexual agitator, who is literally conditioned to expect both physical and mental gratification — instantly and with minimal effort. Most homophile activists have become sloppy and lazy in their logical reasoning as well as in their moral reasoning, because all that matters to them is achieving a comfortable lifestyle. They find it extremely difficult to rigorously and critically examine an issue, and so they become addicted to false assumptions, deceptive Newspeak, and slogans. Their thinking processes have become frozen. As Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel has said, "My experience is that the fanatic hides from true debate. The concept of dialogue is foreign to him. He knows how to speak in monologues only, so debate is superfluous to him."[2]
This is one reason a pro-family activist may find it so difficult to communicate with a person who is living the homosexual lifestyle or supporting it. We are trying to debate about ideas, while the homophile is relying on feelings, personal opinion and his own experiences. He is literally thinking and speaking at a lower level.
Homosexuals recognize this fact, and this is why it is rare for pro-family activists to find homophiles to debate in many areas of the country. The homophiles know for certain that they will lose any fair debate in an embarrassingly one-sided manner.
How to Prepare for Debate. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds events; and small minds people."
— Admiral Hyman Rickover.[3] The Value of a Good Debater. Accomplished debaters are essential to the pro-family movement.
They can shine the light of truth wherever they go. They are effective recruiters, because they can persuade sympathetic people to overcome their fears and join the battle. They can shift a pastor from the comfortable fence of neutrality onto the field of action. They can also influence the public by efficiently cutting through the thick curtain of homophile lies and half-truths.
The two types of missions that a pro-family activist will commonly encounter are recruiting and public debating; (1) The most essential mission for every pro-family activist is recruiting, because the movement must grow in order to survive. Virtually everyone who has pro-family beliefs has been intimidated by the tidal wave of homophile and media attacks on those who have opposed the "gay agenda." The message is everywhere — in movies, on television, on the radio, in the newspaper, on billboards — telling us that, if we do not fully embrace the homosexual lifestyle, then there is something wrong with us. We are "bigots." We are "backwards." We are "narrow-minded." We are "haters" and "homophobes." The message we must transmit to our family members, our fellow churchgoers, our co-workers and everyone else is: We don't have to put up with this garbage any more! We believe that the "gay agenda" is immoral, unhealthy and a grave threat to society and family. This is the correct and moral attitude and we must not be ashamed of it! (2) Some pro-family activists, once they learn the topic, may want to become involved in public debating, or presenting their views before groups of people with an opponent present. The material in the rest of this chapter applies primarily to public debate, but almost all of it applies to the essential mission of recruiting as well.
In order to become an accomplished debater or recruiter, you must learn two things: (1) the topic, and (2) debate tactics.
Topic Familiarization. A debater MUST know his topic! This vital point cannot be overemphasized. The best debater in the world will be useless if he doesn't know the facts.
If a person decides to focus on one life issue, he should study it extensively at first, and then consider himself to be a lifetime student in all of the life issues, since they are all intimately related. This does not mean that someone who decides to debate against "gay rights" must be a walking encyclopedia on abortion, euthanasia, and pornography. It does mean that he should be able to answer the most basic questions about them, since any debate on "gay rights," no matter how narrow its focus, will inevitably wander into related areas.
Your Advantage. Pro-family activists automatically have an insurmountable advantage over their pro-homosexual opponent, because the homophile position is basically indefensible.
In order to maximize the chances of decisively winning a debate, the pro-family debater must plan and prepare for the confrontation just as he would for any other type of mission. If he sufficiently practices and hones his debating skills, he will literally be guaranteed victory in each and every encounter with a homosexual activist.
The rules for debate and recruiting preparation and for actual debate and recruiting are listed below and are described in the following paragraphs. |
Rules for Debate and Recruiting
|
|
|
Rules for Debate and Recruiting Preparation (1) Know your mission. (2) Know your topic. (3) Know yourself. (4) Know your opponent or recruiting target. (5) Know your opponent's tactics or how your recruiting target is likely to react. (6) Know your audience (debate only). (7) Know the debating or recruiting environment. Tactics During Debate or Recruiting (1) Begin and conclude sharply. (2) Assume control (debate only, not for recruiting). (3) Stay on the subject. (4) Anticipate. (5) Repeat important points. (6) Listen effectively. (7) Use visual aids. (8) Don't argue. At All Times: Be an eternal student. |
|
|
Debate Preparation Rule #1: Know Your Mission.
Just as there is a broad mission for Christian activism as a whole (Matthew 28-19) and for everyone in general (to generally improve society), there is a narrower mission for each job a person sets out to accomplish. It is therefore mandatory that a pro-family activist know why he is debating a homophile.
The mission of a pro-family debater is not to make his homophile opponent appear ignorant, ridiculous or stupid, however tempting or easy this may seem. The mission is to make pro-family thinking appear reasonable in comparison to the homophile philosophy.
It is important to avoid persecuting your opponent, however justified this may seem at the time. Society usually sympathizes with the underdog, and if a pro-family activist appears to be browbeating his opponent, he will lose the debate in the eyes of his audience even if his facts and logic are unimpeachable.
Homosexuals in particular play upon public sympathy by constantly assuming the role of the victim. "Gays" constantly talk about how terrified and frightened they are by "brutal homophobic thugs" who "harass and intimidate" them and who are "part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to deprive gays and lesbians of their most basic human rights." Pro-homosexual debaters are usually mild-mannered, average-looking types — never a gross, obscene, leather-clad thug festooned with stickers like "MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL."
As homosexual strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book After the Ball; In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-aged women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays.
... it cannot go without saying, incidentally, that groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in such a campaign. Suspected child molesters will never look like victims.[4] This is just obvious good sense from a public relations standpoint. A pro-family activist will look like dirt if he verbally mugs Grandma or someone who looks like most of the people in the audience.
The best way to refute a homophile's lies or whining ploys for sympathy is with cold, hard facts. The pro-family debater should not be afraid to boldly and decisively disprove falsehoods and debunk slogans. He must be kind, but he must also be direct and relentless. Above all, he must remain logical and calm and might also try describing to the audience the tricks that his opponent is trying to foist off on them.
Debate Preparation Rule #2: Know Your Topic.
This is the second of the two absolutely mandatory preparation rules. If a person knows his topic, he may be able to overcome some of his other deficiencies during a debate. But nothing will save him if he doesn't have a firm grasp of the material!
It is human nature to ignore or avoid evidence that erodes or compromises one's position. As Simon and Garfunkel pointed out in their ballad The Boxer, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Therefore, since the vast majority of hard data and logic supports the pro-family position, the average pro-homosexual debater will be appallingly ignorant of even the basic facts and figures that every pro-family activist knows by heart. This can be a tremendous advantage for the pro-family debater, because his opponent will be forced to resort to empty slogans that are easy to refute.
The tactic of refuting a false statistic, bogus claim or jingoistic slogan quickly and cleanly with documented evidence is devastatingly effective, and a homophile will almost never be capable of regaining the initiative or momentum once a pro-family debater has sharply debunked one of his false statements in a debate. Nothing impresses an audience more than a person who can quickly and calmly disprove his opponent's claims with documented information.
This book contains the information you need to refute most of the common homophile slogans.
Debate Preparation Rule #3: Know Yourself.
Overview. This might sound like an obvious debate rule, but it is extremely important for a debater to know what his strengths and limitations are before he actually engages in "verbal combat," either against an opponent in a formal debate or simply during a friendly discussion with another person.
Many people are scared to death by the idea of debating in front of a crowd of hundreds of people. Some are even more terrified of speaking to a homosexual friend, relative or co-worker about his or her lifestyle. But every pilot, physician, teacher, and attorney who has ever lived has been nervous about practicing their trade the first few times.
Study and practice will give you determination and confidence. This is best accomplished in four general steps, as shown below.
Step (a): Study This Book. Chapters 2 through 7 of this book give detailed information regarding the objectives of the homosexual movement, the roots of the homosexual orientation, the strategies and tactics commonly used by pro-"gay" activists, AIDS, Church teachings on homosexuality, and the strong link between homosexual behavior and child sexual molestation.
If you want to debate intelligently on the topic of homosexual rights, you should carefully study these chapters for several hours before attempting to even discuss the topic with friends. In order to remain fresh and retain more material, it is a good idea to skim the entire book in one sitting to get a general sense of its contents, then carefully study one chapter per night for several nights running.
