The same sex marriage debate

I commented yesterday on the dishonest rhetoric the New York Times used to discuss the same sex marriage debate.  Today, I was going to write about the "politics is personal" approach liberals areusing to turn traditional marriage on its head.  Fortunately, Dennis Prager saved me the effort.  His latest column focuses on precisely what bothers me about this debate, only he does it so much better than I could.  I particularly liked this paragraph, although I urge you to read it all:

Liberals' use of the word "radical" to describe opponents of same-sex marriage illustrates this self-aggrandizing mindset. To describe as "radical" those who wish to preserve the man-woman-based definition of marriage known to every civilization is to stand the word on its head. It is beyond intellectually dishonest — it is mendacity — to describe those who favor preserving the definition of marriage as "radical" rather than to so describe those who wish to change the gender-based definition of marriage for the first time in history. Even if you support same-sex marriage, you should at least have the honesty to admit that it is you who favors something radical.

Be Sociable, Share!