Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SASU Talking Points
ArGee | 2/22/02 | ArGee and SASU members

Posted on 02/22/2002 6:17:19 AM PST by ArGee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-358 next last
To: NittanyLion
Do you realize how many times liberals have used that definition to dictate how a business owner must use his/her property?

I'm not surprised that liberals and conservatives have a lot in common. The best way to tell a lie is to include as much of the truth as you possibly can. Liberals do this, so do libertarians.

You and I both know that the extreme ends of the spectrum are socialism and anarchy. Neither conservatives nor libertarians want either one. Since libertarians don't want anarchy, they want government to use force to create a valid society just as much as conservatives and liberals do. The difference is the ends to wich government should use force.

The liberal wants the government to use force to create a utopian society. But without G-d they define the utopian society either by majority rule or the rule of the elite.

The libertarian wants the government to use force only to protect people's rights. But without G-d they define those rights either by majority rule or the rule of the elite.

The conservative believes that G-d ordained government to restrain evil and to make it possible for good men to do good. They define good and evil according to G-d's definition as handed down over 3500 years in the Bible. Because their definition is fixed we are protected from the excesses of the majority and the elite that liberalism and libertarianism would subject us to.

Shalom.

321 posted on 03/04/2002 9:54:51 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: khepera; brad's gramma; 1 fellow freeper; jmj333
I'd appreciate comments on post 321.

Shalom.

322 posted on 03/04/2002 9:55:40 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: *SASU; JMJ333; Tourist Guy; EODGUY; proud2bRC; abandon; Khepera; Dakmar; RichInOC; RebelDawg...
An updated talking points. As conversation has gone forward, new and good ideas have been added on a post-by-post basis. I've collected them all and added them to the original to make this newly comprehensive post. (If I've missed any, please forgive me.)


SASU* Talking Points

*Straight Americans Speaking Up

General


Q: What kind of moron would say such a thing? Do they have air conditioning in your cave? You must be one of those Taliborn-again. (etc. etc.)
A: Does the fact that you have been reduced to (name calling, sarcasm, etc.) mean that you no longer can back your position up with facts?

Q: Why are you so fixated on homosexuals?
A: Actually, nobody would be more happy than I would for the whole issue to go away. There are plenty of problems in this world and they all need attention. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. SADs are trying to teach their perversion in our schools. Adulterers aren't. Murderers aren't. Cannibals aren't. SADs are trying to get special laws written to protect their immoral lifestyle. Adulterers aren't. Murderers aren't. Cannibals aren't. SADS are trying to force themselves into the clubs we use to turn young boys into men. Adulterers aren't.

Well, you get the picture.

Q: Don't you think it's awfully rude to refer to homosexuals as "perverts?"
A: As opposed to what? They are perverts. A pervert is someone who perverts sex - who practices an abnormal kind of sex. Just because you want to pretend that there is no such thing as an abnormal kind of sex doesn't mean there isn't.

Maybe you are objecting because I am not calling necrophiliacs, or sado-masochists, or cross-dressers perverts. But that's only because they don't have huge threads devoted to justifying thier perverted lifestyles.

Public Policy

Q: What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of ours.
A: If they were doing it in the privacy of their own homes then we wouldn't know about it to be discussing it. The issue isn't the people who are doing what they do in privacy, it's the ones who are insisting that I pay attention to what they are doing and approve of it. They made it a public issue, not me. But I'm going to finish what they started. Such behavior is destructive to society and we must continue to say so.

Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A:People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature. We do not exist well in a vacuum. Part of the function of our society is to maintain norms of interaction that will allow us to survive. We call these norms our culture. Historically, cultures must be based on concrete fundamental truths. They can't be based on the whims of the moment or they will fall apart. In fact, historically, those cultures that have lasted the longest were based on concrete fundamental truths and they fell only when the societies stopped enforcing those rules. To date, only one culture in all of human history has been able to reconstruct itself after it fell, and that was because it returned to those concrete fundamental truths and cherished them until it could regain its land. I'm talking about Jewish culture and Israel.

