The Conservative's Guide to Homosexuality

The Conservative's Guide to Homosexuality

Step 1: Argue that it is not condoned in the Bible. Since it is not condoned in the Bible, it is against God. Since it is against God, it is an immoral sin.

If someone argues that the character of a homosexual person is in no way reasonably harmed by choosing to engage in consensual sex with an adult of the same sex, then move on to step 2.

If someone argues from an alternative interpretation of the Bible or an alternative faith, then simply tell them that you are right and they are wrong because the "Holy Spirit" within you tells you so. If further pressed, then move on to Step 2.

If someone argues that the law is governed by reason and not by Biblical standards, then argue the nation was founded by Christians and is primarily composed of Christians, so therefore it is a Christian nation. If they argue that the nation was in fact founded by deists and that there are countless variations of Christianity, some in support of gays and lesbians, in this country, then move on to Step 2.

Step 2: Argue that homosexuality is unnatural.

If someone points out the many cases of where homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species of animals, both domesticated and in the wild, then return to Step 1 and accuse said person of getting their morals from nature.

If someone asks you to define natural, then simply point out that man and woman were "designed" to have compatible parts, whereas two people of the same sex were not. When challenged on who did the "designing", then move back to Step 1.

If someone argues that there are many ways to define natural, and that it makes no sense to define natural as good, since humans practice many unnatural things such as wearing polyester clothing and typing on computers over the internet, then move on to Step 3.

Step 3: Argue that homosexuality is a disease or disorder.

If someone argues that homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic Statistical Manuel in the 70's then go on a conspiracy rant about how the militant gays forced it out by infiltrating the APA and using threats and violence. Remember to ignore the studies that were used to justify its removal. When asked to justify how it ended up in the DSM to begin with, then move back to either Step 1 or Step 2.

If someone argues that homosexuality is immutable, then argue there are thousands of cases of "Ex Gays" who were able to undergo conversion therapy and be cured of their illness. When the person challenges you that many of the "Ex Gays" have come out saying that they were lying about their conversion just to get their family and community's approval, or when the person argues there is no reputable evidence to support conversion therapy and there is evidence that in some cases it is actually harmful, then move on to Step 4.

If asked to explain how homosexuality specifically harms anyone, thereby earning the label of "disease" or "disorder", then move on to Step 4.

Step 4: Argue that homosexuality is a public health hazard.

If some argues that homosexuality is simply an alteration of normal human sexuality then simply point out the fact that gays are the predominant group infected with HIV in the United States. When the person counters that HIV is spread via risky behaviors such as unprotected anal sex and intravenous drug use, not by a person's sexual orientation, then move back to Step 1 or Step 2, and simply ignore the fact that not all gays practice anal sex and that lesbians represent the lowest risk group for HIV infection.

If someone argues that just being gay harms no one, then argue that gay people don't procreate, therefore if everyone were gay, humanity would cease to exist. When challenged that if everyone were priests and nuns, and therefore celibate, then humanity would also cease to exist, move on to Step 5.

If someone argues that gays can be just as happy and functional in society as heterosexuals, then point out the higher statistical likelihood that gays are suicidal, likely to abuse substances, likely to have domestic violence, etc. When the person presents the studies which directly link these statistical disproportions to the societal stigma associated with homosexuality and points out similar statistical disproportions in just about every other minority group, move on to Step 5.

Step 5: Argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that you don't agree with and cannot accept as normal.

If someone argues that there is strong biological evidence to support that homosexuality is not purely caused by environmental factors or choice, then move back to Step 3.

If someone argues that there is strong genetic evidence from twin studies to support homosexuality is not purely caused by environmental factors, then claim that no "single gene" has ever been found that causes homosexuality. When pressed that no "single gene" causes characteristics such as height or skin color either, then move back to Step 1 or Step 2.

If someone argues that you are just being prejudiced against gay people, then argue that you have gay friends, but you don't support their lifestyle choice. If they ask what you would do if your children turned out gay then move to Step 6.

Step 6: Argue that you can tolerate gays, but gays are intolerant towards you.

If someone argues that gays just want equal rights, then argue that you feel gays are out to destroy the traditional definition of marriage and the family by seeking special rights since gays are already equal and can marry someone of the opposite sex, therefore you cannot allow homosexuality to be accepted and normalized by society. When someone argues there really is no basis by which to deny gays the right to civil marriage since it is just legal protections for them and their children and in no way harms your marriage or family, then move back to Step 1 or Step 2.

If someone argues that gays just want the same opportunities for their relationships and families, then argue that you feel the ideal family for children is headed by a man and a woman. When they argue that the latest 25 years of research indicates that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples and that there are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples who could benefit from same sex marriage, then move back to Step 1 or Step 2.



If someone asks you to justify the position of Step 6, given that you just called gays immoral, unnatural, diseased, a public health hazard, an unacceptable lifestyle choice, and intolerant, then go back to Step 1 and repeat the whole cyclical process over again until the person tires of discussing the issue with you.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Damn, it is so obvious!

I'll incorporate it right away.

 

Yeah I did.

 

The Muslim ones don't bother debating. They just hang us.

 

I covered marriage. Or did you mean gay "marriage". I like that. Gays are so special that we get the quotes whenever conservatives refer to our marriage.

 

Okay, I amended Step 6 Section 2 to observe it.

 

Sure.

There ya go. It's pretty short, but that is all you really need. There is a rational argument against pedophilia whereas there is none for homosexuality. Homosexuality is between consenting adults, whereas pedophilia is inherently coercive. I'm surprised you weren't able to make the guide yourself.

 

Er....*head explodes*

Okay, assuming that homosexuality were a mental illness, and it were an illness that lead to incompetence in adults, and that incompetence were of such a degree that it hindered the ability of a person to give informed consent, then you would be correct.

The sad thing is that I just know there is a social conservative out there who would make that many assumptions without any evidence or rational to back it up.

 

Unfortunately it probably would. Modern sophistry always amazes me. It really takes advantage of cognitive biases.