Posted on Leave a comment

Some logic to your argument please

Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...
Image via Wikipedia

I’m straying into difficult territory here, but I need to share my thoughts on this issue, and hopefully my thoughts will make some sort of sense. Especially as I’m talking about using logic in an argument, I hope that my thoughts are logical as well.

I read yesterday an article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled “Gay marriage ridicule ‘damages youths'”. In it, I read this quote from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce.

Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce told the rally his four daughters would be affected if same-sex marriage was allowed.

“We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them.

“I don’t want any legislator to take that right away from me.”

Wait, what?

According to Mr Joyce, by allowing Same-sex couples to marry each other, his daughters (who I’m assuming are unmarried heterosexuals with a loving set of heterosexual parents) would be affected. I’m sorry Barnaby, but I’m not quite following your logic here.

I’m not certain that there are many girls out there in the apparent situation that Barnaby’s daughters are apparently in. The only way that I can see that his daughters would be affected by this proposition is if they had told their father “I’m homosexual, but I know I need to be married. As I can’t marry a woman, I’ll marry a man instead.” I’m not sure how common a situation that would be.

I’ve been married almost a year now, and I absolutely still believe that marriage is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I also believe that marriage is something that should be treated with respect, and should not be entered into lightly.

Marriage is a sacred bond between two people. That’s it. For me and my wife, it is between me and her, and God. The only people who can affect our marriage and the sacredness of this bond are those who are involved in it – God, Liesl and myself. Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage. Does that make my marriage any less special? No – because she is not involved in my marriage. Two homosexual men want to get married, does it affect my marriage? No, because they are not involved in it. Even if a rock wanted to marry a tree, it would not affect my marriage one iota, as the rock and tree are not involved in the sacred bond I made with my wife.

The only people who are affected by allowing homosexual people to marry are homosexual people. Mr Joyce claiming that his (presumably Heterosexual) daughters would be affected defies all logic.

I read an article on same-sex marriage recently. It didn’t take a stand either way. Instead, it called for those in power (White, Male, living in a first world country, those who are never discriminated against, except at “one of those “women-only” gyms”) to take a step back, to be quiet, and listen to others. Just “Shut up and listen.”

I think Mr Joyce should take this advice, and shut up and listen.

0 thoughts on “Some logic to your argument please

  1. As a Christian I am opposed to same sex marriage. However, when I read this blog and others on the same topic you do not seem to take this same stance. As an Accepted Candidate you should be refering to the positional statement of the Salvation Army on this topic–and–guidelines/statement-on-human-sexuality.html I read no where in the bible where God sanctions the union of same sex couples.

    1. I’ve tried not to voice an opinion either way on this statement. The point that I’m trying to get across in my blog is that there needs to be logic to the argument. The point that Mr Joyce was making – that allowing same sex marriage affects his daughters right to get married – defies logic. I’m all for debate on the issue, but it needs to be backed by sound logic and reasoning.
      As an Accepted Candidate, I support those positional statements. However, we should not be forcing our beliefs on others – I believe that only drives people away. This is a difficult issue, and one where those who aren’t discriminated against (white, heterosexual, male, whatever) need to listen very carefully to those who are.

      1. When you oppose what someone says in such a way as you have it comes across that you are pro the argument they are against. If I have read this wrongly then imagine how many others will read this and say this guy is for same-sex marriage!

        1. I’m sorry if it has appeared that way, however as I have said in the follow up comments, it has made it quite clear what my point of this post was. I would likewise oppose illogical arguments for same-sex marriage, as I have done against it.

          In the Positional statement, it says “The Army is sensitive to the complex social, emotional and spiritual needs of all people including those with homosexual inclinations. We oppose vilification of, or discrimination against, anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation.” This is a complex issue, and we need to make sure that in discussing it, we are respectul of all sides of the argument, and that we don’t discriminate against them. Why do they want to be able to marry? Is it just for the legal benefits that it provides? If so, is there another means that this can be provided, without discriminating against them and still staying true to God’s word? If their reasons are more than just legal, then we have an obligation to listen to them with respect, and to find a way to come to a suitable mutual ground.

          The discussion needs to be held, and seeing as the debate seems to be reaching a climax right now, this discussion should be held now, with people encouraged not to hold back being afraid of what others might read of it.

  2. Everything that you say as an accepted candidate reflects upon The Salvation Army you have signed your officer’s affirmation already therefore you come under their jurisdiction. You say in your reply to Bronwen “However, we should not be forcing our beliefs on others – I believe that only drives people away” how then do you propose to spread God’s message without giving out your belief to others, yuou cannot have a fifity fifty each way bet. You either agree with the statements or you do not.

