Logical Fallacies - Equivocation

Equivocation is a logical fallacy created by a misuse of language.  When you change the definition of a word mid-argument, that's equivocation.
It can be used to form puns.  For instance, in order to run, something must have legs.  So when the faucet is running, it must have legs.  (Okay, really lame puns.)  A more relevant example was when Pastor Jeffress referred to Mormonism as a cult, trying to paint Mitt Romney in a negative light.  Then when confronted about it, he explained that he didn't mean "cult" in the normal sense, but a "theological cult" which definition would label basically any religion but Protestantism a cult.  But his conclusions about Mormonism depended upon the other definition of cult, so he's using equivocation to make his point, which is fallacious, which means that his conclusions do not follow.

It's definitely something that is in play when talking about orientation.  Here's an example of the fallacy in action.  According to the book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" being gay is a sin.  Therefore, because I am gay, I am sinning.  The problem is that there are two different definitions of gay.  Looking at the context of President Kimball's book, when he refers to gay, he means participating in gay sexual behavior.  But when I refer to myself as gay, I am talking about my orientation, not my behavior.  So the logic is fallacious.  Being gay does not make me sin.

Let me make clear that a fallacious argument doesn't necessarily make the conclusion wrong.  I'm definitely not perfect.  I commit sins.  I require the sacrifice of the Savior in my life.  But being gay is not sufficient to make me a sinner.

Equivocation often seems reasonable to those who agree, yet sounds like blatant lies to those who don't.  It stifles debate and conversation, and tends to turn it into petty argument.  In order to properly communicate and open real dialog on the issues surrounding homosexual orientations, we have to avoid equivocation.