Weneed to remake the conversation about same-sex marriage. As it stands now, the people who are asking tough questions about the moral and social implications of legalizing gay marriage are being written off as members of hate groups.  They are being told to submit to the homosexual agenda or face the consequences. That is unfair.
   For example, last October a faculty member at Gallaudet University was put on administrative leave for putting her signature on a petition that would have placed a referendum on a ballot for voters in Maryland to have a chance to overturn the state’s gay marriage laws. All she did was sign her name. All she wanted was for the people of Maryland to have a chance to engage in political participation.
   Another example, after a teenage girl testified before the senate in Maryland against same-sex marriage, she was verbally abused online and even received several death threats.
     In these two cases, the parties involved simply voiced their opinions. In doing so, they were disparaged and condemned as social criminals.
  This reaction shouldn’t be surprising. Twenty-Five years ago, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen published an essay titled “The Overhauling of Straight America.” In the essay, which was published in Guide Magazine, the authors claim that, “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.”
  The authors go on to say, “Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, ‘but’ should take anti-discrimination as its theme.” Speaking of the discriminators, like the two from the examples, Kirk and Madsen state, “To be blunt, they must be vilified.” Is this really the fairest way to handle this issue? To vilify people who disagree with us? If it is, then there’s no chance for meaningful dialogue. The conversation is over. But you might think, “They’re haters. They want to suppress people’s rights.”
This claim assumes too much and shows the flaw in the debate.
    It reveals that the homosexual agenda has made it impossible for people to hold a principled objection to homosexuality. Any such objection or criticism must be based upon prejudice, hatred and bigotry. From this position, anyone who speaks out against it can and should be punished.
    Well, call me old school, but I believe in the possibility of holding a principled and reasoned objection against homosexuality. I’m not here to prove such an objection. My point is that people should at least have the right to hold such a view.
   If this were accepted, a healthy discussion might be possible. We could center the debate on the merits of the issue. We could look at how same-sex marriage affects communities. We could explore the moral arguments involved. We could weigh the relevance of natural laws. At the very least, we would be free to examine the claims of both sides, and could try to make sense of a sensitive issue in a mature way.
    Now do not mistake me, I do not mean to defend belligerent proponents of traditional-marriage. I refer to Bible-thumping Christians and members of other religious groups who demean and humiliate members of the LGBT, community. I’m merely trying to defend those people who are being unfairly labeled as bigots and haters for merely expressing their views.