A social observation (1)

I have already attempted to make a blog, but it would seem that that blog is now lost to me.

I begin this blog in a different fashion to that of the other, as the content of a post is a reflection of the events that have passed before it, and the events that have not yet had chance to affect it. Simply put, a post is unique to its time of posting.

I have titled this first entry "A social observation (1)" and shall justify this title henceforth.

Rather than offend anyone, which given the sensitive nature of some is inevitable, I shall instead use letters to represent persons present in the social encounters I am to describe.

Person A brings up a topic indicative of causing disagreement between people of different dispositions. At this point you might say that any topic is graced by the ability to encite disagreement between two individuals, but to clarify, this topic is capable of producing strongly opinionated arguments, based on both moral and rational thinking (I apologise for giving the impression of moral and rational thinking being two separate schools of thought). The topic of attention is that of "Should Gay Couples adopt?"

Person B is a religious character, a Christian for the purposes of this argument. According to the religion of Person B, homosexuality is wrong and unholy. Person B's immediate knee-jerk reaction, and I apologise if in this situation the person had actually given the topic more than a moments thought, is to view adoption by Gay couples as wrong.

Person A asks of Person B to provide him with a coherent argument that would justify Person B's opinion. Once more, Person B is guilty of a knee jerk reaction, refusing instantaneously to provide Person A with an explanation, claiming to have the right to an opinion.

Person A at this point feels that Person B is viewing Person A as an idiot, incapable of simple acknowledgements, such as that of people's rights. Person A, however, persists with maintaining an air of serenity and continues by adding that he understands Person B's entitlement to an opinion, but cannot, with veracity, give Person B the pleasure of agreeing with their opinion.

Upon reflection Person A decides to pursue the subject no further, having concluded that Person B, though perhaps capable of rational thought, refuses in this situation to entertain its use. Person B is strongly opinionated, perhaps due to his overawareness of his "right" to possess one as such. Person A has no problem with this. As it is one's right to have an opinion, it is also one's right to refrain from justifying that opinion.

However, Person A is not happy with the aggressive nature of Person B's argument, should one choose to call it that. I can only assume the dissappointment felt by Person A is attributed to Person B's acting in a manner that Person A can only observe as being unjust. This feeling of injustice is then multiplied yet further still by the claim of Person B to be of a faith, the ideal of which is one of good triumphing over bad.

It is perhaps wrong for Person A to tie so closely the act of good and bad with justice and injustice (there in itself is a topic of interest). However, Person A would appreciate speaking to a person with a pair of unobstructed ears, rather than one whose secondary phalanges are shoved firmly into their ear canals, it is, after all, Person A's right to speak, is it not?

Perhaps I shall enjoy retorts discussing the fact that although it is one's right to speak, it is not one's obligation to listen. Perhaps then we can discuss whether it is instead one's duty? It shall also be interesting to hear anyone's opinions and, more pleasingly, their justifications for holding such opinions on the matter of gay couples adopting.