How do we alter the way the public thinks?

[Joe_5859]

Culture involves a lot of positive feedback loops. The effect contributes to the cause.

Life imitates art imitates life ad infinitum.

 

[Sair]

Culture involves a lot of positive feedback loops. The effect contributes to the cause.

Yeah. There’s definitely a ‘critical mass’ involved, so to speak. How were public attitudes towards slavery, women’s suffrage and racial segregation changed, after all? Here in Australia, there was a referendum in the 1960s (yes, really that late) regarding the right of Indigenous Australians to participate in political life (that is, to vote and be recognised as citizens in all other ways). The referendum returned resounding recognition of such a right, but it was merely the next act in a longer-lasting groundswell of support for Indigenous rights - and this fight is still going, much as the feminist fight and the fight for gay rights are still going. Some of the major battles have been won, there’s no doubt, but social attitudes are still in a state of flux.

What it seems to take, in general, to change the way the public thinks, is a determined and outspoken minority who care passionately about whatever issue happens to be their focus; if it is such an issue that can tap into general human empathy, eventually there will be the necessary weight of public support to effect legislative change. After a suitable amount of time, what might initially seem a momentous change will come to seem like the norm to subsequent generations. Unfortunately for those who want to prevent the recognition of things like homosexual marriage, denying social acceptance and its associated privileges and possibility of happiness to others, on a relatively arbitrary basis, is not the kind of thing that tends to arouse public sympathy…

 

[Just_Lurking]

Of course, all this said, it’s difficult to conclusively state whether such portrayals are the cause or just a symptom of the current zeitgeist.

Now we have a TV series where the protagonist is a serial killer (Dexter). I wonder what that bodes for our future.

 

[Sair]

Now we have a TV series where the protagonist is a serial killer (Dexter). I wonder what that bodes for our future.

Not only that, but a series that succeeds remarkably in turning a serial killer into a sympathetic character, and working copious amounts of moral ambiguity into its storylines. It would be nice to think that such a portrayal would lead to extensive discussion and thought, but from what I’ve read in reviews and online forums, most people seem to be happy to merely categorise Dexter as a ‘vigilante’ without any further consideration or analysis. Sad, really, but I guess also reflective of our tendency to want to simplify and dismiss complicated situations - much as many people respond to the issue of homosexual marriage, and in the past, responded to women’s suffrage and the removal of racial segregation…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yeah. There’s definitely a ‘critical mass’ involved, so to speak. How were public attitudes towards slavery, women’s suffrage and racial segregation changed, after all? Here in Australia, there was a referendum in the 1960s (yes, really that late) regarding the right of Indigenous Australians to participate in political life (that is, to vote and be recognised as citizens in all other ways).

I remember reading about that and some other things after seeing the movie “Rabbit Proof Fence” and wondering how much of it was real. In the movie children of the indigenous that had children by a white person (half-caste) could be taken away (and the two generations that followed those children). This was for “purifying the races”, re-educate the offspring, and regulate who they could marry unto any non-white traces were bred out of the offspring. Somehow this was seen as protecting the indigenous. This was happening during the 1930s.

On a note related to that it was only as far back as the lifetime of my parents that here in the USA that marriages among people not of the same “race” were considered legitiment in all 50 states of the USA. Yet another attitude that has for the most part changed within the culture.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Actually, it’s our job as members of the Church.

We’re not meant to be a segregated group of religious people who exist outside the bounds of society. Rather, we are Gods tool for transforming society into His image… We are to inform, and if we bail on Him, what good things can we expect to come…? I’d say chaos.

Right, but we accomplish this by loving God and others and by living right. We must be salt and leaven, but we must understand and accept that the world will always be against God. we can’t change this on a macro scale but on the micro level we can accomplish great good. The key here is to keep our own wills and egos out of it. Too often those who wish to win souls are just on an ego trip and spend their time trying to enforce their wills on others. This is an exercise n frustration for those who undertake it and a good reason for the objects of their efforts to retrench their opposition to God because some forceful bully is on their backs.

 

[TEPO]

Right, but we accomplish this by loving God and others and by living right. We must be salt and leaven, but we must understand and accept that the world will always be against God. we can’t change this on a macro scale but on the micro level we can accomplish great good. The key here is to keep our own wills and egos out of it.

This is definantly good advice.

…but just as the clergy speaks out against same sex marriage on global and national scales without fear, Catholics who find themselves in social situations, among friends or family discussing this issue, should likewise choose to not keep quiet.

Just imagine if the clergy chose to simply ‘keep quiet’.

 

[fakename]

For example, look at how fast public opinion changed in respect to same-sex marriages! What do you attribute this attitude change to? Is it being guided?

Generally, the culture around us has to change first. However, since this is exceedingly difficult I would not try to convince anyone; we would get more done by shaking the dust from our feet.

However, the Romans were quite against Christianity and yet we preached even then. Are we worse than the Romans? Perhaps, for we have forgotten the classical principles which Christianity came to complete.

 

[Sair]

I remember reading about that and some other things after seeing the movie “Rabbit Proof Fence” and wondering how much of it was real. In the movie children of the indigenous that had children by a white person (half-caste) could be taken away (and the two generations that followed those children). This was for “purifying the races”, re-educate the offspring, and regulate who they could marry unto any non-white traces were bred out of the offspring. Somehow this was seen as protecting the indigenous. This was happening during the 1930s.

On a note related to that it was only as far back as the lifetime of my parents that here in the USA that marriages among people not of the same “race” were considered legitiment in all 50 states of the USA. Yet another attitude that has for the most part changed within the culture.

It is hard to believe, nowadays, some of the things humans did to each other - the inflicting of one group’s standards upon another, regardless of whether those standards were appropriate for the others or not. It’s simple arrogance that tries to dictate how people should live, if their needs are met in ways that are not inherently harmful. Perhaps, as many have said, in half a century from now, people will look back on our treatment of homosexual couples with the same incredulity that we now look back upon our ancestors’ treatment of mixed-race couples…

 

[TEPO]

It is hard to believe, nowadays, some of the things humans did to each other - the inflicting of one group’s standards upon another, regardless of whether those standards were appropriate for the others or not. It’s simple arrogance that tries to dictate how people should live, if their needs are met in ways that are not inherently harmful. Perhaps, as many have said, in half a century from now, people will look back on our treatment of homosexual couples with the same incredulity that we now look back upon our ancestors’ treatment of mixed-race couples…

I sort of disagree. If we look back into history, there were many periods of time where cultures and races mingled together and they prospered from it. Other times, not so much…

…the difference here is that every time in history that homosexuality was normalized, those societies became chaotic and resulted in collapse. Why should Catholics or anyone else for that matter believe that our society is different in that we can avoid the resulting chaos? Just wondering.

 

[Sair]

I sort of disagree. If we look back into history, there were many periods of time where cultures and races mingled together and they prospered from it. Other times, not so much…

That would be precisely because the various cultural groups did not impose their specific norms upon each other - hence the mingling of cultures and races, not the absorption of other cultures into the dominant culture, and the enslavement of other races, both of which occurred extensively in Western Christendom…

…the difference here is that every time in history that homosexuality was normalized, those societies became chaotic and resulted in collapse. Why should Catholics or anyone else for that matter believe that our society is different in that we can avoid the resulting chaos? Just wondering.

Which societies would they be, exactly? And what leads to the belief that it was the normalising of homosexuality that created chaos and collapse, rather than other factors? If homosexuality is the problem, there should be evidence directly linking it to such things as weak government, economic collapse and civil conflict, things that genuinely do bring about the collapse of societies. There’s no doubt that there are certain behaviours that lead to destabilisation in a society, and should be suppressed - behaviours such as murder, theft, rape and exploitation, for example, that are inherently harmful. What justifies the suppression of behaviours that are not inherently harmful, just because certain members of a society find them distasteful - rather than, say, the education of the latter?

 

[TEPO]

Which societies would they be, exactly? And what leads to the belief that it was the normalising of homosexuality that created chaos and collapse, rather than other factors? If homosexuality is the problem, there should be evidence directly linking it to such things as weak government, economic collapse and civil conflict, things that genuinely do bring about the collapse of societies.

