Evil is deceptive. That's why it hides behind well-crafted buzz words that conceal, bypass, or silence the truth. What might sound like a harmless catch phrase is not really harmless. For that reason, you and I must pinpoint the ideas that lurk behind the buzzwords and know how to totally refute them.
Please write your own suggestions on how to improve upon these replies and post them in the comment section at the end of this page. Thank you.
1. "You're just a bigot"
Short rebuttal: Insults are not valid arguments.
Explanation: The term bigot is so ambiguous. For example, Wikipedia offers this definition: "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."The definition is circular: You are a bigot because you have a prejudice. And you have a prejudice because you are a bigot. Since liberals call every confrontation with their ideas and attitudes "prejudice," for them, anyone who is anti-liberal is a bigot. And, as you can see, the definition is broad enough to encompass just about anyone. However, objective truth is not a relative opinion or viewpoint. It's connected to reality and doesn't change to accommodate sinful lifestyles or liberal agendas.So what does bigot mean again?
2: "Don't you dare judge"
Short rebuttal: Why are you judging me?
Explanation: First off, try this: "By telling me not to judge, aren't you actually judging me? And if judging is wrong, as you say, then it must be wrong for you to judge me for judging, right?"
Liberals have selective memory when it comes to Holy Scripture. They quote "Judge not, that you may not be judged" (Matt 7:1) yet they ignore its context. In the very same chapter, Our Lord Jesus Christ commands us to judge: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt 7:15). Jesus also said: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24).
Only God knows the hearts of men – true. But we can and should judge actions according to right reason and the Law of God. Every day we judge what we see, what we eat, what we wear, what we say, where we go, who our friends are and so forth.
Saint Paul teaches that "the spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 Cor. 2:15). The Apostle exhorts us "not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves" (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
Yes, to admonish the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy.
3. "You're just so intolerant"
Short rebuttal: Do you know intolerance can be a virtue?
Explanation: This is another personal attack. Logical arguments are labeled "intolerant." Again, "intolerance" as "ignorance" here means any disagreement with liberal rhetoric.
Intolerance is bad when it is irrational; not when it stems from the sound rejection of something evil. Therefore, tolerance is not always a virtue, especially when it involves vice. To be intolerant of sin can even be a virtue. The lives of the saints are packed with examples to illustrate this point. Many saints opposed evil with a good measure of intolerance. In the context of morality, the worn out charge of "intolerance" is only another attempt to muzzle the truth in order to allow error to run rampant.
Consider this: If a doctor told his patient to "tolerate" a deadly illness without treatment, what would happen? Could he be called a good doctor? No. A good doctor is intolerant of disease and works to eradicate illness. His mission is to cure.
In similar fashion, we must sometimes be intolerant of moral illness for our own good. The same is true of caring parents who correct and punish their children's misdeeds: They love their children.
4: "We want diversity"
Short rebuttal: True diversity is not perversity.
Explanation: "Diversity" is used as a synonym for homosexual behavior. But the word is meaningless without a qualifier. Diverse what? Abnormal sexual attraction? In the context of sinful behavior, "diversity" is merely a sophisticated and deceitful way of referring to the acceptance of immoral acts against nature which contradict right reason. This kind of "diversity" caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Legitimate diversity is difference among good things – for instance, in culture, cuisine, architecture and art. Therefore, true diversity does not include perversity. Another point of contradiction should be highlighted in this discussion: If diversity means difference and equality means sameness, how can the homosexual movement continue to call for absolute "equality" -- another buzzword -- and at the same time promote broader "diversity"? It makes zero sense.
5. "You're a homophobic homophobe"
Short rebuttal: Please define "homophobia" for me.
Explanation: The word "homophobia" was invented in the 60s by George Weinberg, an outspoken pro-homosexual activist. The word is used to verbally bludgeon those who refuse or hesitate to jump onto the bandwagon of the homosexual movement. Well, guess what. In 2012, The Associated Press completely dropped "homophobia" from its Style Book.
AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO, "it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral," he said.
Homophobia is a verbal attack to demean those who believe marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Understanding biology and the complimentary nature of husband and wife is not a phobia.
6. Marriage Equality
Short rebuttal: 2 + 2 will never equal 5.
Explanation: Natural marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is not equal to homosexual unions. Because two entirely different things cannot be considered the same. Calling homosexual unions marriages does not make them so, any more than saying 2 + 2 equals 5.
Laura Hollis, professor at the University of Notre Dame, put it well: "To believe that men and woman are interchangeable is to fly in the face of reality, to falsify one's daily experience."
And Saint Pius X adds in his encyclical, Motu Proprio: Fin Dalla Prima Nostra:
“Human society, as established by God, is composed of unequal elements, just as the different parts of the human body are unequal; to make them all equal is impossible, and would mean the destruction of human society.”
“The equality existing among the various social members consists only in this: that all men have their origin in God the Creator, have been redeemed by Jesus Christ, and are to be judged and rewarded or punished by God exactly according to their merits or demerits."
7. "But marriage equality is on the right side of history"
Short rebuttal: It's not equal, right or even part of history.
Explanation: This is a self-fulfilling wish. Anti-family activists, leftist politicians, and media pundits claim that homosexual "marriage" falls on the right side of history.
What history?History presupposes a past. And there is no historic precedent of homosexual "marriage." Same-sex "marriages" were never made legal in any historic period. The artificial redefinition of natural marriage imposed by judicial fiat is a recent trend. What we know about it so far will not look good in history books.
There is no same-sex "marriage" without the act of homosexuality. But, if this act were natural, it would not be plagued by all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). For example, a 2011 study by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual activity.
Homosexual adoption is also harmful to children. According to extensive research by Mark Regnerus, author and associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, children living with homosexual "parents" fare poorly in almost every category, compared to children raised in a traditional family setting.
As you can tell, the "right side of history" claim is a lie.