Well, if you consider that the original speaker was (AFAICT) primarily addressing an audience for whom the Need To 'Defend' Marriage is axiomatic, and who had been using -- or tricked into accepting -- the 'defense of marriage' as a justification for bias against (even oppression of) homosexuals ... well that explains the "why" rather nicely while also confirming that they're talking to folks who need to be watched.
Importantly, it provides all of us a response to those folks that we can use without first having to convince them their axioms are wrong -- whether we share that particular belief of not.
(no subject)
Importantly, it provides all of us a response to those folks that we can use without first having to convince them their axioms are wrong -- whether we share that particular belief of not.