It would have you believe that the aggressors are the people trying to take something away from gays not the people who are trying to redefine the eons old parameters of a foundational institution.
Yes, the people who support homosexual marriage are not only the ones trying to change the status quo, they also (intentionally or not) distort the language to make their case stronger.
Its "the freedom to marry", as if government not recognizing, endorsing and supporting decisions, actions, and relationships was government forbidding these things.
Things like passing and applying sodomy laws against consensual sexual acts between adults was limiting freedom, and imposing restrictions on people, but not granting legal sanction to people's actions and relationships isn't.
The best argument for gay marriage (or civil-unions that essentially amount to the same thing at least from a government and legal perspective) is the "equal treatment" argument. Its an argument about fairness, that reasonable people could disagree on, both directly (whether it is unfair, or worse yet, discrimination under the law), and indirectly (mostly whether other considerations involving traditional understanding of the applicable law and constitutional principles, and concern for the stability of the society outweigh any concerns about fairness).
But rather than have the debate under that framework, you get an insistence that not recognizing a marriage is imposing restrictions on people, and an implication that its totalitarian. |
