Successful way to talk about Marriage Equality/Same Sex Marriage

This framing seems fairly common and unfortunately it hasn't been working very well. Extreme conservatives don't really care about whether other people are happy. Although maybe you're lucky and it works in Australia.

This Lakoff article might be helpful to you: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/samesex/

And I think there are some good thoughts here too:
http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2004/12/frameshop_gay_m.html

I would like to see gay rights issues be incorporated into the larger values and priciples of personal freedom, family privacy and human dignity. If we think of this single issue in a larger context, we include many issues with the same over arching values, from same sex marriage, to private medical decisions, to how you raise your kids, to the patriot act.

"Extreme conservatives don't really care about whether other people are happy"

As Lakoff says, Extreme Conservatives are not the target - they never are in framing, its the biconceptuals we are after, whom we want to activate the nurturing parent world view.

Its works quite well amongst biconceptuals.

thanks for your input tho.

dd
---------
http://connectthroughvalues.com

Conservatives will say then why not allow murder, rape, and terrorism? Killing makes murderers feel good. Raping makes rapists feel good. Terrorism makes terrorists feel good. If we allowed everything that made people feel good, then we would have anarchy. Conservatives will make the argument that we need to limit these impulses in order to have law and order.

Thank you Moriji for your input, however as someone who works for a Senator (in Australia), I can tell you that the bottom line is that this line has worked, continues to work and importantly, polls well amongst those whom we consider swing voters/biconceptuals.


dd
---------
http://connectthroughvalues.com

What I meant to say was, I don't think it'll work IN THE UNITED STATES. Two out of every three Americans in this country consider themselves to be conservative and conservative frames have been ingrained into just about every aspect of our culture.

What might work in one country won't necessarily work in another. Your frame would also work in Europe. It depends a lot on the history and culture, which produces a different narrative.

In the States we talk about "the pursuit of happiness", which is quite different from actual happiness. If you start talking about a group being entitled to be happy, you will get the above arguements - i.e. just because it makes a group happy doesn't mean it is worthwhile and should be encouraged. The entitlement concept is a favorite standby for conservatives to blast away at.

However, EVERY group, no matter how pleasant or vile, does have the right to the pursuit of happiness. The implication is that you must pursue happiness within the law and so won't really infringe on other's pursuits.

I find a more useful argument uses appeals to equality and privacy, "Do you want to report to the government what goes on in YOUR bedroom? Is is any of their business? Should we have different sets of rules for different sets of humans?"

The equality argument even works for the God angle - Ok, so if God thinks gays are abominations and shouldn't be married, can't you just let God work it out with them and their wedding party like we do for all the other sinners.

One side of a marriage ceremony is spiritual and one side practical. Discriminating on the spiritual side is playing God and discriminating on the practical side is relegating gays to a sublevel of humanity in our societal structure.

A common argument made by conservatives is, if you allow gay marriages, then what about pedophilia and incest? Is that okay too?

Now, I think it's important to distinguish between what happens between consenting adults and what happens between adults and children.

But then they will come back and say, what if an adult decides to want to marry one of his parents? They are consenting adults, right? Or what about siblings that decide to marry each other when they grow up?

As for those who come at it from a religious angle, there are many ways to argue this.

First, it depends on whether you are talking to a fundamentalist or not. There are those who believe that religious texts have to be understood in the context of the cultures and times in which they were written. After all, it wasn't God who wrote down the scriptures, but rather human beings.

But if you are talking to a fundamentalist, you can point out that even though fundamentalism claims to believe in religious scripture literally, they really don't. For example, eating shrimp is a no-no according to scripture (check out http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

In Islam, it is forbidden to take one's own life. But fundamentalist Islam says that to blow yourself up and to kill others along with it is not a sin, as it isn't really suicide and is just a defense of Islam and that those Muslims who are killed along with it will also become martyrs and go to heaven.

Bottom line is, there is always going to be interpretation.

I guess I should have mentioned that with incest, you could argue that it involves people who are biologically related and therefore is a no-no, whereas homosexuality involves consenting adults who are not related. But I still think this is a weak frame.

I prefer the argument that there are no negative consequences from engaging in homosexual behavior so those who are attracted to other members of their gender should be allowed to have relationships, including marriage. This nicely separates homosexuality from incest and pedophilia.

Bringing up a conservative argument is no way to reframe yours. By even mentioning these things in the same post, you are reinforcing conservative frames. They have nothing to do with each other and should not be mentioned together. You have to equate the issue with something the other person can relate to and find common ground with.

"Bringing up a conservative argument is no way to reframe yours. By even mentioning these things in the same post, you are reinforcing conservative frames. They have nothing to do with each other and should not be mentioned together. You have to equate the issue with something the other person can relate to and find common ground with"

I totally agree, additionally these arguments being brought up are something a staunch conservative would bring up, unlikely from a biconceptual/swing voter. We aren't attempting to convert staunch conservatives because they will always oppose that sort of thing.


"In the States we talk about "the pursuit of happiness", which is quite different from actual happiness. If you start talking about a group being entitled to be happy, you will get the above arguements - i.e. just because it makes a group happy doesn't mean it is worthwhile and should be encouraged. The entitlement concept is a favorite standby for conservatives to blast away at."

Ok that's interesting, you have a different narrative - the pursuit of happyness could very well fudge the issue.

Paul Hackett also does a great job - the below is from:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12517

"Here are some examples of what our candidates should be saying:

    "This really comes down to an issue of freedom. I believe that ALL Americans should have the FREEDOM to choose who can visit them in the hospital. Gay Americans, Straight Americans--even Martian Americans. Frankly, you're unAmerican if you think otherwise."

Apologies to Paul Hackett for stealing the last part, but that's really all that needs be said. Or try this:

    "EVERY American should have the OPPORTUNITY to give their stuff to anyone they want when they die. It's an issue of basic FAIRNESS. And I don't know any real American who would say no to that."

And if anyone dares to question on homosexuality itself, the answer is simple:

    "That's a matter of privacy. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms. An individual's privacy is part of what America is all about."

You see? It's really that simple.

    Fairness. Equality. Privacy. Opportunity.

Democrats can get in front of this issue and stop the oncoming GOP onslaught by appealing to these basic, libertarian, American values that cut across the political spectrum.

Or we can choke like John Kerry, talk about our religion, and hem and haw about Human Rights and the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions.

But above all, we must be ready with a unified message. The onslaught is coming--and the battle will favor those who are best prepared to meet it."



dd
------------
http://connectthroughvalues.com