[W]hat's happening now isn't a desire to think of people as on par cosmically or for a legal equality, but a reluctance of people to publicly say that some things are better than others. I imagine that most people who don't mind same-sex marriage see that it's dissimilar to opposite-sex marriage in some way, but that they're intimidated into not saying so (For the first time in history, gay activists were "outing" people who supported exclusive opposite-sex marriage.) for fear of breaking the first leftist commandment: Thou shalt not distinguish. . . .Well, we have to give the Saudis some credit, eh? But seriously . . . the leftist fetish for equality is an idol that crumbles at its first exposure to reason. Men and women are different, and in important ways, and I am amazed at the Left's success in compelling people to pretend otherwise. Nelson is writing in reply to my discussion of the gay-marriage debate:
[S]mart people can say things are different without "hating" and that some things, in fact, are. Men and women are different and it's legitimate to say so and even set up laws that take that difference into account. Whether a particular distinguishing law is wise is another matter that smart people can figure out. For example: It's wise to have separate bathrooms. It's not wise, necessarily, to prohibit women from driving.
[S]o many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that "man" and "woman" define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.If you are unwilling to contradict the modernist dogma of equality, it becomes impossible to argue effectively against gay marriage. Viva la difference!