America was founded on concrete fundamental truths. France was not. Both governments had similar ideals, but America had a culture to sustain those ideals and the government has been working here for over 250 years. You can't say the same for France because their culture is not based on concrete fundamental truths. If America lets those truths go, we will go the way of France, which is headed for the same fate as Babylon or Ninevah or Rome or any other ancient culture.

Q: Why should society care what individuals do?
A: If decent human beings don't stand up and fight for our foundational culture, our republic will be lost, because as moral values are tossed aside, the government will be there to regulate the behavior produced by those loss of morals. A climate of immorality only gives the government an opportunity to expand.

Q: Social and/or legal discouragement of homosexuality won't reduce the occurance of SAD
A: If the practice of homosexuality is shunned people would be more eager to overcome the defects in their lives than succumb to them. SAD is curable, you just have to want to be normal again. Unfortunately in today's society we support these SADs in their sickness giving them no motivation to be cured.

Society is essentially enabling the deviants to live a comfortable life as a deviant instead of encouraging them to seek a cure.

Q: If gays were allowed to marry like normal people then the negatives (promiscuity, disease, domestic violence) associated with existing gay (male) lifestyle would decrease.
A: A 'monogomous' SAD couple were responsible for the rape and torture of Jesse Dirkhising. The incidence of monogomy in the SAD culture is extrememly small. What makes you think that a piece of paper will cause people to be monogomous when they spend all their time now being promiscuous? The only thing that will stop SAD promiscuity is SADs getting healed.

Q: Why should evidence that one can discourage welfare dependence by making welfare unavailable tell us anything about whether we can discourage homosexuality by keeping marriage unavailable?
A: They are both behaviors. Make the results of the behavior unpleasant and the behavior will eventually go away. The problem now is that SADs are coddled rather than forced to face their perversion and it's results. Therefore they choose to remain in the SAD lifestyle instead of seeking a cure.

NOTE: This isn't just a SAD issue. This applies to all sexual deviancy.

Q: Why would allowing 'gay' marriage mean allowing other perversions to marry? Leaving aside that marriages to dogs or dead people or children cannot be consensual, and are therefore not comparable to the mutual commitment of two adult humans (of the same or different sexes), why can't we just say "yes" to one and "no" to the others?
A: The union of two men or two women is not comparable to the union of one man to one woman as the SAD union has no potential to produce children (which as we all know are the future of our society). So right now our laws do say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. We say yes to beneficial marriages (those that have the potential to produce new members of society) and no to detrimental marriages (those that have no potential to produce). Rather than start down the slippery slope of allowing all perversions to marry lets just say no to all of them.

(Note that inability to have children due to impotence etc in a normal couple is usually not known until after the marriage. The institution must support the potential to have children which ONLY male-female *normal* marriages provide)

Q: Comparing 'gay' marriage to bestial (pedophilial, necrophilial etc) marriage is not a valid comparison.
A: If we break the definition to include one detrimental type of union we will eventually have to break it to allow all of them. Look at how the pedophiles are lobbying the APA to be delisted as a disease (or they may already have been) they are about 15-20 years behind the SADs. History shows us that compromise on our core values always results in the death of those values.

After all pedophilial marriage is not comparable to beastial marriage because its two humans involved. And bestial marriage is not comparable to necrophilial marriage becasue two living things are involved. Etc ad nauseum. There will always be a reason why the next favorite perversion is somehow better than the second next favorite perversion. Let's just sidestep the whole thing and disallow all the perversions (which is what our laws do now)

Q: But I also think that gays can only be more likely to behave in manner more supportive of good social order if society treats them as if it expects such responsible behavior.
A: You are correct. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, 'responsible behavior'. Therefore we must expect, and make that expectation known, that the SADs seek a cure to their behavior.

