Tue, 8 February 2011
Before I reverse engineer Zach’s well done presentation, I going to review what the main tactics of the gay lobby are and have always been. In the late 80’s I interviewed Marshall Kirk who wrote a book called "After the Ball: How America will Conquer its fear a & hatred of Gays in the 90’s" It’s the tactical textbook of the gay lobby describing the techniques intended to work us over. The tactics worked beyond his wildest expectations. (BTW he died of AIDS) The tactics? Desensitization, jamming and conversion… Brainwashing tactics 101. He wrote, "All normal persons feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling or acting like one of the pack…the trick is to get the "bigot" (anyone who disagrees with them) into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame…thus propagandistic advertisements can depict homophobic bigots as crude loudmouths…it can show them criticized, hated , shunned " "Our effect is achieved wrote, Kirk, without reference to facts, logic or proof…" Get that part? …without reference to facts, logic, or proof.." How? "Portray gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will not be inclined to refuse to adopt the role of protector…we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such and extent that we will undermine our victim image." The main logical fallacies used to advance the cause are many, but the main ones are: 1. Ad hominem…just heap insults or verbal abuse upon those who disagree. 2. Begging the question… The Register does this all the time… in fact the judiciary and Democrat Party do this all the time…assuming the validity of what they trying to normalize or approve. “Putting discrimination into the Constitution” assumes the legitimacy of same gender marriage and the claims of the gay lobby…without proof, logic or reason. 3. Then, the false claims of equality of unequal things. “We are just like everyone else. All sexuality is equal” … and the rights derived from those claims are equal…and if we are denied those rights, we are being abused. So.. let’s begin… First, Zach's complete presentation. Then, piece by piece. 1. Here, Zack is establishing his boni fides… six generations…long enough to know better I’m thinking. BTW being an Iowan is of no distinction to this argument…just an appeal to regional patriotism. My wife’s people came over on the Mayflower…mine got here in time to be drafted into the War Between the States… so what… there are sixth generation Iowans in prison. Ethics aren’t based upon seniority or geography. 2. “Reared by two women”… lotsa Iowans are reared by two women.. Mom’s and older sisters… Mom’s and grammas… Mom’s and step moms… nothing unusual about that…note he doesn’t use the “L” word… Lesbians. This is the Spin of Omission 3. Acknowledge what? That the artificial insemination had worked? Or the incomplete and defective relationship into which their grandchild would be born? Here you have the first budding claims of victim status. “I was rejected even before I was born”… very powerful… just like Jesus…He was unacknowledged…I was unacknowledged… therefore, I must be someone special…. 4. Of course…we don’t blame kids for the lame things their parents do. Lucky you were cute though. 5. They didn’t live to see my two mommies get a fake marriage license after a judicial scam. But his point here is to arouse another round of sympathy based upon the empathy all of us feel upon hearing of a profound loss like this. ‘Nuther layer of victim status. 6. Ah… a chip off the old flask…swimming out of the same gene pool….why lucky? An absentee dad is still gone whether or not he donated once or twice. What’s the point? 7. No different than most Iowa families? Ya…most Iowans have two moms…and a sperm donor for a dad … “we do go to church and fight though” … sometimes in that order… this is just a warm fuzzy… the fallacy of equating two unequal things. Oh…by the way, “we go to church together too…. This is his way of saying, “God thinks it’s ok, so should you” … the unspoken message of the fallacy. 8. My mom got a really nasty illness…wheelchair... struggles….nuther layer of victim status… sad story about mom…so I’ll use your empathy for my mom to manipulate sympathy for the lesbian sub theme of the story. Again…two fallacies…the victim status which imputes unearned virtue and listing similar life experiences, conferring moral equivalency upon the relationship. I’m half way surprised we didn’t hear a story about a sick puppy. 9. “We are Iowans…we bear are own burdens”….nuther round of regional, flag waving patriotism … this is another rhetorical device designed equate two different notions. Iowa is a political entity. It is just geography and politics. Everyone who lives here gets to call themselves Iowans. There are good Iowans, bad Iowans, smart ones and stupid ones. Rich ones and poor ones…honest ones and criminals. To label youself an Iowan in this context has no objective content…it isn’t supposed to … he’s saying if you are an Iowan, you are special…and by implication so is he. Spin by gratuitous flattery. Toss in a little more equivocation for good measure. 10. Again this is the fallacy of equating unequal things then demanding equal treatment. A two-fer…then begging the question by asserting an equivalent status for same gender marriage, something which most Iowans have rejected over and over…first by DOMA… then by firing activist judges. He says we “just hope for equal and fair treatment from our govt”… He as a person…his mom as a person… get all the equal and fair treatment the rest of us get. He is arguing for something Iowans have rejected… his or his mom’s self selected sexual identity conferring rights beyond those conferred by gender, notion which only silly judges could contemplate. 