We cannot say we have fairly considered the issues surrounding the LGBTQ+ conversation without understanding and having good reasons why we embrace either the Libertarian or Essentialist views. Last week I discussed the Libertarian position. This week I’ll do the same for the Essentialist point of view.
Month: October 2019
In my last post I identified the common ground existing among all involved in the LGBTQ+ conversation—the desire to see all people live full, rich, and meaningful lives. However, this also surfaced the ultimate point of tension: two views of how to reach this shared goal of human flourishing. Only one of these views can be correct. And we must choose wisely, in order to help everyone experience life to the fullest and foster the common good.
So many holding various views on the LGBTQ+ question seem to believe there is no common ground to rally around. Therefore, the conversation devolves into a shouting match, or worse, a power play. I believe that if cooler heads prevail, we can find common ground and move the conversation forward. By listening well to both sides, the areas of common ground will begin to surface.
We all want to know how one’s sexual identity should best be understood. To find the answer to this question we must first understand and commit to the ground rules of healthy conversations that lead to truth. Being committed to reason and logic is the fifth and final ground rule I began discussing last week. This week, I’ll share five more ways we can go wrong in our reasoning about this important question.
As discussed last week , following the rules of healthy communication help us all understand one another and together discover truth. Over the last two week I’ve discussed four important “ground rules” to help us all have healthy, civil, and productive conversations. This week, I’ll discuss the fifth way to ensure we are on the path to finding truth in any conversation, including the important “LGBTQ+” conversation.