Step (b): Practice Debating With Friends. The second step is to practice your debating skills with others. It is generally possible to find a pro-family (or pro-life) friend who will agree to role play and be your opponent by randomly voicing the pro-homosexual arguments described elsewhere in this book. If a helper is not available, simply write the most common pro-homosexual arguments on 3X5 cards, put them in a box, and randomly pull them out and respond to them one by one until the box is empty, and repeat the process until you are comfortable with your level of knowledge.
The prospective debater may also practice at a special workshop or meeting before an audience consisting of several other pro-life and pro-family debaters, preferably including one or more with extensive experience. These people can give the beginning activist a lot of good, practical advice that will keep him from making many of the early mistakes that they may have.
It is a good idea to videotape these practice debates if possible. A person makes almost as great an impression on an audience with his appearance and mannerisms as he does with his actual speaking.
Step (c): Debate With Homophiles. After a person has had several hours of practice among friends, it is time to "toughen up" by experiencing the emotional and often illogical approach taken by a homophile person. You can do this most easily and effectively with relatives, friends or co-workers you know to be sympathetic to homosexual rights. The best way to begin is simply to ask a few basic questions and then offer your opinion. When you do this in a gentle and non-threatening way, you can practice, and may also gain a few converts.
Once you are confident of your skills and knowledge, you can participate in formal debates before audiences.
Step (d): Record Your Experiences. Every debater and recruiter should keep a log of his experiences in a notebook. The purpose is to identify errors in delivery and gaps in knowledge which can be eliminated in future debates. It might also be useful to record pertinent information about debating opponents for future use.
Persevere! Debating takes practice, but eventually the proper facts and paths of thinking will come to you as naturally as breathing!
Debate Preparation Rule #4: Know Your Opponent.
General Principles. A pro-family debater can gain another advantage by researching his opponent's personal background and the attitudes, attributes, actions and background of the organization(s) he is a member of.
The important thing to remember here is that all sources used should be generally available to the public. Anyone who employs rumors or hearsay may be liable to legal action for slander or libel. Remember that homosexuals are notoriously litigation-happy and frequently use the courts as a handy weapon to squelch dissenting views. Rumors and hearsay can be useful, but only as pointers to further research.
The best way to approach the task of researching your opponent's background is to obtain back issues of the newsletters from the groups your opponent is a member of. Virtually every homophile group has them. You can subscribe to them yourself, look them up on the Web, obtain them from a friend who is on their mailing list, or even go to the organization's office to do research.
Information On Opponents. It is relatively easy to find personal information on the handful of better-known homophile debaters. Homosexuals love to pat each other on the back (it's all part of their mutual "empowerment" and their siege mentality), and when a new staffer signs on or leaves, their organizational newsletter will describe the person's history in detail and lavishly praise him or her. If the debate is important enough, the pro-family debater may want to call pro-family groups in cities where the opponent has previously served in pro-"gay" groups. Homosexuals frequently serve in pro-abortion and other anti-life groups, so information may be found in the publications of these organizations as well.
Any information included as part of a debate presentation must be documented from sources generally available to the public. Hearsay information and rumors may be useful for personal strategizing, and it frequently points to promising areas of research, but shouldn't be presented to the public in any form.
Look for clues regarding your opponent's upbringing. Is the person from a Catholic family? Why did he or she get involved in pro-"gay" activism in the first place? Can you glean some good radical quotes from their organization's newsletters that will provide insight? If they are well-known, try searching for their name on the Internet, and download and read any articles they may have written.
The pro-homosexual debater will very often trot out a "victim" story about a friend or relative who has been "brutalized" by "homophobic, right-wing fanatics." Since the vast majority of these stories are fabricated (as shown in Chapter 4), it may be possible to decisively discredit your opponent if you can show that his or her story is false. If the story is true, and centers on a person who was genuinely a crime victim, there should be plenty of information on the incident available on the Internet, since all such crimes are trumpeted by the "gay rights" movement as evidence that more and more hate crimes laws are necessary.
As an example of how damaging such information can be, one Oregon lesbian, Azalea Cooley, greatly embarrassed her movement after carefully building a complete life centered around disability and victimhood (including more than a score of officially-recorded hate crimes). Police eventually discovered that she had staged all of the hate crimes herself, and that she was not even handicapped to begin with!
Chapter 4 describes the Cooley case and other homosexual hate crime fabrications.
Information On Your Opponent's Organization. Details on your opponent's organization(s) are often just as important as personal information on him. Look for general policy statements, bizarre and indefensible quotes, and unsavory activities on both the national and local levels.
Have ACT-UP or Queer Nation publicly denounced physical attacks and vandalism on Catholic and conservative churches? If not, why not? How do they feel about the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? What about "bug chasers," men who want to be infected with HIV? Do they feel that the gigantic amount of money swallowed up by AIDS research to the detriment of all other disease research is justified? Have members of their homophile organization physically attacked anyone in the past? Have they sued local pro-family activists or organizations and perjured themselves in court? Court records and transcripts are generally available in law libraries and from local pro-family attorneys who have been involved in specific cases.
Perform all of this research with the objective of continually keeping your opponent on the defensive by pointing out the many inconsistencies and falsehoods that are inescapable features of the homophile philosophy.
Debating Styles. Your level of aggressiveness will depend largely upon your opponent's debating style. Debaters from within each individual homophile organization seem to be stamped from the same mold, but style sometimes differs greatly from group to group.
If you are going up against a person from Queer Nation, the Lesbian Community Project, or ACT-UP, you will find that they are usually very aggressive and employ very abrasive and extreme language. In such cases, you may want to assume a somewhat defensive posture at first. In this manner, you can allow your opponent to give you the rope you need to hang him verbally. He will almost certainly make silly remarks that you can immediately attack.
Nothing impresses people like an effective counterattack.
If you decide to try this tactic, just be certain that your opponent does not hog all of your debating time.
Try a different debating style if you are facing someone from the American Civil Liberties Union or someone from an ultraliberal denomination like the United Church of Christ or the Metropolitan Community Churches. These people are highly experienced in the use of Newspeak, feel-good slogans and soothing language. They will prattle on for minutes at a time on topics that are irrelevant to the debate, and are absolute masters at avoiding the messier and more embarrassing aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. It won't be long before you feel like your opponent is trying to smother you with words.
If you are debating a person who uses this tactic, go on the offense immediately. Keep the pressure on, and try to grab as much of the debating time as possible. If given the opportunity, your opponent will ramble on pointlessly and consume all of the available time.
Remember, when you go up against a homophile debater, emphasize to the audience that he or she is talking about feelings, opinions and personal experience, all of which prove absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, you are giving your listeners hard facts and statistics upon which they may base their opinions. It often helps to point this out to your audience several times during a debate.
Debate Preparation Rule #5: Identify Your Opponent's Debating Tactics.
Overview. There are two sides to every contest — the offense and the defense, and both are essential for victory. Any armed force, sports squad, legal team or individual that emphasizes one to the detriment of the other will have to depend upon pure luck in order to win.
Pro-family debaters must not only be familiar with effective offensive debating tactics, they must be able to recognize and counter the tactics commonly used by homosexual activists.
No matter what variations they assume, there are basically only five primary homophile debating tactics. When a pro-family debater becomes familiar with them to the point of being able to identify them immediately when they are used, he will enjoy a great advantage in any discussion.
The five basic homophile debating tactics are outlined below and are described in the following paragraphs. |
The Five Homophile Debating Tactics
|
|
|
(1) Simple Diversion (2) Personal Attacks (a) Stereotypical Labeling (b) Guilt by Association (c) Questioning Motivations (d) Allegations of Inconsistency (3) Appeals to Ignorance (4) Appeals to the People (a) Appeal to the Emotions (b) Appeal to Prejudice (c) Appeal to Sympathy (d) Appeal to Self-Interest (5) Muddy the Waters |
|
|
Homophile Debate Tactic #1: Simple Diversion. When one possesses an inherently weak position in any contest, it is necessary to resort to trickery and deception in order to win. The most common and effective tactic employed by the weaker party in any debate is simple diversion of attention.
The homophile knows that the best he can do against an experienced pro-family debater is to break even. He also knows that the easiest way to salvage a tie in the debate is to drag a series of tangential or irrelevant topics into the discussion. These topics have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or "gay rights." The homophile brings them up in an attempt to distract the attention of the audience during a debate.
In summary, if the homophile can appear to be reasonable when offering facts that nobody can dispute — on a topic unrelated to homosexuality — he can then expect that this reasonableness will transfer over to his position on "gay rights" in the minds of the audience. The members of the audience will walk away and make the connection between the homophile's position on "gay rights" and his logical and concise presentation on topics that have nothing at all to do with homosexuality. The product of this connection will be the vague feeling that the homophile position is somehow superior.
Every pro-homosexual slogan is based upon the desire to divert attention away from central topics. Some actual examples of the homophile debating tactic of simple diversion are listed below.
• A publicity flyer for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) switches the focus from pedophilia to freedom and victimhood by claiming that "There is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children."[5] • Homosexual propagandists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill recommend a poster that accuses pro-family activists of being homosexuals themselves. Its obvious intent is to intimidate and to put the pro-family debater on the defensive. It says
"IF YOU GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PICK ON GAYS, PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE A NAME FOR YOU ...
... LATENT HOMOSEXUAL.
There was a time, years ago, when people could hide their own homosexual tendencies by loudly attacking other gays in public. But not anymore. These days, when you harass gay people, it just puts the spotlight of suspicion on you.
So maybe you'd better mind your own business, unless you want others to think that homosexuality is your business!"[6] The only way to counter such diversions is to forcibly and immediately drag the debate back to the topic of discussion. It may be tactically prudent to dwell on the subject for one or two sentences, but the primary objective of the pro-family debater is to press the fundamental issues.
Homophile Debate Tactic #2: Personal Attacks. This tactic consists of attacking a person or his organization instead of his moral or logical position. Instead of talking about the issues, the pro-homosexual debater attempts to distract audience attention, usually by appealing to stereotypes.
Ad hominem arguments generally fall into four categories: (a) stereotypical labeling, (b) guilt by association, (c) calling the pro-family activist's motivations into question, and (d) alleging inconsistency.
Examples of these arguments follow.
(a) Stereotypical Labeling. Homophiles commonly describe themselves as champions of the civil rights of everyone — except, of course, the civil rights of those persons who disagree with them.
Homophiles are accomplished word police. They loudly and strenuously object when anyone else engages in stereotypical, discriminatory, or racist labeling. In fact, homophiles lobby constantly to have such labeling declared "hate crimes," and have actually succeeded on many fronts. For example, at Yale, Dartmouth, and many other universities, any student who dares call a homosexual a "fag" or a "queer" will immediately be dismissed from the university.
However, homophile activists feel perfectly justified in using stereotypical labeling against Christians and conservatives, and this will usually occur several times during an average debate. This tactic almost always includes an appeal to the prejudices of the members of the audience.
|
These are a few actual examples of homophile stereotypical labeling;
• "Well, you just think that way because you are a Catholic [or a fundamentalist]." • "I will not be dictated to by a Bible-thumping religious fanatic." • "You are a hate-filled, bigoted, ignorant queer-basher." Countermeasures. The best way to counter these attacks is to patiently point out to the audience that the homophile debater is engaging in unjustified and judgmental stereotyping and pigeonholing. If the homosexual continues to stereotype the pro-family activist, he should simply pause each time and point out the tactic. When this has been done several times, the audience will begin to get the idea and the pro-homosexual debater will begin to feel the heat of disapproval from the observers who can see through his hypocrisy.
Perhaps the pro-family debater could simply write down the epithets thrown at him by his opponent and read them all at the end of the debate, asking "Now, who's being judgmental here?"
(b) Guilt By Association. One of the most effective ploys used by homophile debaters is guilt by association. He will describe the most extreme actual (or, more often, fictional) pro-family character he possibly can and will then attempt to convince an audience that all pro-family activists share that person's philosophy, beliefs, and actions.
These are a few examples of homosexual guilt by association; • "You homophobes are all violent fanatics. You people kill, harass, and discriminate against gays and lesbians. You are all guilty of the murder of Matthew Shepard." • "Hitler and his Nazis were homophobes too. You're just as bad, trying to take away the most basic human rights of gays and lesbians just because of their sexual orientation." • "The Catholic Church was guilty of mass murder during the Inquisition and is now guilty of killing thousands of "gays" because of its opposition to 'safe(r) sex.'" Countermeasures. If a homophile debater insists on using this tactic, it is only fair that the pro-family activist be allowed to do the same. Of course, this will result in shouts of outrage from your opponent, which will highlight his blatant hypocrisy.
For example, the pro-family debater could describe the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), pointing out that it is welcomed with open arms at large "Gay Pride" parades, and then show with statistics that a very large percentage homosexuals are child molesters (see Chapter 5 for this information).
The purpose of this "retaliatory stereotyping" is, of course, to incite a reaction from the homophile and then point out that he does not seem to like the very tactic that he is fond of using — when it is directed against him. This demonstrates that spoiled homophiles love to dish it out, but definitely can't take it.
(c) Questioning Motivations. If a homophile can convince an audience that the motivations of pro-family groups or people are evil or somehow a threat to the public, he has won the debate.
People seem very eager to believe the worst about Christians in particular. Fortunately, pro-family activists, unlike homosexuals, work for the good of society — not for themselves.
Therefore, homophiles must use extreme language and very nebulous and false charges to make their points.
Examples; • The National Committee for Gay Civil Rights, in its position paper "This is Our Creed," aggressively uses unsubstantiated and undefined terms to label and stereotype any individuals who happened to disagree with the "gay agenda," regardless of their motivations; "We believe every individual or group which condemns homosexuality as wrong or sinful is guilty of bigotry ... We condemn all groups — religious or otherwise — who preach sexual bigotry and discrimination ... We condemn those misguided parents who impose their homophobic prejudices upon their children ... We condemn all those who presume to pass judgment on others."[7] • Julianne Ross Davis, former general counsel for the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), attacked the American Family Association in an address to the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. She charged that "The American Family Association ... has a 24-point political agenda it would like to see attained by the year 2000. It includes the elimination of democracy, elimination of public schools, advocates that astrologers, adulterers, blasphemers, homosexuals, and incorrigible children be executed, preferably by stoning. That's one of our enemies. This is true."[8] • Senator Edward Kennedy committed an all-time classic during Judge Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court confirmation lynching; "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."[9] • Dennis and Judy Shepard said that "Anyone that believes that the hatred behind this [Federal Marriage] amendment is any different than the hatred that was the cause of our son's murder is fooling themselves and doesn't understand what is happening every day in our society" [10] Countermeasures. There are several simple ways to respond to these spurious charges — by pointing out the absurdity of the allegations, showing how the homophile is insulting the beliefs of pro-family members of the audience, and by demanding proof by asking (several times, if necessary) the question "How do you know that?" It also helps, once again, to show that the homophile is stereotyping all of those people who do not happen to agree with his philosophy.
(d) Allegations of Inconsistency. Other than freedom, "diversity" and privacy, a homophile's highest good is consistency. If he can somehow "prove" that the pro-family debater is "inconsistent" (by "showing" that all pro-family people are inconsistent), he will plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience.
Examples; • "You homophobes are inconsistent because you say you want everyone to have equal rights, but withhold those same basic rights from gays and lesbians." • "You homophobes say that marriage for homosexuals will destroy the institution, yet half of your marriages end in divorce." • "You homophobes are inconsistent because you decry violence in general, but are mute when it comes to condemning violence against gays and lesbians." • "You are inconsistent because you are disgusted by explicit gay literature, but straights have many more pornographic magazines in circulation than gays do." Countermeasure. Homophile charges of "inconsistency" are always based upon bogus or doctored statistics. The best way to defend against allegations of inconsistency is simply to produce statistics that show that the allegations are false. Alternatively, the pro-family debater could simply dismiss the homosexual's charges as stereotyping and demand proof of his allegations.
The statistics and sources necessary to debunk these and other bogus pro-homosexual allegations are available in other chapters of this book.
Homophile Debate Tactic #3: The Appeal to Ignorance. When a person states as fact biased views or statistics that cannot immediately be refuted, he gains points by appearing to be an expert in the field. This is one of the most common tactics used by all anti-life debaters, whether they be homosexuals, pornographers, euthanasiasts, or pro-abortionists. Some examples follow. • "More than 90 percent of all pedophilia is committed by "straights"." • "AIDS is not a "gay disease." Most people who currently contract the disease are heterosexuals, drug users, and hemophiliacs." • "Making condoms freely availability to teens, especially through school-based health clinics, will drastically cut down on the epidemics of teen AIDS and teen pregnancy." • "Public opinion polls have consistently shown that Americans support gay rights by a 78% majority. Homophobes are a small and vocal minority." • "Most church denominations support civil rights for gays." The decisive response to these allegations, of course, is to produce quotes or statistics (preferably by homophiles or medical sources) that refute the opposing debater's views.
