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.
What else is new..?
I am beginning to think all they do well is international trade, tax cuts and amnesty for illegals.
You weren't content to simply be "left alone" You became arrogant and attempted to ram your lifestyle down everyones throat..
Now there's a backlash, and I can certainly see why.
Now there's a backlash, and I can certainly see why.Revenge as public policy. What a great idea.
The number of those who will actually refuse to support the GOP if it won't burp and coo them in response to each screech has been tested, by Pat Buchanan in his 2000 run.
Then what are you worried about?
I find selective, arbitrary prosecution very troubling. People are subject to the whims of the government. Is that the America you want to live in?
Ultimately, the GOP needs to gather up some testosterone and tell the Religious Right that it can have a certain amount of bully-pulput support for personal restraint, but no police compulsion in suport of its preferences.
They really can't get a better deal than that. The Democrats will enlist police compulsion against their preferences, the significant third parties (Libertarians and Greens) will offer the same two choices, and attempts to organize third parties more to the liking of the Religious Right have been pathetic failures even by third-party standards.
DUfus land is over thataway.
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. Let's be careful what we wish for here. This might not be such a smart thing to advocate. The homosexual advocates share an office with the female supremacy police, who make the same argument concerning the immutability of maleness, which they consider a social conditioning problem that needs fixing. As we all know, these people now control the education system from kindergarten through college. We don't just see fisting classes in elementary school, we see every kind of social conditioning measure imaginable being used to twist boys into being girls; to make boys ashamed of being male; and when all else fails, to make sure the unbendable ones don't learn anything so they can't get very far when they grow up. These measures range from cancelling recess so boys can't blow off their energy, through drugging the little miscreants if they won't sit still and behave properly, which is to say, like girls. When that bunch finishes with them, the rest of them come in to explain the joys of, umm, alternate forms of eroticism. The idea that sexual orientation can be controlled via conditioning is exactly the same argument that the most whacked-out feminists make that "sex" may be immutable but "gender" is a social construct. And it's one that Anointed Smart People who know best can and should alter, so as to Make Everything Better. I think that accepting the premises and strategies of liberal social engineers is ultimately a form of defeat. It amounts to trying to build the New Conservative Man instead of the New Communist Man. The truth is, all efforts by Anointed Smart People to improve the human race go nowhere, as the Soviet Union demonstrated by failing to produce the New Communist Man after three generations of trying. All we really need to do here is get rid of the social engineers who are already in place. We do not need to put our own in their stead. |
This is a complete straw man. 'Barging into people's bedrooms' is forbidden by the fourth amendment. if you're going to argue against Santorum, do it honestly.
They really can't get a better deal than that. The Democrats will enlist police compulsion against their preferences, the significant third parties (Libertarians and Greens) will offer the same two choices, and attempts to organize third parties more to the liking of the Religious Right have been pathetic failures even by third-party standards.
That was the most insightful post I've seen on FR in a very long time. Thank you.
Do you want to live in an America that casts aside all restraint and imposes the sexual morays of San Francisco on the rest of us? (Using our own tax dollars, of course.)
That is the real danger we are now faced with--not some strawman bedroom police scenario.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)
Nice non sequitur. Now how about answering my question. Do you like arbitrary justice?
No, I think debased homosexual practices should be illegal for everyone, as they were for most of our free republic's history.
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.