Argumentation in the Marriage Debate

As I have observed the debate over the upcoming “marriage amendment” vote in Minnesota continue and intensify, most especially (though not exclusively) through social media, I have become more convinced that, as each side (for and against) make arguments, we very often talk past each other. I am referring not only to the wealth of inflammatory comments from both sides, but more specifically, that arguments on one side address different issues than arguments on the other. Rhetoric on one side tends to target points that are minor, if not negligible, points on the other: not necessarily straw men (although there is plenty of that, as well), but simply points that at best fail to resonate, at worst, provoke strong and often incendiary reactions.

You will notice I say “we,” as I am far from without opinion on the subject. As a faithful Catholic—one who knowingly and, with God’s help, willingly embraces Church teaching on matters of marriage, family, those with same-sex attraction, etc. as of divine origin—I stand in support of the amendment. You will also note that I say “you,” as I presume you, too, are standing on one side or the other. Fence-sitters on this issue seem to be sparse, as evidenced by the growing number of lawn signs around our neighborhoods.

Nonetheless, in this particular post, I am not primarily about trying to put forth a pro-amendment argument. Rather, I am trying to convey the need for both sides to be more conscious of their rhetoric and more strategic in their argumentation.

I will attempt to refrain from making comments here that are overly presumptuous about the general stance of the “vote no” camp. I will speak from within the “vote yes” camp (specifically, the Catholic “vote yes” camp), as I am much more familiar with those arguments, and address both sides.

First, to the Catholic “vote yes” folks:

As Christ-followers, our greatest commandment is to love as he loved. We must never tire of striving to love. It should go without saying that this means remembering in all humility that we ourselves are sinners, and that hatred and defamation, in oral or written form, of another human being created in the image of God is absolutely prohibited. We should also practice compassion (literally, “suffering with”) toward those with same-sex attraction. We need to consider the numerous difficulties they have faced—interiorly, in relationships with family, and societally—and be models of Christ’s compassion to them. We also must bear in mind the immeasurable amount of abuse they have suffered, and how often fellow Catholics and other Christians have utterly failed to honor their God-given dignity. Our theo-logic means little if others perceive us as incapable of compassion. Because of this, we must be all the more quick to listen and slow to speak. we are To that end, we ought to consider how our comments, specifically those directly pertaining to people, would fall on their ears, before we make them. I think we also ought to be very careful about using sound bites and one-liners (think about tweets and facebook status updates). They often fail to respect the interrelated complexity of Catholic thought on the issues (see below). Worse, they also often fail to respect the God-given dignity and rational ability of those who oppose you, as well as shutting down avenues of legitimate discussion.

We also ought never to give up learning Catholic teaching on the issues influencing our position on this amendment. In addition to Sacred Scripture, the Church has given us numerous resources, perhaps especially Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. It’s worth (re-)familiarizing ourselves with these teachings, not as “ammunition,” but to note their inherent pastoral tone and seek to present and defend them compassionately.

Next, to the “vote no” folks:

Ideally, for Catholics, the pro-amendment stance is constructed on a number of interrelated prior Catholic perspectives, including primarily views of God and of love, and then (in no particular order) of anthropology, marriage, natural law, religion’s role in the public square, psychology, reason, hatred, the bases of morality, the “common good,” the role of government, ecclesial (Church) authority, divine revelation, family, sex, liberty, and yes, sexual sin. The formulation and structure of these issues are, to put it mildly, complex. But although they resist simplification, they are decidedly not rationally or philosophically bankrupt, nor can they be dismissed as such. Neither can they be easily dismissed as immoral, though admittedly, Catholics today can present them in immoral, disrespectful manners (see above).

Because of these things, accusations of bigotry and fascism close the door to further discussion altogether—not only because of their hateful tenor, but also because they reveal a wholehearted disinterest in legitimately learning about the opposing position. If you want to make real headway with us, a great way to start would be to familiarize yourself/ves with the teachings of Pope John Paul II called the Theology of the Body (no small task, admittedly!) and formulate challenges to the teachings he makes therein. Present your challenges respectfully, and you’ll have my attention.

As I mentioned above, I will leave it up to those in the “vote no” camp to suggest, if they wish, how we Catholics might better encourage respectful, legitimate discussion and debate.

In general, I would encourage us all to listen—both to what’s being said and what’s not—from both sides. I would hope we can both refrain from being dismissive, and actually seek to learn from one another, even whilst espousing passionately held positions. Surely this is the way to foster greater understanding and peace, even in the midst of strong disagreement.