Natural

There's another thread of argument that pops up periodically in the contemporary debates about homosexuality: the argument from nature.  In my reading it has taken one of two forms:

1. Human beings are just another form of animal.  In the animal kingdoms, there are instances of homosexual behaviour.  Homosexuality is therefore natural, and not to be shunned in humans.
2. Homosexual people have an attraction to members of their own sex from a very early stage.  They are therefore most likely born with these urges, rather than choosing them freely.  Genetics is the most likely explanation for homosexual urges, and consequently for homosexual behaviour.  Therefore, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, and is not to be treated differently.

These arguments underpin arguments in favour of equality, and against discrimination, that are so often advanced in the same-sex marriage debate.  For that reason, it is important to challenge such assertions, and the conclusions sought to be drawn from them.

The argument from animal biology

The chickens come home to roost

In past decades, one of the arguments against homosexuality was that it was unnatural - not found elsewhere in the animal kingdom.  Homosexuality must therefore have been a result of human depravity or sin, or else mental illness, because it was not natural.  Of course, when zoologists started to find instances of homosexual behaviour in other animal species, the argument was turned on its head and is now advanced by some as an argument in favour of homosexuality.  If homosexuality is natural (or at least, not uncommon) animal behaviour, and if humans are simply another species of animal, then we should expect to find it amongst humans.  We therefore should not treat homosexual individuals differently from heterosexual individuals.

There are two problems with this conclusion.

The argument is not reversible

The argument from nature cannot simply be reversed, because some instances of homosexual behaviour is found in some animal populations.  In its original form, people argued that homosexuality was a departure from the norms found in nature - such a great departure that no other species practiced it.  That position is clearly unsustainable today, given that homosexual behaviour has been found in some populations of some species.  However, the basic position is unchanged - homosexuality is still a departure from the norm.  This logic applies, whether the norm is taken as the vast majority of species where there is no observed homosexual behaviour, or the majority of populations and individuals which display no homosexual behaviour, even though it is present in their species.  The "old form" of the argument is clearly weaker, because the departure from the norm is more widespread, and therefore less remarkable.  But is is still a departure, and it is still significant, when one considers the vast majority of animal species.

This objection to the argument is the weaker of the two I want to advance, because it is possible that more instances of homosexual behaviour might be found in the animal kingdom.

The stronger objection follows.

Hidden assumptions and value judgments

The argument from the state of the animal kingdom hides assumptions and value judgments.  This may be most clearly seen with a few examples:

• Baboons organise in male-dominated troops of up to 200 baboons.  The males control the females, violently when necessary.  Subordinate males cooperate with dominant males in exchange for occasional access to females and mating rights.  Competition between baboon troops can lead to open warfare between troops.
• Female macaques mate with as many as four different males each season.
• Female Black widow spiders will occasionally eat the male after mating, although this does not occur every time.  There is significant attrition of the offspring, due in part to cannibalism.
• Unrelated Gorillas, living together in a troop, tend to have weak social bonds and will commonly act aggressively toward each other.  Although females often initiate sexual access and intercourse, female gorillas can be forced to mate with multiple males.  Infant gorillas are at risk of being killed by unrelated adult male gorillas.

Of course, no-one holds up this typical animal behaviour as a model for human behaviour.  Such behaviour is simply not appropriate, not right, for our society.  

And there it is - the flaw in the argument from animal biology.  There is some hidden value judgment operating.  Some value judgment that says that this animal behaviour should be acceptable in humans (say, homosexual acts), but not that (say, pack rape).  That value judgment does not come from nature - so where does it come from?

The argument from genetics

This can be simply dealt with.  The argument runs that homosexual people do not choose their urges or orientation.  They do not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex as them.  Yet those urges are there, they are part of the make-up of that person, part of their DNA.  And if that is so, then it must be right to act on those urges and attractions, and wrong for society or another person to discriminate on the basis of such behaviour.  The argument is one of genetic predetermination: you just can't fight genetics.

To my mind, it is an insufficient answer to this argument to say that no "gay gene" has been discovered - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  (Of course, without the discovery of such a gene, the argument that genes determine sexuality is necessarily weaker.)

No, the real answer to the argument is this: just because there is a genetic pre-disposition to certain behaviour, does not mean that the behaviour is right.  Again, some examples will demonstrate the point:

• Some people are born with a short fuse.  They get angry rapidly, and respond violently.  Should they be excused on a claim that they are genetically predisposed to violence, and are just acting within their nature?
• Some people are "naturally" greedy - should they be excused when their greed impacts on the claims of another person?
• Some people are born with a tendency to stray - to look for the next relationship or sexual conquest while in the current relationship.  Are they excused by genetics?
• Some people are inherently less honest than others. Should we create a sliding scale of what is acceptably honest behaviour, with reference to parentage and race, perhaps?
• Some people are born with a tendency to addictive behaviour (alcoholism or drug dependency).  Do we expect them simply to give in to genetics?

Clearly, no-one reasonably expects such genetic claims to justify antisocial or immoral behaviour of this sort.  So why the special case for homosexual tendencies?  Again, it is apparent that there is another scale of values working here, under the camouflage of either of the arguments from nature.  And if that is the case, why resort to any sort of argument from nature? 

