Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Gay Weddings

After an extended hiatus I'm back writing about politics again. According to the internet I have one followers so, to those disappointed masses, fear not. I'm back.

I have been absorbing a bunch of post election breakdown and will eventually post about some of my research and some of the other cool things i've encountered relative to that. First I want to brainstorm about Gay Marriage. I don't think I know that many folks that think it's a bad idea. However, it has been on the ballot in 30 states and 30 states have rejected it. It thus seems obvious that we need new strategies for talking about it.

This is a great interview between Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart.

I think it helps show how logically indefensible the anti-gay marriage position is. I also wonder if we just need more of this or if the rational arguments on the subject are not likely to succeed. Dr. Rowland teaches his undergraduate students that a logical argument is not likely to succeed if a: people have already taken their position and b: there is no new information or c: if it is a value issue d: it is a highly complex issue. However, he argus that over time the logical position tends to win out. Do we just need more time? Do we have any new information? If not, we may need new strategies. My suspicion is that we do need new strategies and starting with happy California couples who's marriages were voided is not a bad idea. We should share these stories, and see if we can't get others to realize that their position on the definition of marriage is really hurtful to some.

Here is another interesting argument that is all over the internet these days:

It certainly plays with form. It uses celebrities and appeals to reason as well as self interest. I wonder if it isn't just a new packaging of the old strategies though. I suspect we need to find other ways to articulate our positions. Thoughts?