Yes, and that's why Santorum will probably ultimately be defeated much to my chagrin since I support him. The view that homsexuality is a sin is now considered an invention by men - "extreme right-wing religiosity", but those of us who still read the Bible know otherwise. Still, I think the country will be presented with a candidate that adheres to the truth this year, and we'll see what it chooses. It may be its last opportunity to make such choice.
I don’t think opposing gay marriage is a losing issue. The Dems were trying to keep that vote off the ballot a couple years ago because they were afraid it would increase conservative turnout. As long as Santorum keeps the “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude then it won’t be a negative except to people who were going to vote for Obama anyway. Santorum seems to be one of the few politicians who knows how to argue these moral issues without using religious language, which is important to not alienating voters. Getting up there and saying, “I can’t support this because my religion is against it” is a loser. Explaining why it’s bad for society and culture is the right message. IMO, once you shy away from running on an issue in a presidential campaign, you may as well give up on the issue completely and give the other side what they want. A presidential campaign is not the right place to surrender on the issues you care about.
I don't think that's true, even now. The people have never voted for gay marriage, it's always been the politicians and judges who have imposed it on them. No one likes to openly say that homosexuality is a "sin," but the majority still think that real marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's like the right to life. The media and the pundits are very much in support of a "woman's right to choose." But defending the right to life is still a winner at the polls, which is why the abortion lovers need to use all that fake language about "rights" and "choice," and to deliberately confuse rejection of the sin with rejection of the sinner.
Please. Santorum and other Catholics say that the acts are sinful but the unchosen orientation is not sinful.
When you lump both together under “homosexuality” you make the conservative defense harder. The best evidence (from NARTH) suggests that the causes of the orientation are largely developmental and not freely chosen. Acting upon the urge is freely chosen and therefore sinful.
Gays hate us even for saying that the orientation is disordered but not sinful, not to mention for saying the acts are sinful When you put words in Santorum’s mouth to the effect that the orientation itself is sinful, you unnecessarily undermine our cause.