The political rhetoric of LGBT* activists is built on three baseless postulates that claim the “normality,” “innateness,” and “immutability” of homosexual attraction. Despite generous funding and numerous studies, this concept has not received scientific substantiation. The accumulated volume scientific evidence rather indicates the opposite: homosexuality is acquired deviation from the normal state or development process, which, given the client’s motivation and determination, lends itself to effective psychotherapeutic correction.

Since the entire LGBT* ideology is built on false foundations, it is impossible to prove it by honest logical means. Therefore, in order to defend their ideology, LGBT* activists are forced to resort to emotional empty talk, demagogy, myths, sophisms and deliberately false statements, in a word - to rabulistic. Their goal in debates is not to find the truth, but to win (or appear to win) the argument by any means necessary. Some members of the LGBT* community have already criticized such a short-sighted strategy, warning activists that it will one day come back to haunt them like a boomerang, and calling for an end to the spread of anti-scientific myths, but in vain.

Next, we will look at the most common logical tricks, techniques and sophisms that LGBT* ideology advocates resort to when engaging in polemics.