Gay marriage debate on CNN

[youngcynic]

Here's a video of the sex/relationship advice columnist Dan Savage who
is also a gay parent debating Tony Perkin's of the Christian right-
wing Family Research Council think tank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTySVskUcrU&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/

It is too bad prop 8 and other similar ballot measures in other states
passed. I think more likely than not if the no-on-prop-8 movement
framed it differently they could have passed it.

I see two frames used by Dan, the Old Fashioned Bigotry frame and the
Americans Liberty frame. These frames are overlap in my mind in one
other case, which is African American marriage. But simply having the
two frames present in an argument does not make up for a lack of an
emotional argument.

What is obvious to me is that Dan, like other's opposing proposition 8
let the proponents frame it first and only responded in retaliatory
frames. I have previously noted the "We are not the enemy" campaign
and many here have agreed that it could be slightly counterproductive.

One thing that really needs to be pushed I think is, by making same-
gender marriage illegal, we are effectively telling gay kids that they
are not as good as straight kids. Hitching the gay marriage argument
to education of children is something the religious right-wing has pre-
empted with the conspiracy theory of "indoctrination."

A strong counter argument would be that the reverse is actually true.
The conservative church stresses the need to instill disgust for gays
in their children, who otherwise might not think twice about it.

I believe that this would be a very smart argument to make, because
then the church would have to argue that it is okay for them to tell
their kids that being gay is a sin. It changes the argument in a very
significant way. It pushes the argument away from the Disney-esque
mythological deification of marriage to respect for diversity. If the
gay rights movement had made this point I believe they could have
defeated prop 8.

Dan arguing that taking away minorities rights is a good argument, but
likely could be made more powerful if he pointed out that social
conservatives are not only taking away rights but also sending the
wrong message about tolerance.

I would be very interested to hear about what frames you see in this
debate as well as what frames you suggest for the future.

[youngcynic]

One quick thing. My theory might explain why younger people voted
against it in higher numbers than older people, and why blacks voted
for it more than other ethnic groups.

Older people are more likely to be parents than younger people, and
are therefore more emotionally hit by the "think of the children"
message. Blacks tend to have children at younger ages, making more of
them parents.

[youngcynic]

I have written a letter to Gallup suggesting they survey this. I think
this argument has legs, because 57% of Americans see homosexuality as
an "acceptable lifestyle," 89% favor equal rights in job hiring and
55% believe in keeping homosexual relations "between consenting
adults" legal.

So theoretically, successfully framing this in terms of "Do you want
to live in a world of tolerance for homosexuality?" would likely
result in gay marriage being instated in many places.

[youngcynic]

A powerful religious argument might also help. Here's some verses from
the Old Testament and the Book of Jeremiah:

To argue for equality:
Deuteronomy 1:16:

And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes
between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his
brother, and the stranger that is with him.

To tie together not harming children, that something occurring in
nature is harmful:
Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the lord, "plans to
prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Interestingly enough, studies now suggest that gay men come from more
fertile women than straight men. So nature, or God, found a way for it
not to harm us, and to simultaneously allow us to prosper.