Is watching lots of television “natural”? Is spending lots of time on the Internet “natural”? Neither of these activities seem natural to me. However, just because someone likes watching lots of TV (I rarely watch TV) IMO doesn’t make them a bad person. To me this sort of natural/unnatural distinction is silly.
A parallel construction would be, “Can one be nice but disagree with freckles?” What does it mean to “disagree” with someone’s nature? And what does it mean to proclaim as “unnatural” something that is innate?
As long as your problems with homosexuality remains your problem with homosexuality then it’s all good.
Does it matter whether it has any basis in logic or reality? What matters is that they believe it.
My father, for example, believes all religions are bunk. But he also strongly believes that homosexuality is unnatural - meaning that it is an aberration or a phase. He does not believe it is something natural to a person’s being. I have argued with him on this topic to persuade him otherwise or to understand his philosophy regarding this, but both elude me. Suffice it to say that he believes homosexuality is unnatural but not for religious reasons.
Thanks for the responses so far!
WRS
But why would this mean his disagreeing with homosexuality automatically takes him off the list of Nice Human Beings? So he thinks that homosexuality is just a phase. Big deal. From what I am gathering, it seems that you think your father hold a position not consistent with science. Just because somone has lousy scientific reasoning doesn’t mean they necessarily aren’t a Nice Human Being.
A friend of mine personally feels that homosexuality is a sin. However, she still is 100 percent for gay rights, she has volunteered with AIDS patients, and thinks that people who constantly harp on “evil gays!” are jerks.
By her actions, I’d say she’s a damned nice person.
I didn’t ask the question because of my father. (He’s one of the best people I know, my hero, my role model. Well, not in everything, though.) I’m just curious what people here think about such people who, for whatever reason believe homosexuality is unnatural/wrong but otherwise are very nice people.
My own opinion follows what Zoe said. But I’d like to hear what others have to say and why they think that way.
WRS
My opinion is that whether someone is a Nice Human Being is not a matter of their beliefs, but instead on their actions. One can consider homosexuality unnatural and this not effect how they act in life. Libertarians could just feel what other consenting adults do in bed is none of their damn business. They might not even care to consider the question of whether homosexuality is natural or not.
People can have things wrong with them and still be nice. Someone mught be a Scientologist, a homophobe, into scat, pong, cheat on his/her partner, … nd still be nice enough. Then again serial murderers and rapists are often nice until you learn what they do in their spare time. Nice don’t mean much, but being a failure in one aspect of your life does not make someone moraly bankrupt in all others.
I don’t understand this. I don’t know that I would equate wrong opinion with being ‘nice’ or being ‘bad.’ I tend to think that being ‘nice’ or ‘bad’ is more a product of motivation and intent than holding honest, yet ‘wrong’ beliefs –
No. There’s nothing to “disagree” with. If you’re prejudiced against homosexuals, that’s not nice, period. I don’t really care if you voice it politely, it’s still bigoted.
Yeah…tell your friend dying or cutting her hair is unnatural and see how much she gives a shit about nature then.
I don’t know who your friend is, but if you’re considering dating her, you may want to think again. We all have to put up with differing opinions in our lives, but it’s a helluva lot easier if that differing opinion isn’t attached to someone you’re spending lots of time with. Or fucking.
Ditto. Someone who just thinks it is unnatural is ignorant, since there is plenty of homosexuality in nature. But that does not make one not nice. Trying to prevent other people from engaging in activities you find distasteful, but which don’t hurt anyone, is not nice. In fact, being tolerant on the outside while holding intolerant opinions on the inside gets you more brownie points in my book than just being tolerant. Many of our beliefs come from our early training and environment, and overcoming them is a good thing.
The problem for me is the presumption that whatever I do in the privacy of my bedroom is any of your business. (And if gay people’s sexual preferences are your business, then mine are too.)
Even if you think dem gays are perfectly alright people, but you still feel it’s appropriate to judge them/their behaviour on the basis of who they’re attracted to, then yes, this is a problem.
Not to say that they can’t be nice people. But it does indicate a certain judgementalism.
In other words, not only is it indeed my business what goes on in your house, but I am entitled to judge it (even if I go out of my way to avoid judging you).
I feel this is highly presumptuous and prejudicial.
To the OP:
Yes certainly. It would probably be a stumbling block in my relationship with them and certainly I’d try to move their beliefs, but it certainly doesn’t make them “bad”. To pull an example out of thin air, I disagree with the intense sportsmen who don’t believe there’s anything else in life but sports. I consider them slightly silly in focusing so much energy on such a triviality. However, I certainly would never act out in a cruel way to them nor agree with the nasty comments of others on the subject (at least not when in control of my wits). Nor would I start ranting and demand they change their worldview because I disagree with it. Therein, I think, lies the major difference between “nice” and “bad”.
Why not? Seriously. All sorts of people have all sorts of moral stances with which I do not agree, yet that does not imply that they are awful people.
Think of it this way: is it reasonable for a person to go from good to bad simply on the basis of their personal feelings about homosexuality? Honestly, it beggars belief to think that a person can be considered bad solely on personal feelings.
Sure. I’m nice. I disagree with homosexuality, and it most assuredly is not based on religious twaddle.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Please explain how you “disagree” with a fact of life. You deny it exists? You disagree that it’s right for you? What do you mean?
Now this is the kind of religious person I could really admire.
Surely it’s not your opinion about whether or not you are nice that counts, is it? You may indeed be a polite, giving person, but being a bigot (even an admitted one) is a big strike against a person’s ‘niceness’ in my book.