No-one seriously holds up the animal kingdom as the standard of right conduct, whatever side of the homosexuality debate, whatever ones sexual orientation.  We should all have the decency and respect for each other to truly say what is at the heart of our case, rather than resorting to zoological or genetic window dressing.

Motivation

(I am writing this post to my Christian brothers and sisters.  Unless you know Jesus, and follow him as saviour and Lord, then much of what I say here will be somewhat meaningless.  If you do follow him, then I think that you're in the same position as me - bound by our relationship with Jesus to follow his way, speak his truth and to obey his commands.
At the same time, I hope that non-Christian readers will understand my motivation in opposing same-sex marriage.  I am not a hate-filled bigot.  I am simply not content to leave one of God's creatures in a snare if anything I say or write can help that.)

The gay marriage debate comes over as fundamentally selfish. I'm not talking primarily about proponents, but about many opponents of gay marriage, often professing Christians.  I don't know if this facebook commenter is a Christian (probably not, given the way he talks about "you" and "your"), but this is the tenor of a lot of the discussion on the topic:

... if you are an orthodox christian with problems about Gay marriage follow your own Dam book and turn the other cheek, it is not going to affect you or your place "in God's Kingdom". Or a decidedly more Australian way to put it "Take a teaspoon of cement and harden the F$%k up!"

In other words: "It's not going to affect you", so shut up about it all.


And often our response is "yes it will affect us, and this is how...".  It is a self-centred response.


But let's leave that to one side for now and assume that an amendment permitting same-sex marriages would not affect anyone except those people entering into a same-sex marriage.  What then?  Would we all hold our peace and get on with our (self-centred) lives?

Why we can't just turn the other cheek

The phrase that the commenter refered to comes from Jesus' teaching about the right response when someone wrongs you in Matthew 5:38-48.  Jesus' refers to the Old Testament rules about punishment and retribution ("an eye for an eye"), which was always a limiting rule - any punishment or retaliation must not exceed the measure of the original wrong.  Jesus then turns it on its head, saying that we should prefer to suffer double wrong than to seek any measure of retribution.  He goes on to command his followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them.

So immediately we can see two things:

1. Jesus' words about turning the other cheek apply when we are wronged.  I cannot see how it has any application to the content of the marriage debate in Australia. (Although there may be plenty of opportunity to practice this teaching in responding to personal attacks during the debate!)   The debate itself about setting future public policy.  
2. Jesus' words about loving our enemies still have general application.  (At least, I assume they do - I consider those opposed to me in the debate as opponents rather than enemies, but I see no reason that the principle would be any different).  What does it mean to "love my enemies" in the context of the marriage debate?

The common understanding of being loving towards others (at least as that applies in the context of the marriage debate) is of leaving the other in peace to live life by his own lights, or according to his own choices.  It is most usually expressed in secular debate by the word "tolerance".  But tolerance falls very far short of love.  One can only tolerate something or someone of whom one doesn't approve.  You might tolerate someone else's whiny, smelly, grasping and selfish toddler; you don't tolerate your own - you love her.  So you take care to correct the whiny, selfish behaviour.  You stoop to the indignity of changing the dirty nappy and cleaning up your child.  Tolerance, or leaving someone in peace, does not show love - it shows indifference.

So I do not show love to my opponent in the marriage debate by leaving them alone, by tolerating their argument.  How do I show love in this context?  And why?

What is love?

I've already claimed that love is not the same as tolerance.  So what is love?


Biblically, love is most vividly in God's actions, as Father and Son, to restore the rebellious humanity to a relationship with him.  We are told in the bible that God created all things good (Genesis 1 and 2), but that humanity rebelled against its creator, choosing instead to follow its own lights and to try to become like God (Genesis 3 onwards!).  Humans wilfully obscured their knowledge of God.  They deserved to be rejected by God, and left to dwindle and die, cut off from the source of life, goodness and joy.


But God pursued his creation, refusing to see them left in the snare of their conceit and pride.  He chose a specific people group in the middle east (the Israelites, descended from Abraham: Genesis 12), and promised that from these people, a blessing for all the world would come. Notwithstanding that privileged relationship, Israel continued to rebel against God.


Ultimately, God himself came to earth: Jesus Christ.  He lived amongst the people he created, taught amongst them, healed them, drove out demons, and fed them.  Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience and submission to God's word - that life that all humanity should have lived.  


But the people still rejected God, and put Jesus to death in a painful, humiliating fashion reserved only for the worst of criminals.  Jesus willingly accepted this death, as the means of restoring his people to God.  By this self-sacrifice, Jesus made his perfect record of obedience to anyone that would cast their lot in with him.  He took on himself the rejection and death that our rebellion deserved.  It was a place swap, like Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton in Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, only infinitely greater.


And then the seal on the whole arrangement: God raised Jesus from death.  Those who have (and continue to) cast their lot in with him are beyond the clutches of rebellion (sin) and its consequences (death), and enjoy a restored relationship with God.  In fact we are called children of God!  This is a completely free gift - not earned at all by its recipients (us), and in fact entirely beyond our capacity to earn.


So this is love: God's action in laying down his own honour, glory, comfort, and life, for the sake of his creatures who deserve the reverse.

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

Sadly there are many who refuse the gift, and prefer instead the lesser status of a petty King in their own life.  Many do so, blinded by things or ideas that continue to promise: this will make you happy, will give you control, will give you security, will give you comfort, will let you regulate your own life by your own lights, will make you like a little god in your own world.

• Some people are caught by wealth, spending their lives pursuing more things, more money, more financial security.
• Some are caught by a desire for novelty - travel, food, leisure activities.  Always pursuing the next thing that will distract from the reality of life.
• Some are caught by addictions - drugs, alcohol etc.
• Some are caught by sex - promiscuity, adultery, homosexual behaviour.

The bible, in multiple passages, warns that these are all snares that can and do trap people, distracting them from God and causing them to reject the free gift of a friendship with God through trusting Jesus.  As such, the snares are deadly - unless a person is freed from such a snare, the result is alienation from God and, ultimately, death.  Or, to use another metaphor, they are all poisonous fruit of the same poisoned tree.  That tree is the rebellion against God that is a deep-seated part of human nature; the fruit are the various "sins" that are spoken of.  Christians have a responsibility to warn people of these dangers - to do otherwise is neglectful and unloving.


So the link with the same-sex marriage debate is this: I believe that all expressions of sexual conduct outside of biblically defined marriage are forms of this trap that leads to death.  Society generally does not accept this, and is permissive of many different sexual arrangements. But in so doing, society contributes to the strength of the trap by rendering it less visible.  That is so, because a person will not seek an escape until she perceives a danger.  In the same-sex marriage context, a societal sanction of homosexual unions by equating them with marriage removes one of the warning signs that shows it to be a snare, drawing a person away from God.  


So one of the roles of the church, of the Christian, is to point out the danger, and to resist the gently lullaby by which society tranquilises those who are ensnared.  Specifically, this means arguing against same-sex marriage, and constantly pointing to the need for Jesus.

Some objections

Non-christian, heterosexual marriages.  

One facebook commenter wrote:

If gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage to Christians as it is a "Christian Tradition" then by the same token so must Hindi, Muslim, Taoist unions must be similarly abhorrent to your god. Marriage is a tradition that predates Christianity (if you believe in Science) and to claim ownership over what is considered by most (these days) as a legally binding union (not an anthropomorphic bound union) seems unfair.

I think this objection misunderstands both the Christian claims about marriage, and the Christian motivation for opposing gay marriage.

1. Christianity claims that marriage was ordained by God at the beginning of humanity's existence as being a union between one man and one woman, until ended by death, to the exclusion of all others.  It was a gift given to all of humanity, not just to the Christian community.  It was a gift given before the Christian church began, and before Jesus walked the earth.  As such, marriages contracted in other societies and religious traditions are still valid marriages, as they adhere to the "creation ordinance".  Gay marriage simply doesn't.  As Christians believe that marriage was created by God, they believe that humanity is not free to redefine it.
2. Some of the Christian discussion about gay marriage is about the risk it poses of devaluing marriage as an institution.  I note that some non-Christian opponents to same-sex marriage make a similar point.  It may well be the case (although I've assume not for the purpose of this blog post only!).  My point is that, whether it does or not, Christians will continue to oppose it - not because it's abhorrent to God and he needs the caped crusaders to come in a fight on his side.  We will oppose it because of the danger it poses to those caught in the trap of the idolisation of sex.  We oppose it, therefore, for the same reason that we oppose all rebellion against God - out of love and concern for the rebels.

The bible might be true for you, but not for me

Throughout this post, I have referred often (albeit generally) to the bible, and it should be clear that I accord it a very high authority.  I am aware that most people do not, and so much of my argument rests on assumptions that will be rejected.  But my purpose is not to convince you of the strength of my argument, but to show that my motivation for opposing same-sex marriage is not hatred, but love.  My purpose is to show that, given my assumptions and the evidence I accept as trustworthy, my claim is supportable by reason.  You might disagree with my actions, my words and my conclusions, but please have the decency and honesty to accept that I act out of love, not hatred or fear.

It is unloving to force your morality on me - Jesus never did that

I agree.  Jesus did not force other people to live moral lives.  Jesus did not exercise political power.  But Jesus never drew back from telling the truth.  Having saved the woman caught in adultery from stoning, he told her to "go, and sin no more".  During his trial, when Jesus was struck by one of the guards, he did not retaliate (ie, he turned the other cheek), but he also challenged the man: 

"If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong.  But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

So in arguing for the traditional description of marriage, I am following Jesus' example in telling the truth, even where that is unpopular.


Am I forcing morality on someone?  No.  I see a danger.  I warn of consequences.  I do what I can to keep the cultural undergrowth from obscuring the snare.  The freedom of others to choose their actions is intact.


And if the laws change?  Well, as I argued here, the nature of our democracy is such that all citizens have a right and obligation to argue their viewpoints, and that our institutions are strongest when that occurs.  Participation in those democratic processes is not force.

Conclusion (finally)

This has been a long post.  I suspect that it will have persuaded no-one to change their opinion on same-sex marriage.  But I do hope that those of us who follow Jesus can see the importance of standing up for our beliefs - not for our own benefit, or to defend God's honour or our social way of life, but out of love and concern for those who are perishing.

