A friend describes herself as liberal–she supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, and hates Donald Trump. She generally votes for Democrats, though she admits that she would have voted for John McCain if he hadn’t selected Sarah Palin as his running partner.
Often, when we are discussing an issue, one of us will take a stance that the other passionately opposes. For most people, this is the first step on the way to an argument. But my friend and I do something most people don’t do. Instead of immediately expressing our disagreement, we first seek to understand. Immediately disagreeing paves the way for an argument. Seeking to understand opens the doors to a discussion.
For example, in response to her comment that she supports “gay rights,” I said that I oppose the idea of “gay rights.” Rather than call me a homophobe and storm out of the room, she asked me to explain. And then I explained that I support individual rights–the freedom of each individual to live as he chooses, so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. This applies to each individual, gay or straight. Each individual has the moral right to marry any consenting adult of his choosing.
Because she sought to understand, rather than immediately disagree, she discovered that we didn’t really disagree on the principle. We disagreed on our terminology. (I think using terms like “gay rights” is dangerous, but that is an issue for another day.) We have had many similar discussions.
Too often, we hear words or a position that we don’t like, and we respond by disagreeing. We are essentially saying, “I am right and you are wrong.” That doesn’t invite a discussion. It provokes an argument. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
If we take the time to understand, we might be surprised to learn that we agree with others more than might first appear. And then we can have a discussion rather than an argument.