11. “ Can gays even raise kid?”. Of course they can. That never has been the question. The question is “should they”… then, the follow up question is, “Do people of the same gender qualify for a marriage license?.” All kinds of kids have overcome the disadvantages of incomplete or dysfunctional relationships; however, there is no reason subsidize even more. Since people of all descriptions have been rearing children for centuries, we now know what the ideal is for the best predictable results. Intentionally equating or subsidizing anything else is risky and unbelievably self destructive. 12. I believe he was referring to the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.. not ACT… Eagle Scout…cool. Business owner…cool.. Yes… cool… any dad would be proud of a high functioning kid…. Too bad you didn’t get a chance to know the guy in the flask. Plus, this just a rhetorical device and another fallacy of logic. 1. Some moms are lesbians. 2. My mom was a lesbian. 3. I turned out well, productive and healthy. Therefore, lesbianism is productive and healthy. Complete nonsense 13. Exactly… the state doesn’t create marriage. And you’re right, my family doesn’t derive it’s sense of self worth from the state. It would be tragic if anyone or anything of any description did. However when it comes to same gender marriage only a lawless state would create such a thing since it certainly did not emerge out the created order and only the state can bully the rest of us into compliance. 14. Love and commitment are indeed the bonds of a family under the covenant of God. This is the first thing you’ve said with which I’m in agreement. And in a world without a welfare state, your “family” arrangements would be irrelevant to me. But in this world, your manufactured bonds would have an extended reach into my back pocket through the tax code, and hundreds if not thousands of other ways. You said so yourself in our recent conversation. 15. Something else we can agree on. But again this would change a bunch of laws which subsidize the family and grant spousal equivalency access to benefits including social security….etc. This is what this push is really all about… access to OPM. 16. Full circle…back to the fallacy of equating two unequal things. Then grabbing benefits based upon begging the question. For the record, homosexual behavior is just that…it is behavior. There is no genuine “identity” based upon homosexual behavior. That’s the Kinsey Fraud. Orientation toward same sex behavior does NOT confer minority status or civil rights. Homosexual behavior does NOT form group entitlement, nor is it a protected class, except in the minds of activist bureaucrats and softheaded politicians and judges. Discrimination regarding marriage is everywhere in our form of government. So is marriage equality. Everyone who is qualified can get married. Here are the qualifications. 1. A partner who wants you. 2. You both are of the appropriate age. 3. If not, you have parental permission. 4. Your partner must not be your brother, sister, your mom, your dad, your neighbor’s wife or husband, or livestock…and one at a time please. 5. You must not be of the same gender…(which we are now in the process of re-negotiating) 6. And that you are mentally, morally, physically, economically and spiritually fit.. (Assuming you have a functioning relationship with your parents and pastor who can help you through the screening process) 17. Bullhockey… you can indeed marry the one you love if they and you qualify. I just listed the qualifications…. And this is nothing new. You have not discovered some recent impediment, but one that has existed for thousands of years…only to be messed with recently by sexual identity politics and softheaded judges. 18. What colossal arrogance. The unspoken fallacy in this little barb is that unless some perceived threat affects me personally on a existential level, there can be no legitimate concern. What a selfish attitude. Apply that logic to just about any social ill you can think of and the objection evaporates. Plus, as I said, we live in a welfare state, so another group of people jumping into an already broken safety net is hardly the smart thing to encourage. We in Iowa know better than most, that we get more of what we subsidize. 19. Zach your whole argument and the fact that you felt it necessary to make, refutes your conclusion. It is totally understandable though. You are a bright and sensitive kid. No child ever likes to think ill of his parents…just like most parents want to think only the best of their children. Nobody wants to think their parents have flaws…or that they are broken. I’ve watched this happen over and over. I’ve watched people who are pro-life…who have been politically active for life…gone to life rallies… who have called abortion murder…campaigned against pro-abortion candidates…do a complete 180 when they find out someone in their family has had one. They say, “My daughter had an abortion… I love my daughter… I can’t think of her as a murderer, so I’ve changed how I feel about abortion.” Zach I don’t expect you to think less of your mom. You love her. You should. But because you love her, you don’t need to idealize all of her choices…especially her broken ones… even if she eventually produced something special… you. And as a personal aside. While you are at school, spend less time in sociology class and more time working on engineering …. As a challenge, let me invite you to apply the logic and skill sets of your engineering discipline to the claims advanced by the gay lobby. If you do, you may find most of their claims are as bogus as the majority of Iowans do.
