Feedback on my op/ed piece re defense of marriage

[Iowa7681]

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.

Ill chime in as a representative of the person you are trying to connect with. (An independant- gasp!!!):

Your story, while interesting, sounds very disconnected from the realities of approving/denying someones right to marriage. To me, it just reinforces the idea that the “traditional marriage” supporters are failing to grasp the issue.

Your editorial admits that marriage is in shambles, which it is. Without any influence (directly) from gays. So, you are telling a group that has no hand thus far in destroying traditional marriage, that they will destroy traditional marriage. But you haven’t said why, or how. Or why you aren’t concerned with all the things that HAVE destroyed marriage till now, but are convinced this small minority will, to the point of preventing them from taking part.

I would leave out the “kids are better with a mom and dad” bit. Of course they are. Everyone knows that. The part that is missing is the “better off than what?” You are free to argue if having two same sex parents is the equal of two opposite sex, its a tight race. But you know what both same sex and opposite sex parents are better than? Here is a list:
Single parents
Divorced/remarried parents
Parent(s) with any history of any chemical abuse
Under-Educated parents
Low income parents
Mixed race parents
Young parents (teen)
etc

So, unless you want to explain why a same sex couple that is statistically close to the ideal opposite sex couple should be denied raising a child when all of the above plus many, many more are unarguably far worse, why would they listen to you? Your may be spot on as far as your own, private moral compass, but in an measurable and objective world, you need a reason. Or at least a logic.

Also, I would not mention supporters as the “minority”. I think saying it is about a 50/50 race at this point is fair. I agree, the votes have always been closer to 45/55 recently against gay marriage, and public polls are usually a little bit in favor. If you know anything about how voter turnout works, it makes sense. Arguing the last couple percent is silly, but it is not a “minority” as you describe.

Anyway, feel free to publish what you wish, but if you want to actually persuade someone, the last thing you want to do is craft your message towards the people that are already 100% on your side. That 101.

 

[Della]

Ill chime in as a representative of the person you are trying to connect with. (An independant- gasp!!!):

Your story, while interesting, sounds very disconnected from the realities of approving/denying someones right to marriage. To me, it just reinforces the idea that the “traditional marriage” supporters are failing to grasp the issue.

Your editorial admits that marriage is in shambles, which it is. Without any influence (directly) from gays. So, you are telling a group that has no hand thus far in destroying traditional marriage, that they will destroy traditional marriage. But you haven’t said why, or how. Or why you aren’t concerned with all the things that HAVE destroyed marriage till now, but are convinced this small minority will, to the point of preventing them from taking part.

I would leave out the “kids are better with a mom and dad” bit. Of course they are. Everyone knows that. The part that is missing is the “better off than what?” You are free to argue if having two same sex parents is the equal of two opposite sex, its a tight race. But you know what both same sex and opposite sex parents are better than? Here is a list:
Single parents
Divorced/remarried parents
Parent(s) with any history of any chemical abuse
Under-Educated parents
Low income parents
Mixed race parents
Young parents (teen)
etc

So, unless you want to explain why a same sex couple that is statistically close to the ideal opposite sex couple should be denied raising a child when all of the above plus many, many more are unarguably far worse, why would they listen to you? Your may be spot on as far as your own, private moral compass, but in an measurable and objective world, you need a reason. Or at least a logic.

Also, I would not mention supporters as the “minority”. I think saying it is about a 50/50 race at this point is fair. I agree, the votes have always been closer to 45/55 recently against gay marriage, and public polls are usually a little bit in favor. If you know anything about how voter turnout works, it makes sense. Arguing the last couple percent is silly, but it is not a “minority” as you describe.

Anyway, feel free to publish what you wish, but if you want to actually persuade someone, the last thing you want to do is craft your message towards the people that are already 100% on your side. That 101.

First of all, if it were the topic of this thread, I would refute you claims that same sex couples are just as good for children as heteroxsexual couples. They aren’t–recent studies have shown that to be the case. Also, traditional marriage is in trouble only because we “cut the rope” that kept it intact by allowing “free” love and no fault divorce, but again, those are side issues.

Also, I am not writing my piece to the whole country but only to my own state/community, of which those who want same sex marriage are in the minority but are, as I stated, quite vocal.

And, as I stated, but you seem to have missed it, I am not trying to convince the unconvineable, but only urging those who agree (that marriage needs to be upheld) to stand their ground and vote for the amendment declaring marriage between one man and one woman, so of course, I’m “preaching to the choir” but it’s a choir that needs reminding because all it takes for bad laws to be enacted is for good people to do nothing about it, as we did nothing to stop “free” love, no fault divorce and abortions on demand.

 

[Iowa7681]

First of all, if it were the topic of this thread, I would refute you claims that same sex couples are just as good for children as heteroxsexual couples. They aren’t–recent studies have shown that to be the case. Also, traditional marriage is in trouble only because we “cut the rope” that kept it intact by allowing “free” love and no fault divorce, but again, those are side issues.

Also, I am not writing my piece to the whole country but only to my own state/community, of which those who want same sex marriage are in the minority but are, as I stated, quite vocal.

And, as I stated, but you seem to have missed it, I am not trying to convince the unconvineable, but only urging those who agree (that marriage needs to be upheld) to stand their ground and vote for the amendment declaring marriage between one man and one woman, so of course, I’m “preaching to the choir” but it’s a choir that needs reminding because all it takes for bad laws to be enacted is for good people to do nothing about it, as we did nothing to stop “free” love, no fault divorce and abortions on demand.

Ok. My bad, if you just want (name removed by moderator)ut from people that agree, I missed that odd part of the thread. Yes, if you don’t want to hear objective reasons why someone may disagree, then I retract my post. But I do have some points to make on your response.

-I didn’t say same sex parents were the equal of opposite sex. I said that it is clear that as a group, both perform better than many, many other groups. Period. So, you would need to explain why being better than most, but worse than opposite sex couples warrants being banned from parenthood. Unless you just don’t care to explain that point, which apparently you do not.

-You did’nt explain why all those things that “cut the rope” and actually have done damage are being passed over to ban a group who have not done any damage, or explain why they would. Again, if you don’t care to explain, then just ignore it.

-Just did a quick scan of Minnesota polls. Curious you see the gay marriage supporters as a minority, cause it looks pretty even to me. And even if we just grant your position that a small % majority exists, if it were switched next year, and the other side had a small % advantage and now you are the minority, would you then acquiesce? Its a rhetorical, question, of course you wouldnt, nor should you. Point is, right now its very shaky logic to pull the “you are the minority” card, it makes your position look weak.

But, I just glanced at the whole thread, and I thought I got the impression you were writing to those on the edge who may be potentially swayed to support your position. If you want to do that, you would need to at least tread on my points. But, if you are just cheerleading the base to go and vote, then by all means, your original piece is just fine, your target audience will not notice the holes… Carry on.

 

[Della]

Ok. My bad, if you just want (name removed by moderator)ut from people that agree, I missed that odd part of the thread. Yes, if you don’t want to hear objective reasons why someone may disagree, then I retract my post. But I do have some points to make on your response.

-I didn’t say same sex parents were the equal of opposite sex. I said that it is clear that as a group, both perform better than many, many other groups. Period. So, you would need to explain why being better than most, but worse than opposite sex couples warrants being banned from parenthood. Unless you just don’t care to explain that point, which apparently you do not.

-You did’nt explain why all those things that “cut the rope” and actually have done damage are being passed over to ban a group who have not done any damage, or explain why they would. Again, if you don’t care to explain, then just ignore it.

-Just did a quick scan of Minnesota polls. Curious you see the gay marriage supporters as a minority, cause it looks pretty even to me. And even if we just grant your position that a small % majority exists, if it were switched next year, and the other side had a small % advantage and now you are the minority, would you then acquiesce? Its a rhetorical, question, of course you wouldnt, nor should you. Point is, right now its very shaky logic to pull the “you are the minority” card, it makes your position look weak.

But, I just glanced at the whole thread, and I thought I got the impression you were writing to those on the edge who may be potentially swayed to support your position. If you want to do that, you would need to at least tread on my points. But, if you are just cheerleading the base to go and vote, then by all means, your original piece is just fine, your target audience will not notice the holes… Carry on.

The op/ed piece can only have 200 words. I can’t argue every possible point. No op/ed piece can do that, and it wasn’t my goal. I have to go with what I believe will influence my target audience not try to answer every objection, a clear impossibility in such a short piece.

And polls are often wrong and don’t always reflect reality. The recent WI recall election exist polls supposedly showed the election a dead heat when, in reality Walker won it by 7 points. We’ve got a couple of far left wing newspapers here that are always doing such polls and they are often wrong because they are so biased. I wouldn’t use them and don’t.

Writing a piece like this has severe limitations and I can’t please everyone. And no doubt some would read into it what I didn’t write and interpret it according to their own ideas, but I can’t control that. That’s not my purpose, as I have already stated.

And no, same sex parents aren’t desireable. There is a far greater incidence of sexual abuse in same sex “families”. Children need and deserve to be brought up in a natural and normal (no, that’s not a dirty word) environment, in a one father and one mother home.

 

[austenbosten]

Have you ever heard Dennis Prager’s take on gay “marriage”? He has a pretty good argument against it. Once again I love the story, but nothing in it says to me. Why I should not vote NAY on gay “marriage”? Because of some dudes cutting a rope on a boat?

I think it needs to be stressed that they’re making a policy based on sympathy for the individual…if so why not allow incestual marriage? If gay “marriage” is being legalized, then a brother and sister or brother and brother who “love” each other consensually should be allowed to marry, because that is the exact same reason gays want “marriage.”

^^^ That will open doors in minds…If I vote YES out of my humanism overtaking my Faith, then what’s next? Polygamy? Incestual marriage? Pedophilia marriage? Bestiality marriage? What would come down the pike in 20 years???

They already are trying to normalize polygamy with Big Love and Sister Wives on TV.

 

[Iowa7681]

The op/ed piece can only have 200 words. I can’t argue every possible point. No op/ed piece can do that, and it wasn’t my goal. I have to go with what I believe will influence my target audience not try to answer every objection, a clear impossibility in such a short piece.

And polls are often wrong and don’t always reflect reality. The recent WI recall election exist polls supposedly showed the election a dead heat when, in reality Walker won it by 7 points. We’ve got a couple of far left wing newspapers here that are always doing such polls and they are often wrong because they are so biased. I wouldn’t use them and don’t.

Writing a piece like this has severe limitations and I can’t please everyone. And no doubt some would read into it what I didn’t write and interpret it according to their own ideas, but I can’t control that. That’s not my purpose, as I have already stated.

And no, same sex parents aren’t desireable. There is a far greater incidence of sexual abuse in same sex “families”. Children need and deserve to be brought up in a natural and normal (no, that’s not a dirty word) environment, in a one father and one mother home.

You’re right.

 

[Della]

Have you ever heard Dennis Prager’s take on gay “marriage”? He has a pretty good argument against it. Once again I love the story, but nothing in it says to me. Why I should not vote NAY on gay “marriage”? Because of some dudes cutting a rope on a boat?

I think it needs to be stressed that they’re making a policy based on sympathy for the individual…if so why not allow incestual marriage? If gay “marriage” is being legalized, then a brother and sister or brother and brother who “love” each other consensually should be allowed to marry, because that is the exact same reason gays want “marriage.”

^^^ That will open doors in minds…If I vote YES out of my humanism overtaking my Faith, then what’s next? Polygamy? Incestual marriage? Pedophilia marriage? Bestiality marriage? What would come down the pike in 20 years???

They already are trying to normalize polygamy with Big Love and Sister Wives on TV.

Of course the Ra journey is only a metaphor, and a “softball” approach. Others have made your points, and they do have an effect on many, I’m sure, but I’m trying to get those good people, who don’t care for what they consider “extreme” examples, to see this issue from the stand point of cutting our bounds with what has always been right and good for society. Maybe you should write a piece for your local papers, stressing your points.

 

[austenbosten]

Of course the Ra journey is only a metaphor, and a “softball” approach. Others have made your points, and they do have an effect on many, I’m sure, but I’m trying to get those good people, who don’t care for what they consider “extreme” examples, to see this issue from the stand point of cutting our bounds with what has always been right and good for society. Maybe you should write a piece for your local papers, stressing your points.

Well luckily where I live, they still probably have Klan meetin’s in the woods. So I doubt I’ll have to fear gay marriage here

However Columbus is like San Fransicko…just half-crazy.

 

[Viki63]

Della, I think your article is very good,. Obviously you can’t address every point in a 200 word essay.
I have observed that starting a thread here can lead to an interminable debate on everyone’s pet points. Don’t take it too much to heart if not everyone is 100% pleased. We should all be writing to the papers.
I remember Thor Heyerdahl – that’s a cool analogy.

 

[Della]

Della, I think your article is very good,. Obviously you can’t address every point in a 200 word essay.
I have observed that starting a thread here can lead to an interminable debate on everyone’s pet points. Don’t take it too much to heart if not everyone is 100% pleased. We should all be writing to the papers.
I remember Thor Heyerdahl – that’s a cool analogy.

Thanks. Yes, I expected I’d get some tough feedback, but it all helped. I’m at that point in my life in which I can sort out what I need.

Now I’ve just got to find the paper with the diocesan contact to see if it is acceptable to her, as well. I’ve taken a rather elliptical tack in my piece, but like G. K. Chesterton, I hope to lead the reader to the point by going “around the world”.

And thanks to everyone who answered. Truly, all your responses were helpful to me. :tiphat:

 

[marvinb1]

Ill chime in as a representative of the person you are trying to connect with. (An independant- gasp!!!):

Your story, while interesting, sounds very disconnected from the realities of approving/denying someones right to marriage. To me, it just reinforces the idea that the “traditional marriage” supporters are failing to grasp the issue.

Your editorial admits that marriage is in shambles, which it is. Without any influence (directly) from gays. So, you are telling a group that has no hand thus far in destroying traditional marriage, that they will destroy traditional marriage. But you haven’t said why, or how. Or why you aren’t concerned with all the things that HAVE destroyed marriage till now, but are convinced this small minority will, to the point of preventing them from taking part.

I would leave out the “kids are better with a mom and dad” bit. Of course they are. Everyone knows that. The part that is missing is the “better off than what?” You are free to argue if having two same sex parents is the equal of two opposite sex, its a tight race. But you know what both same sex and opposite sex parents are better than? Here is a list:
Single parents
Divorced/remarried parents
Parent(s) with any history of any chemical abuse
Under-Educated parents
Low income parents
Mixed race parents
Young parents (teen)
etc

So, unless you want to explain why a same sex couple that is statistically close to the ideal opposite sex couple should be denied raising a child when all of the above plus many, many more are unarguably far worse, why would they listen to you? Your may be spot on as far as your own, private moral compass, but in an measurable and objective world, you need a reason. Or at least a logic.

Also, I would not mention supporters as the “minority”. I think saying it is about a 50/50 race at this point is fair. I agree, the votes have always been closer to 45/55 recently against gay marriage, and public polls are usually a little bit in favor. If you know anything about how voter turnout works, it makes sense. Arguing the last couple percent is silly, but it is not a “minority” as you describe.

Anyway, feel free to publish what you wish, but if you want to actually persuade someone, the last thing you want to do is craft your message towards the people that are already 100% on your side. That 101.

What’s wrong with mixed race parents?

 

[SugarMagnolia]

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?

mainstay

Your metaphor is nautical.

 

[Della]

mainstay

Your metaphor is nautical.

Thanks. I hadn’t thought of that. :tiphat:

 

[aragonjohn1]

marriage is a fundamental part of society without it humanity would cease to exist

Shalom

 

[CopticChristian]

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,

Excellent. I have formulated the following opposition that avoids all the issues that the homosexual agenda proposes and thier proposals are weak.

**I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I refuse to consent to scientific studies with children and homosexuals. **

Many will say, well homosexuals raise children, and studies show…why are we subjecting children that have no consent to studies to prove what point…how long do we consent to this study?

It is not in the best intersest of the child to consent to studies nor accept any results that involve studies that are geared towards proving that homosexuals are adequate as parents. These studies are not in the best interest of the child.