I find a soft approach helps open the discussion. I point out that Ron Paul, in his Liberty Defined, takes no hard line; he states his personal conviction but does not advocate force of federal law in imposing it because the issue is one of cultural/social/personal morality and needs to be addressed on that basis for lasting resolution -- not one to be decided by force of law.
I further point out that RP is the one statesman who primarily is interested in discussion of principles and personal responsibility/virtue, not in superficial, hard line divisive partisanship.
The point is, almost everyone needs to look deeper into this issue. Going with MSM sound bites is inadequate.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: