Christians claims re the gay agenda

[Pegg]

Ah. When you said it was "not acceptable" for people to try to convince you on gay rights issues, I took this to mean that you didn't want them to be allowed to do it.

not at all. We all have the right to live as we choose, yes?

No one has the right to judge another for how they choose to live. Jesus clearly told us not to judge one another but simply to 'love your neighbour'

So we are not out to destroy homosexuals or their way of life.... we dont have to try to stamp it out, nor do we have to approve of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

not at all. We all have the right to live as we choose, yes?

No one has the right to judge another for how they choose to live. Jesus clearly told us not to judge one another but simply to 'love your neighbour'

So we are not out to destroy homosexuals or their way of life.... we dont have to try to stamp it out, nor do we have to approve of it.

That can be very difficult in practice, since so much of our lives depends on actual approval from others to some degree or another, and approval is only possible after a judgement is made.

 

[Pegg]

That can be very difficult in practice, since so much of our lives depends on actual approval from others to some degree or another, and approval is only possible after a judgement is made.

no, we dont need the approval of others to be happy.

If that were the case, I wouldnt be a JW

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That can be very difficult in practice, since so much of our lives depends on actual approval from others to some degree or another, and approval is only possible after a judgement is made.

You are forgetting the power of persecution complexes and exclusivism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

not at all. We all have the right to live as we choose, yes?

No one has the right to judge another for how they choose to live. Jesus clearly told us not to judge one another but simply to 'love your neighbour'

So when a Jehovah's Witness tries to convert someone, aren't they, by definition, judging that person and his or her beliefs or lack thereof as undesirable or defective and therefore in need of getting converted?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think that to call someone a bigot or liar is to curse them, in the same way as calling them an SOB, except worse. Same with 'racist' usually.

Except, calling someone a bigot or a liar is descriptive, if accurate- when you call someone an SOB, you're simply insulting them, you don't actually mean that they literally are a son of a b*tch. If someone is lying, or is expressing or endorsing bigotry, calling them a liar or a bigot doesn't seem to be the same as calling them an SOB, because you really mean that they are just that. In any case, one can make it less personal by characterizing the view or position as bigotry or homophobia, rather than calling the person a bigot or homophobe.

I'm interested in changing people's views, and I don't think I can do that by poisoning the dialogue.

In your experience, is rational dialogue an effective means of changing people's minds about homosexuality, gay rights, or religious ethics in general?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In your experience, is rational dialogue an effective means of changing people's minds about homosexuality, gay rights, or religious ethics in general?

Ha! - rational dialogue is rarely an effective means of chaning anybody's mind about anything. Rhetoric, manipulation, and appeals to emotion are the tools you'll want to employ if you're interested in changing peoples' views.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

no, we dont need the approval of others to be happy.

That makes for a catchy motto, but in practice, sometimes things aren't that simple. Being able to sanctify ones relationship both with the religious/symbolic aspect of the marriage ceremony, and the legal status that goes along with it, is a matter of "the approval of others" since in many states the matter has found its way onto election ballots (concerning gays, that is). You can say that people shouldn't place so much value on things like marriage ceremonies or legally married status, but people do care about these things, its a simple fact. So yes, sometimes the approval (or disapproval) of others can have an effect on one's life and one's ability to pursue happiness.

 

[Revoltingest]

In your experience, is rational dialogue an effective means of changing people's minds about homosexuality, gay rights, or religious ethics in general?

On the rare occasion when I actually convince someone to change his mind, it has come only from friendly reasoning from common ground.
Insults, stridency & moral superiority (unavailable to me anyway) never work.
Example:
A fundie who works for me was very anti-gay & anti-tranny. But he's also interested in science & technology. I'm an engineer, so I speak that language. Discussing advances in brain science convinced him that such things were an intrinsic property of gays & transsexuals, & not learned behavior. While he still finds homosexuality morally wrong (Bible stuff, you know), he is far more tolerant.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't doubt that it happens occasionally, but I'm guessing its the exception rather than the rule. In general, I have no problem with the change in attitudes which has essentially done a 180- turning racism, homophobia, sexism, and other forms of prejudice from dominant attitudes into marginalized and stigmatized views. I think that continuing to call out homophobia and other forms of bigotry as ethically bankrupt positions not even worthy of rational discussion is as effective, if not more, than trying to explain to people why opinions and views often formed on an emotional level are not rationally tenable. If opposition to homosexuality and gay rights was held on an intellectual, rational basis then civil dialogue would indeed be the way to go, but it is not.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

there is no problem with homosexuals having a place in public life...we have had a few openly homosexuals in leadership positions in government and they are every bit respected as others.

What you say is 'going' to happen has already happened. They have a very active and prominent share in public life. Schools are already teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and thats fine if it makes life better for homosexuals.

But I still dont agree that homosexuality is a normal or natural practice because conscientiously I don't believe it is.

ok cool

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Except, calling someone a bigot or a liar is descriptive, if accurate- when you call someone an SOB, you're simply insulting them, you don't actually mean that they literally are a son of a b*tch.

That's why I find 'bigot' worse than 'SOB' -- because it is descriptive and therefore more personal. SOB! just means FU!, but Bigot! means FU, you hater of all that is right and good in the world!

