Not to say that such an approach will get all that much sympathy necessarily. But at least it wouldn’t totally shut out those who might be similarly uncomfortable with the subject. (Not to mention those of a different religion.) As it is, the rank inconsistency is likely to be very counterproductive. Assuming that your purpose is actually to persuade someone; if you just want to vent and feel put upon, of course, it’s a great approach.

The results of the straw poll at CPAC show the effect of this; stopping gay marriage didn’t register as a #1 concern in even 1% of the responses, and only as a #2 concern for 1% of the respondents. The age demographic of the 2,395 respondents proves my point; 54% of the respondents were in the 18 – 25 age group, and 19% in the 26 – 40 age group. That puts 73% of the respondents under 40.

Jacob – I believe that to talk to social conservatives you have to understand their world-view. They believe there is a culture war afoot, with forces conspiring to degrade society and debase our youth. As an example, the opposition to evolution is rooted in the idea that by eliminating “special creation”, you eliminate God, thereby eliminating morals and values leading to moral enslavement. We all have a world view that shapes how we see issues; the social conservative has to first recognize his world view and how it doesn’t apply to an issue before he can consider alternatives.

a couple verses over from where the Bible condemns homosexuality (actually, just male homosexuality, but…), it condemns wearing “mixed fibers” (e.g. cotton and wool, or cotton and polyester). Yet nobody gets hysterical over mixed fibers being available in stores everywhere — even to children! It’s enough to make one suspect that just maybe religion is a justification, rather than a reason, for the postition.

Right. And we know that when folks points out such inconsistency, it persuades no one who is anti-gay. The bible is quite often cited in support of a set of socially conservative principles. But the truth is that even social conservatives choose which parts of the bible are most important to follow, treating its dictates like a cafeteria. Now this is something that has evolved culturally, and quite possibly as part of the culture wars. There are no real opportunities for cultural skirmishes when it comes to things like diet and fabric choice, right?

Battles on such grounds would be so preposterous that no one would fight them. But when it comes things like sex and public behavior(your choice of language, how revealing your clothes are, what gets shown on television) social conservatives still want to toe a fairly victorian line and they think others should do so as well. They believe that social value patterns are paramount.

And here’s the thing…I think a lot of Americans are open to consideration of virtues like modesty and what constitutes good personal character. And if opposition to homosexuality were not part of the package, social conservatives might attract more adherents and less scorn.

Cotton and polyester!?! Human sacrifice?!? Dogs and cats living together?!? Mass hysteria!

So perhaps the question before us is, what portion of those opposed on principle (or theology) might, under some circumstances, change their minds — at least to the extent of accepting the right of homosexuals to live in peace? And what methods of persuasion are most likely to be effective, and in what particular circumstances?

We could also have an interesting, and perhaps related, discussion about what might impel someone to make opposition to homosexuality central to their life. After all, a couple verses over from where the Bible condemns homosexuality (actually, just male homosexuality, but…), it condemns wearing “mixed fibers” (e.g. cotton and wool, or cotton and polyester). Yet nobody gets hysterical over mixed fibers being available in stores everywhere — even to children! It’s enough to make one suspect that just maybe religion is a justification, rather than a reason, for the postition.

The model of gay friend or colleague who is a fundamentally decent person of wholly acceptable character and virtues goes as far as any contemplation can, I think.

No argument there. But I think that’s not at all inconsistent with the idea that people can be persuaded despite their negative visceral reactions. Your simply proposing a particularly good means of persuasion, IMO.

And for the record, I’m kind of creeped out by the idea of Michael’s parents having sex, too.

Since I’ve never met his parents, I choose to picture his mom as being really hot and his dad as being pretty much invisible. Try it out. It’s not so bad. (Sorry, michael, I couldn’t resist. And, hey, you brought it up, not me.)

I don’t doubt that there are “conservatives” who can get past their visceral reaction to homosexuality, but just like your core belief that government=bad there are an awful lot of “conservatives” who are running around out there who belief homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it is and there is no point in discussing it any further.

My point is that when ever you are dealing with absolutes, reasoning is out the window.

And for the record, I’m kind of creeped out by the idea of Michael’s parents having sex, too.

Actually, kk, “People who experience a visceral sense of distaste . . . of homosexuality…” can be persuaded to look past that.

It’s encouraging to me to think that, and more encouraging to see 2 or 3 people whose opinions I respect disagree with me about it. If a may persist however, a few points and questions:

• my first instinct was that this is the exception and not the rule. Thoughts anyone?

• When writing my last entry, I thought about incorporating the idea that visceral negative reactions can be overcome by regular exposure that shows that the visceral response is incorrect or unnecessary

• On thinking about that some more, I think it’s worth noting, and I think that this may be what you guys may have experienced and why you’ve objected to what I said

•still, I do feel confident that the majority of folks who fear and hate homosexuality are unpersuadable. They aren’t open to revising their reactions based on additional data. Some folks hold views as hypotheses and are open to adjusting their hypotheses to fit available data. Folks who hold views as a matter of faith are less likely (I’d say unable) to do so.

•Despite that last paean to reason, perhaps the most important insight is that it may well be just as important to feel your way to an adjusted perspective as it is to reason your way there. For most or many people, anyway. The model of gay friend or colleague who is a fundamentally decent person of wholly acceptable character and virtues goes as far as any contemplation can, I think. Not to mention the revelation that a son or daughter is in fact gay, even though as we know even this may not soften the hardest of hearts.

That gay folks have been forced to live lives of secrecy has fostered distrust, fear, and hatred of them, sadly. But it seems to me that as they come to participate openly, fully, and without shame in civil life, their fundamentally equal worth becomes manifest to all with open hearts and minds.

As to the question of persuasion, I am left still thinking that the close-minded and hard-hearted cannot be persuaded per se, if by persuaded we mean accessed via reason. Something must open their hearts or force their minds to recalculate, and IMO it’s seldom reason that makes that happen.

captcha: issue grendel. Nice one.

Very seriously: Can you give us a lesson in “How to speak Russian to a Russian”?

WHQ – I understand the point, but it is still an insult, isn’t it? And its one that runs the risk of insulting not only the object of scorn, but an entire class of citizens.

Yes, but that’s a separate argument from the one about internal consistency. My point wasn’t that the closet charge was good or without risk.

kranky – most of the social conservatives I know are open to reason, but the argument has to be made in a “language” they understand. Its of little use to speak Japanese to a person who only speaks Russian.

WHQ – I understand the point, but it is still an insult, isn’t it? And its one that runs the risk of insulting not only the object of scorn, but an entire class of citizens. While it sounds better than calling him a poo-poo head, I’m not sure its any more effective. And it just reinforces the polarized world view that the “culture war” is more important than rights and liberty.

gerryf – there are many social conservatives who have changed their views on homosexuality, including me. And it wasn’t because of insults; in fact, the insults delayed the evolution in my thoughts. Ted Olsen, the former Bush Admin solicitor general volunteered to represent the plaintiffs challenging Prop. 8 in California, Dick Cheney and many others have evolved in this area. Young conservatives are especially untroubled by the gay rights issues, even if they list family values as very important to them.

But it’s not a question of mind crimes (or gut crimes) so much as actions. I’m not out to hurt homosexuals and I don’t mind their company in the least, given the lack of making out that is generally the norm. I don’t think homosexuality or gay sex is wrong or immoral, despite my physical response to man-on-man action.

Yay, gay marriage. Boo, DADT. Yuck, seeing male gay sex. They’re all coexisting just fine in me.

Granted, it isn’t trivially easy to get past one’s visceral reactions. But it isn’t all that difficult, if you are willing to make the effort. Which makes me less sympathetic than some toward those who (apparently) revel in their bigotry, at the expense of their proclaimed conservative principles. At least, I have yet to see a believable rationalization for supporting small government while simultaneously demanding government intrusion into every detail of individual behavior.

Alex Knepper has made the closet homosexual charge already in Frum Forum. I always find it internally inconsistent: if you support gay people, how can you insult someone by calling them gay? There’s a “soft bigotry” problem with that approach.

This is an interesting point for me. I think it’s true sometimes that it’s internally inconsistent, but not always.

I can see how someone who is supportive of homosexuals can make the closet “charge” solely on the basis that the subject of the charge will take it as an insult. So it’s not so much “look, he’s a homosexual” as it is “look, he’s a hypocrite” or “look, he’s a self-loather.” (If true, it would also mean that the closeted condemner of homosexuality was speaking to a group that would condemn the speaker, himself, rendering the power of his condemnation largely diminished.)

That aside, it may be baseless and thereby wrong to publicly state that someone is a homosexual (or a heterosexual, for that matter), but I don’t know that it’s necessarily wrong on the basis that it implies there’s something wrong with being a homosexual.

You must understand that we must never, ever change from the 18th century. The fact that the world has done so is no excuse for our government doing so.

I think you will find the anti-gay portion of the party to be equally absolute in their beliefs.