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.
Very scary poster, here. If you want the ticket back to minority status, follow this guy's advice.
The vast majority of Americans believe in tolerance, not the fundamentalist/bigoted views articulated in this post.
I take particular offense at the word "purge", as if this is some sort of campaign like the Russian pogroms.
You will not "purge" people from the Republican party who believe that the government has no business regulating the bedroom.
We aren't going anywhere. But if you feel like you don't fit in, please feel free to join Pat Buchanan's party. I was glad when he left and the party is better off because of it.
Well said.
The author of this article not only helps the opposition stereotype Republicans as homophobic bigots (which most are not), but he misses the entire point of the Santorum controversy.
This is really about whether or not Santorum wants police barging into people's bedrooms and arresting them for homosexuality, adultery etc.
He still hasn't made his position clear as far a I can see.
Furthermore turning one's own personal religious beliefs into a public political debate is just plain stupid.
As a result of this I really doubt Santorum's judgment and leadership skills.
Then what are you worried about?
... Then what are you worried about? ...I'm not. It's you guys who are talking about the civilization falling etc. I just jumped in to say, hey, relax, everything's OK, people are always going to behave in odd, messy, and often unpredictable ways. Surely we can find some sort of compromise solution in which we all get to live as we please within the limits of a neutral and secular body of laws etc.
Look at it this way; if you're going to argue an animal can't give consent to have sex, you have to acknowledge it can't consent to being killed for food; to being hunted, sometimes by means that give a great deal of pain; to undergoing medical procedures; or to being used as a means of transportation either. And killing it is surely worse than having sex with it.
I'm not justifying bestiality; I'm drawing attention to the peculiar lengths people will go to, to avoid condemning bestiality on moral grounds, while still maintaining its illegality. The 'consent' argument is one such.
Me, I think bestiality is a crude and disgusting act, and should be illegal because beyond a certain point crude and disgusting behavior should be illegal, even if it harms no one.
A nuclear, heterosexual family is the best arrangement for probably 90% of the population I believe homosexuality is abnormal. I believe multiple partners is abnormal. I believe single parenthood is abnormal.
However, abnormal doesn't mean wrong. Even more, abnormal can be right for a small minority of the population. These abnormal people, as consenting adults, should have the right to freely live their abnormal lives, as long as they don't violate the rights of others, because that is what is right for them.
I disagree. POST #56 & #83 and:
A. States Have the Right to Promote the Institution of Heterosexual Marriage
Petitioners invite this Court to view the Texas sodomy statute in a vacuum, ignoring the right of states to promote the institution of heterosexual marriage and how the statute falls within that legislative preference.
[N] o legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilizations.
B. States Have the Right to Regulate Consensual Sexual Conduct
The law "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." Bowers, 478 U. S. at 196. While governments are "obliged to show equal respect to persons qua persons" they are not obliged to show equal respect "to all of the persons' acts and choices." Robert P. George, MAKING MEN MORAL 102 (1993); see also Dent, supra, at 586 (government may promote or discourage conduct because it believes that the conduct benefits or harms the individual, even if the individual does not agree). Prohibiting behavior deemed unacceptable or immoral is precisely what law does: it limits one's freedom to act in ways that cause harm to the individual or to society.
States are justified in enforcing a societal morality as a means of self-preservation because "social bonds constituted by shared moral beliefs are placed in peril when the law tolerates actions that are generally considered to be wicked." George, supra, at 51-52, 73; see also Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 575 (1991) (" all human societies have prohibited certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered immoral"). "Without morality, the foundations of our liberty will crumble, because there will be no moral compass differentiating between right and wrong." Stephen Daniels, Intolerant Tolerance: The Weapon of Moral Relativism at 4 (available at www. ncfpc. org/ policypapers. html); see also George, supra, at 36-37 (" Perhaps every generation must learn for itself that 'private' immoralities have public consequences. . . . It is plain that moral decay has profoundly damaged the morally valuable institutions of marriage and the family, and has, indeed, largely undercut the understandings of the human person, marriage, and the family"). 6
III. DEREGULATING HUMAN SEXUAL RELATIONS WILL ERODE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
B. Current Strategies to Redefine Sexuality and Marriage
Missed this one, the first time around. You are quite correct that the pro-gay lobby is using a horrible strategy. Unforunately most of the activitsts are professional left-wingers first and homosexuals second. Most of the homosexuals I know are as dismayed by the activist antics as I am and almost as much as you are.
I'd compare you to ticks, but that does a grave disservice to an otherwise honorable parasite.
At least a common tick doesn't try to pretend he is doing the host a favor.
The good thing is any DUers or other Dems looking in must be shocked -- Shocked! I say -- to see the range of opinion in FreeRepubic.
I AGREE! This is what really makes F.R.!
Are you calling G-d a liar?
Homosexuals don't have sex with a man as one has sex with a woman. They have sex with a man as they do with a man.
I would say that the public acceptance of homosexual behavior would be more of a sign that civilization had already fallen--ala Romans chapter one.
America has not reached that point--the vast majority of Americans still disapprove.
However, the fact that the Left embraces it so readily is one of the things that tells me that they are beyond help or hope...utterly craven and without shame.
First of all, I don't consider myself a member of the Christian Right.
Second of all, the Christian Right in many cases forms the core of the GOP. Hard to justify describing that as a parasite.
And third, you should learn to express yourself without childish insults.
Wrong. The vast majority of Americans believes homosexuality is immoral and opposes gay marriage. Majorities in some states support sodomy laws.
Most states have been repealing sodomy laws...Why? Because as the previous poster said MOST Americans believe in tolerance.
Most Americans DO NOT want police breaking down bedroom doors and arresting adults for homosexuality or adultery.
That is what the Santorum controversy is about, and the author of the article clearly doesn't get it.
The fact that most people think adultery, pornography, homosexuality etc is all immoral...doesn't mean they want to live some fundamentalist Islamic like state that hacks of people's hands and shots women in the head in public for being unfaithful.
The previous poster is right. If the Republican party is so foolish as to follow the advice in this article they will absolutely become a minority party.
That's why the line about a purge in the article -- which is what I first commented on -- bothered me so much. Most of the rest I just disagree with. Calls for purges make me feel sick.
However, the fact that the Left embraces it so readily is one of the things that tells me that they are beyond help or hope...utterly craven and without shame.Um, yeah. OK. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. No big deal: we can't expect to agree on everything. I need to go now. But thank you for the discussion etc.
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.