Get Religion has a good short piece that gives an example of the gay marriage opponents talking past each other. It discusses an 8,000-word pro-gay article in The New York Times Magazine by Russell Shorto. Link. Excerpt:
Shorto writes, for example:
"But for the anti-gay-marriage activists, homosexuality is something to be fought, not tolerated or respected. I found no one among the people on the ground who are leading the anti-gay-marriage cause who said in essence: 'I have nothing against homosexuality. I just don't believe gays should be allowed to marry.' Rather, their passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself."
More than once, Shorto seems perplexed at the absence of an “I just don't believe gays should be allowed to marry” approach. Should this be surprising? If these conservatives had nothing against homosexuality itself, their opposing gay marriage would be merely an expression of arbitrary discrimination. (I realize many people consider their actions arbitrary discrimination anyway.) If these conservatives weren't convinced that homosexual sex is sinful or immoral – I'll leave aside the disease arguments and analogies – they could easily find better issues to engage their political energies.
