Apply critical thinking skills

Now this is what all issues of the day deserve, good Socratic thought.

Canada has passed same-sex marriage legislation. The issue is up for argument and vote in many other countries. It’s causing a great deal of controversy, like euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and abortion. How much of that argument is emotional and how much informed? Once you cross a line, can you come back?

Mercatornet takes a refreshing look at a documentary that asks these questions and lets the voters attempt to answer them. It’s clear they haven’t thought a lot of this through…

…is it possible to turn the clock back? This is the question explored by two young film-makers, Eric and Jerome Spoeth, in their thought-provoking documentary C-38: the search for marriage. It examines the principal issues by balancing supporters and critics of the law in talking head shots, interspersed with historical footage. And although the supporters put their case cogently, the deck is stacked against them. The critics are witty, attractive and razour-sharp.

But the true stars of the film are not the activists and academics, but ordinary young Canadians in their parkas and beanies in a shopping mall. There they explain with refreshing candour why they support (most of them) or oppose C-38. This is where you learn why Canada became the third country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage — because most people have no idea of what is at stake. What’s marriage? — “just a ring and a big spiel,” says one teenager. Is same-sex marriage immoral? “I don’t believe in right and wrong. They’re not in my reality,” says another.

To most of these people, it’s a no-brainer: if two people love each other and want to commit themselves in marriage, why shouldn’t they? Why have you got a problem with that?  Wherever you stand on the issue, the superficiality of this line of thought must be dismaying. Surely altering an institution which has endured for thousands of years deserves to be pondered at length. And that is what this film compells its viewers to do.

It’s about time. The above mentioned issues usually draw a knee-jerk reaction. Supporting major societal change has consequences. So it’s good to ask questions.

The interviewer road-tests the views of the voters in the mall with a bit of Socratic inquiry. If love is the only thing necessary for marriage, what about a brother and sister who love each other? The people stop and wrinkle their brows. Hmmm. Hadn’t thought of that. What about a guy who loves his horse? Hadn’t thought of that either.

This is carrying an argument through to its logical conclusion, a revealing exercise.

The argument for traditional marriage is not just strong; it’s impregnable. The problem is that voters don’t come to grips with the issues. They need to drop the blinkers of moth-eaten clichés and look at same-sex marriage from all angles. This is why it’s important to back up scholarship and steely reasoning with catchy sound-bites — as this film succeeds in doing. It raises most of the usual questions and gives satisfying answers: Why are children necessary for marriage? What about contracepting couples? What about infertile couples? Why can’t homosexuals be good parents? Why do you need parents of either sex? Isn’t it just about love and commitment? Can’t marriage evolve? Can gays become straight?

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said we have lost the art of arguing well. Asking for intellectual honesty in debating the big questions of the day should not be threatening to anyone, it just stands to reason.