NOM BLOG

Anderson: The Left's Three Techniques on Marriage Redefinition - And How to Counter Them

 

A must-read from Ryan Anderson in The Blaze:

Broken ringThe Left has had some success in its push to redefine marriage, for readily apparent reasons: They dominate the media, they dominate the academy and, as we saw last week, they dominate the courts. Certainly dominance in the elite sectors of opinion-shaping helps.

But the Left also has deployed three distinct tactics: First, they’ve been successful at oversimplifying the issue, personalizing it and refusing to engage the complexities of social reality. Second, they’ve implied that the LGBT community speaks in one voice. And third, they’ve demonized their opponents as “bigots” and “haters.”

We need to better understand the Left’s strategy, for there are lessons here.

Continue reading here.

14 Comments

  1. B DeCicco
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    The counter-arguments he lists are good, but there has been over a decade to employ them.

    Secular terminology must be used: No matter how dignified religious people speak and act, in our secular , diverse society they are seen as agents of regression. Drop all religious references.

    What we need is a secular organization equivalent to the HRC: For the protection of children and society, and using 21st century science and psychology to back it. Nothing else will work. Its time; its LATE.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    This is another excellent piece by Mr. Anderson.

    I do wonder about the critical thinking skills of many soft supporters of marriage redefinition. We point out that the public purpose of marriage is to unite children with their mother and father. The opposition argues that not all married couples have children. Therefore, they say, marriage has nothing to do with children. And some folks will accept that argument.

    Not all anglers catch fish. Therefore, fishing licenses have nothing to do with fishing. It's the same faulty thought process.

  3. B DeCicco
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    This piece published today by the Witherspoon Institute is to my thinking the key to reversing the entire situation:

    The wording is concise, and is in keeping with secular psychology and science: An organization pushing these ideas will succeed in turning the tide where others have failed:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10474/

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    "The opposition argues that not all married couples have children. Therefore, they say, marriage has nothing to do with children."

    Well, not all married couples are in love with each other. Therefore, marriage has nothing to do with love.

  5. B DeCicco
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    @Barb: So true. People do not know how to think; they have no command of the simplest principles of logic. Horrid and depressing. Anyone with a clear mind has thought themselves out of the SSM ideology within a few days at most. Sad commentary on the state of our culture.

  6. Robert
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Barb, the purpose of licensing is to ensure that those not qualified can't and don't participate.

    If marriage is about procreation, somebody better tell the infertile and the elderly!

  7. B DeCicco
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    @ Robert:
    Marriage IS about procreation.

    The infertile suffer terribly over being so, and the elderly had their procreative marriages in the past.

    Both types still fly the banner of male-female natural law and creative power. No point in licensing these small groups.

    Gays, on the other hand, do not procreate in their coupling and hence do not merit the expensive benefits.

  8. Ash
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Indeed, marriage can't be about anything according to the faulty logic of SSMers.

    There is no "love" requirement for marriage. You don't have to own property or pay taxes in order to marry. And you definitely don't have to be "gay" in order to enter into a ssm in states that have redefined marriage--though "gayness" is the number one reason presented when marriage is redefined!

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Exceptions do not invalidate the rule, Rob.

  10. Pedro Rodriguez
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Yes, you don't need to redefine marriage to fix Windsor's case, but like that article says:

    "The Heritage Foundation has argued for eliminating the estate tax, popularly called the “death tax,” for more than fifteen years. "

    15 years, 15! And nothing has changed. So it is obvious that that path would not work, or it is too hard. Now saying that gays can be married, that is easy, that is SUPER easy. And thus we did it.

    So sure, go ahead and try to get rid of the "death tax", when you do, then you can come back and we can talk about bringing marriage to its current state. Also, that is not the only tax, you must fix EVERY marriage-like tax and benefit there is. EVERY SINGLE ONE. When, and ONLY WHEN, you do that, then we can talk.

    In the meantime, however, we are going to go ahead and make gay marriage legal, because, you know, people are being affected by this.

  11. David Broadus
    Posted July 9, 2013 at 4:16 am | Permalink

    Your arguments would be more persuasive if they actually made sense. As gay couples can and do raise amazing children all over the world, whether they’re married or not, claiming that you only support straight marriage for the sake of the children makes no sense. People don’t need to be married to raise kids. B doesn’t follow A. It is exactly like saying:
    A) We want a law that states that everyone must own a red bicycle helmet, as we believe red helmets are the safest
    B) But there is no law requiring anyone to ever wear a helmet at all! And many people don’t even own bicycles!
    A) While it is true that many people don’t own bicycles, our law would ensure that everyone who does own a bicycle will own a red helmet
    B) OK, but everyone who studies the matter agrees that color has nothing to do with safety!
    A) That is false. The ‘Regenate Study’, conducted by a manufacturer of red helmets, looked at the fatal victims of 3000 accidents. We then asked their friends if they had ever, at any time in their lives, worn a helmet of any color other than red, for any reason whatsoever. The friends of 1500 victims said yes, although only 2 were wearing helmets of another color at the time of the accident. We conclude from this that any helmet other than red is unsafe

  12. Pair0dox
    Posted July 9, 2013 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam:
    >"The opposition argues that not all married
    > couples have children. Therefore, they say,
    > marriage has nothing to do with children."

    > Well, not all married couples are in love with each
    > other. Therefore, marriage has nothing to do with
    > love.

    Seems a bit of a straw man. It's true that not all marriages yield children. That does not mean that marriage has NOTHING to do with children, just that children are not the sole function of marriage, or a requirement for it (we clearly don't require all married couples to be capable of having kids). I'd say the same thing about love. It's not the sole function of, or a necessary requirement for, a marriage that is successful in many ways (there are plenty of marriages throughout history that were entered essentially for political reasons, and could be considered a success... some people would say including the Clintons).

    Marriage means different things to different people, and people get into it for a variety of reasons, but the big picture is that marriage takes individuals and makes families out of them. That's a good thing, and lots of people think that it's a good thing whether those people are straight or gay.

  13. Ash
    Posted July 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    @Pair0dox,

    "Marriage means different things to different people, and people get into it for a variety of reasons, but the big picture is that marriage takes individuals and makes families out of them. That's a good thing, and lots of people think that it's a good thing whether those people are straight or gay."

    It may be a good thing, but making families out of individuals is not a legitimate state interest to me. And this rationale for marriage doesn't explain why gay people are being oppressed when their only option is to make a family with the opposite sex. It's not like marriage has anything to do with having sex. It's just about individuals becoming family. Where's the oppression in that? You mean to tell me that gay people don't have friends of the opposite-sex that they love dearly and can become family members with?

    Furthermore, as Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis and Robert George have repeatedly noted in their book "What is Marriage?": there is no reason for emotional unions (or family) to be sexually exclusive, limited to two, or even calling for the sharing of life and home.

  14. P Edward Murray
    Posted July 9, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Gay couples have and have and have.
    Single Unemployed folks don't have.
    Just another factoid gay activists can't admit to.
    Why are gay couples more important than the common good of Americans to be employed?