Winnning or Silencing? by John Corvino It wasnt the first time an audience defied expectations. This time it was in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. I was there with Glenn Stanton, my debate buddy from Focus on the Family, to discuss same-sex marriage. The only thing we knew about Rhinelander before arriving was that its number one cause of death is bar-room brawlsor so we had been told by several Wisconsinites, who warned us of the small towns redneck reputation.
Bar-room brawls? Glenn joked. I suppose that has heterosexuality written all over it. Oh, we gays have them too, I responded. We just call them hissy-fits. Unlike most of our university debates, the Rhinelander event was advertised primarily to local residents, rather than students, and when we arrived we noticed lots of gray hair in the audience. An older crowd in a redneck townGlenns territory. I braced myself. Then the Q&A began, and one audience member after another attacked Glenn. I kept waiting for a critical question directed at me. Nothing. After about an hour of Glenns getting grilled while I fielded softballs, I turned to him and announced, Well, Glenn, this has been exactly the right-wing audience we expected in rural Wisconsin! The audience howled with laughter. Are you sure they didnt bus you guys in from Madison? Glenn quipped back. I could tell that he was weary and that he appreciated the lighthearted moment. The following week we debated again in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the same thing happened. I found myself wanting to stand up and shout, This is the deep South, people. Youre supposed to be on HIS SIDE! Its not that Im complaining. I do these debates to convince people. Not to convince Glenn (although Id like to think my time with him has had a positive effect). And not to convince ideologues, who have made up their minds and wont budge no matter what. I do them to convince the fence sittersfolks who show up curious about the issue, eager to listen, willing to engage arguments. So when people agree with me, I should be happy, and I am. But But there are plenty of people who dont agree with me. One merely has to look at voting patterns to realize this. Last November, Wisconsin voters passed an anti-gay marriage amendment 59-41%and much of that majority came from more liberal towns than Rhinelander. Even college students are far from unanimous in supporting marriage equality. Which means that opponents are either not showing up, or not speaking up, at our debate events. Either way, I miss the opportunity to engage them. Such engagement would have two potential benefits. First, it might help convince the opponents themselveseven if slowly and gradually. Second, it might help convince the fence-sitters who are watching, since they would receive the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error (in the words of the great liberal theorist John Stuart Mill). The more we confront the opposition head-on, the more obvious their fallacies become. Thats why Im willing to travel the country with someone from Focus on the Family addressing the same bad arguments over and over again. It was the hope for such engagement that led me to interrupt the Q&A in Baton Rouge to plead for some audience opposition. Any critical questions for me? Please? I asked no fewer than three times. It felt like announcing last call at the bar: Last call last call for traditionalists Finally, a woman took me up on my challengesort of: Im a religious conservative, she began gently. And I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I havent spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didnt feel like we would automatically be shouted down. She didnt offer any questionjust that observation. I was both impressed and surprisedimpressed by her courage in speaking against the (immediate) tide, and surprised that she found the audience hostile. I could recall no anger or viciousness from the various questioners. But since they were on my side, perhaps I simply failed to notice. Her remarks spotlighted an important distinction: its one thing to silence your opponents; its quite another to convince them. And sometimesperhaps oftensilencing is done at the expense of convincing. The social pressure that makes certain views taboo has its uses. But political reality indicates that its not yet time to halt the conversation over same-sex marriagecertainly not in Rhinelander or Baton Rouge. Strange as it sounds, we may sometimes need to work at making people more comfortablenot lessin voicing their opposition to us. ©365Gay.com 2007 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
