Join Mailing List

How To Talk About Defending Marriage

This is an evolving feature designed to help those who want to defend marriage and the natural family discuss more effectively the threats posed by the effort to legalize same sex marriage. It will offer very brief "talking points" on some of the key issues and short responses to some of the most common arguments used by same sex marriage advocates.

FRAMING THE DEBATE

One of the most common problems in discussing same sex marriage is that basic facts are often ignored or that much or all of the discussion is based on assumptions that are false. Here are some of the basic points that should form the basis of any useful discussion of same sex marriage.

Homosexuals are not "born" that way.

While the causes of homosexuality are not fully understood, it is clear that they are almost entirely "environmental," meaning that homosexuality results from a complex interaction of personality traits, upbringing, personal experiences and similar factors. Understandably, homosexuals and their allies want to ignore this fact because many of their arguments are fundamentally based on this fallacy that homosexuals are born that way. But, unless this fact is fully recognized, no realistic or rational discussion of same sex marriage or any other issues related to it is possible.

Homosexuals represent only about 2% of the population.

This is the best estimate of based on a wide range of independent surveys and research. Again, it is understandable why homosexual activists would like to inflate this number in any discussion.

Homosexuality is a behavior.

This is obvious. But it is significant to always keep in mind in any discussion of "rights" that homosexuals claim they are being denied. The courts have consistently held that because homosexuality is not innate and is merely a behavior, the demands of homosexuals as a group do not qualify as civil rights issues as do those of groups characterized by truly innate and unchangeable characteristics such as race.

Homosexual behavior can be eliminated or modified in many instances through therapy.

Literally thousands of people have been able to eliminate unwanted same sex attraction or control it to varying degrees. While it may not be easy, the success rate for this therapy is higher than for many other treatable behavioral conditions. The fact that homosexual tendencies can be changed is one of the strongest arguments against homosexuals deserving special rights or that they as a group are somehow being denied their civil rights. Obviously, a member of a racial minority can never change their racial status no matter what they do. That is why the courts have reserved application of civil rights protections to these kinds of minorities. The fact that such therapy may not work for everyone at this time is a reason to improve the techniques, not grant special rights.

Any action involves tradeoffs and unanticipated consequences

As in so many other areas of life, any social policy decision results in trade offs and consequences, some of them unforeseeable. The more important the area in which the social policy changes are being considered, the more carefully they must be examined before being adopted. Anything that affects society's concept of marriage or the traditional family affects institutions that have been proven throughout history and across cultures to be essential to a healthy society. The more serious the potential negative impacts might be, the greater the justification for the majority to prevent them. Nothing is more critical to the future of any society than protecting and promoting marriage and the natural family.

The burden of proof must be on those advocating change

In any discussion of changing social policy, the burden of proof to justify it must be on those advocating the change. In the case of demands for legalizing same sex marriage, the burden is on those advocating this policy change to make even a minimal case that it will not hurt the rights of the majority to pass on a healthy society to future generations. While it may not always be possible to make such a case conclusively, in the face of common sense, logic, historical examples and a growing body of social science research that legalizing same sex marriage would undermine marriage and the natural family, advocates of same sex marriage have a particularly heavy burden on this issue. Significantly, they never even try to make their case in this context.

Discrimination is not automatically a bad word

Americans want to be fair. Many are automatically sympathetic to the complaints of homosexuals that they are being discriminated against because they are prevented from marrying. Yet, we discriminate all the time, often for good reasons. Criminals, for example, are discriminated against in many ways as a way of protecting society. What must always be examined is the basis for any discrimination. If it results in a net benefit to society, it is justified.

DEBUNKING SOME ARGUMENTS

Basing any discussion on same sex marriage on the facts and principles outlined above will automatically debunk most of the arguments used by advocates of same sex marriage. Some others are discussed briefly here.

Fallacy: Any two people in love should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender

Marriage is not just about love. In fact, in many cultures where arranged marriages are still the norm, it is not about love at all. Marriage is recognized by society for its critical role in maintaining that society. Because of this, societies have always regulated marriage in some ways. For example, most societies do not sanction the a brother and sister marrying, no matter how much they love each other. Marriage is not simply a legal way to demonstrate love or affection.

Fallacy: Government has more important things it should be dealing with than stopping same sex marriage

Advocates often argue that in light of the war on terror, economic problems, etc., stopping the legalization of same sex marriage is not important enough to warrant much attention by government. Aside from trivializing their own issue, they miss the point, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The healthier and more resilient a society is, the better able it will be to deal with whatever problems arise. Anything that hurts society reduces its ability to deal with any and all problems. So, even though the immediate concern is successfully dealing with problems such as the economy, the war of terror or whatever, nothing is more important than protecting the health of the society that must deal with them now and into the future.

Fallacy: We cannot/should not legislate morality

In fact virtually every law defines morality in the sense that it dictates what is "right" and "wrong." A simple example would be laws making theft illegal. The foundation of any society is agreement on certain behaviors that will be either encouraged or prohibited for the overall good of that society. In a democratic system, these ground rules are set by the majority. It is not really relevant what the basis for setting these ground rules might be, whether religious beliefs, personal philosophies, etc. so long as the majority agree upon them.

Fallacy: Marriage and the family in this country are already in trouble and the concern should be with fixing them, not limiting marriage to only heterosexuals.

This is a particularly dumb argument. If your house is on fire, and your goal is to put out the fire, you do not throw gasoline on it. If legalizing same sex marriage would further undermine marriage and the natural family, which it would, then adopting that policy would only do further damage.