Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 87083

[on the question of how same-sex marriage would harm society]

This is like asking, "How would the official endorsement of men having sex with men as normal behavior by the public school system hurt society?."

The question presumes it would take time for the new generation to undergo indoctrination before the hurt would statistically manifest.

Since those raised under the old teaching would not be molded by the new teaching, we should expect the old ways to be practiced until the new generation replaced the older generation.

Thus, your reference to Massachusetts fails to allow adequate time for the process.

I think we can also obtain a clearer perspective if we pose the question this way, "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?

That question is not "unbelievably difficult to answer" as you claimed.

Indeed, by default, one would naturally expect the obvious answer to be, "yes, it would hurt society."

If you want a question that is "unbelievably difficult to answer" try proving it would not hurt society!

Since it's intuitively obvious that it would hurt society, your job does not look easy at all.


bman, NOM Blog 55 Comments [4/25/2012 3:08:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 51
Submitted By: Aspergus
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
radda

Ah yes, a variation of one of my favorite arguments... "intuitivly".

Its right up there with "common sense" and "feeling what is right".


4/25/2012 3:13:14 AM



Hate to break it to you, but most people under 60, with the exception of you people in your fundie bubble, were not raised under your so-called "old-teaching", or indoctrinated, as you put it, to think of gays as abnormal. So, your idea of the worst-case scenario, with regard to society, already happened, decades ago, and that "hurt to society" never did "statistically manifest", did it?

4/25/2012 3:21:29 AM

Aspergus

Yeah! I mean, it's not like schools don't already change their curricula all the time to accomodate the changing times! And it's not like people have discarded this person's ideas of "traditional sexual moraity" decades ago! Nope, everything has remained unaltered since the 1950s!

4/25/2012 3:24:15 AM

Mudak

The moment you try to argue against a given consensual sex act, you lose your argument.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want to argue that anything about sexuality that otherwise might feel good isn't natural, then I humbly request that you try a little test:

Strip naked. We will blindfold you and put you in a room. We will make sure you're comfortable. We would then parade ten people into your room, a random mixture of men and women but at least one of each. They will all seek to pleasure you, sexually, using non-gender specific body parts and otherwise masking their gender to you (eg no perfumes or makeup, hair tied back, nails trimmed, body parts used completely shaven, they won't speak or moan, etc...)

If we have reason to believe you have the potential to cheat, we might bind your wrists behind you and/or dictate the position you will be in for the duration of the test. (eg seated, lying on a bed, etc).

If you can accurately tell me the genders of at least nine of the people we send into the room, then I MIGHT accept your argument that it's unnatural.

4/25/2012 3:36:36 AM

Filin De Blanc

"It's so obvious that I don't have to in any way come up with any reasons for exactly why it is harmful whatsoever."

4/25/2012 3:45:49 AM

Sevagram

Blah blah blah blah blah.


In other words, you don't have an answer to the question 'How would same sex marrgiage harm society?

4/25/2012 3:55:20 AM

MK

And after all that hot waste of air, you're back to the original question. If it's so intuitively obvious, why can't you list the harms specifically?

4/25/2012 4:08:46 AM

Hertzyscowicz

Oddly enough, if we instead pose the question as "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught tolerance?", One would expect the answer "No, it wouldn't hurt society."

As to proving it doesn't hurt society, you'd get sligthly reduced tax income from having more married couples, offset by a somewhat comparable increase in productivity from having less gay-bashing and therefore less depression from it. Plus, better return on investment for education since more gay teens will make it through school without committing suicide. Therefore, there is a net gain to society which can not be considered hurtful.

4/25/2012 4:13:05 AM

Extraintrovert

"I have no evidence to support my claim, so I'm going to claim I'm 'intuitively' correct as if that doesn't make me look stupid. I'm also going to pretend that 'traditional sexual morality' hasn't changed drastically throughout human history, especially in the previous 200 years, because I enjoy self-delusion."

Yawn. Next please.

Also, follow the link and read the rest of the comments. They are terrifyingly ignorant and downright stupid. One person even has the audacity to imply that teaching students about other sexual orientations will leave them more vulnerable to sexual predators.

@#1396126
Non-heterosexuals are still demonised today, and until the 1970s homosexuality was still widely classified as a mental illness. The shift towards tolerance of anyone who isn't heteronormative is IN SPITE OF public teaching, not due to them, so bman does have a point, if an infinitesimally small one.

4/25/2012 4:32:34 AM

Reynardine

Traditional sexual morality teaches that all men must have sex outside of marriage, but women must never. Therefore, all men must have non-marital sex only with other men.

4/25/2012 5:03:12 AM

Pup

I don't know if they're purposefully maintaining the strawman or if they honestly think that gays want everyone to be forced to be gay and that everyone will instantly become gay should it be considered normal.

4/25/2012 5:13:09 AM

Drummer

I notice that fundies are particularly talented at evading questions.

4/25/2012 5:28:53 AM

Agahnim

Oh, right. That must be why Nova Scotia and Massachusetts were such messes when I visited them.

Maybe on opposite day.

Nova Scotia was a good place with friendly people, including someone who got a huge (claws about as wide as a human fist) lobster out of a tank in Digby and various places to go in Halifax like the Citadel (complete with men in kilts) and the Harbour Hopper (which went through the harbor and the streets since it's an amphibious vehicle).

I went to Massachusetts twice. The weather was quite nice compared to the storms we get here, and since I'm not a big fan of seafood I ate other things from a local restaurants, and they were quite good as well. That and I get an addiction to Dunkin Donuts when I go there, since there aren't any around here anymore (I live in the Illinois part of the Wabash Valley region that makes up the parts of southern Illinois and Indiana that are close the state line by the Wabash River).

