Vogt: We Need More Good Arguments for Marriage


Brandon Vogt, author of the recent "10 Best Arguments for SSM -- And Why They're Still Flawed", shares one of his experiences as a recent public defender of marriage:

When I logged into Facebook, I expected a few new comments. But I was surprised when the little red icon showed several on a recent picture I had uploaded. As I read through them, one stopped me cold: “This is the portrait of a hateful America.”

I scrolled back up to the original picture just to make sure I hadn’t missed anything. There weren’t any inadvertent swastikas or vicious scowls. In fact it was just as I remembered it: my wife, our three young children and I eating at Chick-fil-A. We all had beaming smiles, platefuls of chicken and pools of dipping sauce. It epitomized joy, family and fun. So how could this innocent picture represent a hateful America?

Then it hit me. We had snapped the picture on Aug. 1, 2012. About a month earlier, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A, was asked whether his company supported traditional marriage.

... Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee proposed a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on the first day of August. We decided to join in, thus the picture, thus the comment.

... many well-intentioned people who reject same-sex marriage cannot articulate good reasons why. They often respond to same-sex marriage advocates by saying, “It’s simply against God’s plan” or “the Church rejects it.” These arguments, although true and substantial, strike non-religious people as irrelevant.

More than ever Catholics need simple, rational, non-religious reasons to reinforce their arguments against same-sex marriage.

To help, this week’s In Focus (Pages 9-12) is dedicated to these reasons. (OSV)


  1. M. jones
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    People who like gold standard large data sample size studies on homosexual exposure to children and the horrific outcomes, should read the NFSS Regenrus study. Re-validated as the most compressive and scientifically valid study to-date by the Univ of Texas and the Journal of Social Science Research editor.

  2. peter
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Mj - you really believe that, huh?

  3. zack
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Vogt seems to think that the only arguments used in defense of Traditional Marriage are that homosexuality is a sin, or that it's against the church's teachings.

    However the Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, the Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage, the Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage, as well as various pieces by homosexuals and people like Dennis Prager and Thomas Sowell explain at length why Marriage should be remain between a man and a woman. So it's not the message...we need better messengers.

  4. M. jones
    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    @ Peter, yes and we know Justice Scalia will also.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted January 10, 2013 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    It is not the messenger; it is our opponents. When presented with arguments rooted in natural law marriage corruption supporters immediately try to change the subject by shifting focus to religious arguments.

    They are desperate to keep the discussion focused on religious opposition in a not so thinly veiled shout out to Justice Kennedy and his majority opinion in Evans where he noted that "personal religious animus" is an insufficient reason to violate the constitutional rights of a disfavored group or class.

    Kennedy's majority opinion in Evans is the shot heard round-the-world that heralded a new war on conscience.

  6. lhf
    Posted January 10, 2013 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    It's unfortunate, but most genderless marriage supporters and their allies in the media - particularly the comedians - portray opponents as knuckle-draggers. I realize that there are plenty of reasoned, secular arguments against genderless marriage but I don't see or hear them.

    I don't know how we overcome this. Supporters have captured the public schools, many churches, universities, think tanks, and, of course, the "mainstream" media. There is no debate going on in the "public square." Attempts at debate are shouted down. Few supporters will even discuss it privately - sadly for me, that includes my own adult children.

  7. B DeCicco
    Posted January 10, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Adam Kolasinski's "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" is poignant, convincing, reasoned, and logical. It needs no religious maxims nor gods to reveal why tampering with traditional marriage to soothe the egos of 3-ish percent of the population would be an unmitigated disaster.

    It is a pity that Mr. Kolasinski's fine piece has not been used more in support of marriage. I believe more liberals - if exposed to his message - might have been convinced. We know how easy it is for the secular to shoot down religious reasons.

  8. peter
    Posted January 10, 2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Mj- that's exactly my point. Scalia is the choir. The others will need something more convincing than a study which showed children do poorly when raised in broken households. The method of the study may be fine, but it's the conclusions regenerus drew which are tenuous at best. It wont help the cause for traditional marriage.