Equivocating sexual attraction with sexual activity

From here:

"Brian Selem is very brave in coming forward," field director Arthur Schaper begins. "He was not just raped; he was homosexually raped. We have to call it what it is. There is such a political correctness in our culture about this."

 

He thinks Salem deserves a lot of credit for bringing this unprecedented lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District and insists people need to understand the dad's viewpoint.

 

Schaper, Arthur (MassResistance)Schaper

"That LGBT flag represents abuse, trauma, harm, neglect, confusion, molestation, shame, and … I would say in every case, a homosexual has suffered one or more of those traumas," Schaper submits. "He is using their own legal culture, their own legal arguments against them."

 

Side note: most of that abuse is from homophobia. 

 

 

The main argument the LGBTQ+ lobby uses is they are trying to speak up and give a voice to a protected class.

 

"His answer in part is, 'Well, I'm the victim of homosexual rape. I am a victim of sexual abuse,'" Schaper relays. "'I am a protected class as well, and that flag is an offense to me. It's a symbol that's normalizing this perversion.'"

 

"We need the world to understand that no matter where it is in the country, people are fed up with this vile ideology being shoved down people's throats," the MassResistance spokesman adds.

 

Except he thinks a Prode flage promotes rake. Not to mention that this is an organization which has said:

The LGBT rainbow “pride” flag is worse than just an anti-Christian political symbol meant to normalize sexual perversions and disordered behaviors. It can also be traumatic to those who have been physically and psychologically damaged by that “movement.”

 

A horrible story

In 2022, Brian Selem, a father in suburban Los Angeles, contacted MassResistance.

 

He had a horrible heartbreaking story. As a teenager he had been drugged and gang-raped by a group of homosexual men on multiple occasions. He was naïve and an easy target for the perpetrators who groomed him. It was such dreadful experience that it took years before he could even process what had happened to him. He is now married with two sons in school. But it continues to be a terrible debilitating nightmare that, despite counseling and support, has affected his life intensely and never leaves him.

 

Brian is not alone. Since the so-called “gay rights” movement became institutionalized in America, hundreds of thousands of boys and men have suffered homosexual rape, according to reports. Even the pro-LGBT New York Times admits it: More than 100,000 men have been sexually assaulted in the military in recent decades. Yet the problem of homosexual rape is rarely covered by the mainstream media.

 

So, when Brian sees the LGBT Pride flag flying, it elicits intense disgust and revulsion in him. Many people are willing to understand that and respond to his concerns. For example, Brian’s barber took down the rainbow flags in his shop out of respect for Brian’s pain.

Except alot of the military rake us based in homophobia, i.e., "Only gay attracted people do gay raoe". 

I'm not entirely sure which issue you're looking for clarification on, but I see two potential issues.

The use of the term "homosexual rape" to describe what happened to Salem. I think it's a bit of an odd word choice, but not an inherently wrong one, for two reasons. The word homosexual can be used to describe an attraction to a person of the same sex, but can also be used to describe sexual activity between people of the same sex. Heterosexual men have been known to sexually assault other men, but the label might still apply in those cases. Additionally, he does describe his assailants as homosexual men, and based on his brief description of what occurred, seems like he may have spent enough time with them that he could have ascertained their actual sexual orientations.

The other is him trying to equivocate the experience with the pride flag in his son's classroom. Assuming that he is correct that it was a group of gay men that assaulted him, it's obviously a gigantic leap to say that a piece of fabric representing a large group of people is the same as a small group of criminals within that group.

From a legal perspective, he does describe himself as being of a "protected class," which is a correct statement. All sexual orientations are protected classes, and legally shielded from certain types of discrimination. However, seeing symbols of other protected classes is not one of them, even if they do invoke an extremely negative emotional response like Salem says he's experiencing. It would be the equivalent of a Jewish person demanding that all crosses be taken down in their presence. There is no right to that, and certainly not one strong enough to trump the rights of free expression of the person displaying the cross. However, there is something mentioned about parents being able to opt their children out of certain teachings, which parents do have some right to do. As far as I know, that varies state to state, but is an entirely separate issue from his experience.

And the question is?

The argument presented in the text involves several logical fallacies and cognitive biases that need to be addressed:

1. **Equivocation Fallacy**: The argument conflates sexual attraction with sexual activity, particularly non-consensual sexual assault. This is an equivocation fallacy because it uses two meanings of the word "homosexual" (one relating to consensual attraction and relationships, and the other to non-consensual acts of sexual violence) interchangeably, which distorts the argument.

2. **Hasty Generalization**: The text makes sweeping generalizations about the LGBT community based on specific incidents of sexual violence. It implies that the presence of LGBT symbols or advocacy is inherently linked to sexual abuse, which is an inappropriate generalization from specific cases to a whole community.

3. **Confirmation Bias**: The argument shows confirmation bias by selectively citing reports and statistics that seem to support the narrative of widespread homosexual rape, without adequately acknowledging or addressing opposing evidence. It ignores the broader context of sexual violence, which is not exclusive to any one orientation or demographic.

4. **Appeal to Emotion**: The narrative uses emotionally charged language to provoke fear and disgust, such as describing the LGBT flag as representing "abuse, trauma, harm, neglect, confusion, molestation, shame." This appeal to emotion distracts from a rational analysis of the issues and influences the audience through fear rather than factual reasoning.

5. **False Cause Fallacy**: The argument implies a causal link between LGBT advocacy and sexual violence without substantiating this connection with evidence. Correlation does not imply causation, and the assertion that LGBT symbols or the broader movement cause or promote instances of rape is not supported by data.

6. **Ad Hominem**: The text implicitly attacks the LGBT community and its symbols, branding them as "vile" or "perverse," instead of addressing the specific actions or individuals responsible for the crimes described.

7. **Slippery Slope**: The argument suggests that the normalization of LGBT rights will inevitably lead to an increase in sexual violence, which is a slippery slope fallacy. This assumes a chain of events without evidence to support that one would cause the other.

Overall, these fallacies undermine the validity of the argument and prevent a nuanced and evidence-based discussion on the issues of sexual violence and LGBT rights.