It’s a fact that the Roman empire collapsed shortly after conquering and taking on the colony of Carthage, which was known in large for its acceptance of homosexual unions. So we know their independence had been stripped from them, and then shortly after, the Roman empires authority itself had been stripped away.

In those days, homosexuality was typically confined to the prosperous -those with the most influence among the leadership. So if leaders then had a tolerant moral mindset towards themselves, while holding different, more strict guidelines for the ‘peasants’, this sort of moral imbalance would have caused outrage -and it probably did.

Point being, when an elite or minority group gets to outline the boundaries of morality outside of what is naturally acceptable among the majority, for whatever reason, it historically leads to chaos and eventual collapse.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

This is definantly good advice.

…but just as the clergy speaks out against same sex marriage on global and national scales without fear, Catholics who find themselves in social situations, among friends or family discussing this issue, should likewise choose to not keep quiet.

Just imagine if the clergy chose to simply ‘keep quiet’.

Thanks!

Well of course we shouldn’t keep quiet. But our words and actions must be carefully chosen and with the right motives. We must take self out of it. Love others. State the point simply and with charity then step back. Never take the bait or get antagonistic.

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s a fact that the Roman empire collapsed shortly after conquering and taking on the colony of Carthage, which was known in large for its acceptance of homosexual unions.

You could equally say that the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after Christians took over, or for that matter after they banned gay marriages. Indeed the collapse of the Roman Empire coincides quite nicely with the rise of Christianity.

Correlation is not causation.

In those days, homosexuality was typically confined to the prosperous

I’ve honestly never heard that before. Would you have a reference for that? Obviously we know more about the sexual habits of the rich and literate, but do you have evidence that the poor actually were less accepting of homosexuals than the richer educated classes?

Point being, when an elite or minority group gets to outline the boundaries of morality outside of what is naturally acceptable among the majority, for whatever reason, it historically leads to chaos and eventual collapse.

So it would be dangerous for a Catholic minority to dictate ‘the boundaries of morality’ to a mainly liberal society?

 

[John_Savage]

So, you’re not really concerned with marriage within the culture, just that if you choose to marry, you want government approval. Or, maybe you don’t think governmental approval is necessary, but that if marriage does have official recognition, it shouldn’t discriminate against the people you like.

I think most people who support gay marriage don’t really think marriage is very important to society. I think they feel it can be important to somebody or to a couple, but not really the concern of society. To them, it really doesn’t matter if 70% of 7% of the population is married.

People that can identify with other people in their community that they know to be homosexual will probably be more empathetic to homosexual concerns than people that don’t know the homosexual people in their community (of course, this is assuming that said people have a friendly disposition with each other). This may extend beyond the people that one personally knows into TV personalities and characters (Ellen, “Will and Grace”, “Glee”,Modern Family , “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, Anderson Cooper, so on). Once faces can be put on the labels some people will approach those labels differently. The ballet question of “should homosexuals be allowed to marry” becomes “should people like they couple that lives down the street be allowed to marry.”

Some (including myself) don’t feel that there’s anything personally at stake if homosexuals marry. The claims that it will “damage the institution of marriage” isn’t taken as a phrase that is personally meaningful. If Joe and Bob down the street get married it doesn’t have any visible impact on my ability to marry Donna. If they want to engage in some civil contract with each other I’ve got no opposition to it.

I also understand that the occurances of people that people that wish to remain unmarried (I’ve heard them referred to as “Singletons”) is higher now than it was in previous decades. That may be an indication of a change in how marriage is seen or fits in our evolving cultures.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So, you’re not really concerned with marriage within the culture,

As far as I can tell it’s not a significant concern for me. If you want to know more about my thoughts see this thread.

just that if you choose to marry, you want government approval. Or, maybe you don’t think governmental approval is necessary,

Marriage is bound to certain legal contracts and benefits, such as sharing health coverage or tax deductions if only one person in a pair is working. If those benefits were not entangled with marriage and if there were some other way to engage in those legal contracts, health benefits, and tax breaks then I think there would be as much efforts to get gay marriages acknowledged.