Q: Shutting gays out of "respectable" society and its institutions only encourages rebellious and self-destructive behavior.
A: The problem is that SADs are not shut out of respectable society. You can't fire someone just because they are a pervert. You can't kick them out of rental property you own, you can't socially penalize them in any way. If we did, we'd have less SADs. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, "responsible behavior"

Q: Do you really advocate throwing all homosexuals in jail?
A: Everyone who practices illegal behavior should be thrown in jail upon presentation of the evidence and proper due process. Certain homosexual behaviors are illegal and should be prosecuted. (Some heterosexual behaviors shuld be illegal and should be prosecuted.)

Nobody should be thrown in jail for simply saying, "Hi, I'm gay" or holding hands with someone of the same sex in public.

The actual SASU preference for those cases is that the offenders won't ever be invited to any parties. Civil societies don't always need laws to enforce their moral standards.

Q: Do you believe all homosexuals should be put in jail? How about subjected to the death penalty?
A: Certain destructive behaviors should definately be held to be illegal - such as sodomy which is very dangerous to the recipient. But we shouldn't be able to kick people's doors in to find out if they're engaged in sodomy. We can wait for a body or for a public sex act before we take any legal action.

What about other sexual acts? I'd like our society to hold that all sexual acts are to be performed in private and to punish public "lewdness" appropriately. But the community in which the act is performed has to make that judgement and enforce it accordingly. It's not something for us to undertake at any higher governmental level than city hall.

I definately do not approve of using the death penalty for a sexual offense. The current definitions of a capital crime do not need to have any crimes added in my opinion.

Normalcy

Q: Homosexuaity is normal.
A: Homosexuals have done everything they can to try to convince us of this, but all they have on their side is volume. Homosexual behavior has been known to be both abnormal and destructive to society for millennia. For some reason we now believe ourselves to be immune to its distructive effects. No other society has been, and we will not be either. We must stand firm against the attempt to proclaim homosexual behavior normal by fiat. I won't be cowed by volume or adhomenim attack. Homosexual behavior is abnormal and I intend to continue to remind people of the fact.

Q: Homosexuality is genetic. Therefore it's ok
A: No study has ever found a 'gay' gene. In fact studies using identical twins have shown that there is no genetic component to SAD.

For the sake of argument however, lets assume that a 'gay' gene is found. SAD then falls into the area of other genetic diseases like alcoholism. Just because an alcoholic is genetically predisposed to the disease should society excuse his self-damaging behavior and let him drink as much as he wants? NO! Society demands that he control his behavior and stay sober in order to be a member of respectable society. Drunks aren't welcome in most places including most places of business.

Likewise, if SAD is genetic, the SADs should be shut out of respectable society until they control their behavior. This includes shutting them out of any place where children or respectable people will be. Socially repugnant behavior is socially repugnent whether it is genetic or not.

Q: Can you prove that homosexual behavior is harmful?
A: To individuals? The medical evidence is overwhelming. To society? The only way to "prove" such a thing is to design an experiment where there are two groups of societies where the only distinguishing feature is that one allows homosexual behavior and the other doesn't. Then we have to watch and see what happens. Even if we could do such a thing, wouldn't it be a tad unethical to try?

A more telling question is, can you prove that homosexual behavior is not harmful to a society. Remember we started with a society that didn't permit homosexual behavior and was doing well. In all of history, homosexual behavior has been shunned, or the society did not stand. While that does not constitute proof, it does stand as evidence. We have a standard that works. Now you want to tinker with that standard. The risk to our children is great if homosexual behavior is inded harmful. Why should we let you tinker? Give me something concrete that says you aren't doing any harm before I let you experiment with my society. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Religious

Q: Can you prove that your God exists?
A: I don't need any more proof that God exists. Contrarily, as long as you force yourself to remain in a materailst box you are incapable of seeing any proof. Therefore, the entire question is a waste of bandwidth. You can't prove color to the blind. You can't prove pitch to the deaf. You can't prove math to the imbecile. And you can't prove God to the spiritually dead. On the other hand, if you ever really do want to get to know God, you won't need to ask me to prove that He exists.

Q: Why do you focus on homosexuality? Aren't adultery and fornication just as much an abomination to God? Those are heterosexual sins. Why don't you pay any attention to them?
A: Christians don't just focus on SAD. But in the public policy arena the adulterers and fornicators are happy to keep the issue private. When such issues become public Christians do respond, as when Gary Hart had to withdraw from his presidential bid, or when Bill Clinton was impeached. We even respond to our own, as when Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute, or when Gary Bauer was meeting with a female junior staffer behind closed doors for long periods of time. Homosexual Activists are the ones who force Christians to address SAD as a public policy issue. If they had been happy to keep their sexual deviancy a private issue, Christians would be happy to be focusing on other things.

But while all sin is sin from the moral perspective, there is a progression from less destructive to more destructive from the social and personal perspective. There is also a progression from soft heart (like King David) to hard heart (like Pharoah). Adultery and fornication are wrong and destructive. And they are more wrong and destructive than greed and gluttony, which are more wrong and destructive than white lies. Picture a slippery slope on the way to a completely hardened heart. Some sins are closer to the soft hart, other sins are closer to the hard heart. The Bible, especially Romans 1, makes it clear that SAD is the final step. Romans tells us that "God gave them up..." God doesn't give up easily. SADs are very nearly completely hardened. Ex-gays will tell you how hard it is to come out of that lifestyle. They will also tell you how important it is.

Q: Remember, the devil did not make ten percent of our population left handed nor ten percent gay. It was our God in heaven who created man. Perhaps Gods image includes the capacity to love and tolerate.
A: God made man in His own image. God does not have SAD. (In fact God sees the practice of homosexual behavior as abomination, something so evil that those who participate in it should be killed instantly) Therefore God did not create anyone to be homosexual. Why would He create something He finds abhorrent?

One key to keep in mind is that no civilization is based on right-handedness, or brown hair, or green eyes. These things can change and do change and the civilizations that exhibit various combinations of them endure. But civilizations based on skin color or ethnicity have fallen. That's because it is morally wrong to discriminate against people because of their ethnicity. And civilizations based on perverted sexual behavior have fallen, becuase it is morally wrong to have sex outside of a monagomous, life-long, heterosexual marriage.

Neither racism nor homosexuality should be tolerated. Both will destroy us.

Q: Didn't God create Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, and Osama bin Laden? If, as you suggest, that SAD is evil, isn't it possible that God still created them in the same way as He created these evil rulers?
A: God created these people, just has He created those who would become infected with SAD. He did not however, twist them into the things they became, just as He does not infect people with SAD. Man through his rebellion and pride brought these diseases upon himself. The hitlers of the world arise not because of God but because man tries to elevate himself above God.

Adolf Hitler as a baby was just as cute and lovable as any other baby. He was not born the monster that he became. Somewhere along the line though he was damaged by his contact with this evil (just as young boys are damaged by their contact with SADs) and grew to become the twisted person we know as the tyrant Adolf Hitler.

Q: Do you really believe that homosexuals are the moral equivalent of murderers?
A: If you don't believe in God, your concept of morality is likely somewhat pragmatic. It would be based on some scale of what works and what doesn't according to your own cognative ability.

I believe in God. He has a longer perspective than I do and a much better grasp on the interrelationship of men and their cultures. From that perspective, a SAD might be actually below a murderer. A murderer may kill one or a hundred people. But the people will likely know he is a murderer. At some point he draws a weapon. Even if the victim doesn't know, the evidence of the dead body shows that a murderer is around. People become afraid and defensive against the murderer.

The SAD, however, tries to position himself as an honest, upright, reasonable, all-around-good guy. People don't defend against him. As a result, he doesn't destroy one or a hundred lives, he destroys an entire civilization. He does so by hiding his destructiveness from view until it is too late.


Use them freely and use them well. Bookmark this location and feel free to refer here when you're looking for an argument to some pro-SAD post. If you come up with a good argument, bring it back here so we can all benefit from your wisdom.

