With the new trial challenging Proposition 8 in California, the issue of gay marriage is back in the news. Like abortion or gun control, it is a complex, emotional issue that tends to generate vigorous opinions.
Supporters of gay marriage declare that marriage (however broadly defined) is a universal human right that should be available to same-sex couples. They argue that sexual orientation is an innate human characteristic, and is thus entitled to the same civil protections under law as gender, race, national origin, etc. By drawing comparison to the civil rights movement, proponents of gay marriage declare themselves to be "on the right side of history", as the culmination of a long struggle for equality under law.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage do so with various arguments, some of which are stronger than others. Some consider homosexual behavior to be immoral in itself, and refuse to recognize relationships they deem sinful. Some believe that gay marriage would dilute or distort the very definition of the word "marriage", and tamper with an institution that forms the bedrock of civil society. Others are concerned that legitimizing gay marriage would require public schools to discuss families more inclusively, and teach children that homosexual relationships are as valid and "normal" as heterosexual relationships.
The audience is universal; anyone living in the United States will be affected, at least symbolically, by the upcoming court ruling. Either marriage law will remain a matter for the States to decide for themselves, or State governments will be forced to recognize gay marriages.
Supporters of gay marriage owe a large part of their persuasive success to the way they have framed the debate as a question of liberty, equality, and individual rights--principles that are sacred to most Americans. Any attempt to counter these arguments must consider those same values, addressing the liberty and individual rights of parents to determine what their children are taught in school, or the freedom of religious organizations to solemnize marriages in accordance with their beliefs. Of particular worth is an appeal to democracy--Americans oppose gay marriage by a considerable majority, and gay marriage proponents have turned to legal action because they have failed to earn broad democratic support.
The debate is awash with slogans and one-liners; in heated discussions like these, they are of little persuasive value (although they may mobilize the already-persuaded). My goal would be to clarify the reasons why I oppose gay marriage--since I view much of the anti-gay-marriage rhetoric to be as silly and inconsistent as the pro-gay-marriage rhetoric. It is a complex issue that deserves a complex discussion. With that end in mind, I would use essay format, posting in blogs or op/ed pieces for news websites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What audience are you looking at? The nation as a whole? The youth/ young adults? Those who are still undecided about where they stand on gay-marriage? Those who are pro-gay-marriage or anti-gay-marriage?
ReplyDeleteOur textbook talks about "god terms". Which are words that have a positive connotation no matter what they are associated with. These include liberty stuff like freedom, democracy, and equality. like you mentioned the gay-rights community has been very good at bring these terms into association with there campaign. There are some of these that work for the pro-marrige side however. like family and marriage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chelsea, which kind of audience are you going to target? I do like your argument, and coming from the first state to permit gay marriages, I feel that many people should be informed of the legal rights of both homosexuals and heterosexuals before a vote is brought before the state. So what are you going to try and use to persuade both sides to understand your ideals?
ReplyDelete