If you have an opportunity to do this, you can call the dependability of the homosexual debater's information into question repeatedly during the remainder of the debate.
You can decisively disprove all of the above pro-homosexual falsehoods — and many others — with the facts and statistics contained in this book.
Homophile Debate Tactic #4: Appeal to the People. Homophiles always use emotion and hyperbole to appeal to the feelings of an audience and bring it to their side without actually demonstrating the validity of their position. This is known as the "appeal to the people," which generally takes one or more of three distinct approaches; (a) The appeal to the emotions; (b) The appeal to sympathy; and (c) The appeal to self-interest. (a): The Appeal to Emotions. Under normal circumstances, an experienced debater will only resort to an appeal to emotion (as opposed to an appeal to logic) if he feels that he has no other recourse. By contrast, a pro-"gay rights" debater will generally begin appealing to the emotions of the audience at the very beginning of a debate.
The urge to appeal to the emotions is extremely strong in homophiles. All a pro-family activist needs to do is pick up any piece of homosexual literature at random, and he will see the twin themes of appeal to fear and appeal to anger run strong in the author's writing. This is true not only of local homosexual publications, but of national homophile newspapers and journals as well.
Some of the more common examples; • "We will never go back to the days of the closet, where gays could be discriminated against at will, beaten up and harassed, and even killed by homophobes without the slightest fear of punishment." • "Now that gays and lesbians are gaining civil rights, the homophobes perceive us as a threat to their so-called "family values" of hate, bigotry, and discrimination, and are engaging in a systematic campaign of vicious backlash against us." • "The government has deliberately held back testing drugs that could help stem the spread of AIDS and relieve the symptoms of AIDS sufferers. AIDS research funds are being slashed on all levels under the guise of "cost savings." We gays are being subjected to a campaign of brutal genocide just like that carried out in Rwanda!"
(b): The Appeal to Sympathy. One of the strongest themes in pro-homosexual and other anti-life thought is the oppressor/oppressed juxtaposition. Anti-lifers correctly perceive that, if they can paint themselves as helpless and brutalized "victims," they will go a long way towards winning a debate, regardless of how shabby their actual presentation is. Seeking the "victim mentality" is a cornerstone of the overall anti-life strategy as well (see Chapter 4 for an analysis of this tactic as used by homophiles).
Some examples of the appeal to sympathy;• "Gays are being oppressed by well-funded right-wing ideological groups. We just cannot match their expenditures of money and domination of the media." • "All we gays and lesbians want is the same rights that everyone else has — the right to have a job, to own a house, to take a vacation every once in a while. What "agenda" are they talking about?" • "Gays and lesbians are victims of hideous psychological torture and hate crimes one hundred times more often that straights are. It is ludicrous for anyone to suggest that gays recruit, because we suffer so much just for being ourselves." Countermeasures. These homophile arguments are generalized and overblown "hard cases" that are based on anecdotal events that are, statistically, very rare indeed.
The most decisive way to rebut these "hard case" scenarios is to show how rare hate crimes against homosexuals really are; • Based on FBI statistics, the probability of any individual homosexual becoming the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is about one percent. In other words, only one in 72 homosexuals are ever victims of hate crimes over the span of their entire lives.[11] Remember, though, that homophiles don't go by FBI definitions; they think that acts as trivial as having an anti-"gay-rights" bumpersticker on one's car are hate crimes. • If a homosexual had an unlimited lifespan, he or she would only be the victim of a hate crime once every four thousand years.[12] • Interestingly (and we never hear about this!), "gays" are just as likely to commit hate crimes against "straights" as "straights" are to commit hate crimes against "gays." FBI figures show that there are 3.96 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against homosexuals, and 4.04 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals.[13] |
FBI Statistics on Hate Crimes Committed Against
Self-Described Homosexuals and Heterosexuals, 2001-2005
|
Annual Hate Crimes
Committed Against: |
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
| Averages,
2001-2005 |
|
|
Male Homosexuals | 980 | 825 | 783 | 738 | 621 | 789 |
Lesbians | 205 | 172 | 187 | 164 | 155 | 177 |
Homosexuals (no sex given) | 173 | 222 | 247 | 245 | 195 | 216 |
Bisexuals | 17 | 15 | 8 | 17 | 25 | 16 |
Total "Anti-Gay" | 1,375 | 1,234 | 1,225 | 1,164 | 996 | 1,198 |
Total "Anti-Straight" | 18 | 10 | 14 | 33 | 25 | 20 |
|
|
(c): The Appeal to Self-Interest. Think about it for a minute: Anti-lifers push their agendas for purely selfish reasons. Pro-abortionists support the absolute availability of unlimited abortion just in case they might need it themselves someday, or so they can exploit women and send them to the abortion mills when something goes wrong. Peddlers of obscenity plead for First Amendment rights so they can continue to exploit women (and often children) and rake in lots of cash. And homosexuals crave special privileges so they can continue to practice their deadly lifestyle unfettered by any restraint whatsoever and, when they contract deadly diseases, demand loudly that the government rescue them.
Homophiles tend to assume that virtually everyone else is like them, and so the appeal to the selfish streak in every person comes naturally to them.
Some examples of the appeal to self-interest;
• "The inclusion of gays and lesbians under domestic partnership laws will allow them to take advantage of benefits that have, until now, only been available to straight married couples. The indirect effect of such inclusion will be a healthier job corps and lower taxes." • "Laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians constitute an egregious violation of the separation of church and state and seek to impose a particular religious viewpoint on all men and women, regardless of their sexual orientation or ethical beliefs. The homophobes will go after so-called "unnatural" acts by heterosexuals next, mark my words!" • "Freedom of choice is in the best traditions of America and the Constitution. If you let these homophobic creeps take away the freedom to practice one's sexuality as one chooses today, they will be under your bed tomorrow." Countermeasures. The best way to reply to the appeal to self-interest is to demonstrate to the audience how the pro-homosexual debater is twisting his facts to suit his conclusions. The pro-family activist can also appeal to self-interest while doing so.
For example, he could point out that "domestic partnership" laws actually increase the burden on already-strained retirement systems, and that they dilute the definition of "family," which will ultimately take benefits away from people who have already sacrificed greatly to sustain real marriages.[14]
A debater can also point out that, as the support of homosexuality becomes more and more ingrained in government programs, all taxpayers are going to be forced to subsidize a lifestyle that most Americans find revolting in the extreme. Additionally, homosexuals and bisexuals suffer from an extremely unhealthy lifestyle and a greatly shortened life expectancy, and thus encouraging this manner of living in any way is going to be hugely expensive in the long run.
Finally, a pro-family activist can point out that the billions of dollars spent on AIDS research and care is hugely out of proportion to the number of people who suffer from the disease, leaving other research grossly underfunded. Yet the homosexuals demand more and more and more money, without bothering to change their lifestyles one bit.
Homophile Debate Tactic #5: Muddy the Waters. Another common debating tactic used by homophiles is the explanation of a relatively simple concept by using obscure or difficult concepts, thereby guaranteeing that the original idea cannot be understood. He is betting that members of the audience (and his debating opponent) will be too timid to question his "logic" for fear of appearing ignorant or "homophobic." The objective, of course, is not to seek the truth, but to obscure it.
Of course, if the homophile debater can convince his audience that there is really no way to answer a moral question such as the origins of "sexual orientation" — essentially by expanding the moral "grey area" to cover all possible situations — he has won the debate, because he has convinced his listeners that any solution is correct. In other words, he has gotten the audience to accept situational ethics.
Common examples of this kind of "mystagoguery" employed by homophiles are shown below. • "A person is born with his or her sexual orientation. Recent studies have shown that this condition is genetic, or inbred. Therefore, it is unconscionable that some people will discriminate based upon a characteristic that people have no control over. Since homosexuality is genetic, and since scientists have only identified a few human genes with great difficulty, it is probable that this will never be fully proven — we must rely on common sense and current studies in this matter." • "Paedophilia is an almost non-existent kind of crime ... For instance, they use words like "child molestation." What is that? Nobody knows. "Abuse of children?" Are they talking about boxing them against the ear or hitting them with a stove pipe? Are they talking about tickling them a little? Are you talking about fondling?" — Alfred Kinsey's photographer, Dr. Clarence Tripp.[15] The best way to reply to this tactic is to point out that such "logic" simply does not transfer to other situations and is therefore invalid.
For example, what homosexuals are saying with the "genetics" argument is that a complete cluster of certain behaviors — which include sodomy and even more unspeakable perversions — are inbred. Yet, when it comes to another behavior associated with homosexuality — child sexual molestation — they vigorously deny that it is genetic, even though it is committed by homosexuals at a much greater rate than other people, as proven in Chapter 6. In other words, homophiles should not be allowed to get away with their claim that some types of homosexual behavior are genetic, while others are not.
The ultimate answer to any of these homophile attempts to complicate the issue is this: If a person cannot grasp the implications of what he is doing, then he should not proceed. We must always err on the side of safety and of life. Pro-abortionists would have us believe that the combined power of all of the greatest minds in the world cannot determine when human life begins — but that somehow, each and every woman can. And homosexuals would have us accept that they should be free to commit any perversion or violence they want to, despite the obviously dangerous nature of such acts, and despite their huge damage and impact on society in general.
Debate Preparation Rule #6: Know Your Audience.
Presenting Before Biased or Hostile Audiences. Knowing the character of your audience is extremely important, because your tactics and general emphasis should be tailored to fit the background of those people you are trying to reach with your message. You should know what your audience's interests and preconceptions are, and appeal forcefully to them.
For example, if you are debating on a community radio station that has a generally liberal audience, you will not want to spend a lot of time quoting Scripture to them. Such listeners couldn't care less about what the Bible has to say, unless they are trying to selectively quote verses to undermine your position. Modern-day liberals are usually converted by their concept of logic — not preaching. Pro-family activists must play to the self-image the audience has — that of open-minded and fair "freethinkers."
You must convince your audience that your opponent is everything he claims that you are: Inconsistent, rigid and judgmental (the three liberal capital sins). Hammer away at your opponent's obvious inconsistencies: That homosexuals claim to support free speech for everyone, but ruthlessly suppress speech they do not like; that alleged "committed" homosexual "marriages" last an average of 18 months (and most "partners" cheat on their "spouses" during this short time span); and the characterization of homosexuality as a "healthy alternative" lifestyle that chops an average of two decades off a person's life (see Chapter 2).
If you are speaking before a live audience, make sure that there will be a generous question/answer session at the end of the panel or debate. There is nothing more advantageous to the pro-family position than answering a barrage of hostile questions calmly, logically, and expertly.
It may also help to have a few pro-family activists planted in the audience for the purpose of asking you questions that appear to be hostile, but are really preplanned "puffballs" that address the most basic points of the homophile philosophy. For example, if the subject of the frequency of "hate crimes" has not been covered, have your pro-family "plant" ask you about all of those thousands of hate crimes committed against homosexuals each year. Then you can answer by using FBI figures showing that there are very small numbers of actual "hate crimes" committed against homosexuals each year, and that, statistically speaking, the average homosexual would have to live four thousand years before becoming the victim of a hate crime, as described earlier.
It is sometimes extremely difficult to make any points before a hostile audience that has already made up its collective mind, especially if that audience is liberally sprinkled with hooting and cursing homophiles.
The pro-family debater may find himself in the middle of what he thinks is a reasoned statement, and suddenly, there it is — the groans, the shaking heads, the rolling eyes — the Pavlovian, knee-jerk, anti-intellectual reaction so typical of the closed mind. People who react in this manner have not had enough time to think about what has just been said; they are displaying a conditioned reaction. They have been trained by society and by their peers to instantly respond in the politically correct manner.
Such a cause and effect is as simple and unthinking as a starving dog salivating at the smell and sight of raw meat.
This mindset is obviously very dangerous. People so afflicted can be immediately seduced and controlled by the popular viewpoint without really knowing what is happening — but they are firmly convinced all the time that they are correct. They are the foot soldiers of oppression and they do not even know it. They are effectively shielded from reality by their thick idea filters.
Presenting Before Neutral Audiences. If you are speaking before Kiwanis or businessmen in the City Club, you may want to emphasize the deleterious demographic effects of homosexuality on their businesses (i.e., "domestic partnership" ordinances and other laws that forbid insurance companies from inquiring about their applicant's lifestyles, thereby allowing homosexuals with AIDS to hitch a free ride at their expense). Give them a statistical handout on the financial impacts of the homosexual lifestyle that they can follow while you speak and take home with them for further study. Emphasize the huge health care costs inflicted by homosexual behavior on everyone, and accentuate the fact that this behavior is not "victimless," because everyone is forced to pay for it, and thousands of victims of heart disease and cancer die each year because such a disproportionate amount of money goes to AIDS research.
If you are speaking at a church, research the attitudes of the pastor and his congregation. If you are addressing a missionary church, emphasize that homosexuals are lost souls that need rescuing, and plead for volunteers, stressing their Biblical duty under Proverbs 24:11.
If your audience is from a comfortable church whose members don't seem to want to get too "fanatical," try to get them involved in activities that are more "socially acceptable" — such as voter registration or your speaker's bureau. Once they get into the pro-family movement, they will gradually realize how serious the "gay rights" threat really is and will begin to discern what other useful avenues of action are open to them.
If the church seems to be a hopeless case, you might have to settle for asking for donations. You may later be able to recruit those who are interested enough to contribute funds to the pro-family cause.
Debate Preparation Rule #7: Know the Debating Environment.
The most important part of your debating environment is the moderator, if there is one. Find out about this person's attitudes and personality. Is he hostile to those who oppose "gay rights?" Does he have some pro-homosexual slogan (i.e., "ten percent") that he insists on repeating over and over, despite the evidence? If he is really a hard-core homophile, you will basically be debating two people at once. This can be difficult, but if you can disprove the hostile moderator's arguments early or point out how biased and unfair he is being, you may get him to stop persecuting you. You will also gain sympathy from the audience if you are outnumbered two-to-one.
It is also a good idea to pre-inspect the area where you will be debating. Arrive at least a half-hour early. Make sure that any required audio-visual equipment is in place and working. You may want to use a blackboard. Ensure that adequate seating is available. You may be able to display your literature near the entrance to the room.
Have a helper attend to this material or it will always "mysteriously" disappear.
If you are early enough, take the best chair and get the feel of it. Arrange your reference materials (if any) so that you have easy access to them.
Prepare yourself, review your opening arguments, sip some water (but not too much for obvious reasons), and get comfortable.
The Four Basic Pro-Family Debating Tactics.
Introduction. The above rules apply to preparation for debate. The rest of this chapter is devoted to the tactics that you will use in actual debating or recruiting.
The "gay rights" debate is very similar to the controversies over the other life issues. On one side is the pro-family position, which has all the facts that the public doesn't want to hear. On the other side are the homosexuals, which have few facts, but a cascade of soothing, comforting, enervating words that the public does want to hear.
This means that the pro-family side has one great advantage and one great disadvantage in a debating environment: It has the truth, but it must present this truth in a manner that will convert people — and this process requires a considerable psychological investment on the part of the audience. Therefore, the pro-family debater must be especially convincing.
When arguing against "gay rights," it is generally advisable to initially take the defensive (responsive) position. If you simply speak the truth, it will not have as great an impact on an audience as having someone else lie and use empty slogans and then having you aggressively debunk them.
There are basically four ways to respond to pro-homosexual argumentation: (1) Refutation;
(2) Clarification;
(3) Parallelism; and
(4) Extrapolation. These methods, and examples of each, are described below.
(1) Refutation. To refute an argument means to expose it as a lie in the most direct manner possible. This is the simplest and best way to make points during a debate.
You will have several chances to refute during a typical pro-family/homophile debate, and you should seize any opportunity and make the most of it. To expose a pro-homosexual debater as a liar is to destroy his credibility with a large segment of the audience. Keep in mind, however, that you will never sway the hard-core "gay rights" supporters who are listening, because their reasoning processes have become so hardened and inflexible.
A classic example of refutation in a pro/anti-family debate revolves around the question of hate crimes. This is an actual example of an exchange that took place in Oregon in 1986; Homophile Debater: "Gays and lesbians are being victimized by an explosion of vicious hate crimes. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force recorded more than a thousand anti-gay hate crimes in Oregon alone last year, including two savage murders."
Pro-Family Debater: "That sounds very impressive, except that your definition of "hate crime" includes anti-"gay" graffiti, vandalism of lawn signs, and even wearing a pro-family T-shirt! If you want the real figures on so-called "hate crimes," the Portland Police Bureau recorded exactly 65 cases of assault or threats against homosexuals last year — so you are deliberately exaggerating by a factor of more than 1,500 percent! By the way, as most people know, the two people who were murdered were killed by mistake by someone who was out to get two other men, so you can drop that particular piece of fiction.
"You apparently do not trust the people in the audience to think for themselves if you have to give them bogus facts." Refutation is particularly effective when you can show your audience that your opponent has been caught in this same lie several times before. This shows listeners that your opponent is not only being hardheaded, but dishonest as well.
(2) Clarification. Sometimes a homophile will make a statement that literally cannot be answered because it is so broad in scope. Your job is to get him to clarify his statement so that you can respond effectively.
The replies you can use in virtually any case are, "What do you mean by that?," "How do you know that?," or "Where's your proof?" You can use these simple, inoffensive statements to paint your opponent into a corner in very short order, and to make several points of your own, as shown below; Homophile Debater: "You homophobes are so hung up on your repressed sexuality that you just naturally resort to violence."
Pro-Family Debater: "What do you mean by that? Are you accusing me or my organization of doing something violent?" (to the audience): "You can see what my opponent is trying to do here. He is stereotyping my entire movement with the same characteristics as a few extreme people. If I did the same thing to him, such as calling him a sexually perverted child molester, he would scream his head off." Since the homophile debater starts out his line of "reasoning" with an obviously false statement, you should be able to make him look foolish by simply demanding proof. The words "How do you know that?" are all that you need. Your opponent will be forced to try and change the subject, or lay a smoke screen in the hope that the audience will forget his original silly statement.
Don't let your opponent get away — keep after him!
(3) Parallelism. This is the most common powerful tactic pro-family debaters can use to expose illogical homophile arguments. It is an extremely effective technique of "verbal karate:" It will turn your opponent's arguments against him.
Only the logic of a good argument will stand the test of being properly applied to a wide variety of situations. Parallelism consists of simply applying your opponent's reasoning to a similar situation in a different context, and showing how illogical his reasoning really is.
Parallelism can also be used to illustrate your point to the audience, just as Jesus used parables to teach His disciples.
Remember that the pro-homosexual debater is well-schooled in the technique of using Newspeak. Your opponent has no real facts to back him up, so he will use feel-good words and slick-sounding slogans that will sound very good to the audience if you do not challenge them. As every law student learns, "If you have the facts on your side, talk about them. If you don't have the facts on your side, talk about something else." Your opponent will make an appeal to such all-American concepts as freedom, choice, diversity and autonomy. Your job is to show that these lines of reasoning do not stand on their own merits. Homophile Debater: "You seem to be fascinated by gay culture and gay sex. Why do you spend so much time on it? Could it be that you are a closet gay yourself? That must be it! We know that many anti-gays and homophobes are just trying to resist their inborn urges by bashing other gays. You hypocrite!"
Pro-Family Debater: "So you say that, since I oppose homosexuality, I must be a homosexual myself? So that must mean that people opposed to child sexual molestation must be molesters themselves!" (to the audience): "Everyone who is against child sexual molestation, stand up! Ah, those of you who are standing up are molesters!" (to your opponent): "And so, by your reasoning, those people who are anti-war long to go off to Iraq and slaughter Muslims. Those people who are against animal abuse must love to capture neighborhood pets and torture them. And those people who are against the death penalty must really want to be executioners. What an absolutely stupid argument!" (4) Extrapolation. Your opponent will inevitably focus on the "hard cases" which are most favorable to the pro-homosexual side. When you extrapolate, you are merely extending the homophile's argument to include the actual facts of the matter, not just the ones that elicit the most sympathy from the audience.
The basic idea here is to trap your opponent into drawing the line. At what point should normal people have rights that "gays" do not? Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? To adopt and raise children? Should lesbians be artificially inseminated at government expense if they want children? Should homosexuals get quotas in hiring as other minorities do, despite the fact that they generally make a lot more money than normal people? Should governments pay for "sex-change" mutilations?[16] Homophile Debater: "... we demand equal rights! We are tired of being bullied and excluded!"
Pro-Family Debater: "Ahhhh, that sounds very patriotic. Who could be against "equal rights?" But what do you mean exactly by "equal rights?" I think most people agree that homosexuals who keep their behavior civil should have the same rights regarding housing and employment as any normal person. But how many of you parents in the audience would want a sexually promiscuous homosexual in contact with your children every day in a school or day care center, or in a Boy Scout troop? Since when did we start giving rights to people based upon what they do to each other in bed?" Specific Debating Tactics.
How to Win. There are certain standard debate tactics you can use during actual debates under almost any conditions to greatly enhance your impact and probability of victory. These are listed in the following paragraphs.
Debate Tactic #1: Open and Conclude Sharply. You can seize the initiative and keep it by beginning the debate on the right foot. In most cases, the moderator will allow each debater one or two minutes to present an opening statement. You should have an opening statement rehearsed and ready to go the day before the debate.
The central focus of this opening statement should consist of two or three critical arguments of your own choosing, sharply and succinctly stated. Each point should be covered in twenty seconds, for a total time of one minute.
A sample opening statement is shown below. (1) Briefly outline the character and objectives of your organization, i.e., "I represent Citizens Against the Gay Agenda, which has fought the radical homosexual's desire for special rights in this state for more than a decade." (2) State the two or three specific points you want to make in this debate, i.e., "I would like to emphasize three points during this debate: (1) I will prove to you scientifically that homosexuality is not an inborn condition, and is therefore not a proper basis for civil rights; (2) I will show you that the government should not support the "gay" life style in any way, because it is deadly dangerous and cuts an incredible twenty years off the lifespan of the average "gay" person; and (3) that extending "domestic partnership" benefits to homosexuals will greatly increase the huge tax load that we are already burdened with." (3) Outline the general weaknesses of your opponent's homophile position; "I would like you to notice, throughout this debate, that I am giving you hard facts, numbers, and quotes with references while my opponent will be relying exclusively on opinions, vague anecdotes, phony feelings of indignation and persecution, and meaningless, "feel-good" slogans." The concluding statement is in some ways even more important than the opening statement, since people will tend to remember it more clearly. Before you even walk into the studio, your conclusion should be planned down to the last word. Your conclusion will be the last part of the debate and the first part remembered by listeners, especially if it is executed sharply and concisely. You should emphasize two or three points, once again in about one minute; (1) Repeat your two or three most important points (the same ones you emphasized in your opening statement); (2) Summarize and emphasize your opponent's single grossest error during the debate and tie it in to his philosophy; and (3) State as a fact that your opponent has not effectively presented his case (since it is theoretically impossible to do so with such scanty logical and factual support). Debate Tactic #2: Take Control of the Debate. The entire homophile mentality is constructed around a philosophy that is expressed by the words "control," "choice," and "empowerment." Homosexuals seek to dictate actions, words and thoughts so that they can absolutely control their environment — an environment that is made uncontrollable by dissenting voices. This is why homophiles seek to stamp out all resistance to their agenda.
To be deprived of choices is to be out of control, and being out of control is anathema to the homophile activist. When a pro-family activist assumes command of the debate early, his opponent will usually begin to get flustered, will get his facts confused, and will begin to make more and more radical statements. If the pro-family debater can apply steady and constant pressure, it is not at all uncommon for a homophile to begin to scream slogans or even abandon the debate altogether.
If this happens, of course, the pro-family activist has won the debate.
In many cases, it will be possible to assume control of the debate before it even begins. If the pro-family debater can identify and pressure his homophile opponent before the public discussion even begins, by displaying the strength of his position or by remarking upon some recent pro-family victory or typical homosexual thuggery, he can begin to derail his opponent's train of thought and get a jump on him before ever facing him in formal debate.
A pro-family activist can gain immediate momentum in the debate with a strong and clear opening statement (see Debate Rule #1).
It may seem obvious, but one of the best ways to control a debate is to talk more than one's opponent. This can be accomplished by using one or more of several different tactics.