If someone is lying, or is expressing or endorsing bigotry, calling them a liar or a bigot doesn't seem to be the same as calling them an SOB, because you really mean that they are just that.

I don't like labels much and especially negative ones. That's just me.

In any case, one can make it less personal by characterizing the view or position as bigotry or homophobia, rather than calling the person a bigot or homophobe.

I agree. It's better, but I still try to avoid it as much as possible. It ain't always easy.

In your experience, is rational dialogue an effective means of changing people's minds about homosexuality, gay rights, or religious ethics in general?

Actually Yes. But it's a long-term endeavor. People have come back to me much later to say that our debates did change them -- made them reassess their attitude toward gays. Believe it or not, you find a gentler AmbigGuy before you today than previously, and it's because of those people telling me that while they opened their claws at me in the heat of debate, they reflected afterwards and began to change. So I try to make it easier for people to unarch their backs.

Of course not everyone's going to change but I seem to notice that, as with creationists, there are fewer and fewer homophobes ready to throw themselves into the battle. Overall, attitudes do seem to be changing, even among Christians.

 

[Reverend Rick]

not at all. We all have the right to live as we choose, yes?

No one has the right to judge another for how they choose to live. Jesus clearly told us not to judge one another but simply to 'love your neighbour'

So we are not out to destroy homosexuals or their way of life.... we dont have to try to stamp it out, nor do we have to approve of it.

Thank you Pegg, this is how I feel about the situation as well. People who say homosexuals are disgusting really are spending too much time visualising some one else's sex life.

Think about it, would it be right to spend a good deal of time thinking about a young hetro couple and what sex acts they enjoy?

It is none of our business. What really gets my knickers in a bunch is when we try to keep couples from seeing each other when one of them are sick in the hospital or not giving some people pension money or inheritance.

If we just treat everyone the way we want to be treated, the world would be a better place.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's why I find 'bigot' worse than 'SOB' -- because it is descriptive and therefore more personal. SOB! just means FU!, but Bigot! means FU, you hater of all that is right and good in the world!

Needless to say, that's not what "bigot" means.

I don't like labels much and especially negative ones. That's just me.

That's fine. But for those of us who don't mind stepping on toes, if the shoe (or label) fits... And that's just it; for the most part, the views expressed by the anti-gay rights contingent are prejudiced and homophobic; we can refrain from explicitly recognizing them as such, but this is a matter of diplomacy, not accuracy.

 

[Pegg]

Thank you Pegg, this is how I feel about the situation as well. People who say homosexuals are disgusting really are spending too much time visualising some one else's sex life.

Think about it, would it be right to spend a good deal of time thinking about a young hetro couple and what sex acts they enjoy?

It is none of our business. What really gets my knickers in a bunch is when we try to keep couples from seeing each other when one of them are sick in the hospital or not giving some people pension money or inheritance.

If we just treat everyone the way we want to be treated, the world would be a better place.

exactly right. Live and let live.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

encourage a tolerant mindset so that the rights and freedoms of homosexual people are not interfered with, yes. Absolutely.

But try to change the opinions of people to make them think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable? No. That is just as bad as mistreating someone because they are homosexual.

Trying to encourage a tolerant mindset (with regards to homosexuality) requires encouraging people to accept that homosexuality is normal (like being left handed) - that is part of being tolerant, failing to do so indicates one is not tolerant; its kind of a defining feature. Being left handed is normal, it may not as common as being right handed (only 10-12% of people are left handed) however it is 'normal'.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm not to judge. If God made them that way, how can it be their fault?

It is not my place to say the attraction it is a choice or not. You only have to ask one's self, why would anyone choose to be mistreated if it was a choice?

Let each of us stand before our maker and be judged fairly and righteously.

 

[Pegg]

Umm trying to encourage a tolerant mindset requires that one encourage people to think that homosexuality is normal and acceptable - see that is part of being tolerant, failing to do so indicates one is not tolerant.

no i dont agree,

being tolerant does not mean I have to agree that someone's way of life is normal or good.

It means we respect people regardless of their choices. We dont have to agree with their choices to show them proper dignity and respect as a fellow human being.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Would Steve and Samantha going out be 'good' (whatever that means), if so how and why? What would distinguish this from Steve and Sam dating? But let me ask you this - do you believe anyone is asking you to 'agree' (whatever that means) with Steve and Samantha going out? Your 'agreement' is without relevance (as is everyone else's if the two are of age) - the same is true if Steve goes out with Sam instead.

Being tolerant isnt the same as being accepting, I recognise this - tolerance merely refers to refraining from obstruction and denigration (acceptance takes this further) - one may for example avoid obstruction but not avoid denigration for example our terminology (in particular with the association of moral terms such as stating you do not agree than their way of life is 'good' infers that you believe the opposite given dualism seems appropriate from former conversations) can be a form of denigration, thus a direct diminishing of tolerance. One does not need to 'agree' with someone's lifestyle to be tolerant, one merely needs to avoid obstruction or denigration.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Needless to say, that's not what "bigot" means.

I lack your confidence about what words mean.

That's fine. But for those of us who don't mind stepping on toes, if the shoe (or label) fits... And that's just it; for the most part, the views expressed by the anti-gay rights contingent are prejudiced and homophobic; we can refrain from explicitly recognizing them as such, but this is a matter of diplomacy, not accuracy.

I lack your confidence in all things, I guess.