1 – Are you saying that conservatives Christians should or should not involve themselves politically in the morality of homosexuality (since homosexuality is the topic of this thread)? I’m a bit confused when you first state that we should not be involved in social issues but then say, “Politics is downstream of culture”.
I see that your statement, “ The only solution, IMO, is to take back the culture.” implies that conservatives should stay out of this issue politically; but it is not definitive; it does not say, “Conservatives should not involve themselves in social issues (such as homosexuality) as part of their political agenda.”
2 - Do you think that conservatives have only fought the homosexual issue by quoting the Bible? If no, then what has been a particular “loosing” argument about homosexuality (since this is the topic of this thread) that conservative Christians have presented? If you don’t have an answer to this, that’s OK. Just answer, “I can’t recall one”, I will not fault you for it. I think I have a reason why you would think that “dragging” God or the Bible into the discussion promptly ends it, and I will show you what it is after you answer these two simple questions definitively. I will then also let you know what I think conservative Christians should and should not do.
I do not claim that conservatives should avoid all discussion of the morality of homosexuality, although I think (sadly) that such discussion is for the most part ineffective. It’s been undercut by the cultural revolution of the last 25 years or so by which homosexuality has been innoculated against moral arguments.
What I am saying is that quote the Bible, as in “Leviticus says XXX” is not only unproductive, it’s counter-productive. Using these arguments, even when they are only one of your arguments, not only causes the Biblical argument to be rejected, but generally creates a revulsion by the majority of listeners that causes them to reject out of hand all associated arguments.
I hasten to add that this is not MY POV, just one that I have repeatedly seen in others.
It is of course possible that I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong many times before, and no doubt will be in future. But it seems to me that when a particular line of argument is not only rejected for its own merits, but tends to cause any other line oF argument you might propose to be rejected simply because of its association, it’s a good idea to stop bringing up that particular line.
Not because it’s in and of itself invalid, but because it works against your desired result.
or, IOW, when most of your listeners are idiots, stop bringing up lines of argument the idiots automatically reject. Not because they aren’t valid, but because you want to convince others, not score debating points on some hypothetical scale.
I wish I could explain what I’m trying to say more clearly.