One way is to structure statements or replies and preface them with a phrase like "I'd like to make two points here." The pro-family activist may then number the points and, speaking at a relatively quick pace, get a lot of information across to the audience. Any interruption by the homophile opponent or by the moderator will appear to be rude.
If the homophile employs this tactic, it can be difficult to break in. However, is it possible to interrupt in a polite manner. For example, the pro-family debater may say to the moderator, "Excuse me, but my opponent has just made a misstatement that I would like to clarify."
The use of transparencies or other visual aids can also give the audience the correct impression that you are better prepared than your opponent. Additionally, placing a pro-family bumpersticker or T-shirt in plain view of your opponent will distract and fluster him, contributing to his sense of loss of control. This will especially be true if the item borrows from a popular pro-homosexual slogan, i.e., "DISHONOR PERVERSITY" or "PERVERSION IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE."
Debate Tactic #3: Stay On the Subject. Any experienced pro-family debater will tell you that the single most aggravating characteristic of homophiles is their total inability to stay on the subject of the debate.
This is the notorious "WHAT ABOUT?" line of questioning: "What about heterosexual porn?"
"What about abused kids in straight marriages?"
"What about pervasive discrimination against other minorities?"
"What about nuclear war?"
"What about animal rights?" There is a simple reason for this "red herring" tactic: The homophile position is clearly indefensible. A pro-homosexual debater realizes that, if he can transform the conversation into a wandering, aimless argument about other topics, he can neutralize and dilute the inherent superiority and impact of the pro-family position.
By breaking even, he "wins."
When a pro-family activist brings up a subject that is embarrassing to his homophile opponent or hurtful to his cause, he opponent will desperately try to escape the topic with such vague statements as "it depends" or "that's irrelevant."
Such topics for pro-homosexuals are incessant and extreme promiscuity, examples of anti-religious bigotry and violence, and various unspeakable (but common) homosexual practices such as pedophilia. The homophile would dearly like to avoid these and other touchy topics.
Do not be turned away by his disclaimers. You must hang on and not let go. Continue to demand answers in very plain terms. If your opponent continues to evade, simply state as fact that he is in support of the practice he is trying to avoid discussing, or simply say "I think you've answered the question for our audience."
Don't get caught in homophile diversionary traps! If you do, the best you will do is break even. You must diligently refocus the debate on the topic at hand, or you will never have the time to get your critical points across to your audience.
Since a homosexual sympathizer will inevitably try to lead you down the primrose path to distraction and confusion, you must have in mind some snappy way to bring the discussion back to the topic at hand.
One possibility; Homophile Debater: "You people are inconsistent because you talk all the time about how horrible and explicit gay porn is, but you tolerate straight hard-core porn."
Pro-Family Debater: "To begin with, I do not tolerate any kind of pornography, because hundreds of well-documented studies show that it leads to sexual abuse and violence. What I am saying is that anyone — homosexual or otherwise — who uses porn has an emotional problem. The thing I want to point out here is that hard-core porn is an integral part of the average homosexual's life, while this is not true of the average straight person. There's a very big difference between the two."
"But you must excuse me. I must have wandered into the wrong studio by mistake. I thought the topic for debate here was "gay marriage"." If a pro-family debater insists upon sticking to the subject, his opponent will fail in his attempt to divert attention from the specifics of the "gay agenda." He may then begin to attack the pro-family activist, his organization, or pro-family people and organizations in general (ad hominem attacks). If the pro-family activist is a member of a group that opposes "gay rights," the homophile will call him a Nazi, bigot or homophobe. If he is also involved in pro-life activism, the homophile will call him a violent misogynistic (woman-hating) fanatic.
Anticipate these knee-jerk, rote attacks.
The homophile will inevitably trot out a long list of complaints about pro-family activists in general: How we are hypocritical, violent religious fanatics intent upon foisting our views on others, and on and on.
The best way to end this prattle quickly is to bring attention to the homophile's tactic for the audience, i.e. "Why doesn't this guy just stick to the subject? This is why: When your opponent attacks you personally, he knows that he has lost the debate."
Debate Tactic #4: Anticipate. A pro-family debater has certain important advantages over a homophile. It is easy to anticipate and analyze the thought processes of a pro-homosexual debater, simply because they rely very heavily on a handful of slogans and questionable claims to support their positions.
The pro-family debater must become familiar with these slogans and be able to refute them by heart reflexively. Since a homophile will inevitably rely upon slogans, the activist who is arguing against "gay rights" will have many golden opportunities to anticipate and discredit both the slogans and his opponent. Homosexuals and pro-abortion activists are particularly susceptible to leaning heavily on slogans. Anticipate them. And when they occur, take maximum advantage of them.
The pro-family debater can sharpen his ability to anticipate his opponent's course of debate by researching both his background and his organization's attitudes and background (see Preparation Rule #4).
Debate Tactic #5: Repeat Important Points. Repetition is one tactic that homophiles use unconsciously, because their arguments are so scanty in logic and substance. Since they have so little to go on, they must repeat their slogans over and over again, sometimes in slightly different forms. Repetition is a very effective tactic that pro-homosexual people use not only in debates, but also in courts of law. They take advantage of the principle "A lie oft repeated soon bears the guise of truth."
If a pro-family debater can effectively refute a slogan with cold, hard facts, his opponent will be faced with a tough decision: Give up that particular slogan and have it exposed as a fraud, or repeat it and have the pro-family activist sigh and patiently explain once again the error of the homophile's ways.
Repetition is a tactic that the pro-family debater can also use to considerable advantage. He must go into every debate with two or three essential points that he wants to make crystal clear to his audience. He begins the debate and ends it with these points, and his entire message should be built around them. He must have irrefutable documentation at hand in anticipating of his opponent's rebuttals.
For example, if the debate topic is "Gay Rights: Are They Special Rights?," his three points, depending upon his audience, might be; Homosexuality is not an inborn or genetic condition like skin color or gender, and is therefore simply not an appropriate classification for civil rights protection. Even if it was an inborn genetic condition, there is no more excuse for homosexuals to act they way they do than there is for alcoholics to get constantly stinking drunk and then demand special rights.
When homosexuals do get civil rights protection, they abuse it horribly (during the debate, give examples from Chapter 4).
Civil rights protection based purely upon a behavior just does not make any sense at all. Why not special civil rights for kleptomaniacs or prostitutes? The pro-family debater should constantly hammer away at his primary points. After stating his case the first time, he must continue to steer the conversation back to one or more of these points. As he repeats them, he should phrase them in a different way each time and try to use catchy phrases that will stick in his listener's minds.
Debate Tactic #6: Listen Effectively. Since debate is a form of communication, it is composed of two fundamental parts: Speaking and listening. Before a person can rebut an opponent's argument effectively and concisely, he must be able to listen effectively. The primary job of a debater is to discern the meaning behind his opponent's words in order to paint a picture in his own mind of what he is thinking and what his objectives are.
A pro-family debater may wish to restate his opponent's position in his own words in a manner designed to work to his own advantage. For example, he might use a careless homophile statement of philosophy such as "Yes, I do support legality of the full range of sexual expression" to steer his hapless opponent into a discussion on child sexual abuse.
It is a good idea for a debater to carry a notepad to write down statements by the opposition that he would like to address later in the debate. The debater might copy the quotes in a shorthand that will allow him to refer to his opponent's verbatim statements at opportune times later in the conversation.
Debate Tactic #7: Use Visual Aids. If a pro-family debater is participating in a panel discussion or a debate on television or before an audience, pictures and graphs can be a great asset, especially if his opponent has none. Visual aids confer an automatic aura of authority on the person using them, particularly if they are well-prepared.
Talk is cheap, especially in the battle over "gay rights." Visual aids can really give a debater a great advantage in a debate. Pro-family visual aids may be in the form of color slides or transparencies, and may include lewd scenes from "gay pride" parades, homosexuals dressed up in Nazi garb in homosexual magazine advertisements (try getting a couple of issues of the "Desert Peach" comic book series on eBay or Amazon), and bar charts comparing the frequencies of various violent acts among homosexuals and normal people. A real shocker is a slide of a virulently anti-Christian group such as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a gaggle of homosexual men dressed up as Catholic nuns who parody and mock the Mass. Such a picture conveys not only mental illness but anti-religious bigotry as well.
The pro-family activist may never need to refer to these visual aids. For example, just placing a homosexual magazine opened to a "Nazi" sex-domination ad or a copy of the NAMBLA Bulletin on the table in plain view and forgetting about it will work miracles, even if it is never mentioned during the discussion. There won't be any need to refer to it; the homophile debater or moderator will be transfixed by it and will refer to it of his own accord.