Those of you who disagree with what we are doing, please post your arguments here. If nothing else, it keeps the thread bumped.

Shalom.

323 posted on 03/04/2002 10:45:06 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Thank you ArGee for updating the talking points. You always do such a good job of organizing these points that we can use in the future. Not having to re-invent the wheel each time we play that "old broken record" to our opponents is a great help. I pray for the day we can throw those recordings away but until we get through to them we must be consistent and firm on what we say. Until they understand our position they can listen to these old broken records as they are repeated for their listening pleasure.
324 posted on 03/04/2002 1:47:14 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

Comment #325 Removed by Moderator

To: ArGee;Khepera
Telling the truth is a hate crime. Didn't you know that?

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior and should be condemned by all. There. Arrest me.

326 posted on 03/04/2002 6:48:14 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
They define good and evil according to G-d's definition as handed down over 3500 years in the Bible.

If society lived only by those laws, we wouldn't need a single other one, would we? We're not living G-d's laws today, but soon, oh very very soon we all will be.

I rephrase that. We won't need to live by any laws as we'll be in His presence!!!!!!

327 posted on 03/04/2002 6:54:31 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: erizona
Do as the liberals do; one half truth, plus another half truth, equals a bare-faced lie!!
328 posted on 03/04/2002 7:40:05 PM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
I can hear the sirens now! Quick Gramma you duck in the closet.
329 posted on 03/04/2002 7:45:13 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Don't give em any ideas.....lol
330 posted on 03/04/2002 7:47:15 PM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Khepera;1 FELLOW FREEPER
Quick Gramma you duck in the closet.

I am not, I repeat, am NOT queer. I'm NOT going into the closet!!!! Wait. They keep coming out, don't they? Hmmmmm

331 posted on 03/04/2002 8:04:22 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: all
Check out my new post"STRANGE THINGS ARE HAPPENING"
332 posted on 03/04/2002 8:15:40 PM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Homosexuality is a deviant behavior and should be condemned by all. There. Arrest me.

If you're lucky they'll just arrest you. If you're not lucky, they'll start inviting you to their parties.

But don't cave in. Speak the truth!

Shalom.

333 posted on 03/05/2002 5:20:56 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
If society lived only by those laws, we wouldn't need a single other one, would we?

When people are ruled internally by an absolute moral compass there isn't much for government to do.

Shalom.

334 posted on 03/05/2002 5:21:45 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I can hear the sirens now! Quick Gramma you duck in the closet.

Belay that! If they can come out of the closet - so can we.

Out of the closet, SASU!

Shalom.

335 posted on 03/05/2002 5:22:42 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Sir, Yes Sir, Belaying Order Sir!! Sir, would you like the bulkhead swabbed Sir?
336 posted on 03/05/2002 5:57:52 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

Comment #337 Removed by Moderator

To: erizona
I saw the post you are refering to. I think they where trying to make you look like you are somehow guilty of homosexuality or having an un-natural interest in them.

This is an effort to make it look like they are more normal or your more perverted.

338 posted on 03/05/2002 8:57:21 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
This is an effort to make it look like they are more normal or your more perverted.

I haven't seen the post yet, but people often project themselves onto others. They see sexual innuendo in what someone says, so they assume the someone meant it. In the Bible we are told that David loved Jonathan with a love surpassing that of women. To the SAD mind, there is no love without sex so they claim this is proof that SAD is OK with G-d. They just can't see any other way to view the world.

It's best to ignore that kind of thing. You aren't going to convert the person with the oversexed mind, but it will definately show those on the fence what is really going on.

Shalom.

339 posted on 03/05/2002 9:23:37 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
"Counter Transference" and "Splitting" as posted on this thread. Post 272. Done in an effort to catagorize into "good", "evil" and, "neutral". Usually with the goal of putting the person doing the splitting into the "neutral" box and his target in the "bad" box. Its a way to divide and conquer.
340 posted on 03/05/2002 9:48:42 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-358 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson