Some friends and I met over some food and beers and chatted on a lazy Monday night.  During this particular evening, we chat about a wealth of different topics as we dodge the noise from the Monday Night Football broadcast.  I mentioned that as I recently watched a TV show, I had a flashback from a Mexican actress that I watched back in 1972.  Another such moment was regarding a Robert A. Heinlein novel, Citizen of the Galaxy.

My friend recently picked it up and is actively reading it.  I asked a few follow up questions to confirm that it is indeed the book I remembered.  I politely omitted to mention big plot points to avoid any spoilers.  He confirmed it; it was the very same book.

This novel was first published in novel form in 1957.  I can barely wrap my head around that…  That a science-fiction book may still be relevant nearly 70 years later.

Memorable words from a grandmaster

In my early teens, I held a job washing dishes in Pembroke Pines.  I often arrived early, dropped off by my sister.  That restaurant sat a few doors away from a used bookstore.  I happily spent much time browsing books as I read the description on the covers.  One early purchase was Rocket Ship Galileo, by Robert A. Heinlein.  I fell in love with his writing.  I only really started reading and speaking English about 2-3 years before; this challenged my ability to read.

Another subsequent read was the aforementioned book, Citizen of the Galaxy.  It was probably around 1981 when I read it, a full 24 years after its release… and now, over forty years later.  There’s a passage from that book that I still reflect upon today.  It wasn’t presented with much fanfare; it was simply a mention of a conversation between two characters.  Those words were:

a wise man could not be insulted, since truth could not insult and untruth was not worthy of notice.

I’m not sure why those words struck me the way that they did, but they somehow did.  Almost verbatim, in fact.

An angry response from a friend

If you know me personally, you’d know that I’m nowhere near what anyone may describe as politically correct.  I’ve had my fair share of animated discussions with friends, though they’re typically civil.  I genuinely want to understand your perspective on an issue.  I value understanding different perspectives and practicing empathy.  Engaging in an animated, even angry, discussion around an issue is not uncommon.  However, I typically know when I strike a nerve; today I didn’t.

I get an angry message from a friend, demanding that I stop making him look like an asshole.  Uhm, okay…  My mind races while I search for context.  We have not spoken for literally months; something I said (or wrote) months before may offend him, but I speculate that’s unlikely.  I conclude that it must’ve been something I did recently.  Since I generally don’t like upsetting my friends, I spend the next few minutes mentally searching for what may have upset him and delicately extracting context.

It ties back to my Facebook post linking this article:

This is the definition of homophobia:

“dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.”

Here’s an idea, if you don’t like being labeled homophobic, maybe you shouldn’t pass laws that are prejudiced against homosexual people.

It’s quite literally what it means. Either own the fact that you are homophobic or repeal the law; I’d prefer the latter.

That post was the source of the angst.

And… the discussion

Honestly, I thought I articulated the point well, but it apparently didn’t sit well with my friend, so we discussed it.  It was a bit of a surreal exchange, but it went something like this:

Him: Stop calling me homophobic.
Me: I’m confused; I don’t mention you by name.
Him: I support that policy, so I’m homophobic?!
Me:  The way the policy is written, it states that gay couples do not have the same protections, under law, for adoption, right?
Him: Well, yeah…
Me: Doesn’t this allow people to discriminate against that gay couple based on sexual orientation?
Him: Yes, it should be easier for a normal (presumably heterosexual) couple to adopt a baby over two men (or two women).
Me: Isn’t this the literal definition of homophobia?  To discriminate against gay people, in this case against adoption?
Him: I don’t like that term; it makes me sound like an asshole.
Me: It’s literally what it means.  Of course, if you don’t like the label, there’s an alternative…
Him:  Oh, yeah…  What’s that?!
Me:  You could change your position on allowing gay people to adopt.

And the chat went eerily quiet.  I will describe the minutes of awkward silence that followed like watching ‘a deer in the headlights’.  He had conducted so much of his life with default conservative values, imposed by others, that any deviation from said doctrine would compromise his ‘values’.

If he were to question one such policy that was given to him by this ‘community’, then what’s to stop questioning the next policy?  I suggested that he should follow his moral compass.  If he truly objected to two gay men adopting a baby, then make your peace with the label ‘homophobic’.  It accurately describes you.

To reflect back on the Heinlein quote, “Truth could not insult.”

A wise person…

Of course, there’s that initial clause from the Heinlein quote.  Few will debate that wisdom is a virtue, but how does one exhibit wisdom?  For me that entails two prerequisites.  First, it requires a wealth of knowledge; information is power.  Second, it requires good judgement; that accumulation of knowledge is meaningless if not analyzed and interpreted.  However, that is not sufficient.  Wisdom demands that we reevaluate any previous conclusions with the introduction of newer, conflicting information.  If you’re unwilling (or unable) to change (or at least amend) a closely held belief when it contradicts what you observe, you do not exhibit wisdom.

Robert Heinlein wrote those words above in 1957, and while I consider him a grandmaster, I will amend that sentiment.  I’d change it as follows, “A wise person…”  Is there really a reason to constrain wisdom to one gender?  As progressive as Star Trek was in the 1960’s, they amended the introduction to each episode upon launching The Next Generation.  The words changed from “where no man has gone before” to “where no one has gone before”.

On a grander level, the point of discussion with my friend above wasn’t necessarily about the ability for gay couples to adopt per se.  It was about the ability to stand up and challenge outdated notions when they no longer fit.

You can question, challenge, and change.  The world is not going to collapse.