    1. Bryn, there’s a difference between living as and by an example, forming relationships and sharing our faith through those relationships, and beating our faith into others and forcing them into compliance. I believe there are ways that we can share God’s message and have a healthy part in the debate. However, we must do so with loving kindness and tolerance of all other opinions. We must always be careful to fully state the reasons why we share those beliefs as well, and avoid illogical arguments such as the ones Mr Joyce used at that rally.

  3. Some Logic Please? – Agreed
    As a headline, and to avoid all confusion on my position and therefore suffer the ire of many a respondent, I am convinced by weight of scripture alone (and not some vain assumption of a God who just loves us all so much that he couldn’t possibly be upset when we sin against Him) that God despises the sin of homosexuality.

    My first response to you, Ben, is that you have made your fundamental mistake in attempting to apply logic to any such statement of one Barnaby Joyce. I do wonder if such an attempt might come under Paul’s definition of “futile thinking” (Rom 1:21) where Mr Joyce’s arguments generally serve to darken the hearts of fools [sarcastic tone].

    My second response is to contend what you have said, in that a marriage only concerns two people and God. Though what you said was perfectly fine and correct in one sense, you have left out one other entity of which a marriage must consist – the state. Regrettably, marriage serves a dual purpose; firstly as a legally binding agreement between man, woman and state; secondly as an enduring covenant between man, woman and God; thus any debate on this topic inevitably fails to some degree for confusion over the two arguments. So I will separate them:

    The Legally Binding Agreement:
    I find very little ground for which the church can stand upon this issue. We are not a theocracy (nor should we be) which can enforce matters of faith upon the populous. We are vastly outnumbered (according to various polls and surveys) by the opinion of the general populous of this nation (which I’m told is a very disadvantageous position to be within a democracy). We have very little representation in our current parliament thanks in large part to those many Christians (including Salvationists) who have supported The Greens into holding the balance of power in both houses with their pro gay marriage agenda (and more); in fact, and regrettably, it is in the likes of Mr Joyce that we do find our representation. Furthermore we are failing to maintain and increase numbers of disciples in church (supposedly our primary aim Matt 28:19) and so we must remember that THIS is to be our primary battleground upon such issues – evangelism, discipleship and prayer.

    The Enduring Covenant Before God:
    It is upon this ground that we must fight. Note, it is not should fight, but must fight. The matter of homosexuality (as with all matters of holiness) must be fought within the church through the careful and thoughtful teaching of the word – God’s unchanging, inspired revelation to us – as we find the challenges against God’s word and His design coming from within our own ranks!

    As mentioned before, marriage is two-fold. Legal, for which the church fails for relevancy; and Spiritual, for which the church shall be eternally relevant. Where the battle over the Legally Binding gay-marriage seems out of our reach, while we might and probably should continue to raise our voices, the battle over the Spiritual administration of this sacrament shall always be in our hands that we might sanction such union or deny it, as God has made clear in His word.

    Currently, there is no proposal as there is such in Canada, for criminalising the church’s refusal of administering the sacrament of marriage for homosexuals, in this country – and even if there were, I for one would chose the relative comfort of a temporal prison cell for myself if it were to deter and encourage another from the gates of eternal hell.

    Our response:
    Aware of the length of my reply and aware that it was strayed somewhat from the original post, I want to show my support for the heart of your argument for logic in discussion. We don’t need “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” theology any more than we need Mr Joyce’s fears of homo-opportunism. We need proper, measured discussion on this issue.

    However, this particular discussion has opened up in its subsequent replies such as to consider this question – How do we, Christians, churches, respond? Firstly it is important to remember that this is an emotional issue and so we must all season our words with grace; if it were purely a logical discussion considering the revelation of God through the scriptures, I sincerely doubt that there would be any question on this issue – God is quite clear.

    Gay marriage is but one issue that looms upon us in these times – we face euthanasia, even easier abortion measures, stem-cell research, school chaplains, and on and on et nausea. So be sure that as hard and as long as we fight this issue, whether we win or we lose, there will be another close behind (“they invent ways of doing evil” Rom 1:30). There is only one measure that will address the sinfulness of humanity, and it is not arguments, it is not hatred, it is not fear, nor is it logical reasoning. It is revival! It will only occur when the Holy Spirit begins to work in the hearts of saints and sinners alike, convincing us of our sin, paving the way for men and women to come to God.

    Evangelism, discipleship, prayer….. Amen!
    Ben Simmonds
    Copper Coast Corps.

Leave a Reply