A pro-family debater, even in the middle of a televised debate, shouldn't hesitate to ask the moderator to have the cameraman zoom in on his visual aids. The moderator will generally welcome any type of activity that lends his show variety and a change of pace. If he flatly refuses, it will look as if he is collaborating with the homophile debater in trying to conceal some critical fact.
Alternatively, it may be possible to arrange for a transparency or PowerPoint projector to be available at a debate or panel presentation. Graphs and tables can be made into transparencies or scanned and put into PowerPoint presentations. A projector will make graphs and tables much more visible.
If the moderator is hostile, conceal your visuals beforehand and state that you would like to show them as the debate is actually in progress. If the moderator refuses, produce them anyway. You can use this type of situation to your advantage by stating that the moderator thinks the audience is too stupid or uninformed to understand the visual aid — or too wimpy to handle the truth. Play heavily on the hypocrisy of the homophile's reliance on censorship and resistance to the free exchange of ideas.
If the pro-family activist is crafty, he can actually get the audience to want to see his visual displays. For example, if he is doing a presentation before a generally liberal high school, he might say that the teachers are concerned that the students might not be mature enough to see the material, and that those children with weak stomachs should leave the room. No high schooler in his or her right mind will leave the room after such a challenge, and the debater will have definitely gotten their attention!
Mental imaging is also a powerful tool. The job of the pro-family debater is to make sure that his audience remembers his most important points. He can accomplish this by drawing "word pictures" that get his message across in an unforgettable manner.
If a person wants to describe how many sexual "partners" the average promiscuous homosexual has during his lifetime, the words "one thousand" are simply incomprehensible. By comparing this number to the number of people in the audience, people can get a much better idea of what the pro-family debater is talking about, especially when he speaks in terms that make a lasting impression.
Another example of a "word picture" would be related to the "Names Project," a homosexual publicity stunt featuring decorated 3 foot by 6 foot rectangles of cloth laid side by side to commemorate the lives of those people who have died of AIDS. The purposes of this project are to generate public sympathy for "gay rights" and to show the magnitude of the AIDS epidemic. The largest such display to date has covered an area equivalent to a football field.
By comparison, about 1.2 million people die of heart disease and cancers in this country every year.[17] This would mean that about 28 million people have died of these diseases in the United States since the AIDS epidemic officially began in 1984. If anyone cared to commemorate the lives of these people with 3 X 6 foot quilts, the total area covered would more than eighteen square miles, equivalent to the area of a good-sized city.
What is the point you can make here? The total expenditures on AIDS research in this country exceeds that for all heart diseases and cancers combined, yet the homophiles demand more and more money, and claim that if they don't get tens of billions of dollars, the government is guilty of "AIDS genocide."[18]
As another comparison, if a person read the names of the 575,000 people who had died of AIDS in the USA since 1984 at the rate of eight hours per day, five days per week, he would be able to complete the task in about eight weeks. However, if he honored the people who have died of heart diseases and cancers in such a manner, it would take him seven and a half years to read all of the names of the dead![19]
Debate Tactic #8: Don't Argue. A heated argument is a real spectacle and can only hurt the pro-family cause. As a result of such an exchange, homophiles are merely hardened in their belief that pro-family people are fanatics, and even pro-family supporters are turned off by the yelling.
Don't get ensnared in a shouting match. Your pro-homosexual opponent will frequently try to lure you into such an argument when he has his back to the wall, because he knows that the memory of the argument will erase the memory of how badly you trounced him in the debate.
You can use your opponent's inflammatory statements to your advantage by acknowledging their good points and accentuating their bad points. For example; Homophile Bait: "You homophobes are linking gay people to pedophilia, and this is the most vicious, slanderous evasion I have ever heard of. You are using this bogus argument to ban gays from being school teachers, day-care workers, and Boy Scout leaders, and I have had enough of these lies!"
Argumentative Answer: "I don't want sex perverts anywhere near my children, and I think that the majority of my audience agrees with me" (catcalls and boos from homophiles in the audience, shouting match ensues between debaters, general confusion and panic until moderator calms things down by firing several shots into the ceiling).
Argument-Defusing Answer: "Well, you seem to have a point there, but I must point out that gays themselves have admitted during several surveys conducted by gays — not "homophobes — that they have engaged in sex with children at a rate more than fifty times that of normal people. When the gays themselves admit this, you have to give some thought to keeping a high-risk group away from kids. Think about it." At All Times: Be an Eternal Student.
Nobody will ever be the best debater they can be. No matter how experienced you are, you will always find that you are learning new facts about the life issues and new and more effective debate techniques that seem to work best in various specific situations.
Keep a debate log. Write down the lessons you have learned while they are still fresh in your mind. You should especially keep track of your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, your mistakes, and the most common questions asked by the moderator or audience.
Don't become discouraged after your first few debates. Almost everyone gets verbally mugged their first few times out. The hallmark of a dedicated activist is the ability to learn from past mistakes and keep on striving.
Above all, make the eternal student part of your persona. The battle between pro-family and homophile forces is never-ending and is constantly changing. The person who thinks he knows it all has begun the process of decline. His attitudes harden, and he rapidly becomes obsolete as an effective debater in the vast universe of the life issues.
As long as you are willing to learn, you will remain effective.
Plato, quoted in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 1986, page 25. Elie Wiesel. "When Passion is Dangerous." Parade Magazine, April 19, 1992, page 21. Jonathon Green. The Cynic's Lexicon [New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984]. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York City: Plume Books], 1989, page 184. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Quoted in Shirley J. O'Brien. "The Child Molester: Porn Plays a Major Role in Life." National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1987, pages 9 to 11. This poster is featured and rated on pages 226 and 227 of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York City: Plume Books], 1989. 1984 Draft III internal review copy entitled "This is Our Creed," by the National Committee for Gay Civil Rights, Church Annex Building, Washington, D.C. "AFA Sues General Counsel." The Wanderer, December 6, 1990, page 2. "The Prince of Hacks." National Review, July 31, 1987, page 15. Dennis and Judy Shepard, quoted in a June 12, 2006 press release opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Downloaded from the Web site of the Matthew Shepard Foundation at http://www.matthewshepard.org on October 16, 2007. There were about 301 million people in the United States as of January 1, 2007. About 1.6 percent, or 4.8 million, of these people are homosexuals. The Federal Bureau of Investigation issues a detailed annual report entitled Hate Crime Statistics, and the first table in this publication is always entitled "Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation." These Reports are available on the FBI Web site at http://www.fbi.gov.
This means that any individual homosexual is likely to be victims of a hate crime once every (4.8 million/1,198) = 4,000 years.
The average life span of a homosexual is about 55 years. This means that the probability of the average homosexual becoming the victim of a hate crime over his or her entire lifetime is (55/4000) = 1.38 percent.
There are 19/4.8 million = 3.96 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.
There are 1,198/296.2 million = 4.04 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals. Ibid. Ibid. There is no such thing as a "traditional marriage." To use this term is to allow the possibility of other kinds of marriage. There are just two types of union between people — marriage and everything else. Dr. Clarence Tripp, Alfred Kinsey's photographer, later a psychologist, pornographer and homosexuality expert witness. Interview performed for the British Television program entitled "Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles." Excerpts taken from videotaped interviews used in the production of the documentary. Compiled by Judith Reisman, Ph.D., August 26, 1998. Just as there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage" (there is only "marriage," everything else is a fake), there is no such thing as a "sex-change operation." It is medically impossible to change a person's sex — all we can do is make them bad imitations of the opposite sex. Every cell of their bodies remains the original sex no matter how much we change their appearance. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office], 2007 (126th Edition). Table 110, "Deaths by Selected Causes and Selected Characteristics: 2003." Downloaded from the Web site of the United States Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab on January 24, 2007. For detailed information on health care expenditures on AIDS and other diseases, see Chapter 6. This assumes that names are read at the rate of thirty every minute. At this rate, it would take 16.67 work weeks to read the names of the 1.2 million people who die of cancer and heart disease every year. It would take 389 weeks, or seven and a half years, to read the names of 28 million people.
|
For the Table of Contents for The Pro-Life Library Compact Disc, click here. |
For the Comprehensive Index for the compact disc, click here. |
This document was updated on March 1, 2008. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment