Again, I think you’re wrong. I find it…odd? Arrogant? That you believe that people trying to debate gay rights haven’t thought to do something as simple as address the perspective and fears of those on the anti side. Talk to them in their language, get to the root of their beliefs, etc.
Where do you see that kind of dialogue taking place? I’ve never encountered it myself. I’ve heard many arguments contending that heterosexuals are doing a fine job of breaking down the paradigm of conventional marriage without any help from gays. Frum’s personal discovery, while although welcome, is nothing new under the sun. (Indeed, I couldn’t even explain to you the underlying logic behind Frum’s original theory that the mere opportunity of gay marriage would diminish heterosexual marraige, except to suggest that he and others are possibly buying into the spurious notion that there are so many potential homosexuals out there that the human race could make a collective choice to stop “breeding,” as it were – a choice it avoids only because of strict obedience to heterosexual norms. That’s quite a lot of menal gymnastics to reach what seems, at best, an astoundingly ridiculous conclusion.) I’ve never heard anybody try to unpackage and disprove the theory that gay marriage is merely a legal milestone on the route to censorship or sanitization of the Scriptures.
Part of the problem you are highlighting is that both sides are engaging each other using the methodology they are most comfortable with, not the one that actually caters to the prejudices and strengths of the opposition.
It’s also a great irony that conservatives have “learned” from liberals only imperfectly. They perceived great bias in news media, and so they rallied around Fox News, which, as today’s New York Times perceptively argues, makes a subtle attempt with its very motto to suggest that there is no such thing as objective truth. They perceive that one cannot be taken seriously without resorting to science, and so they line up scientists who have been discredited or who are in the significant minority in their fields. At worst, like anyone gripped by dogma, they understand the use of example and precedent only as tools, and become not only self-conscious, but offended, when their arguments are questioned.
It’s “animals are gay too, the bible also has x absurd command that we ignore, here’s the history of opposition to people being able to marry whomever they please” etc. That is, one that requires adherence to a scientific, precedent-based approach to culture rather than one based around common sense and a perception of how things have “always” been and used to be back in the good old days, to oversimplify the conservative stance somewhat.
You did misunderstand. It’s less about trying to explain why we should or shouldn’t do a thing than believing (incorrectly) that: (A) marriage is a distinctly Christian or Judeo-Christian concept first established, or at least popularized, and therefore “owned” by, the Church; (B) churches, although considered constitutionally inviolate, will be liable under the law to recognize and endorse homosexual couples by performing marriages upon request; (C) because the Church is often regarded as being in social opposition to “progressive” values, the fight over gay marriage can be considered representative of future culture wars; gays are using the law as a lever to force society to change its mind about its values system, contained in the Bible. These very spurious conclusions are built atop an equally spurious foundation of belief that all contemporary Western morality is derived from the Bible. Ultimately, then, what is really at play here is a fear that the United States Government, conceived as a practically autonomous and unrelentingly liberal entity, is interested in somehow de-Christianizing the American people – taking away the positive emotional and social reinforcement of the thought communities that have been stood up in and around churches. The gay marriage fight taps into a wellspring of resentment and fear of liberals and liberal causes on the part of Christians, who are increasingly uncomfortable with perceptions that they are gullible, uninformed, and intolerant. Calling them gullible, uninformed, and intolerant may satisfy our sense of superiority; it does nothing to bring about any change in their beliefs or behaviors.
