Pat Gunn (dachte) wrote,
Pat Gunn
dachte

Recent dialogue on sexuality

Last week I had a conversation with someone (if this link is taken down, let me know and I'll put my saved copy on my website to replace this live link) on G+ on the topic of homosexuality. There are some nuances of my argument that tie into theory I've provided here; at risk of beating the topic to death (I've posted a lot near this topic recently), some thoughts:

As stated there, I draw distinctions between levels of societal acceptance of variance in personal conduct:

  • Legality - Whether something should be basically legal
  • Acceptance - Whether something should be seen as a way people live that doesn't require active/short-term struggle against
  • Pathpaving - Whether something should be supported by societal institutions
  • Approval/validation - Whether something should be seen as a solid and reasonable and good way to live, among alternatives
I hold that homosexual relationships should be legal, accepted, and have the same pathpaving that heterosexual relationships do. I approve of/validate such relationships, but I don't demand that others do, although I am willing to push fairly hard for their pathpaving and very hard for their legality and acceptance.

As you can see, I did my best to keep the dialogue civil, and hopefully didn't come across as shrill or defensive; I also intentionally used family examples (didn't name the names though) because I've found that family references generally soften tone of attack by family-type conservatives, and they ground the conversation in terms of concrete relationships with real people rather than abstract theory (I don't want to overdo this though, because sometimes we really should accept principles/laws that are not friendly to people somebody knows, like putting someone in prison for a long time for crime, or similar).

In this case, I don't think I convinced her, but a number of other people she (presumably) knows in some way gave me +1s, which is kind of nice; I think it's important that somebody shows up to offer criticism of perspectives like hers, and that somebody is polite and (if needed) in command of a good body of relevant evidence and a decent theory that can be argued for. And perhaps in time the arguments I've made might lead her to soften her position or reconsider it. Or perhaps it will echo in the ears of the other people who have read it. I'm a believer in the idea that a good argument leaves an echo in the heads of the listeners.

Subscribe

  • Typing in Colours

    (Cross-posted to G+, but it's more of a definitive statement of views so it goes here too) A recent instance of 「Wasted Talent」: here I'm not…

  • Loyalty

    This is meant to address three ideas: Don't blame the victim If you care for me, you'd support me unconditionally Safe zonesAnd to be a topic in…

  • What Do We Owe Each Other?

    One of the central questions in political philosophy, or perhaps one of the most intuitive initial framings, is "what do we owe each other?". I…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments