Table of contents:

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT activists
Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT activists

The political rhetoric of LGBT activists is built on three groundless postulates that affirm the “normality”, “innateness” and “immutability” of homosexual attraction. Despite generous funding and numerous studies, this concept has not received a scientific basis.

The accumulated amount of scientific data indicates rather the opposite: homosexuality is an acquired deviation from the normal state or developmental process, which, in the presence of the client's motivation and commitment, lends itself to effective psychotherapeutic correction.

Since the entire LGBT ideology is built on false grounds, it is impossible to prove it in an honest logical way. Therefore, in order to defend their ideology, LGBT activists are forced to turn to emotional idle talk, demagoguery, myths, sophisms and deliberately false statements, in a word - to rabulism. Their goal in debate is not to find the truth, but to win (or seemingly) in the dispute by any means. Some representatives of the LGBT community have already criticized such a short-sighted strategy, warning activists that one day it will return to them like a boomerang, and called for an end to the spread of anti-scientific myths, but in vain.

Next, we will consider the most common logical tricks, tricks and sophisms that are used by the champions of LGBT ideology entering into controversy.















AD HOMINEM (addressing a person)

Unable to refute the argument itself, the demagogue attacks the person nominating him: his personality, character, appearance, motives, competence, etc. The essence is in an attempt to discredit the person, presenting him to the public as not deserving of trust. It is often combined with the tactic of "poisoning the well" (Poisoning The Well), where the demagogue, even before the start of the discussion, delivers a preemptive blow in the style of Ad Hominem, trying to denigrate the source. Example: “The journal in which the study is published has low citation rates; it is a “predator magazine” of the level of “Murzilki””. Such attacks have nothing to do with the quality and truth of the arguments themselves. This is an attempt to divert attention from the facts, overshadowing logic with negative emotions and creating the preconditions for tendentious conclusions. However, creating negative impressions about the source does not mean that the arguments themselves have already been refuted.

There are three main categories in Ad Hominem tactics:

1) Ad Personam (transition to personalities) - a direct attack on the opponent's personal characteristics, usually with insults or belittling unsubstantiated statements. Someone correctly noticed that the weaker the logic, the stronger the expressions. Example: "This therapist is a hypocrite, a scoundrel, a charlatan, and his diploma is fake." It must be remembered that a person's personal qualities, even the most disgusting ones, do not make his arguments wrong.

2) Ad Hominem Circumstantiae (personal circumstances) - an indication of circumstances that allegedly dictate a certain position to the opponent, which suggests his bias and dishonesty. For example: "This scientist is a believing Catholic." This reasoning is also flawed, since the fact that the opponent is somehow inclined to put forward this particular argument does not make the argument itself from a logical point of view less fair.

3) Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (himself) - an indication that the opponent himself is not without sin. Example: "Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex themselves." Again, this line of reasoning is inherently flawed in that it does not disprove the argument or make it less logically true. The truth or falsity of a statement has nothing to do with what the person nominating it does. The fact that anal sex, if I may say so, is practiced by some heterosexuals does not negate the harmful consequences of this perverse act and does not equate it with natural intercourse.

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

SUBSTITUTION OF THESIS (ignoratio elenchi)

A logical error and a demagogic technique, which consists in the fact that when faced with a certain strong statement and realizing that his affairs are bad, the demagogue in his answer goes on to discuss another statement, at least true and similar to the original, but not related to the essence of the question. The arguments supporting the original conclusion are removed from the reasoning and arguments for something else are offered instead. The thesis, which at the same time turns out to be confirmed, has nothing to do with the original thesis. This tactic can be used both in proof and in refutation. For instance:

Thesis: "The legalization of same-sex marriage in Russia is undemocratic, since it contradicts the opinion of the majority."

Answer with a substitution of the thesis: “A democratic society cannot discriminate against homosexuals; they should have rights like everyone else, including the right to marry.”

This remark cleverly contains the words "democracy" and "marriage", which gives the layman the impression that the arguments of the original thesis are being fully answered. He does not even notice that the manipulator has completely ignored the basic proposition of undemocraticism and responds with irrelevant statements that have not been disputed by anyone. Yes, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against; Yes, they are entitled to all the rights that everyone else has - there is no dispute about this, especially since in Russia homosexuals already have all the rights that others do, since there is not a single law that discriminates against citizens on the basis of their sexual preferences. Therefore, speaking about “marriage equality”, LGBT activists resort to substitution of concepts, presenting “the requirement to change the legislative definition of marriage bypassing the democratic process” as “the right to marry” - two fundamentally different things.

Another example. Question: "Can homosexuals be allowed to work with children, given the disproportionately high rates of pedophilia among them?"

An indignant answer with a substitution of the thesis: "Excuse me, but most cases of molestation are committed by heterosexuals!"

As often happens, an inexperienced person will begin to defend himself, and the demagogue will lead him further and further away from the initial thesis, imperceptibly transferring the discussion into a plane convenient for him. The way out of this situation is actually simple: you need to immediately point out the substitution of the thesis and poke the demagogue with his nose at the original question. Repeat as many times as necessary. The response may be: “You gave an excellent answer to the question“What is the orientation of the majority of molesters?”, However, this is not what I asked about, let's get back to discussing my question. Heterosexual pedophilia is 2 times more common than homosexual, although the number of heterosexual men exceeds the number of homosexuals by about 35 times. Thus, in percentage terms, there are about 17.5 times more pedophiles among homosexuals, and this is according to the APA. Would it be reasonable with such statistics to allow homosexuals to work with children?"

Sophism, similar in principle of operation, which does not touch upon the subject of discussion and is irrelevant, is known as Petty Nagging.Example: "You listed page 615 as the source of the quote, but it's on a completely different page." It is impossible to dispute the thesis on the basis of insignificant and secondary arguments, avoiding answering the main question, which, in fact, is the matter. Even if the nagging is true, the fallacy is that it is not strong enough to refute the claim being presented.

Willful ignorance

It consists in ignoring any arguments that are not consistent with the internal model of reality. Unlike ordinary ignorance, a person is aware of facts and sources, but refuses to acknowledge them, or even get acquainted with them if they do not correspond to his expectations. Such a person will usually come up with pretexts in the style of Ad Hominem and resort to the tactics of Ad Lapidem (Latin for "turning to stone"), which consists in rejecting the opponent's arguments as absurd without bringing any evidence of their absurdity (this is nonsense, conspiracy, you you're lying, etc.). Ad Lapidem's claims are false because they do not affect the essence of the arguments and do not influence them in any way. This is the sophism of "arbitrary names" and "unsubstantiated assessments", where groundless denunciation of the opponent's arguments with unflattering epithets replaces arguments.

Denying facts can be both deliberate tactics and cognitive bias known as "confirmation bias" or an unconscious defense mechanism of "denial." The most convincing arguments will be pushed out by the psyche of the individual in the same way that a cork is pushed out by water.

A book by two Harvard gay activists proposing strategies for homosexual propaganda outlines 10 major problems in homosexual behavior that must be addressed for the full success of the gay agenda. Among these problems are denial of reality, nonsense thinking, and mythomania.

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

“Anyone, gay or straight, can occasionally resort to fantasy and believe in what they want rather than in reality. However, gays in general tend to do this more than straight people because they have to experience more fear, anger and pain. Therefore, denial of reality is a characteristic homosexual behavior … This can manifest itself as:

  • Wishful thinking - a person believes in what is pleasant to him, and not in what is true.
  • The inconsistency is so widespread that it does not require an example or an explanation. We all had arguments in which our homosexual interlocutor made arguments that were not related to either our logic or his own. Why? Because given the rules of logic, you have to draw conclusions that you don't like. Consequently, gays often deny logic.
  • Increased emotionality - One of the effective methods of eliminating the truth is the use of wild and overly emotional rhetoric. Gay men who use this method hope to outshout facts and logic with irrelevant expressions of personal passion.
  • Unsubstantiated views - Instead of logically analyzing the facts, examining the problem and finding a suitable solution, many gays flee reality to Neverland and make vigorous efforts to refute fact and logic.”(Kirk and Madsen, After The Ball 1989, p.339)


It is a tactic that tries to influence a person's beliefs by influencing emotions: fear, envy, hate, disgust, pride, etc. One of the emotional tricks that LGBT propagandists use often are known as Appeal to Mercy (Argumentum ad misericordiam). Having no factual evidence to substantiate his position, the demagogue seeks to arouse pity and sympathy in the listener in order to obtain concessions from the opponent. For example: “Homosexuals are victims of discrimination and evil doom. It is not their fault that they were born that way. They suffered too much anyway, so you have to give them everything they demand. "Such arguments are incorrect and erroneous, since they do not touch on the essence of the matter and take away from a sober assessment of the situation, referring to the prejudices of the listener, who is asked to agree with what was said not because of convincing arguments, but out of a feeling of compassion, shame or fear of appearing inhuman, backward, uncultured and etc.

Another emotional trick is guilt by association, which claims that something is unacceptable because it was practiced by a group or person with a bad reputation. The demagogue resorting to such tactics identifies the opponent with textbook villains and unattractive groups who expressed more or less similar thesis. For example, a person expressing any criticism of LGBT people is likely to be equated with Hitler or the Nazis. Developers of homosexual propaganda tactics explicitly prescribed the identification of adversaries with groups and individuals "whose secondary traits and beliefs avert the average American": the Ku Klux Klan, fanatical southern preachers, threatening bandits, prisoners and, of course, Hitler (Reductio ad Hitlerum).

Since most consider Hitler's values ​​inherently unacceptable, the use of such a comparison can lead to an emotional reaction that overshadows rational judgment.

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

Equating Anita Bryantk to Hitler

Variations of the Reductio ad Hitlerum ploy include juxtaposing the opponent's ideas with the Holocaust, the Gestapo, fascism, totalitarianism, etc.

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

An example of denigrating opponents of the gay movement through the manipulation of emotions in the American press

Putting emotions aside, it should be understood that if a person is really “bad” by some parameters, this does not mean at all that everything that he says, supports or represents is a priori bad and incorrect. After all, we must not deny the truth of the fact that two and two is four, just because Hitler felt the same way.

On many Internet networks, there is a rule known as Godwin's Law, according to which a discussion is considered complete as soon as a comparison is made to Hitler or Nazism, and the party who made the comparison is considered to be the loser.

The diametrically opposite side of the associative error described above is "honor by association". The demagogue makes the claim that something is desirable because it is a property of a respected group or person. Thus, LGBT propagandists constantly refer to various celebrities who allegedly had homosexual inclinations, although in reality such examples are either sucked out of a famous finger, or are categorized as “not thanks to, but in spite of”. Gay propaganda developers explain it this way:

“… we must compensate for the prevailing negative stereotype of homosexual women and men, presenting them as the main pillars of society … Famous historical figures are especially useful to us, since they are invariably dead like a door nail, and therefore cannot deny anything or sue for libel … By aiming its blue spotlight at such revered heroes, a skillful media campaign can, in no time at all, make the gay community look like a true godfather of Western civilization. " (Kirk and Madsen, After The Ball 1989, p.187)

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

When a person gives several examples that such and such persons have a certain characteristic and, without further reasoning and evidence, concludes that all such persons have this characteristic, he commits the mistake of "false generalization" (Dicto simpliciter).

Argument by assertion

This is a logical error that occurs when the fidelity of something is proved only by asserting its fidelity, without providing convincing evidence or arguments in its favor.The statement itself is neither proof nor argument; it only reflects the convictions of the person expressing it. Example: “Homosexuality is innate and untreated. When asked about the possibility of a change in sexual orientation, the American Psychiatric Association answered with an unequivocal no."

Verbatim statements are often combined with a tactic called Gish Gallop, which is a flurry of irrelevant, inaccurate, and knowingly false statements that will take your opponent a long time to refute. This tactic is routinely used on television talk shows, where response times are limited. Having dumped a bag of false statements, the demagogue leaves his opponent with an unbearable task - to explain to the public why each of them does not correspond to reality. For an audience with limited knowledge, Gallop Guiche looks very impressive. On the one hand, if the opponent begins to analyze all the arguments of the demagogue, the public will quickly begin to yawn and find him a tiresome bore; on the other hand, if any arguments are left without refutation, it will be perceived as a defeat.

It is much easier to tell a deliberate lie than to refute it. The demagogue, seeking not the truth, but the victory, is not constrained by anything and can say anything, while the truth requires precise formulations and detailed logical justification within the strict framework of objective factology. As Jonanat Swift noted: “The lie flies, and the truth lame after it; so when the deception is revealed, it is too late …"

Thus, in order to trumpet rumors about “homosexual animals,” it took the LGBT propagandists 40 seconds, which took a video of 40 minutes to refute.

Appeal to nature

This is a logical error or rhetorical tactic, in which a certain phenomenon is declared good because it is "natural", or bad because it is "unnatural." Such a statement, as a rule, is an opinion, not a fact, which in addition is erroneous, irrelevant, impractical and contains extremely vague definitions. The meaning of the word "natural", for example, ranges from "normal" to "naturally occurring."

At the same time, natural facts provide quite reliable value judgments, the appeal to which is correct from the point of view of logic. Therefore, the statement “Sodomy is unnatural” is not a mistake. Penetration into the lower part of the gastrointestinal tract, which by nature is not adapted to penetration and friction, occurs contrary to the natural data of human physiology and is fraught with various injuries and dysfunctions, often irreversible. It is a fact.

One of the key syllologisms of homosexual propaganda can be cited as an example of an erroneous appeal to nature: “Homosexuality is observed among animals; what animals do is natural; it means that homosexuality is natural for humans as well”. In addition to the incorrect appeal to nature, this conclusion contains two more logical errors:

1) "Substitution of concepts", manifested in a biased anthropomorphic interpretation of animal behavior and an attempt to pass off "a natural deviation from the norm" for a "natural norm".

2) "Selective presentation of facts", expressed in an extremely selective extrapolation of the phenomena of the animal world to human life.

The comedy of Aristophanes "Clouds" shows all the absurdity of this approach: trying to prove to his father the legitimacy of the beating of his parents by children, the son cites the roosters as an example, to which the father replies that if he wants to follow the example of the roosters, then let him take in everything.

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

In any case, the presence of any phenomenon in nature does not indicate anything about its normality, desirability or acceptability. Cancer, for example, is an absolutely natural phenomenon - what conclusion can be drawn from this information? Yes, no.

Cherry picking

The logical fallacy of pointing out only those data and facts that support the point of view desired by the manipulator, while ignoring all other relevant data that does not support it. So, turning for confirmation of their normality in animal behavior, LGBT activists ignored all the atrocities and outrages characteristic of him and focused only on his same-sex manifestations, while closing their eyes to their compulsion and transience.

Likewise, referring to genetic research, propagandists only cite out of context quotes that support the hypothesis of "genetic contribution to the development of sexual orientation", while suppressing the proviso emphasized by the researchers that "this contribution is far from being determinative."

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

Sometimes "cherry picking" reaches such extremes that the manipulator almost in mid-sentence breaks off the quoted sentence, completely distorting its message. For example, the APA quoted Freud as saying in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned sodomy laws in 14 American states:

To lend credence to unsubstantiated claims, the manipulator often links to various sources. However, a detailed examination of the sources usually turns out that they not only do not support his arguments, but directly contradict them. For example, a study of same-sex couples in the dusky albatross, which is presented as an argument in favor of homosexuality, not only does not demonstrate the presence of same-sex attraction in these birds, but also indicates the inferiority of same-sex couples, manifested in more than half underestimated rates of hatching and reproductive success, according to compared to normal pairs.

Likewise, under the famous propaganda video with a pyromanic title, there is a document, 5 pages of which, among other things, are filled with links to various studies with pretentious headlines. An impressive number of links are given there only to create the illusion of reliability and solidity, on the basis of the correct calculation that no one from the target audience will check them. However, after reading the data from these studies, the curious reader will be able to see firsthand that they do not support the claims made in the video.

The most frequent incorrect appeal to authority on the part of defenders of the normality of homosexual relations is undoubtedly a reference to the decision of the WHO in 1990 to exclude the diagnosis of "homosexuality" as such from its classification of diseases. At the same time, the argumentation often takes the form of a “vicious circle” (circulus vitiosus), when the thesis is substantiated by the statement following from it: “WHO has excluded homosexuality from the ICD, because this is the norm. Homosexuality is the norm because the WHO has excluded it from the ICD. " Of course, these two statements are not presented sequentially, but are separated by a certain amount of verbiage.

Since the WHO is simply a coordinating bureaucratic agency at the UN, which is guided not by scientific knowledge, but by conventions achieved by a show of hands, any reference to its literature to substantiate controversial positions is simply meaningless. This is an appeal to false or irrelevant authority.

WHO does not claim scientific objectivity and in the preface to the classification of mental disorders in ICD-10 openly notes that:

“These descriptions and guidelines do not carry theoretical meaning and do not claim to be a comprehensive definition of the current state of knowledge about mental disorders. They are simply groups of symptoms and comments that a large number of advisers and consultants in many parts of the world have agreed on as an acceptable basis for defining categories in the classification of mental disorders."

AN APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY (argumentum ad antiquitatem)

It is a type of logically flawed reasoning in which an idea is considered correct on the grounds that it occurs in some traditions of the past. Thus, apologists for homosexual relationships eagerly grab at any mentions of same-sex practices in historical sources, although the fragments that have survived to this day are very vague and ambiguous, and what they describe is hardly comparable with what is happening today in the LGBT community. It is to this logically defective reasoning that the APA resorts, referring to the book Sexual variance in society and history (Bullough 1976) as confirmation of the “normality” of homosexuality. The argument here takes the form "this is correct, because it has always been." One can recall many disgusting phenomena that have accompanied humanity throughout its history, but no sane person would think of calling them, therefore, “correct”.

Another example of a logical error, in which the age of an idea serves as a measure of its truth, is the "Appeal to novelty" (argumentum ad novitatem), according to which the newer, the more correct. So, any research conducted before the year 2000 will be swept aside by polemic sodomites as "outdated", but this, of course, only if the findings of the research are inconvenient for them. If the conclusions play into their hands, then both Kinsey's study from 1948 and the book by Wilhelm Fliess from 1906, which mentions the hypothesis of "innate bisexuality" (albeit anatomical), are quite relevant to themselves. This phenomenon is known as "Double Standards", whose essence was aptly noted by a commentator on VK:

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

AD NAUSEAM (to nausea)

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

The effect of argumentum ad nauseam is such that it is sufficient to simply repeat the statement over and over again, without any argument or proof. In the end, the starved-out part of the opponents will not stand up and give up, and from the outside it will look as if they no longer have any objections. Here you can recall Goethe's dictum: "Our opponents refute us in their own way: they repeat their opinion and do not pay attention to ours." Naturally, repetition of a certain point of view does not add logic to it and does not prove it.

Moving goalposts

This trick, which is to arbitrarily change the criterion that determines the correctness of an argument, is usually resorted to by the losing side in a desperate attempt to save face. Example:

- Please, scientific literature from the APA website: 27% of homosexuals and 50% of bisexuals became completely heterosexual as a result of psychoanalytic therapy.

This will be followed by statements in the style of Ad hominem, Ad lapidem, etc.

Logical mistakes and tricks of LGBT propaganda

When more than one argument is presented to prove the thesis, the manipulator often resorts to the tactics of “incomplete refutation”. He attacks one, two of the weakest arguments, leaving the most essential and only important without attention, and at the same time pretending to refute the whole thesis to smithereens. This brings to mind an Internet axiom known as Danth’s Law: “If someone claims to have won an online dispute, it’s usually just the opposite.”

There are many more sophisms, rhetorical tricks and psychological tricks, but we will focus on the analyzed one. It should be remembered that the use of such incorrect methods does not in any way affect the truth of the arguments, does not make them less fair from the point of view of logic, but only once again emphasizes the incompetence of the critic and the lack of adequate counterargumentation in essence.

Of course, the above mistakes can be found in the arguments of those who oppose the propaganda of LGBT ideology, but they also have true arguments, while LGBT propagandists have no such arguments, and indeed cannot be. Whether consciously or not, they act in accordance with the instructions outlined in the aforementioned "ABC of the gay movement":

"Our effect is achieved without resorting to facts, logic and evidence … The more we distract the homophobe with insignificant or even deceptive superficial arguments, the less he will be aware of the real nature of what is happening, which is only for the best." (Kirk and Madsen, After The Ball 1989, p. 153)

The most common tactics used by LGBT demagogues are summarized in the table below. If your opponent in a dispute applies anything from this table, point out to him that he is using incorrect methods of dispute that prevent the establishment of the truth, and ask him to return to the right channel of the conversation or dispute. If the opponent continues to answer with the contents of the table, then further continuation of the conversation with him does not make sense. As one classic said: "If you argue with a fool, then there are already two fools." Plums can be counted.

Popular by topic