[Professor S]

To clarify, I don't think the argument is insidious, merely the methods. Ridicule destroys public discourse and Alinsky knew this when he wrote the book on using it in politics, and I think we've seen how political ridicule has affected the public discourse of today: there isn't any.

Any argument deserves a full and honest debate (I'll admit I don't always meet my own lofty goal, but I try). When that is allowed to take place, the sillier ideas will always be exposed for what they are and minds can be changed through reason. When you simply try and destroy ideas that are opposed to yours with no sense of fairness to them, then no one is enlightened because people on your side are given misinformation about the opposition that they never challenge because it fits their predisposition, and the opposition can just dismiss your argument as hateful and ignorant.

I've taken a long, hard look at both sides of the gay marriage debate, mainly because some people I greatly respect as true thinkers on the right are against it, but in the end I remain pro gay marriage. I better understand the opposing view though, and my arguments and position on the topic are stronger for having given the opposition a fair shake.