By Craig Cardon
Chairman of the Board
United Families International

Same-sex “marriage” is going to be a hot topic of debate this year in politics.  Can you have any weight to educate and convince others about the importance of marriage in your own circle of influence?  Here are some suggestions:

(1) Employ rational argument.  (2) Stand up and speak out.  And (3) Don’t be an arophobe.  (I’ll explain what that means later.) 

Rational argument is not necessarily the same thing as expressing forcefully one’s deeply-held feelings as may occur when expressing religious convictions, although the expression of such feelings has its proper place in the public square, especially when speaking as an official representative of a religious faith. 

Rational argument places issues in context and identifies underlying principles, logically placing in sequence those concepts that lead to rational conclusions.  To what end?  As noted in a quote attributed to William Paxman, “Ideas go booming through the world louder than canons, thoughts are mightier than armies, and principles have achieved more victories than horsemen and chariots.”[1] 

 The fact is that many of today’s societal issues have strong religious overtones.  Yet we live in a pluralistic society appropriately protective of the non-religious or secular voice.  You will recognize that the problem now is, however, that secularism attempts to completely exclude the religious voice from the debate.  By taking advantage of a judicial disposition for officious rulings, secularists have largely succeeded in silencing the religious voice, although I believe this will be temporary, for no society can permanently resist the innate human need to seek ultimate answers and express them culturally.  However, I believe it helpful to keep a distinction in mind.

While we should labor diligently to reinvigorate and reauthorize the religious voice in the public square, we must realize that under our representative form of government and in the democratic process of a pluralistic society, a religious voice expressed publicly may not be afforded any added credence.  In other words, what one may present in the public square as the word of God may be considered by others to be nothing more than simply the opinion of another man. 

The counsel of Austin Farrar is worth remembering in both public and private venues:  “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief.  What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.  Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[2] 

These matters can be illustrated as follows.

 

Within the general population, there are those who are religious and those who are interested in family issues.  And, no doubt, there are those who are interested in both, represented by the overlapping portion of those two circles.  Those choosing to use religious language in discussing family issues will be understood by those in this overlapping portion, and to a large extent, their religious ideas on family matters may be accepted by them.  But if a religious person interested in addressing family issues wants to effectively influence others interested in family matters who are not religious, or even more, positively influence other non-religious persons not interested in family issues, speaking only in terms of religious convictions may not be the best means of doing so.  Therefore, becoming more proficient at employing the language of the public square and utilizing the abundant rational arguments available on the various topics, including family issues, may prove to be more effective. 

A brief example may be helpful.  If engaging the public debate on same-sex marriage, you should certainly be allowed to speak of God’s disapproval of sodomy if that is your belief.  But it may be helpful to provide rational arguments dealing with underlying principles of why society gives official recognition to marriage between a man and a woman in the first place.  This will quickly focus the discussion on children and the overwhelming interest society has in self-preservation and perpetuation by protecting and encouraging the most efficient and effective means of creating and training future generations.  Constitutional issues will also quickly surface, such as the separation of powers and judicial activism.  This is especially relevant in light of the recent ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and the earlier US Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.  Children and Constitution, then, are two excellent arguments on which to focus the debate. 

My second suggestion for those inclined to engage the public debate is tied closely to my comments at the beginning of this talk.  It is simply this:  Stand up and speak out.  Even when you feel as though you are a “voice of one crying in the wilderness,”[3] it is important and powerful for you to share your perspective.  A lesson from the field of psychology is helpful. 

Years ago, Solomon Ashe conducted an experiment ostensibly to test the visual perception of college students.  This stated purpose was a ruse.  In reality, Ashe wanted to see what influence peer pressure had on individuals and what difference one voice could make.

 

He prepared poster boards like this one, with a line of certain length on the left side and three lines of varying lengths marked A, B, and C on the right side, one of which was the exact same length as the line on the left.  Ashe would then seat six college students at a time in a private room. 

Five of the students would know what was really going on.  He would seat the unknowing student, the real subject of the study, in chair five.  He would then show the students various poster boards and ask the students in order to identify which line on the right was closest in length to the one on the left.  If the correct answer was B (as in our previous slide), students one through four would answer incorrectly by saying C.  A hidden camera recorded the puzzled look on the face of the student in chair five as he or she would hear these incorrect answers. 

When the turn finally came to the puzzled student in chair five, he or she would initially answer correctly.  The first four students would then look down the row and give him or her a subtle, mocking glance or stare.  The final student, number six, would then give the same answer as the first four students.  After following this pattern for only a few posters, 70% of the subject students in chair five eventually gave a knowingly wrong answer at least once. 

While this was remarkable, what happened next was, in my opinion, even more powerful.  One change was made in the experiment.  The student in chair number two now began to give the right answer, always.  As soon as the subject student in chair five had only one other corroborating voice in chair two, even with all of the other students glaring at them, it was nearly impossible to dissuade the subject student in chair five from his or her correct answer. 

This is why it is so important to stand up and speak out.  Even though it may seem that everyone is against you, you may not realize it, but you are taking the position of the person in chair two, and there are others out there, often unknown to you, who have found themselves in chair five for quite a while.  When they finally begin to hear the right answer from chair two, they take courage and with time begin to stand for what they always believed, but didn’t have the language or the conviction to express. 

Let me share an example from one of my classes at Harvard.  On one occasion a particularly dramatic event unfolded during one of the Kennedy School’s signature classes on leadership.  Toward the end of the semester at a special evening class, with attendance required for all the 120 students enrolled, each student was required to come prepared to share, if called upon, in the most sincere and open way possible some words or ideas that had influenced his or her most fundamental core values.  Many were prepared to quote scriptures, poetry, or other passages of inspiration. 

During the semester, a female student I’ll call Anne had made her lesbianism known and had frequently evidenced openly her preoccupation with sexual matters.  For example, on one occasion when asked a question by the professor she responded by saying she had no idea what he was talking about because she had not been following the discussion, but rather, for the previous 20 minutes had been looking at many of the females in the class imagining what it would be like to be with them intimately.  Comments like this were usually met with laughter, and the class would go on.  By this time, however, the class knew her well.  And from previous discussions, the class also knew well my religious convictions and my support of traditional societal norms. 

On this night, after having heard from two or three students, the professor asked Anne to share her inspirational passage.  While others had been more formal, she went to the front of the class, sat on one of the desks there, and began to read a pornographic passage from a book describing an intimate physical encounter between a lesbian and a transsexual.  Once again the class laughed.  When she finally concluded, as he had done with the previous students, the professor asked the class to comment on what they had seen and heard. 

Student after student told Anne how brave they thought she was for reading what she had read and congratulated her for her courage.  The professor kept glancing at me as others raised their hands and he called on them, but I did nothing.  I kept hoping that there would be one other voice to bring sanity to the room.  There wasn’t.  When the professor announced that he would take just one more comment, I raised my hand amid a sea of others and the professor immediately called on me. 

I looked at Anne for a moment without saying a word and then slowly and deliberately told her that in my opinion, her reading had nothing to do with courage, and that all she had successfully communicated to me was a confirmation that she was controlled by her hormones and was a prisoner of her sexual promiscuity.  The class was stunned. 

The professor then did a very interesting thing…a masterful thing, in my opinion.  Because of several private conversations between us in previous weeks, he knew me and I knew him.  He now asked me before the class how many children I had (eight) and how many were female (four).  He asked me to consider Anne to be one of my daughters, and asked Anne to consider me to be her dad.  He then invited us to look into each other’s eyes and invited Anne to tell me whatever she wanted me to know about herself and her lesbianism.  For nearly two full minutes, an eternity, Anne looked at me in silence.  Seeing her difficulty, I quietly prodded,  “Anne, help me understand.”  This provided the space she needed.

Interestingly, she said nothing of her lesbianism, but haltingly expressed her need for fatherly love.  When she concluded, I told her that I would be a failure as a father if I did not communicate my love to her, notwithstanding our differences.  There was an uncharacteristic silence in the room as Anne then returned to her seat. 

Following class, four women who had previously taken issue with me on questions involving societal norms, sought me out and in various ways communicated the significant impact that exchange had had on them and their thinking, and the added respect they now gave to my ideas.  In subsequent classes, their voices and the voices of many others that had previously been silent now spoke in favor of more traditional societal norms.  One voice had made a difference. 

