A number of commentators have weighed in on the scandal of the widely publicized study claiming that attitudes about same-sex ‘marriage’ were permanently and profoundly changed when a gay canvasser spoke to someone at their home. However, the philosophy behind such an act as faking a study that was promulgated as irrefutable proof is one of a complete disregard for civil argument on social topics. The LGBT lobby is showing a trend in forcing their conclusions instead of relying on actual scientific data or popular approval.
As Ian Tuttle of National Review writes:
The reduction of all same-sex marriage opposition to irrational hatred is not a reasoned conclusion, but a matter of dogma among many on the left.
And the inevitable result of casting one’s opponents as sub-rational or anti-rational is the end of debate. From the position of Maggie Haberman, the Times writer so perplexed by Cruz’s visit, trying to convince Ted Cruz to support same-sex marriage is like trying to convince a caribou.
The problem, of course, is that community life is subverted when matters of public importance are removed from the realm of debate. And if I can’t convince you, I am left to appeal, finally, to force.
Ian continues to give examples and proofs of his point that the LGBT lobby prefers to use force instead of civil discourse. He ends the article on a sobering note, referring to how our country should be able to resolve these matters, but most likely won’t due to malicious agendas:
The health of a democratic polity depends in no small part on the generousness of its civic discourse — that is, opposing sides ought to give one another the benefit of the doubt. If same-sex marriage proponents allowed that same-sex marriage opponents might, just might, be motivated by something other than animal hatred, we might be able to reach solutions that balance the competing interests unavoidably present in any political body.
But our discourse is growing increasingly ungenerous. We ought not be surprised when the result is less debate and more dishonesty and coercion.
Source via National Review.