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.
That's your advocacy.Well, duh.
You're in a public forum. You are free to publically showcase your sin. I am also free to make it clear that your lifestyle choices are sinful, destructive and disgust me.
And again, your movement's attempts to force your choices on me and my family and on my pocketbook are an offense.
Our Republic and its future is of great concern to me
Nations most often fall from within, and this fall is usually due to a decline in the moral and spiritual values in the family. As families go, so goes a nation.
This has been the main premise of thinkers from British historian J. D. Unwin to Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin who have studied civilizations that have collapsed. In his book Our Dance Has Turned to Death, Carl Wilson identifies the common pattern of family decline in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Notice how these seven stages parallel what is happening in our nation today. In the first stage, men ceased to lead their families in worship. Spiritual and moral development became secondary. Their view of God became naturalistic, mathematical, and mechanical.
In the second stage, men selfishly neglected care of their wives and children to pursue material wealth, political and military power, and cultural development. Material values began to dominate thought, and the man began to exalt his own role as an individual. The third stage involved a change in men's sexual values. Men who were preoccupied with business or war either neglected their wives sexually or became involved with lower-class women or with homosexuality. Ultimately, a double standard of morality developed. The fourth stage affected women. The role of women at home and with children lost value and status. Women were neglected and their roles devalued. Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and also freedom for sex outside marriage. Women also began to minimize having sex relations to conceive children, and the emphasis became sex for pleasure. Marriage laws were changed to make divorce easy.
In the fifth stage, husbands and wives competed against each other for money, home leadership, and the affection of their children. This resulted in hostility and frustration and possible homosexuality in the children. Many marriages ended in separation and divorce.
Many children were unwanted, aborted, abandoned, molested, and undisciplined. The more undisciplined children became, the more social pressure there was not to have children. The breakdown of the home produced anarchy.
In the sixth stage, selfish individualism grew and carried over into society, fragmenting it into smaller and smaller group loyalties. The nation was thus weakened by internal conflict. The decrease in the birthrate produced an older population that had less ability to defend itself and less will to do so, making the nation more vulnerable to its enemies.
They may be your 'brothers and sisters', but they aren't mine.
And again, your movement's attempts to force your choices on me and my family and on my pocketbook are an offense.You assume too much. Simply because one is a social libertarian it doesn't follow that one is a homosexual.
As our gay brothers and sisters have acquired political power
Gay Money Comes Out of the Closet : Salt Lake Tribune , August 19, 2000 Author: Ruth Marcus In all, gays have contributed about $5 million this election to the Democratic National Committee alone -- a total that puts them among the top tier of Democratic givers For the 2000 race, the DNC set up a new Gay and Lesbian Victory Council for those who gave $10,000 and more. It now has almost 100 donors, and about 13 members of the party's "Jefferson Trust," for $100,000 givers, are openly gay. Gay And Lesbian Leaders Launch National Grassroots Effort To Help Elect Al Gore President Nashville - February 29, 2000 - Praising Al Gore's commitment to fighting discrimination and promoting equality for all Americans, lesbian and gay leaders across the country today announced the launch of Gay and Lesbian Americans for Gore. The group will work over the Internet and in local communities to mobilize volunteers and organize support for Gore. Today's announcement came on the heels of an important national endorsement yesterday by the National Stonewall Democratic Federation, which has 47 affiliated clubs and 10,000 members nationwide.
Hell, no. For one thing I don't believe in compelling people to enter arrangements they don't want.
Now, here's where I disagree with the Dems on social issues. I believe traditional arrangements are there for a reason: Because they work the best for most people. 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.
Tradition has been there because it works for the most people. But people are different so it doesn't work for a few. Those who choose to live abnormal lives are as responsible for recognizing why tradition works. Those who are traditional should give the nontraditional their space.
They may be your 'brothers and sisters', but they aren't mine.Use whatever terms you want. The argument still stands.
I don't need to pass em...they've been on the books since the beginning of the republic. It's you that has to make the case for changing them, which IMO you are signally failing to do.
The Democrats are so out of it right now that I almost always will vote for a right-wing, anti-Gay Republican before I will vote for a Democrat. Now if there is a Libertarian running and it's a local or state election.....
I don't need to pass em...they've been on the books since the beginning of the republic. It's you that has to make the case for changing them, which IMO you are signally failing to do.I really don't have to make that case. Those laws are almost never enforced anyway. I mean, other than a few mullah-wannabees, who wants to police other people's sexual behaviors?
did i miss anything?
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.