My third and final suggestion for those inclined to engage the public debate is this counsel:  Personal attacks are ineffective and diminish the attacker and the public debate.  Don’t do it.  Personal attacks are often launched from the ideological extremities, but even those in the center are not immune to the temptation to personally belittle an adversary. 

The condition of abandoning rational argument and resorting to personal attacks has become so prevalent that I have thought to create a new word to describe the condition. 

The word is “arophobia” \ n. (arophobe n., arophobic adj.).   Its definition is as follows:  “The intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of reason evidenced by personal attacks and/or attempts to place derogatory labels on those with differing views.” 

To understand the etymology of this new word, you should know that the Indo-European root of the word “reason” is “ar,” which means “to fit together.”  Derivatives include words such as “army,” “harmony,” and “arithmetic.”  In other words, one who is able to reason is one who is able to fit things together and make some sense out of them.  When coupled with the familiar suffix, “phobia,” which means “inordinate fear,” you have this word, “arophobia.”  Thus my counsel:  Don’t be an arophobe. 

I’ll share another quick story to exemplify an occasion when I believe use of this word would have been appropriate.  A couple of months ago I was invited to be a guest on a one-hour radio talk show originating in Austin, Texas and accessible nationwide over the internet.  I joined the broadcast via telephone. 

The one other guest on the show was in studio, I’ll call him Steve, a homosexual man who with his partner was trying to adopt a child.  Steve was an attorney there in Austin and was active in the community in promoting a homosexual political agenda.  The recent Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas on sodomy was part of the discussion, as was a possible federal marriage amendment and adoption by same-sex couples. 

During the discussion on adoption, Steve asserted in passing that potential fears relating to pedophilia among homosexuals were unfounded and that there were no differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.  Being aware of several studies that challenge this assertion, I thought it needful to share them.  As I did so, Steve immediately became emotionally charged and began shouting irrationally into the microphone, “Liar!  Liar! Liar!  Liar!”  Although I could hear his voice over the telephone, I could also hear my own and therefore just kept talking.

Others listening to the show later told me that his voice completely drowned mine out, and that my level voice could only be heard when he took a breath.  When I stopped speaking, and he stopped shouting, the host of the show attempted to make a reconciliatory statement and broke for commercials.  Although a man practiced in rational argument, Steve’s only response had been to abandon reason and attack the messenger.  Although I never met the man personally, I am left to conclude that Steve is arophobic. 

I want to caution that there are at least two dangers one must consider before employing this new word.  The first is that in the very act of using the word, one may engage in self-description.  In other words, I may become an arophobe by conveniently misinterpreting valid, rational arguments as personal attacks and calling Steve arophobic, thereby inappropriately justifying my use of this anti-label label.  I don’t think there is any misinterpretation in this instance, but it’s worth thinking about. 

The second danger is found in misjudging an adversary’s abandonment of reason and personal attack as arophobic when in reality it is either (1) an attempt to hide his or her ignorance of the facts, or (2) an incapacity to debate.  In Steve’s case, it’s hard for me to believe that an attorney and community-activist was ignorant of the facts or lacked the capacity to debate.  I think he was afraid of the rational argument being presented and could muster nothing more than a personal attack.  Again, arophobia. 

So, remember that the word should not be used indiscriminately.  But when employed accurately, it will flag the fact that one party to the debate has abandoned reason and resorted to personal attack, all to the detriment of the debate. 

I leave you, then, with these three suggestions when pursuing the important work of engaging the public debate:  Rational argument is a persuasive language in the public square.  Our society is in great need of those who will stand up and speak out on the critical issues of the day.  And in the process, don’t succumb to the arophobic behavior currently so prevalent in the debate.  May we all enjoy great success in our efforts to sustain fundamental principles so vital to the perpetuation of good society!

United Families International (UFI) is a nonprofit, nondenominational organization dedicated to promoting the family as the fundamental unit of society at the local, national, and international level. UFI promotes respect for marriage, life, religion, parental rights and national sovereignty.

As a nongovernmental organization with official ECOSOC status at the United Nations, UFI works closely with UN Ambassadors and delegates to promote pro-family policies in UN documents. For more information or to become a member of United Families International and receive our quarterly newsletter, please go to our website at www.unitedfamilies.org or call our office in Arizona at (480) 652-5450