And I hope that those who disagree with me might nonetheless be able to see that, from within my own worldview, I am acting out of love, not hate.

Exclusion

"AUSTRALIA is supposedly a secular nation, so why does religion still define our laws?"

This is how Rebecca Fitzgibbon opened her opinion piece in the Mercury on May 23rd, which was about the influence of religious opinion in the gay marriage debate.  The basic premise of her argument seems to be that Australian legislative policy is unduly and improperly influenced by religious ideas.  Ms Fitzgibbon raises a number of points specifically relating to gay marriage and equality (whatever she specifically means by that).  The purpose of this post is not to engage with those arguments, but rather to challenge the fundamental assumption underlying her article - that religion and religious people should have no role in the Australian polity.  In her words:

Religion remains influential over our rights, affecting political discourse and decision-making on issues such as marriage equality, voluntary euthanasia, same-sex surrogacy, access to abortion, refugee processing and the rights of sex workers.

We will not be a truly democratic society while this continues because the religious morals that dominate these debates do not represent the beliefs of one-third of Australians.

I've singled Ms Fitzgibbon's article out, as it is recent.  The assumptions she expresses about the role of religion in public discourse are in circulation elsewhere, and so warrant some attention.

Firstly, the argument goes that Australia is a secular democratic society, not a religious society.  A significant proportion of its population holds to no religion, or to a religion that is not Christianity.  It follows that the Australian population does not all hold to Christian morality or belief. Therefore it is wrong for Christian morality or beliefs to influence public debate.

I hope that putting the argument this simply makes plain the inherent fallacy.  The argument rests on the assumption that secularism is a neutral position - that it does not contain any value judgment or belief about God or the supernatural.  The assumption is that secularism is a position that can be adopted by everyone, as it is neutral.  Therefore, the only legitimate mode of argument in our democracy is one that ignores the questions of God's existence.  A person may believe in God's existence, and order her private life accordingly, but must not carry this over to the public sphere. To do so is to improperly affect public debate and discourse.

But that assumption is false.  Secularism is not a neutral position about God's existence; some space that all can occupy and meet in equally.  It contains a positive belief about God: either that he does not exist, or else that he is irrelevant to society and its public affairs.  Secularism therefore permits a person with a certain view about God (that he doesn't exist, or that he's irrelevant) to argue from his convictions, while requiring a person with another view about God (that he does exist and is in fact sovereign over society) to abandon his convictions in public discourse.  But why should this be?  Why should some people have to abandon their convictions in public discourse, while others do not?  This is not equality, nor is it democracy.

The second strand of the argument is connected: it says that a person without religion should not be bound by religiously motivated laws.  This argument is again misconceived.

Whether or not a person is bound by a law does not depend on the motivation of those promoting or passing the law - it depends on whether the law has been passed by the properly constituted authority (the Parliament) according to the proper processes.  That is what the rule of law in a democracy is all about.  Consider Australia's many illicit drug laws - they are supported by many (not all) people, and passed by most (not all) Members of Parliament.  No doubt the motivations of those supporting the laws vary - some from harm-minimisation considerations, others from a desire to stifle crime, others from a paternalistic viewpoint of protecting potential users, others from a moralistic view of restraining intoxication.  But whatever the motivation, the laws were passed by proper processes, and bind everyone in the country.

The situation with same-sex marriage is similar: a person may oppose a change to existing law on religious grounds, on aesthetic grounds, on sociological grounds or on anthropological grounds.  Whether the law is changed or not does not depend on motivations, but on argument, persuasion and, ultimately, numbers.  

So what can the assertion even mean, that a non-religious person shouldn't be bound by religiously motivated laws?  How would I work out what laws I'm bound by, and which ones I can safely ignore?  Does the atheist drug-smuggler have a right to a recount, based on the religious motivation or affiliation of those MPs who passed the anti-trafficking law?  Do we call each MP to ask why they voted for (or against) a piece of legislation?

In fact, our democratic institutions work best when the freedom is preserved to express our deepest convictions, and to express them persuasively and with passion.  Of course this requires that all parties in the democratic process have the respect for each other to listen to argument, and to respond to the argument that is actually made.  When this occurs, trust in the institutions themselves is strengthened, the people believe more firmly in the democratic process and are more likely to trust the outcomes of those processes (whether they like them or not).  

What is the alternative?  That opinion becomes muted to please those in authority or influence; or that some convictions or opinions are declared to be unutterable bigotry by some elite.  In such circumstances, trust in democracy and in the democratic institutions is eroded.  The outcome seems a foregone conclusion.  The elite will have their way.

Unfortunately, in many of the debates that Ms Fitzgibbon mentions, the rhetoric of rights and equality is used as a method of stifling the voices of those who argue from a position of faith in God.  


So what is to be done?  I think three things:

1. Be bold. Don't be afraid to voice your convictions.  Be self-critical, to make sure that they are sound: based on good evidence and sound reason.  But do be respectful of others when you speak!
2. Be humble.  Listen well to what others say.  Don't jump to conclusions - ask questions.  Ask questions to clarify what someone means.  Ask questions to test how far they're willing to go.  Ask questions to see whether their assumptions are valid or whether they're unsustainable.  Ask questions!
3. Teach.  Kids tend to be vulnerable to the sort of rhetoric (and sometimes vitriol) that is spread about in highly controversial debate.  We need to teach our kids how to calmly and rationally state and support a position, and how to cut through the tangle of personal attack, hidden assumptions, sloganeering and faulty logic that characterises much current public debate.

Distortion

Have you seen this graphic circulating around facebook?  I saw it in the context of the gay marriage debate - the underlying message being: "There's no such thing as traditional marriage.  You can't say it's the exclusive union of one man with one woman unto death, because there are so many forms of "traditional" marriage that are sanctioned in the bible!  Look at them all."

No doubt if I've misrepresented the implication, someone will correct me politely in the comments below.  But I don't think I have.

This approach is either ignorant or deceitful - the creator of the graphic has either misunderstood what the bible says about marriage (and all the distortions of it); or they have deliberately misrepresented it to bolster their position.  Here are some problems with the argument:

1. No Christian arguing for traditional marriage is arguing for marriage practices that happen to have existed at some time in human history.  They are arguing for marriage as it has been created and sanctioned by God.  They recognise that people, including people in the bible, fall short of God's standards.  This includes God's standards for marriage.
   So mere appearance of a practice in the bible is not an indication of approval of that practice.   Otherwise we would defend adultery (King David and Bathsheba) and murder (David doing in his rival Uriah, Bathsheba's husband).  No reasonable person would argue that these practices are sanctioned.  Similarly, one cannot argue that polygamy or concubinage or taking the slave of one's wife is sanctioned in the bible, particularly in light of Jesus' affirmation that marriage is one man, one woman, one lifetime!
   Yes, God can choose to bless sinners in polygamous or concubinous relationships, just as he blessed the adulterous and murderous David.  Yes, he uses them to fulfill his purposes.  But this is not an indication of his approval of their sin.  It's an indication of his astounding grace in loving people who rebel against him again and again.
2. The graphic confuses the marks of marriage with the motivations for marriage. This is a common mistake in the marriage debate - arguing that marriage is all about love, and that therefore two people in love should be able to marry regardless of gender.  The problem is that one motivation for marriage (love) is confused with a mark of marriage. 
   The "info"graphic represents different motivations for marriage: some of them bad , some more honourable, but none of them touch the marks of the marriage:

• The graphic imports some extraneous rules about marriages into its description of marriage.  So in the "man + woman" box, there are a number of dot points which describe various cultural practices or religious laws that were connected with marriage.  But these practices and rules have always varied.  They continue to vary - take the change in divorce laws as an example, or the tendency to marry for love rather than economic reasons.  What hasn't varied is the description of marriage as one man united exclusively to one woman for as long as they both live.
• The requirement for a man to marry his brother's childless widow is designed to ensure continuity of the brother's name, and provision of support for the widow in later life.  The motivation to marry reflects an imperfect situation.  It solves a social problem in a way that we do not condone today.  But the institution is still a marriage - one man with one woman.
• The requirement that a rapist marry his victim was a merciful requirement - otherwise, rape victims likely would never have married, as no man would have her.  Although the motivation for marriage is to make the best of a bad situation, the marriage itself would not differ at all from other marriages.
• Similarly with the prisoner of war situation - in circumstances where women were likely to be prey to the rape and pillage of an invading army, requiring marriage gave a woman some protections.  Again, the motivation to marry is likely just lust and self-interest, but the marriage would still be one man, one woman.
• The situation of slaves would have been the same.  Although the parties had little to no choice in the matter, the marriage was recognisably the same as a marriage contracted between two people for other reasons, whether economic, socio-political or emotional.

No, the assertion that there is no "traditional" marriage is either ignorant of history, or is a willful, deceitful distortion of the truth.  
Sure, there have been many examples of people falling short of marriage, either through multiple marriages (concurrently or consecutively), or through adultery, or through cruelty and abuse.  
Sure, there are many marriages that are contracted for motives that we abhor today.  
Sure, the ideal of marriage is something that we frequently strive after, but rarely attain.  
But there certainly is a commonly held, historically grounded understanding of what marriage is.

ad hominem attacks (teaching our kids to think: Part IV)

... the next step? ...

We have heard the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition and I have to say from a personal point of view I felt sick listening to him.  I felt sick because what he espoused was actually bigotry, effectively.

- Ms O'Connor, MHR (Tasmania - Labor), 21 September 2011, 12:58p.m.

Your views are offensive, oppressive and unacceptable ...  It is little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hodgman, made a speech unbefitting of a leader of a political party.  It was a shameful, divisive, reactionary, unpleasant speech that made me feel ill to even hear him utter the words that he spoke.  ...He is a man who clearly does not understand what discrimination means, a man who in my view has abused his position to represent people. ...In stark contradiction to the cowardice shown by the Leader of the Opposition ...

- Mr Booth, MHR (Tasmania - Greens), 21 September 2011, 3.01p.m.

Why on earth are we paying these people? I would have thought, in a supposedly rational age, that we are to be governed by evidence and by reasoned arguments. Instead, I find that we are governed by the delicate stomachs of some Labor and Greens MPs. 


