Sunday, March 3, 2013

Standing Up for Marriage~10 talking points we need to learn


Talking Points in Standing Up for Marriage 
 by Una Fides 

Do you find yourself trying to stand up for marriage but unable to find the right words to use? If so, then this newsletter is for you. We've put together a number of talking points that will enable you to fight for, and defend, marriage. It is a high calling. In the words of Archbishop Cordileone, "Fighting for marriage is our way of loving God, and the struggle is the particular gift that God has given our generation. This is our particular trial, and by overcoming it, we may achieve spiritual greatness."Let's get talking!

Point 1
Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. This is the most effective single sentence you can use to defend marriage and research verifies this. It is important to keep focused on the main issue, marriage. This debate is not about homosexuality. It is about marriage and what marriage is.

Point 2
Use only the phrase "redefining marriage." Never use the term "same sex marriage" because that is a natural and physical impossibility. We should not make it sound plausible or real by describing a same sex relationship as a marriage. "Same sex marriage" is just as physically impossible as "male breastfeeding," so we should not make same sex marriage sound plausible or real by describing it as a marriage.
Point 3
The nature of marriage is not a religious question. You do not need religious or theological arguments to defend it. Marriage comes to us from nature and it exists in nature. Neither the Church nor the State created it and neither can change its nature. Christ sanctified marriage as a sacrament and, in doing so, has given us a supernatural sense of its meaning. Throughout human history, the State has always protected marriage because it is essential to the family, the well-being of children and the common good of society.  
Point 4
The whole debate before us is not about whom to let marry but about what marriage is. Marriage has always been a male/female institution because it is rooted in biology and is critical to the common good of society. Marriage has a public purpose which is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. It is a biological union of a man and a woman for generating, protecting and raising children.
Point 5
Advocates for redefining marriage seek to remake it as a personal matter based on sexual romantic companionship. They want to view marriage as a loving and emotional bond between two people. Its primary purpose is seen as the sexual happiness of the adults involved. In this revised definition, marriage is all about adults, their feeling and their wants. If marriage is no longer conjugal in nature, and simply a sexual romantic partnership, how can there be any meaningful restrictions on marriage. Two men and two women could have a romantic interest in each other and a sexual partnership, so why can't they be married? And what about polygamy and polyandry? These consequences of separating marriage from its true conjugal nature are already being seen. In Brazil and the Netherlands, three way relationships were just given full marriage rights. California recently passed a bill to legalize families of three of more parents. And this is only the beginning!

Point 6
Proponents for redefining marriage claim that it is all about equality. Equality is not equivalency. Equality deals with treating similar things in a similar manner but does not deal with things that are dissimilar and fundamentally different. The demand for equality must rest upon an objective reality that shows the things declared equal are, in essence, actually the same. This is not true in the current debate. Opposite sex relationships and same sex relationships are inherently different. They are fundamentally different due to the fact that opposite sex relationships can produce children; same sex relationships cannot. Absent this claim of equality, there is no discrimination in restricting marriage to a man and a woman. Distinctions have always existed in marriage laws. Parents cannot marry their children. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. Under-age individuals cannot marry. People who are already married are not allowed to marry anyone else. Such distinctions are not discrimination.

Point 7
The welfare of children is being completely disregarded and dismissed in discussing the redefinition of marriage. Marriage, as it has always been acknowledged, is oriented to having children and raising them. Transforming marriage from a child-centered institution, whose purpose is to join mother and father for the benefit of children, into a genderless institution to satisfy adult desires is unconscionable. Research clearly demonstrates that the gold standard for children is to be raised in a household headed by the child's own biological mother and father. Children raised in single parent families and children born to unmarried women have higher risks and experience poorer outcomes. Recent research (Dr. Mark Regnerus, 2012) shows that for a majority of outcomes, children raised by parents in same sex relationships significantly underperformed children raised in households with married, biological parents. (Dr. Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?", 2012) Marriage is a pro-child union and, if it is redefined, the needs of children will have been sacrificed to meet the wants and needs of a small percentage of adults.

Point 8
Religious liberty is in grave danger if marriage is redefined. Even proponents of genderless marriage agree that such a change presents a very real danger to religious freedom. If the legal definition of marriage is changed, it is not just one change that takes place but literally thousands of changes in law and public policy occur immediately. The legal term, "marriage" occurs in family law, employment law, health care law, property and tax law and the list is endless. These new laws and policies will affect and govern religious institutions, schools, hospitals, families and individuals. If Church and State disagree on the definition of marriage, major conflicts will occur on a massive scale. That religious liberty is in great jeopardy by redefining marriage is not just legal theory but is confirmed by many real life examples that have already taken place. A few examples: loss of funding and licensing for adoption agencies for refusing to place children with same sex couples (Catholic Charities in MA, DC, IL), loss of state tax exempt status for religiously affiliated camp (NJ), imposition of tax penalties for preaching about marriage amendments (Montana), extension of married student housing to same sex couples (Catholic college in MA), Canadian Bishop investigated for simply explaining Catholic teaching on homosexuality in newspaper column.                  
Point 9
Proponents of genderless marriage claim that those who defend traditional marriage are bigots for not allowing marriage to be redefined as they wish. This false claim is used to silence the opposition and shut down meaningful dialogue. Those opposed to a certain opinion should not have to accept a new law to avoid being labeled bigots. The falsity of this charge of bigotry is well demonstrated by the fact that 70% of the African American community in California voted in favor of Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Can it seriously be argued that all these African Americans in California are bigots? Declaring all those opposed to redefining marriage as bigots is patently absurd.

Point 10
Some would have us believe that the defense of marriage is a lost cause. Proponents of genderless marriage tell us that this change is inevitable. History suggests otherwise. Between 1920 to 1930, the eugenics movement seemed unstoppable, having been embraced and championed by the elite institutions of American society. Catholics and others, considered "backwards" by the progressives of the day, resisted and history shows that the eugenics movement was decidedly not inevitable. In the 1970s we were also told that a "woman's right" to an abortion would come to be accepted by all. Polling today shows that the percentage of those opposed to abortion is now greater than it was in the 1970s. The redefinition of marriage will only succeed if the defenders of marriage do not buy into the "inevitability" claim.

 Two must see video clips!

 Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry) 

 Why Marriage Matters

Prayer in Defense of Marriage
God our Father, we give you thanks
for the gift of marriage: the bond of life and love,
and the font of the family.

The love of husband and wife enriches your Church with children,
fills the world with a multitude of spiritual fruitfulness and service,
and is the sign of the love of your Son, Jesus Christ, for his Church.

The grace of Jesus flowed forth at Cana at the
request of the Blessed Mother. May your Son,
through the intercession of Mary, pour out upon us
a new measure of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
as we join with all people of good will
to promote and protect the unique beauty of marriage.

May your Holy Spirit enlighten our society
to treasure the heroic love of husband and wife,
and guide our leaders to sustain and protect
the singular place of mothers and fathers
in the lives of their children.

Father, we ask that our prayers
be joined to those of the Virgin Mary,
that your Word may transform our service
so as to safeguard the incomparable splendor of marriage.
We ask all these things through Christ our Lord,

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

For additional and more in-depth information on this subject, please see:

What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense by Dr. Robert George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson 

United States Council of Catholic Bishops

National Organization for Marriage
una fides logo

The Mission of Una Fides is to build the Body of Christ by 
encouraging Catholic men and women to enrich, fortify, and
embrace their faith through prayer, study, and fellowship
Reproduced in full from Una Fides March 1 Newsletter.

No comments:

Post a Comment