Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.
First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage’s defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are “anti-gay thugs” or “theocrats” or “Taliban,” as some critics have said.
Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.
Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality – here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy – and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.
via Kevin DeYoung
(via squashed):
SDS, Daniel Holter, and Matthew J. Franck disagree on marriage equality. Franck accuses marriage equality proponents of...
WELL YES IT IS.
Daniel Holter responded to my post about the way gay marriage advocates approach the debate with traditional marriage...
And here’s my two cents: Honestly. If you’re going to say that gay people shouldn’t be married, make the same argument...
I think the worst argument about ‘traditional’ marriage is the traditional part. Marriage was not about love or even...
Thank you, Daniel.
Speaking as an amateur advocate for marriage equality (I’m not a fan of the term “gay marriage,” since I believe that’s...