Ryan T. Anderson

Anyone who has sought to support traditional marriage over the last few years has no doubt heard of Ryan T. Anderson. Perhaps no other voice in the debate over what marriage is (and is not) has carried more weight in recent history.

Though he is only 33 years old, Anderson has achieved a level of fame (and notoriety) that most his age don’t even know exist. As a professing Christian, PhD. Holder, editor of a highly successful online publication, and senior fellow at the highly respected Heritage Foundation, Anderson has risen to credible levels in a short time.

With the notoriety and influential voice comes a price.

For Anderson the price is the target on his back each and every day simply because he opposed same-sex “marriage” and argued for traditional marriage with inexhaustible vigilance. And though Anderson has established a reputation for being civil and respectful in his discussions and debates with his opponents (no matter how vile they treat him) he is attacked relentlessly for his views.

But it’s not his position that concerns me, after all, as a Christian I hold to the biblical complimentarian view of marriage and sexuality the same as Anderson. Rather, it’s the position of those that oppose him that concerns me most.

No, not the view that agrees with and supports same-sex “marriage” as a legitimate deviation from heterosexual marriage. But the view of those supporters of same-sex “marriage” that believe it’s acceptable to shun and publicly condemn their opponents; like Ryan T. Anderson.

Recently, someone at Anderson’s old high school posted a link to an article featuring Anderson in The Washington Post. It was a fairly written article that simply highlighted Anderson’s body of work and its impressiveness, given his age. Anderson is no doubt the most famous graduate of the school so it seemed a normal action to mention him on the school Facebook page.

You’d thought someone insulted the principal’s mother.

Very quickly the head of the school – Matthew W. Micciche – took down the link and issued not one, but two apologies. He wanted to make sure everyone knew just how “genuinely” sorry the school was for allowing such a vile article to be linked. Because, you know, freedom of speech and tolerance.

Why is this relatively unknown incident important?

Because this shows the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement. It’s not about being able to have civil discussions with each other over differing viewpoints. It’s not about being tolerant with each other and “agreeing to disagree” on tough issues. It’s not about equality in the sense that we all have equal rights. And it’s not about the freedom to voice our opposition. Nope, it’s about total and absolute affirmation and support for gay rights from everyone. Period.

And, if you dare oppose the LGBT bullet train you can believe you will be vilified publicly, with great fanfare, so everyone can see what happens to a dissenter. We have to make examples of such people.

So because Ryan T. Anderson doesn’t agree with same-sex “marriage” he must be shunned, ignored, or better yet called a bigot and homophobe for the world to see. After all, his words, his views, his opinions on this apparently most critical topic are not just politically incorrect, they are vile hatred.

And because of this fact, posting an article featuring Anderson caused unknown persons at his old high school “pain” and “anguish.”

Seriously?

If posting an article featuring a school alumni causes you “pain” and “anguish” you might need to change your diaper and grow up. But that’s the point. The people driving the excoriation of their opponents – like Anderson – are so self-absorbed and shallow that they can’t allow room for civil discussion that begins with disagreement with their views. If that’s the starting point, they want no part of it. I wonder, where were these overly-sensitive whiners when Obama was first running for president? Let’s not forget that during his first campaign he was not in favor of “gay marriage.” And yet I don’t remember an LGBT smear campaign against him. In fact, gay people overwhelmingly supported Obama.

A recent article defending Anderson (by one of his opponents no less) carries a stern warning:

“Versions of these traditionalist arguments were accepted by nearly every human being who’s ever lived until a couple of decades ago — and (supposedly) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton until just a few years ago. Like them, I’ve come to reject those arguments. But saying they now seem wrong is one thing. Relegating them to the category of the foulest prejudice is something else entirely. It’s reckless to break so quickly with the past and jump so easily to moral condemnation.”

Though the writer of the previously mentioned article disagrees with Anderson and does support same-sex “marriage”, he decries the idea that traditional marriage supporters should be banished from society. To those who would seek to tear down their opponents through thug tactics and smear campaigns he says “They must not be allowed to succeed.”

A separate article, written by yet another opponent of Anderson – in support for him – agrees that true tolerance and civility demand mutual respect, especially when we find ourselves disagreeing with one another:

“No matter what MSNBC and the Friends School of Baltimore want, we shouldn’t let that happen even if we support same-sex marriage. Scream, shout, bang the bass drum—anything to make them open their eyes, open their ears, and listen. After that, they can reject Ryan’s conclusions if they want. If they can. Enlightenment reason demands no more, no less, than to listen.”

The bottom line is that disagreement with your views doesn’t constitute “harm” or “anguish.” It simply means I have a different view. If you find my view offensive then understand that your view is probably offensive to someone as well. But demanding that everyone who disagrees with you be condemned is not freedom, or equality, its tyranny. If your goal is to be known as a modern-day tyrant, then by all means, smear all those who hold a view differing from yours.

However, stop claiming to be “all about” inclusion and acceptance while you do it. That’s called hypocrisy.