Obviously that is overstated - I'm sure I hope I pray that the decisions of government that count (as opposed to symbolic motions such as the Tasmanian same-sex marriage motion) are made on the basis of evidence and reason.


This exchange in the Parliament shows a side of argument that is all too common, and extremely ugly. It's called an ad hominem attack (or argument), and just means an attack/argument directed at the person (rather than at the content of what a person is saying).


An ad hominem attack is a distraction - it could be intentional (to divert attention away from an argument that a proponent knows to be weak) or unintentional (I can't think of anything else to say, so I'll attack the other side). Frankly, it doesn't matter which. The point is to recognise an ad hominem attack, and to know how to sidestep it. It is vital not to engage with it (waste of breath), or descend to such tactics (because the person you're speaking with will stop listening!)


An easy technique to sidestep such an attack is to step out of the argument for a moment, and to narrate what's been going on.  For instance:

I've just supported my opposition to same-sex marriage by arguing that marriage is not just a word that can be redefined. It describes, in a unique cultural context, a treasure and widespread commitment between a man and a woman. You have responded by saying that my words made you feel sick. How does your physical reaction to my argument, or your guess about my motivations, have any bearing on the evidence or reasons for my position?

How might our kids benefit from such a technique? How could they use it? What about:

• I might just be a kid who knows nothing about this, but what would you say to an adult who asked the same question / raised the same objection?
• I know I still need to learn a lot. Can you please help me? Can you please tell me why you think my views are wrong?

Can you think of other examples? What do you get your kids to say in response to a personal attack?  

In favour of (some) discrimination ... (Teaching our kids to think: Part III)

I believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong. - Ms Lara Giddings, Premier of Tasmania, 21 Sept 2011, 12:18 p.m.

With respect, Ms Giddings, is that true? Do you really believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong? For instance:

• Are we wrong to give smarter or more diligent students better grades than lazy ones (intellectual capacity)? 
• Are we wrong to provide separate toilet and change facilities for men and women at public pools (sex dscrimination)? 
• Are we wrong to condemn a sexual relationship between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old (age discrimination)? 
• Are we wrong to prevent a convicted paedophile from working with children (sexual orientation discrimination)?

Of course not. These forms of discrimination are entirely appropriate and necessary in our society.

But what is discrimination? The Macquarie dictionary defines it as (amongst other things) "the making of a difference in particular cases, as in favour of or against a person or thing". It carries implications of "noting or observing a difference". So I think a useful working definition in this debate is that of treating a person differently on the basis of some characteristic or other.

The big issue is to distinguish between wrongful discrimination and appropriate discrimination. I suspect that Ms Giddings really means "all forms of wrongful discrimination are wrong" - which of course begs the question: "How do you decide what forms of discrimination are wrongful? by what standard or criteria?"

It should be clear from this that it is not enough to claim that the current social norms of marriage are discriminatory, as if that is a reason for change. Of course they are discriminatory. They should be. With no discrimination at all, people would be free to marry multiple spouses, to marry near relatives, to marry children. No-one in the current debate is arguing for no discrimination in marriage norms and laws - the debate is about where to draw the line. The onus rests on those promoting change to present reasons and evidence for the change.

And using the word "discrimination" as magical incantation is neither evidence nor reason.


Update note: the definition paragraph was inserted after my admirable wife pointed out to me that I hadn't included one!

Opinion polls (Teaching kids to think: Part II)

So apparently some significant proportion of people are in favour of same-sex marriage. Or the same significant proportion are against. Or 3/4 of people surveyed think it's inevitable. What does it all mean?

In our democracy, public opinion polls are tempting and persuasive, I think because of our democratic basis of government. The numbers matter, because we are meant to make decisions based on what the majority wants.

But in another sense, the numbers don't matter. A position can be irrational, even when many people favour it. A decision can be a bad decision, even when the majority votes for it. Reality does not respect democracy.

We should demand some answers before we accept the results of any opinion polls. Who commissioned the poll? Do they have a bias that is more likely to skew results? (Rarely, some biases may lead to a more open mind about results) Who conducted the poll? Were they operating according to accepted statistical methods, or was it a "just click here" newspaper-type poll? What questions were asked?

If we're satisfied about these issues, the poll might be a reasonably accurate reflection of public opinion. If so, it can be helpful in the democratic guidance sense. But even if this is so, they cannot help us determine if a position is rational or a decision is sound. Why do respondents support a position? Are they worried about how they'll look if they don't support the position? Do they just not care, and will run with the majority? Are they scared or intimidated into support? Have they thought through the issue and come to a reasoned conclusion, or are they parroting slogans?

What matters are the reasons behind the opinion poll answers - if we can possibly get at those reasons, and assess whether they are sound and rational (or not!), then we are getting some way towards good decision-making.

Whaddya mean? (Teaching our kids to think: Part I)

"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!"

The "debate" on same-sex marriage in the House of Assembly reminded me of this Monty Python sketch. Slogans, contradictions, name-calling, and a failure to really engage with the positions taken by opposing sides.

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

• 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? 

Mr McKim expressly talks about providing "access to one of the most fundamental civil institutions in our society, the institution of marriage", it appears that he means at least the first of the dot-points above. (He may also mean the others, as there is some overlap). Mr McKim spoke about "removing legally entrenched discrimination". When we ask what he means by discrimination, it is clear that he objects to the existing position where a heterosexual couple can choose to marry (or not), while a homosexual couple does not have that choice. Equality of access is the same as allowing equal choice to a couple to marry or not, regardless of the sex of the couple.

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:

1. a heterosexual couple has a member of each sex; a homosexual couple consists entirely of men or of women. 
2. a heterosexual couple is capable of producing children naturally (with some exceptions); a homosexual couple cannot produce children naturally. 
3. 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?

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.

*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.

Teaching our kids to think: Introduction

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.Matt 22:37

I sometimes think that there was a gap in my Christian discipleship. I had great teaching from my parents, my church and my youth group about God, Jesus, the gospel and the bible. In my teens, I started to learn about the evidence and reasoning that supports faith in Jesus. But there was still a substantial gap.

Would I attribute my reticence to talk about faith to this gap in my knowledge? Perhaps (although there were probably larger obstacles, like pride and a desire to run with the crowd!)  

Do I think that my Christian witness was less effective? Yes. 

Do I want my kids to grow up with a similar knowledge gap? Absolutely not.

Now I didn't miss out on anything crucial (like the crucifixion or resurrection).  I understood the basics of my own faith and worldview.  The big gap was in understanding how others see the world, and in having the skill to expose the contradictions and fallacies in those worldviews. Unlike Paul, I hadn't learnt to: 

... demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and ... take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.2 Cor 10:5

Nor was I properly equipped to:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.Col 2:8

Lately, my education has been greatly improved by two books - they are both very readable and worth the time and cost. A Spectator's guide to Worldviews (Simon Smart) gives a great introduction to about 10 ways of viewing the world. It is written with a Christian audience in mind, and highlights common ground as well as points of departure. 

The second book is the knockout: Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian Convictions (Greg Koukl). This is a simple introduction to the art of inserting a stone in someone's shoe - pointing out weaknesses in someone's worldview that will hopefully lead to questions and, ultimately, the truth of Christ.

So at the moment I'm thinking through some of the implications for this new area of knowledge, and setting myself a challenge: how can I train my children up in this skill? How can I help them to identify error and illogicality? How can I help them learn to ask the gentle questions that expose folly and falsehood?

The next series of posts will start to unpack some of the ideas. For subject matter we'll be looking at the current debates around gay marriage (who's scared of an argument, huh?). I've chosen that because it's timely, because the issue is the hot point of a clash between western secularism and Christianity, and because so much of the argument (including in the Tasmanian House of Assembly!) provides examples of poor reasoning, overblown hyperbole, and rhetoric without evidence.

Hearken to the evidence ...

I didn't catch the Q and A episode with John Lennox - it had started before it hove into my conscience, but some friends of mine on twitter were tweeting about it.  So it's in the iView queue, and I followed the thread on twitter for a while.  Two significant themes emerged from the tweets: One is an assertion that Christianity cannot be proved, and so should not be taught in schools at all; the second is that teaching any form of religion in schools is brainwashing.


Both views seem to be pretty widely accepted in our society, and both views are complete rubbish.  So I want to respond, and think about how we can inoculate our kids against these fallacies.


Firstly - evidence for Christianity.  The standard argument that there is no evidence is usually one that relies on there being no scientific evidence for Christianity: that the existence of God, or the occurrence of miracles, or the efficacy of prayer cannot be tested under laboratory conditions.  Therefore they are unprovable scientifically, and therefore there is no evidence for a belief system that includes these things.  But if we look at these statements, it's clear that there are many things that will fall outside the field of scientific enquiry.  I know that my wife loves me; I know that I can trust my close friends to keep my confidences; I know that I can believe what my parents tell me: but there are no scientific experiments that can prove these things.


Perhaps nearer the point, most of us only know what our children did at school today because someone who was there told us.  We only know that Hadrian built his wall, or that Stalin killed his millions, or that Hannibal crossed the alps on elephants because of historical documents that record what witnesses to those events observed.  Most of us only know that there are microscopic things like atoms, molecules and cells because someone has told us about them (and certainly not because we've undertaken the scientific experimentation ourselves!)


The fatal flaw in the "no evidence for Christianity" argument is that it overlooks other categories of evidence in exclusive favour of scientific evidence.  As a criminal lawyer for 8 years I saw this same error occur at times in jury trials.  Extremely persuasive and cogent eyewitness testimony was rejected because there was no forensic scientific evidence.  If we refuse to take note of any evidence that is not scientific, we exclude significant sources of reliable knowledge.


I think it is important to teach our kids about this!  Not everything can be known through science.  Not everything that science tells us is necessarily reliable.  Our kids need to be taught to sift through and evaluate the evidence.  Just as our kids need to be taught to sift through and evaluate other forms of evidence - eyewitness testimony, historical record and the like.


And that leads to the second false view circulating - that any teaching of any religion amounts to brainwashing.  In my view, the fact that the term is bandied about so freely in the religion-in-schools debate is either a display of ignorance about how religious education is (or can be) approached in modern schools, or else a misleading piece of rhetoric.


