I’ve been debating gay “marriage” advocates for a couple of years now, and the patterns and points of debate when one is in the trenches are fairly predictable, but I’ve noticed that some common themes seen in those trenches are not found in the carefully managed narratives presented by the media. Three things the general public may not know: and the patterns and points of debate when one is in the trenches are fairly predictable, but I’ve noticed that some common themes seen in those trenches are not found in the carefully managed narratives presented by the media. Three things the general public may not know:

i

1. Countless Americans have switched sides due to peer pressure, bullying, and a fear of being seen as “mean”.

i

The press and the gay rights lobby would have us believe that the public has swung to embrace gay “marriage” on the merits. But the truth is that many have given in out of fear, not conviction. Let’s face it: Bullying works. The pressure for total acceptance is intense, and it looks like this: “You don’t support gay marriage? You are a bigot, and your hatred of your gay neighbors is impeding the civil rights movement of our generation. Your ignorance and lack of compassion place you on the wrong side of history, and future generations will hold you in contempt.”

i

Few know enough about redefinition-of-marriage issues to challenge gay advocates’ talking points with confidence, and few have the nerve to put themselves out there for ridicule. Part of the opponents’ strategy is to make folks feel isolated in their beliefs, fringe members of an obsolete, unenlightened system that will soon be cast off. Even practicing Catholics who know better are led to throw up their hands and say, “Well, what’s the harm anyway?” It’s part of our weak and fallen human nature to give up an unpopular position and join the safety of the crowd.

i

2. Those pushing for gay “marriage” have failed to define “marriage”.

i

Online marriage debates can stretch on interminably, yet with the subject undefined. Gay activists get oddly dismissive when asked for a definition of marriage itself, and when pressed, produce awkward and nebulous answers.

i

Just last week a debate opponent defined marriage as “a legal institution with legal rights and legal responsibilities”. Well now, we know that cannot be. After all, a police department, an incorporated business, and even Congress fit that definition. Can any of these reasonably be called “marriage”?

i

Another common definition provided is “a bond between two people”. But that is equally vague and problematic: Could it mean my grandma and me? My daughter and her daddy? My son’s t-ball mates? A surgeon and his patient? Neighbors meeting for tea? The variety of bonds that fit the bill is endless, and so the definition is not workable.

i

Americans hear that gay folks want and deserve marriage, but neither the media nor the gay activists care to (or can) define it coherently.

i

3. Those who decry the slippery slope argument often confirm the slippery slope.

i

Experiencing this was shocking to me the first time it happened, but over the past couple of years I’ve come to expect it. Those in favor of redefining marriage get reflexively defensive when questioned about whose rights to “marriage equality” will come next. After all, it’s a fact that polygamists, zoophiles, and man-boy lovers are modeling their own moral (and future legal) arguments after the gay “marriage” movement. When I bring up this fact, I usually get this type of response: “Ha ha! There you go with the ridiculous slippery slope argument! You are nuts and inflammatory, and it will never happen. You are a fool and must be desperate! Ooooo, the sky is falling!!” (Too often accompanied by curses and vulgarities.)

i

But a funny thing happens later on down in the conversation, when I continue to calmly press them. The same people who mock me for bringing up the “slippery slope” will ultimately admit that “it doesn’t matter” and they “don’t care” if polygamy is legalized or if two sisters marry or if Aunt Frannie wants to marry her dog. And it’s clear that they aren’t kidding. They really don’t care. I actually commend them for their integrity at that point, as allowing for all sorts of unions is consistent with their stated goal of “marriage equality, regardless of whom we love.” (So far, thankfully, no one I’ve debated has openly okayed pedophile marriage, citing “consent” laws — which they naively assume will hold forever.)

i

While we don’t hear about these three issues in any approved narrative of this cultural battle, it’s important that we Catholics understand them. We must not be intimidated by bullies (are we to please God or men?), we must realize that the gay marriage advocates cannot even define the very institution that they wish to fundamentally change, and we must understand that the slippery slope argument is indeed valid here.

i

Catholics shouldn’t desire to be “on the right side of history”, we should desire to be on the right side of Truth. And although courage is hard to muster in the face of a cultural sledgehammer built on misinformation, it is the very virtue — along with charity — most needed today.

i