Of course there are those for which those legal contracts would be a liability. And those people may choose to cohabitate without ever getting married. Among other’s I’ve got a friend that doesn’t want to marry because of concerns with some one trying to take possession of half her present and belongings and some amount of her future pay checks if things don’t work out.

but that if marriage does have official recognition, it shouldn’t discriminate against the people you like.

I generally avoid the word “should.” Like I said in another thread in which you’ve participated:

I think there is more ambiguity couched in the word “Should” then generally realized; it could be expressing obligation, contingency, or a few other concepts.

But as I explained in the other thread as other people become the objects of one’s concern, as an emotional connection is made there’s motivation to consider a course of action that may contribute to the happiness of the concerned. Here I am explaining a behaviour (descriptive), not expressing any obligation for people to think or act a certain way (prescriptive).

I think most people who support gay marriage don’t really think marriage is very important to society.

I think legal contracts are important to society.

I think they feel it can be important to somebody or to a couple, but not really the concern of society. To them, it really doesn’t matter if 70% of 7% of the population is married.

I don’t think the numbers will ever be that low. But this also is not a concern for me.

 

[John_Savage]

TS: Thanks for this reply. I think that your post gets to the crux of the matter.

By the way, do you think that: marriage at one time was significant to society and that we don’t need it anymore, was never needed, or actually made society worse at any time?

 

[John_Savage]

I see your point. Not really arguing, but please consider:

Historians at the time cited moral decline as having a deleterious effect on the empire.

Widespread acceptance of non-family-oriented sex isn’t so much the cause as indicative of other social issues. One of them might be the prioritizing of pleasure over obligation.

Gibbon suggested that Christianity was responsible for the decline of the Roman empire. However, if you believe in cultural evolution, then Christianity was superior to whatever the Romans had.

You could equally say that the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after Christians took over, or for that matter after they banned gay marriages. Indeed the collapse of the Roman Empire coincides quite nicely with the rise of Christianity.

Correlation is not causation.

I’ve honestly never heard that before. Would you have a reference for that? Obviously we know more about the sexual habits of the rich and literate, but do you have evidence that the poor actually were less accepting of homosexuals than the richer educated classes?

So it would be dangerous for a Catholic minority to dictate ‘the boundaries of morality’ to a mainly liberal society?

 

[DrTaffy]

I see your point. Not really arguing, but please consider:

Historians at the time cited moral decline as having a deleterious effect on the empire.

But Rome went from accepting same sex marriage to banning them (indeed, punishing them by death) just before the collapse, not the other way around. So it seems odd to blame the collapse on acceptance of same sex marriages.

Gibbon suggested that Christianity was responsible for the decline of the Roman empire. However, if you believe in cultural evolution, then Christianity was superior to whatever the Romans had.

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that if you believe in cultural evolution any change in society has to lead to a ‘superior’ society? I don’t think anyone believes that.

Otherwise how would a change that led to the collapse possibly be considered superior?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

By the way, do you think that: marriage at one time was significant to society

Marriage has taken a lot of positions within various cultures in society. There seems to have been some statuses associated with it such as a female being considered a burden to her family until married, being considered incomplete unless you have found that significant other, a way of brokering deals between tribes/countries/some other group, something done to ensure the paternity of a child, and so on. I don’t think that people find it as important as they once did. I’ve heard from female friends that were unsuccessfully married that if they had to do it all over again they would have just gotten a sperm donor. From what I’ve seen there are many guys that don’t care whether or not they are married so long as they can either get sex or if they are in a dedicated relationship they are content as long as the woman stays dedicated to them.

and that we don’t need it anymore, was never needed, or actually made society worse at any time?

Marriage seems to be a social construct. I’m sure there have been cooperative cohabitating humans throughout history. While I’m sure cooperative cohabitation has had positive contributions for humans (and for other metazoians) it is something that can occur without “marriage.” So I can’t say that I am convinced that marriage was ever “needed.” I don’t think it’s made societies worst, though there has been a history of uneven allowance of the legal rights that many societies have entangled with marriage. Often times this seem to occur either as an action against a group or to maintain some level of social stratification.