Activists seeking to rewrite the definition of marriage must stop trying to vilify those who oppose them, a gay writer has warned.
“If they don’t snap out of it they’ll even lose the support of gay people like me,” said Max Wind-Cowie.
He is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos and he accused the “gay-rights brigade” of allowing their quest to redefine marriage to turn “into active hetero-phobia”.
And he branded the vilification of those who oppose the redefinition of marriage as “intolerant” and “ugly”.
He also criticised the advertising standards watchdog’s investigation of a Christian blogger who displayed a pro-marriage advert on his website.
Mr Wind-Cowie, who was writing in the Huffington Post, also warned that far from allowing a plurality of views ‘diversity’ has now come to represent “homogeneity” and “repression.”
Mr Wind-Cowie, who himself supports gay marriage, continued: “Hiding behind it, secularists and the ayatollahs of social liberalism are able to strip public discourse of the bits they don’t like – faith, orthodoxy, skepticism about change.
13 Comments
ABOUT TIME
It is a 2 way street. As a gay Catholic I never like to see the argument to be seen as the religious vs the unreligious. I can see the argument from both sides. Most importantly, the issue of equality has to be seen for the human issue that it is. While I agree with the writer, I also feel opponents of marriage equality need to stop villifying gay people. People who support marriage equality are not "anti-marriage".
JR.
How can you claim to be that which your proclivity shows you clearly are not? To follow Christ means to abandon your sin; not embrace it as though it were an immutable characteristic. You either believe in the Christ, or you do not; there is no middle ground here.
You cannot equate sin with righteousness.
JR says that "People who support [so-called same-sex "marriage"] are not "anti-marriage".
I don't doubt that they believe this; the problem is that they misunderstand what marriage is. They are under the misimpression [or intentionally ignore] the fact that there is a distinct difference between male and female couples and same-sex couples. And ignoring that key difference is what makes their view anti-marriage.
Changing marriage to include couples that are inherently of non-procreative potential is the antithesis of what marriage is. It is anti-marriage.
Well said good sir.
One should also point out that such villification will lead to a great cultural backlash and ruin all the gains progressives have made.
It's happened once in the U.S. and it looks like it's going to happen again.
I try and steer away from vilifying the opponents because it just spreads as much hate as the opponents already spread. I just wish the opponents would stop spreading said hate and stop vilifying homosexuals.
These miscreants vilify themselves through their demands for mandated public acceptance of their depravity.
The emperor has no clothes.
Mr. Wind-Cowie is an honest, principled guy. It takes a lot of courage to tell fellow ssm supporters to truly embrace diversity by not going after those who disagree.
I do believe that what he said applies to many SSMers: when they see oppression coming from their side, they are more inclined to discontinue supporting ssm.
I need to follow up on the work of Richard Waghorne. I love to see intelligent gay people who are against the redefinition of marriage. Doug Mainwaring from Maryland is one of them, and did some excellent work on the subject.
@Ashley,
And when will you take the blinder off and see the oppression and vilification of LGBT people coming from your side? I suggest reading the comments of your friends like Randy here, for a starter!
John, if there is oppression coming from my side, I’ll condemn it. But I haven’t heard of people being kept out of shopping malls because they support ssm, or a person’s website being investigated because they posted pro-ssm material.
As far as this page is concerned, I see SSMers coming here looking for a fight, and getting one. While I may not personally subscribe to everything said by NOMers, I haven’t seen much of anything (on a societal level) from my side mirroring that of the pro-ssm side—such as a sudden revoking of the scheduled use of a facility for a pro-ssm meeting because it violates the building’s “diversity policy” (which is what happened with Brian Brown in the UK).
I’m sure that bad things happen to all kinds of people, whether they are gay or straight. We should work to prevent those things from happening. But we should not allow the bad things that happen to individuals to justify the systematic oppression of those with politically incorrect viewpoints; an oppression which is so real that it prompted this particular response from Mr. Wind-Cowie.
Perhaps you should take your blinders off and stop attempting to detract from the sufferings of those who have been persecuted for expressing civil disagreement with ssm—persecution done in the name of “tolerance.”
Ash, lets not forget the Australian Human Rights Commissioner who was fired for his stance
Yep, Mikhail. There are tons of stories. That one was almost predictable, however. The Commissioner was a little too educated and influential for SSMers to handle.
They like to look down their noses at the common folk, occasionally seeking retribution against them. But someone who is smarter, more educated, and more influential than a good amount of people on their side, and opposes ssm?...that kind of a person is just too much for them to handle.
@Ash,
See facebook for my response to your absurd claims, censors ate the post here.