One of the most heated civil liberties arguments sweeping across the country now is that of marriage rights, a topic that is further complicated by religious conviction. The National Organization for Marriage is a group that uses its religious determination to fight against open marriage rights.
The paradox that surrounds the issue is widely cited: If the religious are against gay marriage, they obviously just shouldn't take part in it. A sort of ignorance is bliss situation. However, NOM takes the traditional religious standpoint, arguing forpro-family tenacity and working to convince others ofthe consequences of same-sex marriage ... especially for children and people of faith.
Now, I'll make it clear that I don't agree with anything any of the things this organization has to say. That being said, I respect this organization tremendously more than any other radical group I've ever encountered. While I may deeply and ideologically disagree with everything this group stands for, there is one thing about it that sets it apart from the rest.
The topic of my column last week was about how most radical groups support their opinions with further ambiguous ideology. In short, they use circular reasoning. Argument is backed up by argument. What makes NOM different is the fact that they actually make a genuine effort to train their supporters to be able to argue and support effectively and logically.
On the group's Web site (http://www.nationformarriage.org), under the get informed tab, there is a page that specifically details arguments that supporters of same-sex marriage may make to those who oppose it. Under these arguments, it has responses and logical dialogue that can flow from the debates, as well as prompts to help members formulate their own responses.
The fact that the group actually takes logical action is quite impressive, in my opinion. While I don't agree with any of the responses to the arguments at all, I think it's commendable that, rather than rely on vague statements or individual beliefs to back up arguments, these people actually care about supporting their arguments validly.
These Marriage Talking Points advise people to stop using terms like ban same-sex marriage
not just because they believe the phrase is loaded and unsupported, but also because the opposition uses the phrase against those who would ban it. In fact, the group holds that opponents of same-sex marriage lose about ten percentage points in polls because of these phrases (whether that is true or not). They advise the use of phrases such asredefining marriage or stating that they are in favor ofmarriage as the union of husband and wife. Explicitly stating the wish to ban is a dead-end road.
All this being said, I still oppose what this group does and says. I will also admit that, while the argumentation process does help reduce the circular reasoning, they still have inserted many redundant stances into the arguments. For example, the recommended response to being asked if you're a bigot in relation to this issue is, Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that's pretty offensive don't you? Not exactly the most grounded argument. I suppose that no matter how many redeeming features these groups have, there will always be some level of circular argumentation.
Alex Menrisky is a freshman studying journalism. Send him an e-mail at am532707@ohiou.edu.
4
Opinion
Alex Menrisky
28242a.jpg
