The primary thing to keep in mind about challenging opposition arguments is don’t do it unless you have to. The most effective way to persuade is to stick to your core messages. Any time you use your opponent’s language, even when countering it, you inadvertently reinforce their arguments in the minds of the target audience, the moveable middle.

For example, if your opponent argues that gay couples should not get married because they are promiscuous, you might respond as follows: “Thousands of gay couples in Massachusetts have made life-long commitments to each other. Many thousands more are simply waiting to have this chance.” If, instead, you counter with the argument that it’s not true that gay people are promiscuous, the idea of “gay = promiscuous” will be reinforced in the heads of those listening.

In thinking about ways to counter arguments undermining support for marriage, keep in mind three strong (often subconscious) beliefs that the moveable middle holds that create barriers to support.

Gay people aren’t like me. [e.g.,“Gay sex – ick!”; “Gay people choose a deviant lifestyle”; “Gay isn’t natural”]

In the marriage context, this belief underlies three basic opposition arguments:

• “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
  This stems from the belief that marriage is a tradition reserved exclusively for straight people. To address this, we need to help the moveable middle think about gay people as part of the community. Talking in ways that emphasize your common ground does this.


• “Gay marriage diminishes the institution of marriage.”
  Many people think this because they believe that gay relationships are “sinful” or “wrong.” Gay people aren’t deemed appropriate candidates for marriage because they’re seen as a set of negative stereotypes rather than as real people. Again, talking in ways that emphasize our common ground helps dispel this belief.


• “Call it anything but marriage.”
  We find focus groups frequently insist on this. Many people believe that marriage sanctifies a union, makes it holy, and entitles it to respect, and many of these people are willing to “tolerate” but not “sanctify” gay relationships. To overcome this, we need to help straight people to get to know gay people. We need to demonstrate our common ground.

Gay people are a threat to society. [e.g.,“Gay marriage will worsen America’s slide into moral decay”; “Acceptance is bad for children and will increase the number of gay people”]

In the marriage context, this belief manifests itself this way: “Gay marriage threatens traditional marriage, society, and children.” People who think this perceive that marriage for gay couples validates an alternative “lifestyle” that doesn’t fall within traditional value structures. This perception is often coupled with the fear that consecrating relationships that are “wrong” will hasten the evaporation of moral boundaries. Further, many think that marriage is bad for children. They think it’ll prematurely expose their kids to gay issues, “turn” children gay, and lead to more kids in gay families.

The best way to counter these beliefs is to stick to your core messages aimed at emphasizing common ground, illustrating concrete harms, and encouraging people to do the right thing. (See introduction to "Changing Hearts and Minds.") The worst strategy is to attack or criticize marriage. It may make you feel better to counter that straight people haven’t exactly done a great job with marriage, but pointing to the increase in divorce rates makes most people feel the need to defend their sacred tradition from more change.

Although we provide resources to counter the opposition’s arguments about children (see the resources below), try not to engage the opposition over this contention. Any discussion of children creates a visceral protective response which heightens any fears and stereotypes about the “potential dangers” posed by gay people. If you do want to talk about kids, do it carefully and test your messages first. (As an example, we think that having a teenager speak in an ad about how an anti-marriage initiative threatens to take away his/her health insurance would be effective.)

Gay people don’t need more rights. [e.g., “Gay people want special rights”; “The law already covers gay people”]

In the marriage context, many people believe that gay couples already experience equality because nothing prevents them from living together and they can protect themselves with some quick paperwork. Support for marriage increases when people learn the extent to which the denial of marriage hurts gay couples.

Be careful, however, not to talk only about the rights and protections afforded by marriage because marriage, in the moveable middle’s eyes, is more about relationship validation than legal protections. To avoid reinforcing the misperception that gay people don’t view marriage in the same spirit as straight people, you should describe one or two memorable, compelling, and concrete protections rather than talk about the “1,138 federal benefits and rights.”

Our opponents often say mean-spirited and grossly untrue things about gay people. What follows are resources you might need to counter those opposition arguments seemingly based on fact but easily disproven by the available hard evidence. But remember that it’s best not to address the opposition’s framing of the argument head on. For example, saying that marriage for gay couples will not lead to polygamy only reinforces the worry that it will. Further, be mindful of the tone you use. Countering an argument in shrill and combative tones may make you and your friends feel better but it provides fodder for perceptions of gay people as disruptive, threatening, and “not like me.” If you need to refer to an opponent’s terms or arguments, modify them with “so-called” – e.g., “so-called” threats to marriage.