Feedback on my op/ed piece re defense of marriage

[Della]

Our diocese has asked for op/ed pieces to submit to local newspapers on the topic of marriage between one man and one woman because our state will be voting to add an amendment to our state constitution defining marriage in those terms. I tried to take a slightly different tack. I was limited to 200 words. Please let me know what you think of it:

Years ago I read about Thor Heyerdahl, the explorer who built and sailed reed and balsa boats to prove the migration of ancient peoples. A near disaster on his reed boat Ra speaks to a dangerous conceit of modern times—that we know better than our ancestors. Ra’s stern was held up by a rope, to keep it arched as depicted in the temple drawings. As Heyerdahl’s team sailed from Morocco across the Atlantic, the rope got in their way. Thinking the arched stern a mere decoration, they cut the rope. Day by day the stern dropped, taking on water. They cut off the sagging stern. The reeds took on water and began to break apart. They had to abandon Ra just short of Barbados. Their lesson is our lesson. Too much is at stake to tinker with the foundations of our culture. Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on, it is the natural and proper nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing it will do harm and society will continue to unravel if we go on destroying our foundations.

 

[Joe_5859]

Our diocese has asked for op/ed pieces to submit to local newspapers on the topic of marriage between one man and one woman because our state will be voting to add an amendment to our state constitution defining marriage in those terms. I tried to take a slightly different tack. I was limited to 200 words. Please let me know what you think of it:

Years ago I read about Thor Heyerdahl, the explorer who built and sailed reed and balsa boats to prove the migration of ancient peoples. A near disaster on his reed boat Ra speaks to a dangerous conceit of modern times—that we know better than our ancestors. Ra’s stern was held up by a rope, to keep it arched as depicted in the temple drawings. As Heyerdahl’s team sailed from Morocco across the Atlantic, the rope got in their way. Thinking the arched stern a mere decoration, they cut the rope. Day by day the stern dropped, taking on water. They cut off the sagging stern. The reeds took on water and began to break apart. They had to abandon Ra just short of Barbados. Their lesson is our lesson. Too much is at stake to tinker with the foundations of our culture. Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on, it is the natural and proper nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing it will do harm and society will continue to unravel if we go on destroying our foundations.

That’s a nice illustrative story. The statement “Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on” seems a bit confusingly worded to me (I think it’s the “marriage is key for marriage” part that I’m hung up on). I would reword it.

At the end, instead of saying “destroying our foundations”, it might be nice to make an allusion to your story by saying something like “society will continue to unravel if we cut that rope. And we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves sinking.” I think that might make for a greater impact. I almost wrote “…to find ourselves sinking under the weight of our own hubris.” But maybe that’s too melodramatic.

 

[jhynds]

Nice! I remember that documentary.
Our pride will be our downfall. I wonder if that is why some are so hung up on “Gay Pride”? Is it a coincidence their banner theme is about pride?

 

[Della]

That’s a nice illustrative story. The statement “Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on” seems a bit confusingly worded to me (I think it’s the “marriage is key for marriage” part that I’m hung up on). I would reword it.

At the end, instead of saying “destroying our foundations”, it might be nice to make an allusion to your story by saying something like “society will continue to unravel if we cut that rope. And we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves sinking.” I think that might make for a greater impact. I almost wrote “…to find ourselves sinking under the weight of our own hubris.” But maybe that’s too melodramatic.

Good points, Joe. Thanks. I’ve changed those sentences to:

Marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere decoration, it is the core of the nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing definitions will harm us. We must not cut the ropes that have kept our civilization intact and our children safe and secure.

 

[Joe_5859]

Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive.

I have mixed feelings about this statement. from your piece. Not that I disagree with it, but I wonder if this sentence might distract from your main point rather than enhance it. I can already see dozens of people ignoring everything else you said and fixating on this one claim with editorial after editorial of “Well, I have a study that shows children raised by gay parents are just fine!”

But then, this is also an important piece of information that people need to confront. So I can see why it is good to leave it in.

So, yes, I’m torn. I would recommend weighing both options to see what approach would best fit with what you’re trying to accomplish.

 

[Joe_5859]

Good points, Joe. Thanks. I’ve changed those sentences to:

Marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere decoration, it is the core of the nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing definitions will harm us. We must not cut the ropes that have kept our civilization intact and our children safe and secure.

Nice changes.

