Difference between revisions of "Homosexual logic"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 1034854 by ZizPairrj (talk))
(Made some editions to increase accuracy. May still have some untrustworthy bias by extremist conservatives trying to destroy the trustworthiness of our reasonably conservative site.)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''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 a collection of coherent arguments justifying the persuit of [[Homosexual Agenda|equal rights for homosexuals]].  Like [[liberal logic]] generally, homosexual logic relies on statements that very logical and almost entirely devoid of [[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]].
+
#Demonstrating how all people should have [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]] under the law, and refuting the claim that giving homosexuals rights somehow installs them with [[special rights]].
−
#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.
+
#Showing how homosexuality is not a choice, and refuting ridiculous claims to the contrary.
−
#[[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.
+
#Defeating [[slippery slope]] arguments in which bigoted conservatives argue that acceptance 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.
+
#Calling out how homophobes [[Cafeteria Christianity|cherry-pick]] those parts of the [[Bible]] that suit their purposes, while the same bigots argue that any parts of Scripture--such as [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Genocide/ genocide by Jews and Christians]--that are inconvenient to them [[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.
−
#Taking it for granted that any book with a pro-homosexual slant must be true, rather than critically assessing whether that book is credible.
+
#Noting how social conservatives assume that any book with an anti-homosexual slant must be true, and how such people would do better to critically assess whether that book is credible.
−
#Appealing to [[mobocracy|majority will]], but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."
+
#Appealing to [[public opinion]] and the growing acceptance of homosexuality--especially among the younger generations, and disproving conservative claims that Americans want homosexuals to shut up.
−
#Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the [[establishment clause]].
+
#Demanding that the conservative interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be exposed and rejected, and demonstrating how conservative attempts to oppress homosexuals based on Christian principles violates the [[establishment clause]].
−
#Demanding [[limited government]], but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.
+
#Demonstrating how conservatives support [[limited government]], but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.
−
#Claiming to be [[persecution|persecuted]] when in reality it is they who are [[Christian persecution|doing the persecuting]].
+
#Demonstrating a long history of [[persecution]], and disproving the ridiculous claims that a democratic republic of an overwhelmingly Christian population cannot possibly experience [[Christian persecution]].
 
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
 
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Revision as of 05:18, November 14, 2015

Homosexual logic is a collection of coherent arguments justifying the persuit of equal rights for homosexuals. Like liberal logic generally, homosexual logic relies on statements that very logical and almost entirely devoid of logical fallacies. Examples include:

  1. Demonstrating how all people should have equal protection under the law, and refuting the claim that giving homosexuals rights somehow installs them with special rights.
  2. Showing how homosexuality is not a choice, and refuting ridiculous claims to the contrary.
  3. Defeating slippery slope arguments in which bigoted conservatives argue that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
  4. Calling out how homophobes cherry-pick those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while the same bigots argue that any parts of Scripture--such as genocide by Jews and Christians--that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.
  5. Noting how social conservatives assume that any book with an anti-homosexual slant must be true, and how such people would do better to critically assess whether that book is credible.
  6. Appealing to public opinion and the growing acceptance of homosexuality--especially among the younger generations, and disproving conservative claims that Americans want homosexuals to shut up.
  7. Demanding that the conservative interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be exposed and rejected, and demonstrating how conservative attempts to oppress homosexuals based on Christian principles violates the establishment clause.
  8. Demonstrating how conservatives support limited government, but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.
  9. Demonstrating a long history of persecution, and disproving the ridiculous claims that a democratic republic of an overwhelmingly Christian population cannot possibly experience Christian persecution.
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_logic&oldid=1181923"