Tue, 8 February 2011
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.."
"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.
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.