 

[Della]

I have mixed feelings about this statement. from your piece. Not that I disagree with it, but I wonder if this sentence might distract from your main point rather than enhance it. I can already see dozens of people ignoring everything else you said and fixating on this one claim with editorial after editorial of “Well, I have a study that shows children raised by gay parents are just fine!”

But then, this is also an important piece of information that people need to confront. So I can see why it is good to leave it in.

So, yes, I’m torn. I would recommend weighing both options to see what approach would best fit with what you’re trying to accomplish.

Yes, for every study there seems to be another that refutes it. The trouble is, how many are reliable/unbiased? Still common sense should tell us that the natural nuclear family is the best environment since the parents are most often the best persons to rear their own children. And being limited to 200 words there’s only just so much one can say to defend one’s position.

And thanks for affirming my rewrite. I generalized rather than sticking too closely to the metaphor to make a broader point, which I hope will sway some undecided minds. The problem is having to defend from the negative. It’s harder than making a sunny prediction, but in this case there can be no happy future if marriage isn’t kept intact. People don’t like to listen to their prophets–they like to kill them, don’t they?

 

[JohnAlexander]

The story is interesting but it is not a good analogy.

What has happened with marriage is not a slight modification but a complete change in the definition of what a marriage is.

The reason why the government regulates marriage has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do and has everything to do with the children that are a result.
Marriage leads to children. The ideal environment for rearing children is what the government needs to promote. The ideal environment is a biological father and biological mother and their children, living in a peaceful environment.

Two people can love each other in what ever fashion they want but that is not the governments business. The government should not be in the business of promoting or prohibiting such relationships.

It has never been explained why the government should be promoting two adults to live together and love each other.

It has never been explained why the government doesn’t care about children any more.

 

[St_Francis]

Good points, Joe. Thanks. I’ve changed those sentences to:

Marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere decoration, it is the core of the nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing definitions will harm us. We must not cut the ropes that have kept our civilization intact and our children safe and secure.

I like the analogy I am a little concerned that your ending stops at the nuclear family–the reason that the family is important, and the reason society takes an interest in family, is that the family is the future of the society. I think you might get your point across better if you say something more along the lines of *Marriage between one man and one woman is not mere decoration, it is the foundation on which rests the future of our society–as the family goes, so goes the future… *something along those lines. I think it is important to show why the nuclear family as a social institution is important.

 

[St_Francis]

The story is interesting but it is not a good analogy.

What has happened with marriage is not a slight modification but a complete change in the definition of what a marriage is.

The reason why the government regulates marriage has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do and has everything to do with the children that are a result.
Marriage leads to children. The ideal environment for rearing children is what the government needs to promote. The ideal environment is a biological father and biological mother and their children, living in a peaceful environment.

Two people can love each other in what ever fashion they want but that is not the governments business. The government should not be in the business of promoting or prohibiting such relationships.

It has never been explained why the government should be promoting two adults to live together and love each other.

It has never been explained why the government doesn’t care about children any more.

These are excellent points I think that you should also write a letter!

 

[Della]

These are excellent points I think that you should also write a letter!

I agree. In my piece I am trying to attack the idea that heterosexual marriage is just one kind and the nuclear family only one definition among other options. I have changed the last few sentences to try to put in some of the points you folks have made:

Marriage between one man and one woman is essential—the core of the nuclear family. A man and a woman engender children and provide a stable environment in which they can thrive. We must not cut the rope that has kept marriage sacred and our civilization intact or we, like the Ra, will unravel and sink.

How’s that?

 

[edwest2]

The story is interesting but it is not a good analogy.

What has happened with marriage is not a slight modification but a complete change in the definition of what a marriage is.

The reason why the government regulates marriage has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do and has everything to do with the children that are a result.
Marriage leads to children. The ideal environment for rearing children is what the government needs to promote. The ideal environment is a biological father and biological mother and their children, living in a peaceful environment.

Two people can love each other in what ever fashion they want but that is not the governments business. The government should not be in the business of promoting or prohibiting such relationships.

It has never been explained why the government should be promoting two adults to live together and love each other.

It has never been explained why the government doesn’t care about children any more.

But it has, mysteriously, become the government’s business. When I saw same-sex marriage on the ballot, I voted no. So, only politicians and judges get to make this legal, and President Obama, the government, has weighed in in favor of same-sex marriage.

Sure, the government cares about children but many have been misled and deceived. All the voters where this was on the ballot turned it down.

It should be everyone’s business, including, We the People, Of the People and For the People, to create a stable social order - not some social engineering project.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yes, for every study there seems to be another that refutes it. The trouble is, how many are reliable/unbiased? Still common sense should tell us that the natural nuclear family is the best environment since the parents are most often the best persons to rear their own children. And being limited to 200 words there’s only just so much one can say to defend one’s position.

And thanks for affirming my rewrite. I generalized rather than sticking too closely to the metaphor to make a broader point, which I hope will sway some undecided minds. The problem is having to defend from the negative. It’s harder than making a sunny prediction, but in this case there can be no happy future if marriage isn’t kept intact. People don’t like to listen to their prophets–they like to kill them, don’t they?

I’d like to offer what the Church teaches:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[sarahjones866]

Our diocese has asked for op/ed pieces to submit to local newspapers on the topic of marriage between one man and one woman because our state will be voting to add an amendment to our state constitution defining marriage in those terms. I tried to take a slightly different tack. I was limited to 200 words. Please let me know what you think of it:

Years ago I read about Thor Heyerdahl, the explorer who built and sailed reed and balsa boats to prove the migration of ancient peoples. A near disaster on his reed boat Ra speaks to a dangerous conceit of modern times—that we know better than our ancestors. Ra’s stern was held up by a rope, to keep it arched as depicted in the temple drawings. As Heyerdahl’s team sailed from Morocco across the Atlantic, the rope got in their way. Thinking the arched stern a mere decoration, they cut the rope. Day by day the stern dropped, taking on water. They cut off the sagging stern. The reeds took on water and began to break apart. They had to abandon Ra just short of Barbados. Their lesson is our lesson. Too much is at stake to tinker with the foundations of our culture. Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on, it is the natural and proper nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing it will do harm and society will continue to unravel if we go on destroying our foundations.

Della, I do not feel the same way about marriage that you do, but I think you should fight for your beliefs. I would recommend supporting your claim by listing some studies and list examples of how you think it would destroy our foundations.

Good luck

 

[St_Francis]

I agree. In my piece I am trying to attack the idea that heterosexual marriage is just one kind and the nuclear family only one definition among other options. I have changed the last few sentences to try to put in some of the points you folks have made:

Marriage between one man and one woman is essential—the core of the nuclear family. A man and a woman engender children and provide a stable environment in which they can thrive.*** We must not cut the rope that has kept marriage sacred and our civilization intact or we, like the Ra, will unravel and sink.

How’s that?

I really like what I see you trying to do, and I like the way you are using the analogy, but sometimes what is crystal clear to us is not to others, iyswim, and we have to bring it out more, so I may be really off-base here, but I think you are worried about the word count–in the last paragraph I think you need to make really clear the *connection *between marriage and society–after all, you are trying to influence people’s votes, so you kind of need to be explicit about what’s in it for them? You want to clarify *why *marriage between a man and a woman isn’t “decoration.”

So I would suggest a sentence to that effect where I put the red astericks, and then take the words from the first paragraph, which is really well-written, but is the part which can be more easily cut. (I do hope you don’t mind–and I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say… so don’t worry about it if it goes against what you are trying to do.)

 

[austenbosten]

Our diocese has asked for op/ed pieces to submit to local newspapers on the topic of marriage between one man and one woman because our state will be voting to add an amendment to our state constitution defining marriage in those terms. I tried to take a slightly different tack. I was limited to 200 words. Please let me know what you think of it:

Years ago I read about Thor Heyerdahl, the explorer who built and sailed reed and balsa boats to prove the migration of ancient peoples. A near disaster on his reed boat Ra speaks to a dangerous conceit of modern times—that we know better than our ancestors. Ra’s stern was held up by a rope, to keep it arched as depicted in the temple drawings. As Heyerdahl’s team sailed from Morocco across the Atlantic, the rope got in their way. Thinking the arched stern a mere decoration, they cut the rope. Day by day the stern dropped, taking on water. They cut off the sagging stern. The reeds took on water and began to break apart. They had to abandon Ra just short of Barbados. Their lesson is our lesson. Too much is at stake to tinker with the foundations of our culture. Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on, it is the natural and proper nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing it will do harm and society will continue to unravel if we go on destroying our foundations.

I love it! but if I was someone who was indifferent to the issue, I don’t see it as convincing. All I see is, something bad might happen because some guy thought a piece of rope was a decoration.

I would be convinced if strong philosophical and logical arguments are used, however 200 words is not a lot to get a point across at how fundamentally damaging this is…even during the Roman and Hellenistic times when homosexuality was widely accepted and practiced, they still forbid same-sex marriage.

However I love what you wrote, it just made we want to read a 1000 word article than a puny 200 one.

 

[GratefulFred]

As far as the eye could see, the pasture was empty. This was so for several weeks. The empty pasture was separated from a robust field of corn by a well built fence.

Wanting nature to be free, unencumbered by a fence, some people removed it.

No harm happened.

The following week the cattle returned to the pasture and instinctively knew the corn was better and destroyed the corn by devouring it.

NEVER TEAR DOWN A FENCE UNTIL YOU KNOW WHY IT WAS PUT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

For those of us who think ourselves Christians, the marriage FENCE was built by God, who can see the future better than any of us. Among many ways, we know this fence by:

Genesis 20-25
Matthew 19: 3-12
Romans 1: 18-32

Yes, we live in a pluralistic society. Not every one thinks like Christians should. BUT that does not excuse us from the need to vote our Christian conscience. God has set a fence. We dare not help tear it down. To fight against God’s fence is a false love indeed. To fight against God is very serious indeed.

In a pluralistic society, gays can be given legal benefits WITHOUT dismantling the time honored meaning of marriage.

 

[Stantheman22]

Our diocese has asked for op/ed pieces to submit to local newspapers on the topic of marriage between one man and one woman because our state will be voting to add an amendment to our state constitution defining marriage in those terms. I tried to take a slightly different tack. I was limited to 200 words. Please let me know what you think of it:

Years ago I read about Thor Heyerdahl, the explorer who built and sailed reed and balsa boats to prove the migration of ancient peoples. A near disaster on his reed boat Ra speaks to a dangerous conceit of modern times—that we know better than our ancestors. Ra’s stern was held up by a rope, to keep it arched as depicted in the temple drawings. As Heyerdahl’s team sailed from Morocco across the Atlantic, the rope got in their way. Thinking the arched stern a mere decoration, they cut the rope. Day by day the stern dropped, taking on water. They cut off the sagging stern. The reeds took on water and began to break apart. They had to abandon Ra just short of Barbados. Their lesson is our lesson. Too much is at stake to tinker with the foundations of our culture. Marriage is key for marriage between one man and one woman isn’t a mere add on, it is the natural and proper nuclear family. Studies show a mother and a father create a stable home in which children thrive. Changing it will do harm and society will continue to unravel if we go on destroying our foundations.

Its is exaspatering isn’t it. Why are we looseing on This issue. Why is The Church going the way of the dinosoaur? I just don’t get it. Nobody feels the way we do on same-sex issues anymore.

 

[Della]

Thank you, everyone for your critiques and (name removed by moderator)ut. :tiphat: I wish it were possible to write a longer piece on this topic. It’s true, like many other truths, that it’s easier to create a one line denial of what is right and proper but hard to come up with a sound defense in a few salient words.

I don’t expect my little piece to convince anyone, rather it is meant to give those who are teetering something to consider when they vote. My state is very “progressive” and liberal. Many of our people feel Christianity means “tolerance” and “entitlement” so they think government ought to be involved in things that really are none of its business, such as redefining marriage.

There’s a very vocal minority that wants to shove this down our throats. I’m merely pointing out that abandoning the natural design of marriage will sink us–which it will. I am hoping my piece will help some people “get” the message. Like any work of apologetics it will speak to some, a bit to others and not at all to those who will not accept it even if I were the greatest apologist in the world and wrote the very best piece ever written. I can only hope it will be helpful to enough people to make a difference.

 

[tonyinatlga12]

Hey coptic,

I have be recovering from surgery the past week. I was so bored out of my mind until somehow I came across this website. Unfortunately it is back to work with me. It has been such fun toying with you. You have had me laughing my *** off. Thank you so much for the entertainment. You crack me up. It has been so much fun having you run from here and there. I would just cut and paste stuff off the internet and I can just imagine you taking all that time reading a bunch of ****. I feel kind of bad jerking you around, but I couldn’t resist. You just made it too easy. I wish I could take a couple of more days off to play around with you, but its back to the real world.