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.
The numbers I've seen put the percentage of voters who identify themselves as members of the Christian Right betwen 10% and 15%. That's a long way from electoral insignificance. In fact, they're staying home would deny just about any national GOP candidate the faintest hope of victory.
... It means we get to pass laws, as we have always done in America, against that which is destructive of our civilization and our society ...Yuh-huh. This is precisely my point. And this is why you are no different from any mullah or gay rights activist. You have a version of truth; you believe everyone else's behavior is "destructive to our civilization and society"; and you want to impose your vision on the rest of us using the power of the state to do so.
Name it & Claim it.Blab it and grab it.
I, on the other hand, search for other solutions in the sewer pipe.
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ...
Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.
An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
That's a different matter. Having sex with two women is conduct within the home. However, bigamy is a matter that extends outside the bedroom, into how one arranges one's financial and public life.
Though, to be honest, I think bigamy should be legal, as I think people should be able to arrange their financial and family structures as they see fit. Besides, it worked for Jacob.
Wrong. The vast majority of Americans believes homosexuality is immoral and opposes gay marriage. Majorities in some states support sodomy laws. Hardly anyone who opposes such laws, except for those who actually benefit from them, cares very much about them. Those who do care aren't voting Republican anyway.
I take it you 'progressive-minded' gentlemen have no problem with bigamy, right? After all, these are consenting adults.This is precisely Santorum's argument. And he's right. If you follow the privacy doctrine to its logical conclusion, this is where it leads.
it's ironic that someone who hates homosexuality as much as you dwells on it as much as you do.
Indeed. But you start opening the door to some consenting adults and a lot of heterosexuals start getting nervous, as well.
Though, to be honest, I think bigamy should be legal, as I think people should be able to arrange their financial and family structures as they see fit. Besides, it worked for Jacob.
Surely, you aren't advocating Hillary's VILLAGE approach.
I am not a single issue voter, but if I was the GOP becoming the other "Gay Other Party" would be the one to cause me to sit out voting for their candidates. I left the "party" 5 years ago for their lack of principled leadership. Throw in a lack of moral leadership as expressed by their candidates and I will cease even supporting their candidates as the only viable alternative.
Given no viable alternatives I will become yet another disenfranchised American. Our Republic and its future is of great concern to me, but not to the point that I will totally ignore my moral compass.
The GOP had better learn that it may ignore it's conservative base but is history if it craps on it's traditionally valued base.
A Kleenex can't give consent either. You make the deduction.
The founders of this Republic would find it strange to think that someone could possibly believe that liberty ever entailed the right to do evil.Yikes. Where is the term "evil" defined in our constitution? Who gets to decide whose lifestyle is evil? And if you live in a state where those in power get to decide what's evil, then you should expect that someday the winds may blow in a different direction, i.e. people with a definition of evil you don't agree with may take power and criminalize your lifestyle.
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.