Comments[20]
|
- So what exactly are you saying here?
That Zach was recruited by the Gay rights movement to hold this speech? Was he paid? How much?
So he was not really raised by two lesbian women? And he is not doing well?
As far as spin goes, take it from a straight guy: you are FULL of it.
Respectfully ofcourse.
- Lots of things could be viewed as broken these days. Talk radio?
Works great for presenting guests and endless commentary toward one ideology or side.
Takes courage and determination to present both sides, even a 10/90 ratio would be refreshing.
In the end, it also presents an inside look at the minds thinking. Hosts are under the microscope and wow, the revelations. - Actually, I have never read Kirk's literature; my comments came from my reaction to your bombastic writings, and not from any "propagandistic trick". Nor did I ever call you a bigot, although it's interesting that you call me a propagandist because expressed my opinion on your reverse engineering essay. And you have the audacity to continue with smug comments: My aunt was a devoted housewife, she is dying of AIDS, she unknowingly contracted it from her cheating husband. They are both heterosexual. How's that for irony? You've shown me only one truth: "It's not what goes into mans mouth that is unclean, it's what comes out... I can't get past the ugliness of your words to even consider your opinion or what you think about anything. Gd day.
- When it comes to gays there is no proof , logic or reason. It is all a matter of opinion. Everyone has one and to them their reasons are iron clad. Remember, it is not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it is what you know for sure that just isn't true. In the future medical science will be able to explain the phenomenon and that will be the end of it. That day can't come soon enough.
- Jan, I'm going to "dissect" your argument with just a few points. 1.) Your claim to logic. Just like all other logical arguments, it's accuracy with reality is wholly dependent on the premises. I disagree with your premises. 2.) As mentioned by some here, your interpretation of the bible is not preeminent.
In conclusion: As a person, you have mired yourself in a mindset that does not allow you accept people for who they are, a point that Jesus, Spinoza, Nieztsche, Martin Luther King all tried to get people like you to understand. You cannot change the imperfections of others. By your beliefs only one entity can do that and your aspersions on what his intentions are could not be more incomplete. So in other words, since it is impossible to base our laws on the will of god, we must base them on the only thing we do have, human will, as imperfect as that may be. - What a rich crock of $#!+... I can't believe that you actually have an audience. I thought was going hear something informative, instead all I got was some sarcastic geezer, pompously trying to push off his bias opinion as if it were some kind of profound study, now who is "brainwashing"? I was especially turned off that you felt it necessary to mention the irrelevant fact that Marshall Kirk, had "died of AIDS btw", as I could just imagine the grin on your face as you said it.
- Good comments Mary and Jim. Jan, you still haven't explained why you care about what others do in their personal life so much. How is this hurting you personally? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Are you afraid that your children will adopt these "destructive behaviors"? If you teach them to be independent thinkers you will have nothing to worry about. My personal opinion is that staying cooped up in Iowa hiding behind the radio to spew hatred towards others is destructive behavior. It is much more heart-healthy to be tolerant. Knowledge is power. Learn more about the world before you make a decision.
- Mickelson,
If gay people wanting to get married is reaching into YOUR back pocket. Then your getting married would be reaching into MY back pocket.
Of course, that is not really what it's about. We are not asking for charity.
We are looking to keep the same amount of money that WE earn as you get to keep out of the money YOU earn.
We want it to be fair and equal.
You don't have to like that gay people will keep being gay no matter what you think about it. I don't like that you get to keep rambling your mouth whether I like it or not. But that's freedom.
That's America.
I am the minority now. But people like you will be by the time my children are voting. Laws are in place that protect gays from discrimination. Already over 50% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 believe gays deserve the right to marry. You and all others with your narrow and broken viewpoint may be dead before it happens. But someday I and every straight person around me will enjoy the same rights to marry and all that entails. And radio shows like yours will be as outdated as racist shows of the 50's are today. And when these things happen I'll think of you, Mick. And I'll be happy to be living in a better, more free, more equal America.
-Cheers. - David, in regard to the copyright to Scriptural meaning let me say the following. You heard the saying, I am sure, about where there is one or more witnesses. You brought up the Christian Scriptures. Let me quote you the following,"We also sent Lot, when he said to his people, commit ye this filthy deed to which no creature hath gone before you? Come ye to men, instead of women, lustfully? Ye are indeed people given up to excess. But the only answer of his people was to say, Turn them out of your city, for they are men who vaunt them pure.' And we delivered him(Lot) and his family, except his wife, she was of those who lingered; And we rained a rain upon them; and see what was the end of the wicked!" (from The Koran, Sura 7:78-80) So Dave how is that for a second or third witness to the Old Testament of the Jews, and the New Testament of the Christians? Is that copyright enough for you? Try the Satanic Bible, maybe you'll find something in there that will support your opinion.
