What Would it Take to Change your mind on ...

[bacchus]

The original question, "So, the question here is, what information would it take to change your mind that Homosexuality is/is not deviant/unnatural/wrong, whatever your view is"

 

At the risk of being accused of being close-minded, I'm at least going to be intellectually and morally honest. Moral standards don't change. This isn't a question of being progressive, politically correct, acceptance, or any other sort of semantics; it's about morality.

 

Some of you mentioned close gay friends. I have a few close gay friends too and don't hassle them. That isn't my place. I suspect I have some gay friends that I didn't even know were gay.

 

Regardless, moral standards are not something that we just change when we feel like it. Morality for the most part goes back to religious beliefs that have been around for millennia, and is based on commandments from God. To say that He changed His mind is tantamount to blaspheme.

 

 

"Now, this is not another avenue to argue the morality of Homosexuality...." I apologize for discussing the morality, but the way you couch your argument is making the implication that homosexuality is moral and we just need to accept it - so ironically you are making the very argument you want us not to make.

 

Please do not take offense OldGreyEagle, none is intended.

 

[Trevorum]

Perdido says, "Evolutionarily, homosexuality is a dead end."

 

Ahhh! That is not true. There is a very strong theory in evolutionary biology that limited homosexuality in hominids actually served to increase group fitness by effectively reducing group fecundity (ie., some males not fathering offspring) while simultaneously (and this is the key point) increasing group security (ie., adult males defending and bringing food to the group, notably including their neices and nephews who may carry a recessive gene.)

 

As I said, it is a theory, but it does prvide an explanatory framework for the persistance of homosexuality in evolving hominids.

 

 

[Stosh]

On the other hand, I find nothing right about homosexuality, either. The only thing that seems to be driving the bus seems to be trying to get everyone on board to agree that there's something right about it. Social acceptance of it does not make it right.

 

If I was born a kleptomaniac or a pedophile by nature, and I did not act on those impulses the world would never know. However, if I could convince the world that these issues are socially acceptable, then I could steal and/or prey on children at will with no repercussion.

 

I have no problem with people being a kleptomaniac or pedophile, or homosexual, but to act on those impulses is a problem for me and no matter how much social acceptance goes along with it, it remains unacceptable to me and my mind will not change.

 

Yes I have people around me whom I can easily call friend. But I don't have to accept their homosexual behavior, their theft or their preying on children. To socially bend moral standards doesn't make it right. If a practicing alcoholic comes over to my house, has a beer and we chat away the afternoon, I don't have a problem with it, but if he comes over in a drunken stupor and pukes on my shoes, we're going to have a problem. I can sit in the pew with the non-practicing kleptomaniac, pedophile, alcoholic and homosexual and be at peace. Heck, I have problems related to unacceptable tendencies just like everyone else. But I chose not to act on them.

 

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right (social acceptance). People break the 10 Commandments every day, it doesn't make it right. Bending them doesn't make it right either.

 

Stosh

[OldGreyEagle]

Bacchus,none taken I tried to be as neutral as I could but I admit I am not a wordsmith so I am what I am

 

BTW, those who have answered the original question have pretty well much all said there is no information which would change their position.

 

So why do we argue something that we all agree no amount of information would make us reconsider our viewpoint?

 

We feel we are "right" and the other person is wrong so they will change their position if I say the right words while of course there are no right words the other person can say that will change my mind because of course I am right

 

Why do we beat each other up in such a fruitless argument?

[DanKroh]

OGE, believe me, I recognize the fruitlessness of trying to convince people about something that for many of them has no rational basis. I try not to get involved in these debates unless someone presents information as truth/fact when it is really opinion, a distortion of the facts, or just plain false.

 

I think there are people out there who are undecided, and I would like them to have possession of valid information rather than falsehoods from which to make up their own minds.

[GernBlansten]

When someone equates homosexuality with criminal behavior, you will never be able to change their minds. The bias and bigotry is ingrained in their psychological fabric. The best we can do is educate those who have not yet been stained.

 

Think back 100 years, we had the same issues with racism and misogyny. I think we've made great progress there. Hopefully in the next generation, it will be a thing of the past.

[Eagledad]

>>Think back 100 years, we had the same issues with racism and misogyny. I think we've made great progress there. Hopefully in the next generation, it will be a thing of the past.

[skeptic]

"For homosexuality to be fully accepted as moral behavior, the culture will have to restrict, discriminate against and eventually out law the practice of religion. The culture will sacrifice one for the other. It wont be the first time in history, it was how our county was founded."

 

Anyone care to compare to Greece or Rome? Just asking!

 

[GernBlansten]

Misogyny is supported in the Bible too. Far more references to that than to homosexuality. Shouldn't you apply the same view for women as you do for gays?

[DanKroh]

"For homosexuality to be fully accepted as moral behavior, the culture will have to restrict, discriminate against and eventually out law the practice of religion."

 

No, the culture will just have to outlaw using the practice of religion as an excuse to discriminate against and restrict the rights of others.

 

Oh wait, we already do that in theory. Now we just have to put it into true practice.

 

Many religions have no problem with accepting homosexuality as a variant on *normal* human sexuality, including some Christian denominations (just to point out that it's not all just us heathens).

[evmori]

I'm not so sure misogyny is supported in the Bible. Homosexuality is definitely not supported in the Bible.

[GernBlansten]

come on Ed,

Women as property, subservient to men, the whole Catholic church treatment of women in subordinate roles, its all in the scriptures.

[Beavah]

Yah, it always impresses me how discriminatory those who claim to oppose discrimination can be, eh?

 

Like Eagledad, I have many gay and lesbian friends and associates, and some very close family. One "best" friend who is still in da closet but with a long-term partner. Also have a few friends who are celibate clergy. Da notion that those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle must be living on some desert island is just an attack on da character of a person because of their viewpoint. Same as Gern's red herrings about religion supporting misogyny.

 

If we're honest, there is no definitive "data" on these issues, other than that most societies and cultures in da world have made homosexuality a taboo for millenia. Making a change is quite da social experiment. Trevorum's notion that natural selection for male homosexuality proceeds like that for sickle cell disease I reckon is quite a stretch.

 

What would it take me to change? Unlike some commenters, I always listen to and try to adjust my view to new data and to good arguments. At da same time, like DanKroh, I have a lifetime of experience, eh? I've seen the effect of different choices and lifestyles on many friends and family members. I personally believe sex is a wonderful and powerful thing, and therefore something that can lead to great personal growth or loss. Treated casually, like a recreational drug, it causes grief in people's lives. Treated as one component of a deep, rich shared family life it can be a wonderful expression of that love. I know many "committed" gay couples, and their experience of shared life is much shallower than da happily married couples I know. Usually they spent much less time together before "commitment"... it was a commitment more to sex than to a life and family together. They spend less time together as a couple. They experience less personal growth through da relationship. It's a dorm room friendship plus sex. In some ways they find it easier than hetero married life, eh? Yeh don't have to worry about figuring out how women (or men...) think. So it's less challenging, less enriching, more narcissistic. Unlike Eagledad, my views were formed before really considering da religious side of things, just because I hadn't yet personally found Christ at the time I was developing my opinion. While my faith supports my view now, my view preceded and is largely independent of my faith.

 

So like DanKroh, I'm afraid that to change my mind about da homosexual lifestyle, yeh would have to overcome a lifetime of personal experience. But I'll listen. I'm always willing to learn.

 

On the other hand, if yeh want to change my view about how folks who happen to be gay should be treated with respect and dignity, I suspect that's impossible. People are people, and all people should be treated with respect and dignity. That's a personal and faith-based view, both. It's not negotiable.

 

Public policy, or organizational policy in da BSA, falls in that murky middle ground, eh? To my mind, there are distinctions to be made. Not everything that is "wrong" or unhealthy should be prohibited by law or organizational policy. At da same time, respect for persons doesn't mandate endorsement of their choices. There's a balance. I'm not fully libertarian; I think there is a place for prohibitions on some activities (ex. recreational drug use) even though they really don't harm me or affect others directly. But I'm also not in favor of Sharia either, eh? Not everything that is wrong or sinful should be put into civil law. Between the two extremes, I'm far closer to da libertarian viewpoint. I think it's lazy and misguided to believe that real evangelism and changing people's hearts can be done through legislation.

 

So it would be far easier to change my mind in terms of what is appropriate in a legal/public/organizational policy context. Dat's a balance of what makes for da best policy choice given the appropriate role of government. It's why I think the gay lobby is stupid for attacking da religious, eh? That gets yeh nowhere, and is at best only tit-for-tat, you-don't-like-us, we-don't-like-you childishness. If they want to really make changes in da law, they need to appeal to the conservative side on the limited role of government.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[GernBlansten]

Would you like a pickle with your herring?

 

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

"women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..."1 Corinthians 14:34

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18

[Eagledad]

>> Unlike Eagledad, my views were formed before really considering da religious side of things, just because I hadn't yet personally found Christ at the time I was developing my opinion. While my faith supports my view now, my view preceded and is largely independent of my faith.