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.
With basic reading comprehension skills, you could discern that I said exactly the opposite of what you claim.
No. It's wrong everywhere.
that funny, the majority of US citizens in illinois (as represented by their freely elected officials) seem to disagree with you on that.
and since you have granted them the authority to decide right and wrong, i guess you are out of luck.
I didn't grant them anything. Your claim is specious.
But, in the end, God's laws always supersede man-made laws.
Those of you that empower the radical homosexuals are self-deceived...you don't represent any but a tiny minority in the GOP.
I didn't make that claim. What I'd like to know though, is how you can acknowledge that America is not a theocracy, then propose to make law based on nothing more than your religious beliefs.
Well, without an encyclopedic knowledge of all of world history the likes of which no one here could claim to possess, it seems to me that your original assertion - that all of the world's great empires have been destroyed as a result of tolerating homosexuality - has been modified in this latest incarnation.
Not only was the original assertion ridiculous, it would be impossible to prove or disprove. Historians can't agree on the causes of war and downfall during this century, let alone throughout history.
Thinking logically though, it seems highly unlikely that the common thread running through the downfall of every great empire was their tolerance of homosexuality. Somehow, I just envision there were greater causes and concerns involved, such as overreaching military ambition, famine, economics, and war.
You obviously don't listen very well. It would foul up your little fantasy-world concerning homosexuality if you were forced to deal with the many ways that the practice brings harm to our country, and great burdens on the taxpayer.
first you said the majority of US citizens decide what's right and wrong, now you are saying it's God's laws.
which is it?
So your opposition to consensual homosexual relationships is not based on your religious beliefs? Then why did you spend so many posts justifying your position based on scripture?
If it's based on the supposed harm done to the country, can we also expect to see you campaigning against mountain climbing, driving, skateboarding, smoking or drinking? To one degree or another, when someone gets injured doing one of these things, it often harms society and cost taxpayers lots of money.
i'm not the one who claimed the majority of "sovereign US citizens" are the ones who decide what is right and wrong.
You're kinda slow, aren't you...
You enjoy Homosexual sex?I've never tried it. But it doesn't bother me in the least that people enjoy sexual activities that I've never tried nor would ever try.
Nope, just a healthy disgust for homosexual behavior and the agressive homosexual agenda.Yuh-huh. You guys are just so happy, so terribly joyful; you set such a great example. I mean, who wouldn't want to live their lives like you?
Look who's talking...
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.