An Interlude #1: Debate by Soundbites

I am finding it more commonplace to see complex debates about ideas being fought out in soundbites that make great headlines and sell papers, but do little to encourage debate or discussion.  Maybe it's just me, but this seems to be a disease regardless of political, religious or other affiliations.  It seems to be another example of how our mediums (I like how Dyer uses mediums as a plural of medium to differentiate from the common use of media to describe the media industry) are reshaping our thinking.
What seems to happen is that those nice little soundbites are far easier to say and repeat than it is to really think about what they mean.  They encourage us to measure things in accept or reject terms.  This doesn't encourage deep thinking, but simply, do I agree or disagree measuring.

For me, one example of this that seems to be repeated over and over is in relation to the current debate around whether same sex marriage should be legalised in Australia.  I was watching Q&A (Questions and Answers) on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) this week with Bob Brown (the recently retired leader of the Australian Greens Party).  (Brackets are in case I have any international readers - not so likely).  I found this quote particularly interesting:

"We're wired up, if I can use this term, "the way God made us", and we've got to celebrate that difference and get rid of the hate for difference and celebrate it instead - and it...what alarms me Tony [the host] is to see ahh, that there's still a debate in Australia about people who claim a) it's wrong to be gay or lesbian and b) that if you are, you can be cured.  You know, what an indictment of a central component of any loving human beings nature - that their sexuality should be put under that sort of, you've got to change it by some hocus pocus that won't work".

Why I found this so interesting is that it seems to want to subscribe so desperately to the "marriage equality" mantra of this current debate (for example the Get Up! video).  It seems to want to say, the only people who are standing opposed to the recognition of same-sex marriages are those with an antiquated view that we all know needs to be thrown out.  It seems to want to suggest that the worst thing in the world is to see using difference, as a way to discriminate. 


It makes a great soundbite to say: "this antiquated discrimination has to go" or "this is an issue of equality".  Those can be easy to accept or reject.  It is much harder to say antiquated discrimination plays an important role in our governmental system and we need to discuss and decide as a society if we agree to move a currently in place line of discrimination.  Think about the fact that research shows that sexual activity is beginning at a much earlier age, yet, as a society, our antiquated discrimination says children are not officially adults until they are 18 (despite there now being some 'room' in this in terms of when they can begin sexual activity under particular circumstances - but this still doesn't legally qualify them as an adult). 

Brown clearly qualified that it is only an "indictment of a central component of any loving human beings nature".  Is this perhaps because this same central component in a pedophile is not loving? In that case is it a) wrong that they are attracted to children (those under 18 years) and b) that if they are, they can/should be cured/rehabilitated?  It seems to me at least that whatever we do, we need to consider not only the the nature of loving human beings, but those that may just be not so loving. 

I understand no-one is asking for pedophiles to be given equal access to marriage, nor at this stage other sexual orientations that we do, as a community say, are a) wrong and b) require a cure/rehabilitation.  I am not making any attempt to suggest that those in same sex relationships are seen in the same terms by our society.  But there are other sexual orientations that leave people feeling isolated, rejected and suicidal in our society that do not in other societies because they are not considered a) wrong or b) requiring a cure.  

To put myself out on a limb here, my view point is a) any sexual activity outside of a monogamous for life commitment between a man and a woman is "wrong"; b) God's grace is the cure for this; c) that it is only the Good News about Jesus that can transform how we live and; d) this won't, by necessity, alter any natural sexual inclinations we might have.  So to be clear, a+b+c+d = not a national political policy on marriage.  Your position may (or most likely) differ from mine, I have no problem with that.  But there is a point where you go - "Nah, that's just wrong?" - even if it is "the way God made them".  And everyone who has a point beyond yours (where they're happy with a level of sexuality or sexual expression that you're not) looks at your position in the same way that you look at mine, if your point is beyond mine.  It is too narrow for them.

Maybe it's just me, but I find I'm being treated like an idiot every time someone has to try to argue that discrimination separates out a particular group of people and treats them differently than everyone else - that is exactly its job!  But I do wonder how is it that we can "celebrate difference" if our aim is to get rid of the very thing that even allows us to identify difference?  And, despite Brown's opinion that same-sex unions are now something to be celebrated, does this mean that there are no differences that still should require, certainly not hate, but actions that demonstrate that those differences are not celebrated (or tolerated) by our society?

What makes me wary in these soundbite debates is that they are normally so neat and tidy, figured out by marketing and advertising gurus, to have high resonance and impact.  They are not designed to challenge our views, only strengthen the views we already hold.  They are designed to close down conversation, not open it up.

And so it is so easy for the next group to just pick em up and roll with them...

Extra, Extra, read all about it: What a disgrace, Homophobia defined as wrong and needing cure!!

Round and round we go...or perhaps we could start talking about things....

P.S. I don't think that those who are opposed to same-sex marriages escape this sound bite debate problem either.  If "a mother and father in a committed relationship" is "the best" environment for bringing up a child then shouldn't this suggest it is more important to be discussing how we seek to lower the divorce rate?  But it was Bob Brown that triggered these thoughts....