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.
Uhmmm...that's what I said--only clearer.
I base my view of right and wrong on this issue on what God says in his Word; as has every generation in North America for the last 400 or so years.
I also base it on a knowledge of history. Every nation that has ever pursued the course you advocate has destroyed itself in short order soon after adopting it.
So what do you base your view on? The word of NAMBLA?
There are some who would argue that all of those things involve a moral choice. I disagree. As I disagree with you.
I understand that this is an issue of particular importance to you, but you've said nothing that remotely convinces me of your point.
You equate sodomy with what you have for dinner? Ridiculous.
I understand that this is an issue of particular importance to you...
Just one more front in the culture war for the future of our free republic. A front opened by the radical homosexual activists, by the way.
...but you've said nothing that remotely convinces me of your point.
Hey, if the severe words of warning in Romans chapter one won't convince you, I certainly won't.
Well, that's fine if the nation was a theocracy, but we're not. Your religion governs your house, not a nation. What basis for this moral prohibition do you want to provide other than your particular religious devotion, which isn't shared by everyone?
So what do you base your view on? The word of NAMBLA?
I wondered how long it would take before you went for the gutter. So typical and so puerile. It never fails, sooner or later in a debate like this, people like you always show how empty your reasoning is.
Actually, it's not so ridiculous. The Bible (Leviticus ch.11, v.7&8) prescribes punishment for eating pork.
Hey, if the severe words of warning in Romans chapter one won't convince you, I certainly won't.
I understand the Bible is your moral rudder. But the point that seems to have escaped you numberous times now, is that this is not a theocratic nation, and believe it or not, there are many people in this nation who do not wish to base national policy on what the Bible says.
So, my challenge to you is... do you have any basis for your moral prohibitions that might resonate with a secular society? If not, you're going to lose this argument.
Psalm 22
27All the ends of the world
Shall remember and turn to the LORD,
And all the families of the nations
Shall worship before You.[1]
28For the kingdom is the LORD's,
And He rules over the nations.
God governs the nations, not my 'religion'.
Show me one nation in history that has survived the mainstreaming of homosexuality, and you might have the beginning of an argument. Of course, there isn't one.
Your ignorance of Scripture is showing. The New Testament makes it clear that Christians are not under the ceremonial law. But the New Testament is also very clear that homosexuality is still an abomination.
I base my main argument on the fact that God has destroyed every nation that ever openly practiced and approved of homosexuality. I don't want God to destroy America.
But there have been countless posts on these sodomite threads that outline the incredible damage done by the practice on the the health and the pocketbook of the country. Of course, you all ignore them, and pretend those costs to society don't exist.
Are you suggesting that America has been a theocracy for the last 200+ years? ...Because my position has been the position of this country for that length of time. The burden of proof is on you who want to change it.
Many nations have come and gone in the history of man. Is it your contention that the sole reason that every one of them was destroyed was because they tolerated homosexuals? Again, you're going to have a hard time making a convincing argument of that.
No, America is not a theocracy, but with this statement it seems you are saying it is and has always been. Apparently that's just fine with you as long as its theological policy agrees with your religious beliefs. Talk about moral relativism.
The burden of proof is on you who want to change it.
I'm neutral, remember. I don't care to change it. But it seems to me that it is changing, otherwise you wouldn't see the need to be on here morally crusading.
Oh, OK, so you feel a Bhuddist government is just as good as a Christian government? No qualms about that?
Publicly accepted homosexuality is one of the key signs the end is approaching for any civilization. Think Rome, Greece, the Canaanites, Sodom, France...
You're confused.
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.