Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, Bots, edit
57,719
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
→top: clean up & uniformity
'''Homosexual logic''' is the "logic" used to justify the [[Homosexual Agenda]]. Like [[liberal logic]] generally, homosexual logic relies on statements that appear to be logical but that are actually rife with [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]]. Examples include:
'''Homosexual logic''' is the "logic" used to justify the [[Homosexual Agenda]]. Like [[liberal logic]] generally, homosexual logic relies on statements that appear to be logical but that are actually rife with [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]]. Examples include:
#Calling things [[stolen concept|the opposite of what they are]], e.g., justifying their [[special rights]] as just another form of [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]].
#Calling things [[stolen concept|the opposite of what they are]], e.g., justifying their [[special rights]] as just another form of [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]].
#Improperly shifting the [[burden of proof]] by asserting that homosexuality must be understood as not a choice until it is [[Logical_fallacy#Argument_from_silence|conclusively shown]] to be one.
#Improperly shifting the [[burden of proof]] by asserting that homosexuality must be understood as not a choice until it is [[Logical fallacy#Argument from silence|conclusively shown]] to be one.
#[[Slippery slope]] arguments in which they argue that repression of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
#[[Slippery slope]] arguments in which they argue that repression of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
#[[Cafeteria Christianity|Cherry-picking]] only those parts of the [[Bible]] that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them [[Liberal Christianity|need to be "interpreted" correctly]] or were "[[Mosaic Law|nailed to the Cross]]," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.
#[[Cafeteria Christianity|Cherry-picking]] only those parts of the [[Bible]] that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them [[Liberal Christianity|need to be "interpreted" correctly]] or were "[[Mosaic Law|nailed to the Cross]]," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.