Wrong posed questions

Since I did not know how to make a poem out of it, here's something different.

A while ago, the country I momentarily live in, held a referendum whether the definition of marriage as a union between man and woman should be made part of the Constitution. In short, it was a question whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and call this union "marriage" and not something like "civil union". 

There were both sides with classic, good and bad arguments. I am disinclined to enter the merit of those arguments as they are not the subject of this "story". So, while the discussion was heating up the weeks before the referendum I sat in a bar with friends. One of them was a staunch opponent of the referendum, and you could call him what people consider this day as a "liberal" and others are what you could call "conservatives". As my friends exposed their arguments, one simply said:"You are all posing the wrong questions. It's not an issue of marriage, union, inheritance, it's about the adoption of children... and even the adoption of children is the wrong question I think.". This was disregarded and I am not sure my friend understood the depth of what he said.

Yes, the referendum was in truth a question about the adoption of children, because most of the arguments inevitably ended with this argument. But what I realised with what my friend said is, that even that is a wrongly posed question. Nobody asked as to why there are children to adopt in the first place? Nobody cared about this issue. There are no debates on it. Not public, not private. It has always been thusly, so one must accept that there shouldn't be any debate now?

Now to the issue at hand. I wrote this whole thing because whole countries, societies and individuals are asking the wrongly posed questions to a particular situation. And those wrongly posed questions have a double layer as in the case of the aforementioned referendum. The answer to the question is that parents abandoned the children(* look at the note at the bottom) in most cases. I can imagine a myriad solutions to that problem, but I do not know if they are right, correct, effective and even good. But that's not the point of this "story". 

The thing that troubles me, is that all these wrongly posed questions gives an illusion to feed upon and leaves the real issues veiled, hidden and people evade addressing them. So I guess people should start asking true questions, but I cannot see that happening without a change in consciousness. In the aforementioned example, I presume the debate on marriage of homosexuals would have been different if there was no issue of adopting children. True, there would still be other issues concerning children, like artificial insemination and so on.

When was the last time you asked yourself if the questions you are asking are the right ones? I almost never did. I was thought to question everything, but with a clause: I was not thought to question the validity of the question itself. Questioning alone was enough I thought. Well, I realised then it was not enough, especially because there can be several layers of wrongly posed questions. Can you pose the right questions to yourself or to others?

Your thoughts?

*(NOTE: All this is an example concerning the country of the referendum, not the whole world. From my experience as a volunteer, most of these children were abandoned. Only a really small minority (only one) was up for adoption because their biological parents died and he had no closer family. But he was already 15 years old and was in this institution for half a year when I came. I stated this because somebody is probably going to use the argument of:"what if both the parents died?" and so on).

Author's Note

I am not looking for suggestions on writing (except grammar issues, those are always welcome), but opinions.

Reviews

[Philip Muls]

Valid argument. It is great that we have idealists like you who still want to change the world.

But harsh reality is what it is. In Syria alone, more than a million children have been orphaned in the last 5 years. Adoption is the human thing to do to give these children some feeling of belonging.

I live in Brussels and you know what has happened here yesterday March 22. Perpetrators could very well be orphans, bitterly bringing their war to Europe.

[Stefano Segnan]

I worked in Brussels and I've been on that airport several times and on that metro a myriad of times. So I feel more shocked than when it happens to places I've never lived or been to. And yes, they could've been orphans, but the example of mine was pertaining to a given situation in a specific country. I was not talking about the whole world, but that the question of marriage/adoption in the country holding the referendum.

Thank you for the review!

[Philip Muls]

I fully understand you.

[stellar]

Hi Stefano!

Well I like your story a lot, because i have the same questions for questions. The thing I recently discovered is not actually about questions but about the perception of the world around us. The ones that are orphans are surely struggling and the ones that are not won't even look that way (not all of course) but in general people mind their own bussines. I think we are completely fear based and driven which is actually not natural. Not as a chemical but as a mental process. Maybe we gave too much of authority to our minds and now we are selfidentified with it so when we think about stuff we loose that grip on reality and it remains only our perceprion of it...Still pondering about it...And there is always the question of individuality and identification which works up to a point but after some levels of consciusness if you do not percieve the world as the greater extension of yourself (and this goes for every cell that exists..) what can you actually do?! What I see around me is society which is stuck in an aproximately 9 year old boy/girl perception of materialism and creativity (everyone included here). In that matter the problems that arise in our society are completely natural. I just hope we will get "there" someday...Surely not in my lifetime...

I've maybe gone of the course from your story but this is what inspired in me.

[Stefano Segnan]

You are right indeed. Most people don't grow up, they just age. Also, for a long time now I consider fear to be the basis of all other "vices" (if I can call them like that). Well, it doesn't matter if you go of course if you were able to find something useful in this writing. Thank you very much for the comment!

[Davidgeo]

I know you're the twerp who spams me with the saying "verbal diarrhea"

Do it under your own name next time coward... you disgust me.

[Bronwyn]

Hello Stefano.

Perhaps the reason the right questions are not asked is because the right answers do not want to be heard.

For example, using your story about the same sex couples adopting children, one question I find that is never asked is, 'how do children themselves feel about being adopted?. Particularly when they have to move from one culture, be it religious or geographical, to another. (This question doesn't just apply to same sex couples either).
Wanting to provide a loving, safe environment for an abandoned child is all well and good ...but what about the child's feelings?...How does an abandoned or orphaned child feel about having to face a completely new way of living and quite possibly a new way of thinking? Other questions might go something like, 'could we help the parents of the child in some way', or, 'can we finance relatives to look after the child instead of taking the child away from his/her culture'? And yes, 'why are these children orphans or abandoned in the first place'?

I wonder if these questions are not being asked because couples do not want to hear that there may be an alternative to adoption and their dreams of adopting a child will become unattainable.

I think asking the right questions means letting go of our agendas and being ready to accept the best answer, even if the best answer conflicts with what we want or believe.

I could be wrong! :)

[Stefano Segnan]

Hello there!
I do think you are right. Probably the right answers dwell with the innermost fears and because of this they are avoided. It is also a problem of not going in depths of various issues. As with many other things, superficial things are simply easier to think about.
Thank you for the contribution

[Davidgeo]

You're cheating.

This is cheating.

"Writer" your own god damn poem.

[Stefano Segnan]

Cheating? I felt that too when I was writing it

[Davidgeo]

Don't feel bad. I'm a cheater too.

[Taylor]

You have asked for opinions, so here's mine. I certainly get your point about wrongly-posed questions. 'Seems to me that we mortals "beat around the bush" because our mouths move faster than our brains, especially about controversial subjects that tap into our emotions and archetypal fears. I agree that the issue of adopting children is a significant one and certainly in my long career in social services I encountered numerous children who had been abandoned or abused, relatively few who had actually been orphaned. I have known gay couples who had either adopted children or conceived a child by artificial insemination. Those whom I have known were very loving parents. Did the children have to deal with societal bias? Yes, but with supportive parents, they maneuvered through that maze with remarkable success. There are other societal biases which children also must deal with -- racism, classism, and so on. So, for me, that's not an adequate reason to deny the right of marriage to gay people. I believe and I think there is considerable scientific evidence to support it that being gay/homosexual is not a choice; rather it is a fact of biology. If that is so, then I firmly believe that marriage or co-habitation is a right of all. I've always felt that one wrongly-posed question is about the quality of marriage, what constitutes a real "marriage." Let's talk about fidelity, charity, love, emotional intimacy, love-making that goes beyond the sexual act. I can't help but think that the brouhaha is related to very deep archetypal fears and eons of homophobic propaganda. Incidentally, I'm heterosexual and married, so my thoughts are not colored by my own issues, save that I grieve over the injustice done to those who happen to be born gay. Hope this wasn't more opinion than you wanted!

[Stefano Segnan]

All opinions are welcome. These are all things that should be taken into consideration, however, I am not entering the merits whether homosexual marriage (hence adoption) should or should not be allowed because this was just an example. The real issue was as to why are there children to adopt in the first place? The ability of homosexuals to legally adopt comes, in a way, after the problem of abandoned children.
And yes, people do pose wrong questions as to what constitutes marriage. I have yet to encounter a couple that before marrying out of social conventions asks themselves what is marriage for them. Some probably do, but it's mostly because of social conventions.

[emmajoy]

Have read and read and now, really am unsure as to the main theme of your 'story'. So much of what you say is valid.. but how many 'valids' are you mooting, how many viewpoints are you aiming your thoughts at.. and, what are you actually asking or demanding from your readers?! I so want to address something - anything - in this post but where to start? Please, clarify rather than mystify. Will return later or at some time ...

Brussels, Paris, London, Lisbon, Rome, Berlin, Moscow, Delhi, Tokyo, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Aukland.. et al ... wherever... do the same questions spring to mind?

[Stefano Segnan]

I am unsure how would it be confusing. The title and the last paragraph seem clear to me as to the theme: when we pose a wrong question in a certain situation. In short, do people question the question?

[emmajoy]

You ended with a question .. ' In short, do people question the question?' Think so, quite often, in order to give an honest and lucid response! However unsure of the core of your post. Never mind, would have like to discuss./comment Apologies.

[Stefano Segnan]

This made me smile (here's a smile :D) - you are unsure as to what I meant, and I am unsure as to what you meant, especially in the previous comment

[barleygirl]

This is not written as a particularly tight or persuasive essay, but it's easy to overlook such technical bumps, becuz the premise is an excellent one & one which needs to be addressed & considered & debated & improved. Frankly, I don't like the use of the word "wrong" becuz all questions lead to something useful, even as here you've followed the original line of questioning & then you've taken it to the next step. Each step is important & helps us evolve, so none are "wrong" or unnecessary. I like your thinking, & I agree with your thinking, but I urge you to consider not making your astute statements into an exercise which somehow dismisses some people & the way they look at the world. We must ALL evolve in our questioning, but first we must meet people where they are. This tiny tweak in perspective would enhance the intelligent & thoughtful things you have to say in some of your writings that I've read recently. Thank you for posing the questions . . .

[Stefano Segnan]

Thank you for the review.
Yes, I realised when I published that I forgot to put a paragraph explaining something. There are no "wrong" questions, but there are wrongly "posed" questions for a certain situation, that was what I meant. The example of the referendum highlights that difference. I did not say that the questions society was asking in that moment were wrong, but they hid the real issue at hand. They where wrongly "posed" not wrong.
In what why does my statements dismisses some people and their views? Could you elaborate on this point?

[barleygirl]

It is not necessary and it is often distancing to your readers when you spend a fair amount of your writing explaining why others are doing something wrong. You immediately lose over half your audience when you do this. Your distinctions about using "wrong" sound like semantics masturbation to me -- defending your viewpoint so it feels like you're really not hearing or deeply considering what others are saying. Why not just start your pieces by presenting your own point of view in a persuasive way, gently beckoning people to consider your views, while also respecting the viewpoints of others (in other words, INSPIRE people to want to adopt the things you are suggesting) . . . without including an inherent put-down regarding the way others see & do things? It lessens the power of what you have to say. It isn't necessary to first point out how others are doing things WRONG. You are a rational & intelligent thinker, so your viewpoints will stand on their own merits. Each person is at a point in his/her life where they need to be . . . there are no wrong ways of writing things or thinking or asking questions (as long as people are earnest in their intentions & not purposefully hurtful or destructive). We never know where the other person is coming from, so we are not qualified to judge (or offer judgmental comments) on others' ways of doing, seeing, writing, or questioning WHATEVER.

[Stefano Segnan]

Alright, thank you for the clarifications