One more supporter of marriage redefinition who 'gets' tolerance and civility. They do exist!
My opposition to marriage redefinition and the ongoing attempt to coerce America into recognizing sodomy as the moral equivalent of the reproductive act has resulted in a predictable response from those who disagree. I am libeled. I have my motives attacked. I am called names. But I am never rebutted by reasoned argument. And the truly fascinating thing is that such attacks are most common on posts simply observing that in specific instances the other side argues by libel and name-calling rather than by rational debate!
I thank those who have posted on my Google+ account (they're apparently too smart to do it here) and so promptly and vividly reinforced my argument by doing exactly what I deplored in the posts for which they attacked me!
There is a reason for this. The cultural Left aims to win out not by winning a debate, but by preventing one. It has largely succeeded. After all, if you can start the discussion by defining those who take a position even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took a couple of years ago as bigots, you don't have to listen to what they have to say. In fact, you can silence them entirely, equating them with the Ku Klux Klan and implying that to suggest that it's OK to have religious or moral problems with homosexual behavior- or to suggest that affirming a false equivalency between same-sex relationships and traditional marriage might be worth discussing before we as a society cross that line- is to be one with Westburo Baptist Church and the late (and not missed) Fred Phelps. Why bother even having a debate when you can intimidate, discredit, and silence the opposition without having to even engage their arguments?
The thing is, of course, that not all gays and lesbians (or straight supporters of marriage redefinition) are totalitarians at heart. Here is an example of someone who believes in extending our definition of marriage to same-sex couples who nevertheless deplores the Gestapo tactics those who agree with them have made their customary response to those of us who do not.
HT: Real Clear Politics
I thank those who have posted on my Google+ account (they're apparently too smart to do it here) and so promptly and vividly reinforced my argument by doing exactly what I deplored in the posts for which they attacked me!
There is a reason for this. The cultural Left aims to win out not by winning a debate, but by preventing one. It has largely succeeded. After all, if you can start the discussion by defining those who take a position even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took a couple of years ago as bigots, you don't have to listen to what they have to say. In fact, you can silence them entirely, equating them with the Ku Klux Klan and implying that to suggest that it's OK to have religious or moral problems with homosexual behavior- or to suggest that affirming a false equivalency between same-sex relationships and traditional marriage might be worth discussing before we as a society cross that line- is to be one with Westburo Baptist Church and the late (and not missed) Fred Phelps. Why bother even having a debate when you can intimidate, discredit, and silence the opposition without having to even engage their arguments?
The thing is, of course, that not all gays and lesbians (or straight supporters of marriage redefinition) are totalitarians at heart. Here is an example of someone who believes in extending our definition of marriage to same-sex couples who nevertheless deplores the Gestapo tactics those who agree with them have made their customary response to those of us who do not.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments