I’ve been pondering a new phrase: pro-reality. I can use it to support opinions that may not line up perfectly with who would become my political base. Or really, I can use it to justify just about any position. It’s a great little tool.

For example, let’s say, “I’m pro-gay marriage.” At this point in time, many Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Now, people will immediately want to discard any other opinions I have simply because they disagree with me on this one issue. Ah, but not so fast, “I’m pro-reality.” Wait, they must be thinking, this is an intriguing turn of phrase and not part of any of the talking points I’ve been trained to ignore. “People don’t choose to be homosexual. It’s biological. So, we’re always going to have homosexual couples.” Yeah, that’s true. That’s right. That’s reality. “We have to deal with this reality.” Exactly what I was thinking! This guy makes sense. I wonder what he’ll say next. “I’m simply in favor of marriage for homosexual couples in order to give them to same legal rights as other married couples have. If one partner dies, we want the other partner to be able to inherit his or her things. It’s unfair any other way.” Hm, yes. That’s true. But I’m still not completely convinced that’s why we should allow gay marriage. “But I understand that some people are against gay marriage.” Hey, this guy understands my position and doesn’t think I’m a bigot. Maybe I will listen to the rest of what he has to say. “That’s why I’m also okay with civil unions.” (That’s the compromise qualifier. There’s also the implied “pro-reality” argument within the last two statements.) “See, all I want is for same-sex couples, a reality we have to deal with, to have the same legal rights as other couples.” That’s good. He doesn’t want to redefine marriage. He doesn’t want to tear down society. “I’m in favor of legal benefits for same-sex couples. I don’t want to redefine marriage. I have no hidden agenda. This is my agenda, and I think it’s fair, and I think it’s consistent with reality.” Oh, so this guy isn’t completely crazy simply because of his position he uttered at the start. I guess it’s okay to support him even though I disagree with him on one issue. In fact, I may be starting to agree with him on the civil unions thing.

I don’t think this was the best example, but you can see the power of the pro-reality argument. When you say you’re pro-reality, you control the facts. Thus, the audience automatically must agree with your premises. Then, you build a logically tight argument that allows for compromise (compromise being an essential component of being pro-reality), and there’s pretty much no conceivable way an opponent can disagree. No, I take that back, they can disagree, but there’s no conceivable way an opponent can paint you as a radical. And see, the way I lay out my argument, there’s no slippery slope for bestiality or polygamy. I was talking about couples. I was talking about reality.

I must add that this is my true position for gay marriage, and I hope I didn’t offend anyone by trying to simulate an opponent’s thoughts. I meant it to be humorous. However, I must add one thing to my argument. I am pro-gay marriage because I think it’s easier to give the legal benefits same-sex couples deserve through marriage, instead of trying to construct the all-new status of “civil union.” But like I said, I’m pro-reality, so I’m not automatically anti-civil union, as long as it provides legal benefits that same-sex couples should have.