Watching a Twitter conversation unfold today, I was reminded for the hundredth time that debates about same-sex marriage tend to be so fruitless because SSM doesn’t really mark the point of disagreement. There are already preceding disagreements about what marriage itself is and is for, but even those are not foundational. People disagree about all these things because they disagree about what human flourishing (eudaimonia) is, about what kind of life is generally speaking best for human beings to live.So, it is not the SSM part of that comment that I think about often, it is the "where is the locus of disagreement" part of it that is fascinating to me, but even more interesting than the fact of the disagreement at deeper levels is the "why?" of that fact. How do we come to disagree at those points? How do we come to the conclusions, often tacit and even unconscious to our own understanding, that we hold so strongly. Strongly enough to make major life decisions upon them and even (historically) come to verbal or physical blows with others over.
"How do we come to our own epistemology heurmenuetic?" is one of the most interesting questions I have ever come across and wrestled with.
Citation: Jacobs, Alan at <http://ayjay.tumblr.com/post/46879051145/on-core-beliefs> Accessed 3/2/13.