Mar 04, 2021 Print this article

Video: How to Dismantle 10 of the Worst and Most Crafty LGBT Arguments

We take a principled not a personal stand and have no intention to defame or disparage anyone with this video. By logically opposing individuals or organizations that promote the homosexual agenda, our only goal is to defend the sacred institution of marriage and family, and protect the treasures of Christian civilization.

You have every right to defend the truth in charity.

1. “Homosexuals are born that way.”

The argument that homosexuals are “born that way” has led to a quest for a homosexual gene. Research projects of Dr. Simon LeVay, Drs. J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, and Dr. Dean Hamer have been used to support the “born that way” claim.

But the Catholic Medical Association uncovered the truth:

“…none of the much-publicized studies… has been scientifically replicated…. not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims…” (Homosexuality and Hope)

More recently, in 2019, Science magazine reported on a new study that also failed to discover a homosexual gene. “The published study emphasizes that the genetic markers cannot be used to predict sexual behavior.” (Science: 08/29/19)

Even PBS acknowledged that the debate is over: “The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called ‘gay gene.’” (PBS, 08/29/19)

Therefore, it’s completely fair to say that nobody is born that way.

2. “We’re equal under the law, so we’re getting married.”

Everyone is equal under the law but this equality is juridical, not biological. It does not and cannot eliminate the differences between male and female, which create the conditions for marriage and constitute its natural foundation.

Juridical equality means that all those with the natural capacity to marry have the right to do so. And nature requires the complementarity of male and female. But this basic natural requirement is totally lacking in two people of the same sex. So, the principle of equality under the law does not apply.

3. “Homosexual acts between consenting adults don’t hurt you.”

Consent alone doesn’t determine what is right and wrong -- human behavior must also conform to moral law.

Moreover, the acceptance of homosexual activity eventually ends up hurting public morality. I’ll give you two examples.

a) Just consider Drag Queen Story Hour for 3-year-old children in public schools and libraries. At these events, homosexual activists teach toddlers about unnatural behavior. As one drag queen openly confessed at a City Council Meeting in Lafayette, Louisiana: “This is going to be the grooming of the next generation.” (use clip)

b) Another example is the shameful illumination of the White House in rainbow colors. (show photo). Public morality was sullied by this gesture.

As you can see, the call to tolerate sin has quickly turned into a demand to celebrate sin.

4. “What we do in private is nobody’s business.”

The privacy of the home is sacred, but an immoral act does not become good just because it’s done in private. That’s why the privacy of the home does not protect immoral and socially destructive behavior such as child prostitution, polygamy, and incest.

Therefore, unnatural behavior is “intrinsically evil” in private.

5. “Morality is none of the government’s business.”

This argument is flawed because, according to natural law, the State has the duty to uphold public morality. This does not mean that the State must enforce the practice of every virtue and proscribe the practice of every vice. It means that, when legislating on moral matters, the government must decide when something directly affects the common good, and then legislate to favor virtue and obstruct vice.

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, the State is entitled to use its power to ban or limit them.

So, yes, the state should safeguard morality and serve the common good.

6. “Same-sex ‘marriage’ does not threaten traditional marriage.”

The legalization of same-sex “marriage” and its placement on equal footing with real marriage is subversive. Because, when public authority and society in general deny true marriage’s unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good, and when individuals find legal incentives in counterfeits, then true marriage is on the road to extinction.

Just imagine if the US government started treating counterfeit currency as real money.

7. “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is about civil rights, not morality.”

To say that civil rights have nothing to do with morality is false. While many today try to separate “civil rights” from morality, the fact is that there can be no “civil rights” without a moral foundation.

In his famous treatise on natural law, Fr. Taparelli D’Azeglio affirms:

“The moral order is the basis for society, because every duty is grounded in a moral order that results from the natural order. Now, order is the natural rule for the intellect. In the intellect, order is simply truth, and insofar as it compels the will, order is goodness.”

In short, a moral wrong can never be a civil right.

8. “The Church allows sterile people to marry, so it should allow same-sex ‘marriage’”

This argument is frequently used by “Catholic” homosexual activists. But there is no possible comparison between the natural sterility of a married couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union.

In principle, the conjugal act of husband and wife has the possibility of engendering new life. Conception may not occur because of some organic dysfunction in either spouse. And in this case, infertility is accidental or circumstantial.
However, the sterility of homosexual unions is not accidental. It stems from the very physiology of the act, which is infertile by nature. As a Vatican 2003 document states:

“Such [homosexual] unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons - June 2003)

In other words, the natural union of husband and wife might be accidentally infertile. But same-sex unions are always anti-natural and 100% sterile.

9. “To forbid homosexual ‘marriage’ is discrimination.”

Very often, the term “discrimination” is used to silence the truth. But the motivation to ban same-sex unions is linked to justice, not discrimination. Addressing this topic in 2003, the Vatican affirmed:

“The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons)

Therefore, the virtue of justice compels us to defend true marriage, which automatically excludes all counterfeits.

10. What are your thoughts on this vital topic?

Now it’s your turn to post your thoughts and comments. Please help us defend the holy institution of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman by posting your best argument on this video.

More than ever, we must stand up for God’s marriage.

Since the beginning, God made the blueprint for marriage and family. And there’s no Supreme Court on earth that has the power to change such a sacred institution.

Will you please help us oppose Drag Queen Story Hour for children?

Just click here to sign your peaceful protest.

God bless you.