4/25/2012 5:33:04 AM

Mister Spak

on the question of how mixed race marriage would harm society]

This is like asking, "How would the official endorsement of colored men having sex with white women as normal behavior by the public school system hurt society?."

The question presumes it would take time for the new generation to undergo indoctrination before the hurt would statistically manifest.

Since those raised under the old teaching would not be molded by the new teaching, we should expect the old ways to be practiced until the new generation replaced the older generation.

Thus, your reference to Massachusetts fails to allow adequate time for the process.

I think we can also obtain a clearer perspective if we pose the question this way, "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?

That question is not "unbelievably difficult to answer" as you claimed.

Indeed, by default, one would naturally expect the obvious answer to be, "yes, it would hurt society."

If you want a question that is "unbelievably difficult to answer" try proving it would not hurt society!

Since it's intuitively obvious that it would hurt society, your job does not look easy at all.


Easily fixed for a previous generation.

@Pup:

" or if they honestly think that gays want everyone to be forced to be gay "

They do think this, because they intend to force everyone to be fundie. They assume their opposition is a backwards reflection of themselves, trying to make everyone gay.

4/25/2012 5:34:37 AM

Doubting Thomas

This is like asking, "How would the official endorsement of men having sex with men as normal behavior by the public school system hurt society?."

Another somewhat valid question, and the answer is that it wouldn't. But I don't know where the Christians get this idea that tolerance toward homosexuality = official endorsement and forcing kids to learn about it. Nor do I get why Christians don't understand that kids will eventually learn about homosexuality regardless of whether it's talked about in schools or not.

I think we can also obtain a clearer perspective if we pose the question this way, "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?

Depends on what you mean by "traditional." But I'd have to say the answer is "no." Kids are going to keep having sex regardless of what Christians want, and all-too often "traditional sexual morality" to Christians means "no sex before marriage, no masturbation, no looking at porn, no even thinking about pretty women, and all sex between spouses must be in the missionary position with no contraceptives."

4/25/2012 5:49:20 AM

A White Dude With AIDS

Poe... or troll. I can easily prove it isn't going to cause harm; same-sex relations have been going on for ages.

4/25/2012 6:04:22 AM

dionysus

Indeed, by default, one would naturally expect the obvious answer to be, "yes, it would hurt society."

How? "It's bad because...it just is" isn't a valid argument.

If you want a question that is "unbelievably difficult to answer" try proving it would not hurt society!

Typical shifting of the burden of proof from someone who has no argument besides "because I said so". This is US law, which assumes a party is innocent until proven guilty so go ahead, prove them guilty. Otherwise, by the power of tremendous legal precedent, they are innocent.

4/25/2012 6:13:03 AM

Swede

I'm 43 and I am part of a generation that was taught, in schools, that homosexuality is NOT abnormal, just a variation beside the more common heterosexuality. Kind of like blue and green eyes are a variation beside the more common black/brown. (I'm blue-eyes myself, I guess I ought to be ashamed of this abnormal lifestyle!)

We've had registered partnership for almost 20 years, and gender-neutral marriage laws for a couple of years. I haven't noticed any change, whatsoever, in society due to these changes in marriage laws.

Disregard that, there is one change; average people are more open and accepting of gay people now, than when I was little. If tolerance, respect and openness is a wound to society, then hey, let's bring back McCarthy and Hitler from the dead!

4/25/2012 6:23:36 AM

John

"Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?

(1) What is "traditional sexual morality"? The morality that people claim to support, or what they actually do? There's a huge difference, which is easily demonstrated.

(2) What does "disregard" traditional sexual morality mean? Disregard it in your own behavior, or disregard what other people are doing? You must mean the latter, because a whole generation of heterosexual people are not going to start having gay sex whether it's socially acceptable or not.

So let's reword your statement once more, because this is what you're actually saying:

"Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to keep their noses out of other peoples' sex lives?"

4/25/2012 6:28:42 AM

Psycho Tits

Absolute logic fail.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Bman is the one who has to explain how the widespread acceptance of homosexuality would harm society.

4/25/2012 8:10:19 AM

Brendan Rizzo

This is like asking, "How would the official endorsement of whites having sex with blacks as normal behavior by the public school system hurt society?"

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.

4/25/2012 8:12:51 AM

gaijinlaw

@Mudak #1396136

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

4/25/2012 8:15:35 AM

Papabear

"How would the official endorsement of men having sex with men as normal behavior by the public school system hurt society?."

Yes, let's ask that. Leaving aside that the schools aren't providing an ENDORSEMENT of homosexuality, just presenting it as a fact, what would the harm be?


"Thus, your reference to Massachusetts fails to allow adequate time for the process."

So, your point is that we should not do anything because we would have to do it before enough time passed to evaluate it?

"Indeed, by default, one would naturally expect the obvious answer to be, 'yes, it would hurt society.'"

"...it's intuitively obvious that it would hurt society..."

[/b]I object. You presume facts not in evidence.[/b]

4/25/2012 8:18:48 AM

breakerslion

"Since those raised under the old teaching would not be molded by the new teaching, we should expect the old ways to be practiced until the new generation replaced the older generation."

Yes, and just look what happened to the Minoan culture of Crete when they stopped practicing the Old Ways. We need human sacrifices and quickly! To Athens!

"I think we can also obtain a clearer perspective if we pose the question this way, "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?"

Since the death of Queen Victoria, We have invented aircraft, heart transplants, Viagra, nuclear medicine, sneakers, computers, etc., etc. The Victorians would be of the opinion that we are already disregarding "traditional sexual morality", so I guess the answer is, "no, you uptight nitwit!"

4/25/2012 8:38:02 AM

Lucilius

Translation: "I learned on the playground that gays are icky, and I haven't learned anything since."

4/25/2012 9:21:58 AM
1 2 3