Let's assume ignorance to start with - I suppose that hangovers from the 40s or 50s might lead some to assume that any religious education in schools will be rigid, dogmatic, programmatic and allowing of no dissent.  Where belief (or expressions of belief) are coerced, then perhaps this does fit a description of brainwashing, such as occurs under some totalitarian regimes and in some times of war. It cannot seriously be suggested that Christians or the churches currently have the social or political power to coerce belief, even amongst children.  It cannot seriously be suggested that the churches would use a fear-based technique that would bring such fleeting and superficial results.  But do we truly believe that teaching kids the tenets and historical foundation for the world's greatest faith amounts to brainwashing?  Laying out a belief and providing reasons and evidence for that belief is not brainwashing - it is education!  


I suppose there might be some Christian parents who enforce belief in their children through objectionable means - but given that this is a universal parenting problem that spans all beliefs (and lacks-of-belief) - it's stretching things too much to credit this evil to the Christian side of the ledger.  The argument might more strongly be put that atheist parents are brainwashing their children by refusing to present the evidence for Christianity - certainly in the current prevailing culture those children are less likely to see both sides of the debate fairly presented.


Which brings us to the use of "brainwashing" as a rhetorical device.  If the real concern is coercive Christian education, why not say so?  We can understand that we are happy for our kids to learn about Christianity, but not to be pressured into a decision.  We can then truly agree, perhaps, that we want each person to make up his or her own mind by reference to all of the evidence and arguments.  I suspect, though, that this is precisely what many aggressive atheists do not want - they do not want every person to have the opportunity of fairly and individually assessing the evidence for and against Christianity: they want to push any discussion of Christianity out of the public sphere altogether.  They want the field to themselves.


Again, what to do for our kids?  Just as our kids need to know about different types of evidence, and need to learn how to evaluate such evidence, our kids need to know about different types of argument.  They need to be prepared to meet these different worldviews in their school yard, from their teachers, from their teammates.  They need to be prepared to present and defend their own beliefs (even as they are being formed and refined!), while they can carefully assess (and where appropriate, attack!) the beliefs that are being pressed on them.


Now how on earth do we do that!?

what does Mum want with my tooth?

"The tooth fairy isn't made up.  She really exists!  I mean, it's not like your parents take your tooth."

The wisdom and logic of one of my daughter's seven-year-old friends.  Little blonde and brunette heads all nodded sagely along.  I mean, there really is only two ways to explain the missing teeth and miraculous money: parents or tooth fairy.  And we can't see any reason why the parents would want the teeth, can we ...?

I overheard this conversation without joining it.  There are all sorts of awkward ramifications in shattering the childhood illusions of children outside ones jurisdiction.  But it did get me thinking - what is my position on the tooth fairy or santa claus?  If I encourage my kids to believe in them, am I lying?  Will that jeopardise their later belief in Jesus?  Or is it all an innocent childhood stage that my kids will pass through unscathed, happy to have had some childhood magic to look back upon?

So, of course, I consulted the blogosphere.  What a variety of opinions!  There was an atheist blogger who worried that the tooth fairy and santa claus stories were somehow a trojan horse that would make it more likely that kids would believe in God.  There were Christian bloggers and commenters who worried that telling their kids about santa would cause them later to discard belief in God.  (Surely both can't be right!).  One mother is content to go along with her sons' imaginations (as she does for fictitious super heroes etc), and to use the result as raw material in the cut and thrust of raising kids.  And a number of atheist sites (here, here and here) airily proclaimed that the tooth fairy, santa claus, god and the easter bunny are all the same - inventions for which there is no rational evidence.

To my mind, there are two big issues that I need to sort out:

1. Truth-telling, and modelling truth-telling.
2. Giving my kids a reason for the hope that I have (see 1 Peter 3:15)

First: truth-telling.  I want to tell the truth, because only telling the truth will honour God.  I also want my children to be people of integrity and truth as they grow up.  This will have to inform how I approach the issue with my kids - I don't think I can tell them that the tooth fairy will turn up and give them money for their teeth. Is it different if they want to put a tooth under the pillow for the tooth fairy, and I replace the tooth with money: playing along?  What if the whole tooth fairy conversation is understood as imagination and make-believe, in the same manner that we play pirates or princesses?  I guess this is an issue that each parent (and each couple) must grapple with, focusing on the underlying principles of telling the truth and honouring God.  It will depend as much on the culture in my family as on the character of my children.

Secondly: the evidence.  I think that the atheist blogs have the solution to the problem half-right.  That is, they demand that a belief have a basis in evidence for it to be rational, and will discard the belief if not satisfied with the evidence.  In my opinion, they go wrong in claiming that there is no evidence for a belief in God.  There is ample evidence all around that God exists, and significant evidence in the historical record that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and is one with God.  That he died and rose again to life.  This is material for another post, and many people have already dealt with this subject far better than I ever will (for example, Lee Strobel with his "Case for" series; Dr John Dickson's "The Christ Files"; the Centre for Public Christianity).

So I suppose, over the coming 9+ years of teeth loss in my family, I have the dual challenge of maintaining childhood magic for my children without lying to them; and giving them the evidential basis and critical thinking capacity to distinguish between the fairytales and the truth of the gospel.