Who cares? It makes no difference how you categorize it or what label you use. Again, if there were enough such people it is likely that they would be correctly understood, regardless of how they were labeled or categorized.
I am not missing your point. I too am describing a person observing homosexual behavior and coming to the conclusion that the guy “is not genetically programmed to be gay but has convinced himself that he is in order to shock and hurt people”, and contrasting it to an observer concluding that the guy has not convinced himself that he is gay and knows that he is doing it to shock people. Your later remarks seem to indicate that people in your circle actually believe the latter. I would have to say that either your family and acquaintances are remarkable people or you’ve misunderstood them with regards to the above distinction (as you’ve evidently misunderstood me).
Of course. There is no need to belabor this. But it is a relatively simple one, and one that I believe any society should have been able to make, regardless of their views on sexual psychology. To use your example, if you told me that an ancient society had failed to recognize that smiling generally meant that the smiler is pleased about something, I would not believe it either.
No, if there were enough such people, it’s likely there would have been one hell of a bonfire at the heretic burning. Sheer numbers of such people didn’t change medieval Europe’s views on the issue–particular arguments on the part of particular people, public figures and political ones, and the fact that the printing press made the distribution of books and pamphlets endorsing those arguments relatively easy convinced some number of people to change their views on the subject. I imagine there were the same numbers of doubters and heretics before Protestantism came on the scene. It was the communication of the ideas, not just the existence of the “heretics,” that helped change people’s worldviews.
The label here is everything. How a person labels and categorizes things is a result of how they view the world, and everything they experience will come through that filter. Labeling someone whose beliefs differ from yours a heretic or an apostate is, in fact, different from labeling them a member of a different religion. The different labels indicate different judgements. Just because you see lots of heretics doesn’t mean you’ll change the way you categorize them, or what you believe about religion. On the other hand, being introduced, through reading or discussion, to the idea that different religions might exist might do so. Enough people telling you other religions exist might have an impact, and might make you reconsider your labels. But as long as you’re looking through that original filter, you’re going to see the same thing you’ve always seen, no matter how many times you see it.
The people I’ve been describing actually believe that both situations obtain. Some people have deluded themselves for whatever reason, and some haven’t, but in either case the desire to shock people is at the back of the behavior.
I honestly don’t think I’m misunderstanding you. I think you’re not willing to consider that what seems natural as breathing to you might not make sense to someone else. I assure you I’m not misunderstanding the people I’ve been talking about. They’ve been quite plain about their views, and I’ve always been under the impression that I’ve met fairly average people. I suspect that your assumption that anyone rational must believe that homosexual attraction truly exists has prevented you from investigating whether people you talk to actually believe this or not. As I said earlier, I would certainly be glad to find out that I was mistaken about the amount of bigotry in the world. But I’m not going to be convinced of my mistake just because someone else finds it “blindingly obvious” or my experiences unlikely. All too frequently I’ve found that people assume that what they value is universally recognized as good and right, and what repulses them is naturally repulsive to everyone else. Lots of people evidently valuing the repulsive just convinces that lots of folks are deluded, malicious, or easily led, not that they might sincerely value it. This is true for more than just opinions about sex.
Of course. There is no need to belabor this. But it is a relatively simple one, and one that I believe any society should have been able to make, regardless of their views on sexual psychology. To use your example, if you told me that an ancient society had failed to recognize that smiling generally meant that the smiler is pleased about something, I would not believe it either. **
[/QUOTE]
If there had ever been a society that forbade smiling, there might easily be such a failure to recognize it, because beliefs about smiling and what it meant would have been taught to every member. Just seeing someone smile wouldn’t be enough to make someone re-assess their beliefs. I’m not saying there has been such a society. But there have been societies that forbade homosexuality, and those societies generally took care to inculcate their values in their citizens (still do). If you grow up surrounded by authorities who tell you that such and such a thing doesn’t exist, seeing someone behave as though it does won’t convince you that it does–it will convince you that person is stupid, malicious, or crazy. Seeing lots of people behaving this way will only convince you that lots of people are stupid, malicious, or crazy. It takes reconsidering your basic assumptions to change the way you view such behavior, not just numbers of people engaging in it.
We keep going back and forth with this. The change in worldview that you are discussing is one of category and value - not of substance.
Exactly. But what I keep trying to impress upon you is that judgements are not the issue here.
I agree that people’s opinion about the morality of homosexuality will be affected by their society. I don’t see this with regards to its existence.
Also, I’ve never heard of someone expressing such a thought. I’ve started an IMHO thread asking for other people’s experiences.
I find myself pointing out again and again in this thread that many ancient societies did not prohibit homosexuality. But beyond this, I haven’t come across any evidence that any ancient societies tried to convince anyone that it didn’t exist. Said that it was evil and disgusting - plenty. That it didn’t exist - none.