If I want to persuade someone of a different point of view, my viewpoint is essential. Instead of adopting a debating view, A teaching view is more effective. Not a condescending view, a real teaching view.
Then I have to find out their real motivation for holding that view. If their views on sexuality are tied to their religion, I need to proffer a religious based explanation for changing that viewpoint.
Most people don't put a great deal of logical thought into their views, and they are amenable to being "converted" given an understanding of their reasons, which they themselves may not be clear on.
When I'm having a discussion with someone who isn't clear on the Scientific method, or whether science can find the truth, as the people in the article, I'm on pretty safe ground. Although, yes, in theory, they could convince me of their views that homosexuality is a mental illness, etc. I think the odds are poor.
The article implicitly assumes that a scientific determination of the truth has been made. (Which is problematic in itself. Bad science gets published all the time.)
Then I have to find out their real motivation for holding that view. If their views on sexuality are tied to their religion, I need to proffer a religious based explanation for changing that viewpoint.
Most people don't put a great deal of logical thought into their views, and they are amenable to being "converted" given an understanding of their reasons, which they themselves may not be clear on.