"An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a proposition!""Argument's an intellectual process, contradiction's just an automatic gainsaying of what the other person says!"
It would have been far better, far more honest and far more polite for those in favour of same-sex marriage to have outlined a reasoned position, rather than having resort to the slogans that are trotted out at these occasions. Failing that, perhaps Mr Hodgman* could have asked some simple questions of Mr McKim, inviting him to say clearly what he supports and why.
With a few fairly simple questions, it is possible to get a firm idea of what someone thinks, and why. Sometimes this is enough to show that their position has no reasonable basis, or no evidence to support it. Sometimes it will reveal a useful line of enquiry or attack. Sometimes it will compel us to rethink our own position or beliefs. Any of these outcomes is a potentially useful one! Let's spend a little bit of time looking at what Mr Hodgman might have asked.
There are three sorts of questions that are really helpful here - questions of clarification, questions of justification/substantiation, and questions of challenge**.
Clarification, self-evidently, is about clarifying what a person means by the words they use when they set out their position. Justification or substantiation is about getting to the reasons and evidence that support a person's viewpoint. Challenge questions are a tool for testing a viewpoint against other viewpoints and/or real life situations. Let's look at how this might run in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. We'll do what we can to follow one particular line of argument, rather than covering the whole field.
The first point in the motion introduced by Mr McKim into the Tasmanian House of Assembly reads: "That the House supports marriage equality". Immediately that begs the question - "what do you mean by equality? Equal to what? Equality with what?" Equality is a word that requires context for its meaning. It is meaningful to say that two plus three equals five. It is meaningless to say that two plus three equals. In the same way, it is meaningless to say "I support marriage equality". Do you mean
The next type of question we want to ask is: "why?" Why should the law be changed to allow this? On the face of it, the nature of the couples is evidently different, in a number of ways:
I haven't yet heard any compelling answer to these questions from those supporting same-sex marriage. That could just be a sign of the paucity of the debate here, and the narrowness of my reading on the issue. If you are aware of anything that answers my questions, do let me know.
There are three sorts of questions that are really helpful here - questions of clarification, questions of justification/substantiation, and questions of challenge**.
Clarification, self-evidently, is about clarifying what a person means by the words they use when they set out their position. Justification or substantiation is about getting to the reasons and evidence that support a person's viewpoint. Challenge questions are a tool for testing a viewpoint against other viewpoints and/or real life situations. Let's look at how this might run in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. We'll do what we can to follow one particular line of argument, rather than covering the whole field.
The first point in the motion introduced by Mr McKim into the Tasmanian House of Assembly reads: "That the House supports marriage equality". Immediately that begs the question - "what do you mean by equality? Equal to what? Equality with what?" Equality is a word that requires context for its meaning. It is meaningful to say that two plus three equals five. It is meaningless to say that two plus three equals. In the same way, it is meaningless to say "I support marriage equality". Do you mean
- you support the same access for all to the status of marriage?
- that all marriages deserve the same degree of respect and legal protection?
- that all relationships deserve the same degree of respect and legal protection?
The next type of question we want to ask is: "why?" Why should the law be changed to allow this? On the face of it, the nature of the couples is evidently different, in a number of ways:
- a heterosexual couple has a member of each sex; a homosexual couple consists entirely of men or of women.
- a heterosexual couple is capable of producing children naturally (with some exceptions); a homosexual couple cannot produce children naturally.
- a heterosexual couple naturally models adult male and adult female behaviour to any children in the household; a homosexual couple cannot.
There are probably other obvious distinctions too. The question remains - why should the law be changed?
The answer provided by proponents of same-sex marriage is "love" - that love doesn't discriminate, so neither should the Marriage Act. but that begs other questions - why is love a sufficient ground to permit a couple to marry? What of other "loves" - adults for children, parent for child, siblings for each other? Why not permit them to marry too?
There must be some additional ground that justifies state recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Something common to both, but not a feature of other close and loving relationships. I have not seen anything in the parliamentary debates, nor in the material on the Marriage Equality website that expressly states what it is, and there is no-one I can ask "what" or "why". So I'll have to guess, and I guess it's sex. That the argument is that the state should, for some reason, acknowledge and approve sexual relations between two people of the same sex in the same way that it does between a married couple.
But why? Wasn't the argument of the homosexual lobby for so many decades that the state has no business enquiring into what is done in private between two consenting adults? Certainly that was the argument that saw Tasmania's criminal law changed in 1997, following challenges in the Human Rights Committee (UN) and the High Court of Australia. And now the argument is that the state should take note of those private sexual relations for the purpose of approval and celebration of them? And why is sex a basis for state recognition?
I haven't yet heard any compelling answer to these questions from those supporting same-sex marriage. That could just be a sign of the paucity of the debate here, and the narrowness of my reading on the issue. If you are aware of anything that answers my questions, do let me know.
But what of my original purpose? How can I act now to prevent my children learning to debate like a member of parliament?
*Please don't think I'm being hard on Mr Hodgman. I admire the fact that he was willing to take a stand for the cause of real marriage in a room full of his opponents, that he weathered personal slights honourably, and that he did it with good grace. I doubt that any questions he asked would have been answered by anyone on the other side of the chamber.
**I'm indebted to Rev. Andrew Osborne, as well as to Mr Gregory Koukl's book Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions, for the organisation and description of these questions.
Do you see someone who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
Proverbs 29:20
Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.
Proverbs 13:3
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry
James 1:19
As hard as it is, I have to try to encourage my kids to ask questions - particularly "what?" and "why?" (although preferably without the whining voices!) I will try to teach my children to listen well to what others say, and what they mean.
**I'm indebted to Rev. Andrew Osborne, as well as to Mr Gregory Koukl's book Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions, for the organisation and description of these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment