Kurtz v. The New Republic

Stanley's able defense here.

December 23, 2005, 2:38 p.m.
Triple-Dutch Wrong
An off-reply.

Over at The New Republic's website, Rob Anderson takes a whack at my recent Weekly Standard piece, "Here Come the Brides."

Anderson claims my use of the slippery-slope argument shows desperation. In effect, says Anderson, resort to the slippery slope proves that my main argument against gay marriage, "the 'ick' factor," is losing ground with the American people. Trouble is, I do not oppose same-sex marriage based on "the 'ick' factor." I've always called for tolerance of homosexuality, going back to "The Ashcroft-Logger Alliance" in 2001, where I expressed opposition to sodomy laws.

I've used the slippery-slope argument from the beginning, as have other opponents of same-sex marriage. The only difference is that the slippery-slope argument is becoming more obviously true with every passing year. If anyone is prejudiced here, it's Anderson, who relies on mistaken assumptions about opponents of same-sex marriage.

Anderson betrays a surprising ignorance of arguments against same-sex marriage, leaving out altogether what is arguably the central claim of same-sex-marriage opponents: that gay marriage separates marriage from parenthood, with deleterious consequences for marriage as an institution. Even in "Here Come the Brides," I make reference to this key point. Yet Anderson acts as though the "ick factor" and the slippery slope are the only extant arguments against same-sex marriage. . . .
posted by maggie at 4:05 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home