Santorum Crisis Exposes Republican Weakness

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.

Evidently you are also not aware of the fact that smokers pay taxes on cigarettes that more than pay for their health care as well as for many other health care programs for others.

They also die earlier,on an average 7 years before the non-smoker. This is financially beneficial to society since they pay into Social Security until they retire but then die seven yeas before the average thus saving all those government payments they would have received.

Now you may argue that homosexuals die twenty years sooner than the average American male;however,they die before they retire so they are not helping defray expenses of SS because their premature death stops their payments to the program.

You might also consider that I have heard managers say (when one could still talk about it) that they had hired homosexuals but would not do it again. Seems they could expect a married person would probably not get divorced more than once and would use time for lawyers and some time off for stress but homosexuals had a bad relationship that required time off every six weeks.

I am generalizing but just want you to have some other information.

If barging into people's bedrooms is forbidden, then the entire debate over whether or not it should be illegal for adults to engage in consensual acts in private is futile.

Private consensual acts include incest. They also include bestiality. I take it you're against a prohibition on both? (And don't try the bogus 'animals can't consent to sex' argument; they can't consent to being killed and eaten either, but we do that)

We pass many laws whose prosecution is made very difficult by the constitution or sheer practicality. Of all the instances when someone exceeeds the speed limit, how many are prosecuted? 0.01%? Do we argue against speed limits because to really enforce them we'd need massively intrusive action by law enforcement? Nope; we prosecute the speeders we catch, and hope that acts as a general deterrent.

wow, sorry to butt in, but are you that bold as to repost the same Q.& A. after he posted the EXACT information you requested and you dismiss it as too extensive? pure astonishment.

Wow,then you go read through his 26 page post and tell me how it answers my question. Ok?
I'm not going to it.

I simply asked him to document his claim that it costs more to treat an AIDS patient than any other disease.

All that requires is a short list of the average cost of treatment per AIDS patient, compared to the next few most expensive diseases on the list...and then cite a source for the information.

Anyone could do that in a few brief sentences.

If they actually knew the answer.

The idea that I'm supposed to sift through a 26 page article to find info to support somebody elses argument.. well it's just not going to happen. It didn't even have a freakin title.

Evidently you are also not aware of the fact that smokers pay taxes on cigarettes that more than pay for their health care as well as for many other health care programs for others.

Most of those with expensive health care problems now, did most of their smoking back when cigarette taxes were still low...and when it comes to those who are working, health insurance premiums are not paid by taxes anyway.

Sure, high cigarette taxes do help fund a lot of govt expenses....bu I am against these huge increases in so called sin taxes. What are they going to do next...raise taxes on McDonalds because hamburgers are unhealthy?
That is however another debate. Your point is well taken.

Private consensual acts include incest. They also include bestiality. I take it you're against a prohibition on both?

Of course not. There are numerous acts that we all agree should be criminal, that can indeed be committed in private.
I don't think anyone is arguing that because something can be committed in private, we therefore must make it legal.

This is reasonable.

But when it comes to homosexuality and adultery, I don't think the issue of legality is merely a pragmatic one when it comes to enforcement...but that the majority of Americans simply don't want people arrested and jailed for such things even if police happen upon such acts while in their house for some other reason.
And that is of course the circumstance of the case Santorum was commenting on.

this is the post refered to,..................

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_AIDS

Since the first federal resources were made available to state and local health agencies for AIDS prevention in 1985, federal funding, which now includes money for research, treatment, and housing, has skyrocketed to $13 billion for fiscal 2003. As a result of the work of highly mobilized lobbying forces, more is spent per patient on AIDS than on any other disease, though it does not even currently rank among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. In one year, 1998, heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death, killed 724,859 Americans only 6.8 percent less than the 774,767 who have contracted AIDS in the last 20 years.2 Of those 774,767 total AIDS cases, 462,766 have died. During that same period, 14 million Americans 30 times more have died of heart disease.

Research expenditures at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) demonstrate the uneven use of federal resources. In 1996, NIH spent an average of $1,160 for every heart disease death, $4,700 for every cancer death, and a whopping $43,000 for every AIDS death.3 Even though they get far less research money, that year heart disease killed 24 times more and cancer killed 17 times more than the number of people who died from AIDS in 1996, when AIDS was still the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.

272 posted on 04/29/2003 10:26 PM EDT by EternalVigilance (Awaiting your repentence...LOL...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

you either missed it or something else. this was prior to the long post "EV" sent you . looks like proof to me.

Here in Canada they have legalized marriage amoung gays and lesbians. Why not beastiality too. I don't condone this but why not. Leviticus chapter 18 verses 22 and 23 lay it all out. You are not supposed to lay with someone of the same sex as you would with a partner of the oposite sex and you are not supposed to lie down with the beasts of the field. Plain and simple. If you can now do the one then why not the other. I am not condoning non consentual sex between a animal and a human. That's rape. Either the human is raped by the animal or the animal is raped by the human but if one offers sex to the other and it is accepted openly by the other then it is not rape. It is consentual sex between the human and the animal. A dog will often openly sniff at a womans crotch. If the woman decides to allow the dog to go farther to the point of full copulation then she has consented to the animal having sex with her. The only problem with it all is how the law views the act. At the begining of the twentieth century Oscar Wilde was spending time in prison for having a homosexual trist with a fellow that was the son of the Marquie of Queensbury. The same guy that layed down boxing rules. The Marquies son got off but poor Oscar being the older of the two got to go for the iron bar holiday. Since then we have slakened that law and now we let them wed. So why not marry the dog. So very often a dog makes better company so why not comit yourself to him.

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.