Posted on 04/28/2003 2:25:50 PM PDT by Remedy
The Rick Santorum controversy has illuminated a serious problem in the Republican Party: its leaders seem woefully ill-prepared to defend the pro-family position on homosexuality. As an attorney who trains pro-family activists how to debate this issue, I would like to offer my fellow Republicans the following advice.
First, don't dodge the issue in fear of political correctness or pro-"gay" media bias. Stand confidently upon the essential pro-family presuppositions that resonate with people of common sense: 1) normality is that which functions according to its design, 2) the heterosexual design of the human body and the natural family is self-evident, 3) respecting the design of life produces good results (conversely, rejecting that design produces bad results) and 4) simple observation validates these assumptions. No special education or "scientific" study is required.
Failure to articulate the logic of our position cedes the moral and intellectual battleground to the militant "gays," and leaves the impression (even among our own supporters) that we have no reasonable response, other than religious belief, to their attack on family values.
Second, contest the hidden false assumption underlying most pro-"gay" arguments that homosexuality is immutable. We have a strong case on this point since 1) proponents of the "gays are born that way" justification for normalizing homosexuality bear the burden of proof, 2) proof is absolutely necessary due to the severity of social change which is contemplated by their demands, 3) proponents cannot prove that homosexuality is immutable (Indeed, ex-homosexuals can prove that it is not.), 3) if homosexuality is not immutable, then logically it must be acquired (children being the most likely to acquire the condition because of their vulnerability to social conditioning), and 4) society must err on the side of caution, actively discouraging the normalization of homosexuality in order to protect children and others from the possibility of acquiring a homosexual condition with its attendant health risks.
Third, expose the deceptive terms, such as sexual orientation, diversity and homophobia, which are used by pro-"gay" proponents to confuse the issue and control the debate. This requires nothing but making them define their terms at the start of argument, then focusing the debate on clarifying the definitions and exposing their illogic and hypocrisy.
Consider sexual orientation, for example. Does orientation mean "state of mind" or conduct? If it includes conduct, which conduct? Does it include sodomy? Fisting? Rimming? Sadism? If not, why not? Regarding diversity, what is the standard used to decide who gets to be in the circle of inclusion? They don't have one, but you'll have fun with this -- especially if they attempt to draw the line at "hate" groups. What is their definition of hate? (and by that definition, do they "hate" us and thereby invalidate their own membership in the community of diversity?) Speaking of hate, remember that they have defined homophobia as "hate and fear of homosexuals." Ask them to identify some examples of non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They can't do it because they define all opposition as "homophobic." Do they really believe that disapproval of sodomy/rimming/fisting/sadism is irrational bigotry? You get the idea. You'll find that this technique derails virtually every pro-"gay" argument because each one relies on deceptive rhetoric.
Fourth and finally, get off the defensive and take the offensive on the homosexual issue by purging "gay" activism from the Republican Party. The implicit goal of the "gay" movement is the normalization of an anything-goes sexual morality -- the antithesis of the family values so dear to our Republican base. Instead of inviting into our tent the very constituency that many Republicans have spent years and fortunes opposing, why not conduct a meaningful family-values outreach to ethnic minorities? Let the Democrats continue to be the party of sexual deviance and let us exploit that identification to woo away their healthy families to the higher Republican standard.
What is needed from Republican leaders is articulate, confident and continual advocacy of the pro-family world view. Without it, we might as well say farewell to Rick Santorum and other defenders of family values, because if things continue as they are, these courageous people will have no place in the future GOP, the Gays' Other Party.
As for homosexuals, I couldn't care less what they do. It's none of my business. I'm not so sure why you make it yours.
Because they are trying mightily, with my tax dollars, to force their immoral and dangerous lifestyle choices on me, and to indoctrinate my children in it.
Get it?
Personally, I've worked in the entertainment business so consequently I know a few homosexuals. I don't condone their preferences, but neither do I feel the least bit threatened by them. Nor do I think the vast majority of them are pushing the radical agenda. Most of them simply wish to be left alone.
Now I know there may be some who are leftist radicals who push an unacceptable agenda, but let's not judge a whole group of people based on what the most radical and preposterous of them do. God forbid, if conservatives were judged by that standard the left could just as easily paint us all as David Duke and Pat Buchanan.
Get a little perspective won't you? Live and let live. Isn't that what being a free country is all about?
IMO, you are naive concerning the moral, spiritual and physical harm the homosexual agenda can bring on America if we allow it.
Isn't your child's moral upbringing your responsibility? You're apparently concerned that some stranger is going to have more influence over your child than you are. That's a sad commentary.
Sorry, I'm not buying your fear mongering. That doesn't make me naive. In fact I think it's highly ironic that someone who presumably wouldn't cross the room to talk to a homosexual can postulate that he has a more all-emcompassing view of the situation.
Yes. That's why I will fight to prevent homosexuals and their enablers from corrupting them.
You're apparently concerned that some stranger is going to have more influence over your child than you are. That's a sad commentary.
Nice straw man.
Sorry, I'm not buying your fear mongering. That doesn't make me naive.
You are oblivous to the dangers faced by an America that has slid so far down into the moral sewer that it will accept sexual deviancy as normal, and in fact celebrate it. If you aren't naive, you are something worse. I was trying to be charitable.
In fact I think it's highly ironic that someone who presumably wouldn't cross the room to talk to a homosexual can postulate that he has a more all-emcompassing view of the situation.
You're right, I wouldn't give a person who is proud of their sin, and flaunts it, much of my time at all. However, my view is based on an understanding of the scripture, in addition to an understanding of what happened to every nation in history that went down the path you promote.
Thankfully, you all are still a very small minority in this country.
It's not that I'm oblivious, I simply reject your definitions. What you see as a moral degredation, I see as neutral, neither moral nor immoral. You want me to agree with you that America faces a great threat from homosexuals. I don't agree. I think America will be just fine.
You have as much of an agenda as the homosexuals you hate.
Nothing wrong with an agenda, if it promotes the good of the country.
Your moral relativism is better suited to DU than FR.
As I said, it's a matter of definitions. I dare say, in a nation of 290 million people, there are quite a few who would disagree with your definition of "good of the country."
Your moral relativism is better suited to DU than FR.
Please, we're having a decent debate here. I didn't think you'd resort to the typical pablum of Freepers who can't make their case by reasoning.
I'm sure there are far more who agree with me than agree with you...overwhelmingly more.
But of course, right or wrong cannot be decided by a poll.
How am I being morally relativist? Was I being equivocal or arbitrary? No. I disagree with you, that doesn't make my opinion relativistic. You're simply using that term as an epithet because you can't make your case.
You can't convince me of that just by saying so.
But of course, right or wrong cannot be decided by a poll.
Absolutely true. And simply because a majority may agree on something doesn't make it right, like being in the minority doesn't necessarily make one wrong.
Your words, not mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.