Fox’s Perino, Gutfeld Pan ‘Unnecessary Culture War’ over Indiana: ‘Hurts the Right’

On Fox’s The Five today, both Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld panned what Perino deemed an “unnecessary culture war” over Indiana’s religious freedom law.

Perino argued that the tide is turning on gay marriage not just across the country, but within the GOP, and this fight only helps to “nullify” the progress that’s being made in the party to get Republicans to be more open and accepting of gay rights.

One weapon we have is that homosexuals contract diseases more frequently, such as anal cancer.

Two years ago, I said (to myself) that if homosexuality was a soda, it would have been banned already. Democrats could only wish soda had the same health results as the gay lifestyle.

I would like to point out that a gay couple could spend their lives together without getting sick, I am just saying their odds are greater.

More importantly, he’s a Libertarian. I’ve been saying for decades now, Libertarians are Democrats that want a tax cut. You will find most of them agree with Obama on foreign policy also. Just leave them alone and they will leave you alone. That’s what worry’s me about Rand P in the Rep party. Kids like him but have no clue what he means for America. I’ve tried to be a Libertarian several times before, but I lose it at the social issues. Libertarians are fiscal conservatives with no morals. This will destroy the Rep party.

It is more than just the defense of liberty. We need to reestablish the idea that homosexual attraction is a mental disorder and that sodomy is immoral. I know that this goes against present views but fifty years ago the acceptance of homosexuality went against the then current views. This changed because there was a persistent campaign for change. We need to be just as persistent. We need to look beyond the next election cycle and to continue to advance our ideas despite the opposition. We are suffering in Indiana because we have accepted the normality of homosexuality. We need to stop and reject it.

All questions involving human nature, human interaction, the proper role of Government, the biological & psychological realities in play, etc., should always be fully explored in the endless quest for truth. Science & religion are parallel approaches to the pursuit of truth, and should be understood as such.

But the tactical reality is that not everyone has the knowledge & background to effectively address all aspects of that endless quest. A great many can be effective arguing for the right of people to use their own property as their personal lights advise, so long as they work no intentional injury on (as opposed to merely avoiding or not doing business with) someone else. For those able to be effective in the defense of liberty, to get drawn into a scientific or theological discussion of sexual deviancy--if they are not equipped to handle themselves against a media primed to embarrass those not well equipped to handle themselves in such discussion, could be a major tactical error.

We need to stand fast for principle; but we need to understand the methodology of a very nasty adversary.

As long as the premise is that homosexuality is normal then there will be pressure for its general acceptance. The defense of liberty will not be effective in combatting this pressure even if it is only social. General public scorn can drive a person out of business and isolate him from society just as effectively as government action. A campaign to change public attitudes preceded changes in law. We need to work to restore public attitudes about morality.

There are two different issues, here. The right of free people to make their own decisions--not the Government's decision--as to with whom they choose to associate, with whom they choose to do business on their own property, etc., is one clear issue. Presented as a liberty issue, it is readily winnable.

The second issue, that relates to one particular group with which you may not want to associate, is not simply a major factor in the first decision above. You weaken both arguments, if you simply conflate the two as the same issue.

The one is a libertarian question; the second is a natural law, heritage, common sense issue. (I do not mean in the sense of disparaging, but clearly in the senses, for example, of what is natural sexuality, and most important, today, what is the function of marriage.) Marriage among all civilized peoples, is the building block of any cohesive community. It is all about sanctifying the procreational process within a structure that promotes social & cultural continuity. Properly explained, it is clear to anyone who is not off on a ridiculous tangent, that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

For thousands of years, marriage not consummated by a sexual (potentially procreational) act has been subject to annulment. "Sex" itself, refers to the division of any species into male & female. If instead of shouting moral condemnation--which is certainly consistent with Western values--we quietly explain the reality of marriage to those who have been brainwashed in school, to believe that everything is equal, we can gradually offset that brainwashing. While, on the other hand, if we merely shout condemnation, we trigger the conditioned (Pavlovian) response, that results from our having lost control of what I like to describe as the Academic/Media Complex.

Yes, this multi-step approach involves a lot more trouble than would have been necessary in any earlier age. But allowing egalitarian crack-pots, true fanatics, to take over Western Education, has left us in this position.

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.