- Jan,
You mean to tell me you have seen or known a gay person change?? To become straight? And those that cannot, they are condemed in your religion to a life alone? Your example of parents and children may show your lack of understanding. Yes as a parent you try and correct bad or broken behavior but you don't kill there will or spirit to do it. You can't change WHO they are, you can only try and guide them into making the right choices.
As for law, law may have some content based on ones religion but that includes all of us, the majority of which as a society makes choices based on several factors, religion may only be one of them.
I think you are taking to naorrow of a view on this subject. I actually was leaning against marriage and for civil contracts for these people but now it seems they need to be healed or tossed aside. This I can't agree with. - Jim, you said Jan needs to separate his religion from the law. First off what is Jan,s religion? you seem to know. I do not, even though I listen often. And it does not matter anyway. It's his business. Plus is not religion often based on law? So we are supposed to have 2 faces, one without religion and God, and another face with God? Isn't that being double-minded? Is that not hypocrisy? You are using the word "compassion" to bully people into accepting "gay marriage" which would sanctify sodomy. Sodomy is immoral. For the state government to "sanctify" gay marriage is for the state to sanctify something that is immoral. It is the hand of the state waving its fist at the Supreme Being and saying , we do not care about you God, we will do what we want and we will do what is seems right in our own eyes. It is rebellion against God, who made us all and thereby has the right to set the rules and the standards.
- Jan,
Thanks for helping me make up my mind on this subject. I was on the fence but you shoved me over in support of gay marriage. You need to learn to seperate your religion from the law. You also need to have more compasion for those that are broken as you put it. After all these broken people were created by God. None of us are perfect!! Do you truly think there is a cure for these broken people or are they condemned to hell for there actions and a life here on earth that forces them to be alone??? - Jan,
Glad you're not of those who shrink back. I made a few modest comments at the YouTube site and received 20 angry retorts. I can't imagine the assaults made on your character daily. At the risk of diminishing your eternal reward (which is beyond the reach of rust, activists, and brainwashed pagans): Well Done.
JB - The Bible contains Law Books. The Law Book of Deuteronomy given by the Supreme Being mentioned in the beginning of the Iowa Constitution, says that he will not give blessings for sodomy, which is the breaking of the "6th" commandment.That commandment says, Thou shalt not commit ADULTERY. Sodomy is ADULTERY. It is an adulteration. Transvestitism, rape, incest, prostitution, whoremongering are also forbidden by that commandment as detailed elsewhere in Deuteronomy as statutes. So "marrying" what is forbidden by the Supreme Being of Iowa at Deuteronomy 27, how will that get Iowans His continued blessings? Are Iowans really going to take a chance in an already depressed economy in the USA, to possibly throw our blessings from God to the wind? Will Iowans put "gay marriage" ahead of the continued blessings we seek from the Supreme Being of Iowa, God? Iowa needs all the Aces we can get, and "Gay marriage" is not one of those Aces. Iowans don't let Iowa get screwed!
- Jan:
Thanks for providing the sound bites, and for responding to his comments point by point. I can tell it took a lot of time and effort on your part to put this together, and we appreciate it. It's very useful for showing people the fallacies and flaws in these types of premises and arguments. - My problem Jan, is that the Christian right does not define marriage either. The young man raised without a father doesn't know any better and would not be expected to know any better. Iowa does not provide state protection to an inalienable right in marriage. Iowa infers that marriage is a "civil contract", but they don't define what the contract is. The contract is a private contract, yet, the State does not recognize any breach of this "non-defined", ill-defined civil contract. In other words, you can uphold the terms of the civil contract or you can violate every last bit of decency, right and order of the relationship and the state does not care or protect any rights, duties and obligations that come from marriage. Does Judeo-Christian marriage confer a parental authority to the man or does marriage confer a parental authority to the women? If marriage confers parental authority to both, as Iowa has done for 140 years, than Iowa does not recognize or protect the rights of Christian marriage.
The United States only recognizes "state marriage", an institution created by men (members of the Bar Association). Marriage without state protection of inalienable rights is a contract not worth the paper it's written on. This is why Christians appear bigoted and hypocritical, because the marriage Jan defends is missing crucial elements of God's design.
Both sides of the debate are wrong, and that is why people are sick of the debate, and why morality and ethics escape strict scrutiny in this debate. Jan, you debunked junior's argument well, but you have not defended marriage whatsoever.
