YOU CAN TELL WHEN SOMEONE is being dishonest to you or to themselves as to their arguments for or against a thing when they start engaging in straw man arguments.
Many in the Right who have resisted the whole plunge to legalizing gay marriage have asserted that they are open to persuasion — if they hear any. But, as they (we) say, if you’re going to make such a radical change to the dialectic, overturning 10,000 years and more of practice and tradition and fight against what is at least partly a biologically hardwired social behavior, it’s incumbent upon you to make the case to the rest of your society — especially given that, according to the society’s consensual mechanisms, your initiative is opposed 4:1 or worse.
And… so far, nobody has made the case. The sum of the arguments made so far are, “You poopy-heads! You hate us! We’re only in love! You are just against us because you don’t want us to get married.”
Which, since it bears no resemblance to the counter-arguments, in fact, sidesteps the question entirely, is — as they say — a straw man argument.
And now, here today (well, yesterday by the time you read this), you’re doing an end-zone dance over a Supreme Court ruling in which the majority opinion says, in essence, “We find that the majority in the electoral process that made this law is a bunch of poopy-heads and they only passed the law because they hate gays and don’t want them to get married.”
Its Roe v. Wade all over again.
But, in any case, the argument is also disingenuous since, as has been asserted here unanswered before, any person has the right to marry any person of the opposite sex who will have him/her. There is, to my knowledge, no prohibition against marriage on most bases, and certainly none on the basis of the sexual preference or orientation of either participant in the marriage. So the claim against rights is specious. What is being asked for, in reality, is a special dispensation to, as above, overturn ten thousand years (or more) of tradition and practice on rather slight grounds of emotional convenience, which — as proponents of the change have admitted — hasn’t done all that well by the regular sort of married couples. Not equal, but special. And that, ladies and germs, is not on.