Tactics for defending traditional marriage

Timmy posted this guide to defending marriage on his Facebook page.

Excerpt:

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Mary also sent me this excellent peer-reviewed paper on traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, authored by two guys from Princeton University and one guy from the University of Notredame. One of those guys is the famous Robert P. George!

I’ve also prepared an evidential case against same-sex marriage using arguments that will be convincing to people who don’t have any religious commitment.

6 thoughts on “Tactics for defending traditional marriage”

  1. Honestly, I don’t even think we need to exert any extra effort on this issue. For all the media attention and polling results, when given the opportunity to vote for whether marriage should be defined as one man/one woman, Americans support that definition nearly 2:1 even in the deepest of blue states.

    If I may: http://truthinreligionandpolitics.com/2012/05/16/polling-discrepancies/

    Though polling shows growing support, when given the opportunity to vote their conscience behind closed doors, they support marriage.

    The key does seem to be wording. When presented as though you want to take “rights” away from homosexuals, people do not support that. When you ask if homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, people support that. But when you ask, “should marriage be defined only as between one man and one woman” people overwhelmingly support it.

  2. -54% of all Americans support ssm rights.

    -I agree we do need a marriage amendment, so people don’t have to deal with this debate.

    -So if a married couple choose not to have a child their marriage is invalid. You are proposing taking love out of marriage.

    -Single parents. Unfortunately having one parent is the case for some children. But don’t act as though they are suffering this horrible blow, a child with a single parent can turn out just fine. A child can turn out even better with two, regardless of gender. Not to mention a gay couple could still adopt if they aren’t married, the same way a single person can. You are just making an argument against a contract promise of monogamy which is more important when raising a child.

    -Lastly I’ll start with a question. How would changing the current definition of marriage in any way harm or change you or your marriage? I’ll remind you that the definition of marriage has always been fluid, a few thousand years ago multiple spouses was a perfectly normal marriage, that is still the case in some African countries, while I’m talking about Africa they also allow child marriage, which was a norm a few hundred years ago, a fifteen year old could be married against her will to a man in his thirties. When the life expectancy rate was about fifty years, people got married at the age of thirteen. So please, do tell me how the definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman.

    1. —“Unfortunately having one parent is the case for some children.”

      Yes, but we recognize that this is not the ideal. The clear ideal is for children to grow up in a stable home with both of their biological parents. Same sex marriage undermines this as the cultural ideal by claiming that children do not have a right to both their mother and father. Same sex marriage also claims that men and women are interchangeable and that children do not need a parent of each sex, which is false. Children might be able to turn out okay when they are missing one parent, but they do much better when they have both their mother and their father. Mothers and fathers parent differently and children need both.

      —“A child can turn out even better with two, regardless of gender.”

      Prove it. That’s not what the data says. Studies show that children raised in same sex partnerships do about as well as children raised in single parent homes on at least some measures. But they do not do as well as children raised by a married mother and father.

      —“You are just making an argument against a contract promise of monogamy which is more important when raising a child.”

      You seem to be misinformed about the norms of same sex relationships. Monogamy isn’t typically one of them. Neither is longevity. If same sex marriages are recognized by the state we can expect to see that “marriages” become even less monogamous and shorter lived than they already are. It has already happened in some places.

      —“How would changing the current definition of marriage in any way harm or change you or your marriage?”

      It’s not about how it affects me personally. It’s about how it affects society and future generations. It’s about what is right. It’s about the rights of children to know their biological parents whenever possible and to grow up in a stable home with both a mother and a father. There are plenty of things that do not affect me personally, but that I still have a responsibility to get involved in for the sake of others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s