Talking past...

I was engaged in conversation with one of my closest friends the other day when it was quite clear to me as an interested third wheel that things between two people I care about very much were conflicted and tangled by misperceptions, mistrust, misunderstandings, and there are probably a few other mis-s in there as well.
It is a very difficult place to be in to see two people you love who (you assume) love each other having communications difficulties. There are a lot of factors that go into it. One is age and generational discrepancies. Another is the different life experiences each person has had. These and similar factors have created filters they each bring to any conversation that alter what they hear and what they think the other person hears.
Certainly I am no more immune to these myself than the people I reference in this particular case. I have so many filters it is a wonder I ever hold an intelligent conversation with anyone. Part of that is some of the conflicting filters I not only possess but am aware of; that leads to an interesting point where knowing you have filters almost becomes self-fulfilling and thus something you cannot overcome. There is a fine line between awareness and a crippling disability related to their existence.
A further factor is the habits these preconceptions and filters often lead to, not just in the one specific case, but also in conversations I see and hear almost every day. It is what I have often heard defined as “talking past”.
One of my favorite examples of talking past has to do with many of the discussions over morality. Let’s take polygamy for one fine example. I have some bizarre fascination with the subject…possibly because many of the same people who are for same-sex marriages, sex outside of marriage, and similar things still are against polygamy. This is on me…but I find the stances to be illogical in the same person.
The argument most frequently used is it is none of my business what other people do, why should I impose my morality on other people. That is a good, fair, accurate, and strong argument. What I fail to see is why this argument stops when instead of same-sex, the partner(s) are numerically, not sexual orientationally different.
It is also a fine example of talking past. People who are for same-sex marriage talk about others imposing their morality. They actually are not meeting the objection, although they believe they are. I will try to break it down in ways that make sense to everyone without offending anyone or changing their view.
The religious person trying to prevent same sex marriage generally is someone who believes God exists, gave His will in an inspired book, and is thus the source and authority for that morality. When they say inspired they hold to the Greek word “theopneustos” which literally means “God breathed”. In other words, God spoke, prophets recorded. Ths ideas were His, how they were written depended on factors such as education. The discussion is slightly more complicated, having to do with how wind moves ships (Spirit guided, etc), but the end result is these people genuinely believe God has proclaimed some things righteous and other things evil.
When it is God whom has proclaimed what is right and what is wrong it is not for mankind to arbitrarily change the rules. What is right will be right whether people follow it or not, just as wrong will be wrong whether people follow it or not.
Therefore, knowing what is right, they believe they have a responsibility to stand for what is right and fight against what is wrong. When they do this they are following the commands of God and therefore it is not they speaking as themselves but rather as representatives of God, so to speak. Not in the catholic priest sense but rather in the defender of truth and right.They are not defending a viewpoint, they are defending truth itself.
Furthermore, they typically cling to passages such as “Do not be deceived; whatever you sow, this you will also reap” and “Evil companions corrupt good morals”. Therefore, things they believe to be evil should not be promoted in public. A verse such as "And do not participate in the evil deeds of darkness but instead expose them" really comes into play.
One final point about their stand is they believe that while they have Divine inspiration as the source of their beliefs their opponents have no source for morality other than public opinion of the moment. This public opinion is furthermore a moving target, always in a state of flux.
The last thing on their mind is imposing their view of morality. They believe there is a firm, unchanging standard of right and wrong regardless of what people think or do. The role these outspoken people play is simply defending that standard. Think of them as lawyers defending a third party.
Proponents of same sex marriage on the other hand typically believe they are defending civil rights, equal rights, human decency, or other eminently good principles. The underlying principle has changed a few times throughout history…recent relevant examples include the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, Humanism, etc. I will not claim to know the ultimate source of their belief in morality because it tends to be different for different people.
Thus the people striving for acceptance for same-sex marriage frequently believe they are fighting for common decency and the right of everyone to believe what they wish, and they often perceive their opponents as self-righteous, judgmental people without real morality.
Two very different points are being argued using the same words. The religious world believes they are fighting a battle over accepting or rejecting God. The same sex marriage world believes they are fighting for tolerance.
Neither side, as a general rule, actually understands what the other side is actually saying. They argue for points that were not attacked and against points that are not held. Unsurprisingly, little or no progress is made.
Both sides are "talking past" the other without understanding what they are doing.
Like most broad generalizations there are exceptions to…well…everything I said above. In fact, I would be extremely surprised to find any single person who was completely and accurately represented by what I said above.
That, in fact, is another point where people frequently “talk past” others. To be honest, I have met a few people whom I could pigeon hole and, without bothering to check with them, know where they stood on almost any given issue. Those people are few and far between, however. Most people are far more complicated and have their own reasons, ideas, and thoughts.
So when people speak to one another holding preconceived, frequently erroneous ideas, they frequently THINK they are replying to what is said...certainly they HEAR what they expect to hear...but they may be missing the meaning.
This is a complicated issue and I am not sure I did as well as I had hoped to on it, but at least it can be a starting point for discussions. Remember, to hear is not to understand and to roundhouse punch someone is not debate.
Peace on earth, good will towards me.