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

Quote# 90458

[I]f opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one – not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Quran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment, ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible. Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the “Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.,” and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the Scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality. Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation, the generation that created the self-esteem movement: After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you.

Dennis Prager, World Net Daily 46 Comments [11/28/2012 1:45:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 42
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Mayhem

In ancient times, marriage had nothing to do with love. It was all about property, as in creating an heir to pass it along to. Nowadays, we don't have those kinds of issues with transferring inheritances, so people can marry whomever they wish. Also, those ancient people had relations with all sorts, men and women, on the side, because, again, marriage was purely a convenience of property ownership. And political alliances.

11/28/2012 1:56:04 PM

fishtank

It's pretty easy to feel morally superior to you, bub.

11/28/2012 1:59:43 PM

Ironchew

"why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage?"

Probably because the question needs to be rephrased. Is the institution of marriage necessary in a DNA-testing society, and should government and insurance benefits be tied to a religious institution instead of an entirely secular one like, say, civil unions?

11/28/2012 2:02:49 PM

Apatheist

Who cares if no one's ever done it? No one had ever split an atom before, but we did. Try it, see what happens. So far the atom thing has gone OK. We haven't turned ourselves into nuclear glass yet.

11/28/2012 2:03:21 PM

dp

historical induction.

11/28/2012 2:12:41 PM

UHM

Even if it was true that same-sex marriage was a completely new idea - which it isn't - why does that matter? Would you have made the same plea to Galileo saying the earth was round?

11/28/2012 2:13:51 PM

speccy4i

"Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived."

Sounds like something Jesus would do.

"The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible."

And what book was the anti-anti-slavery movement based on?
Whilst I'm sure that there would've been slavery without the Bible (mostly because there was), slavery would've been ended without it too. Society moves at it's own pace and the Bible has to be dragged kicking and screaming until it has to admit that it was supportive all along.

11/28/2012 2:17:26 PM

myheadhurts

I'm not up on argument fallacies so for now I'll consider this history absurdum.

11/28/2012 2:22:03 PM

Old Viking

Let me take a stab at this: it wasn't an issue?

11/28/2012 2:23:45 PM



The Romans had no problems with same-sex relationships until they adopted Christianity, after which the Roman Empire quickly collapsed and started the Dark Ages.

Should we conclude then that Christian homophobia is what ended one of the most advanced ancient civilizations?

11/28/2012 2:54:52 PM

Filin De Blanc

Didn't Martin Luther King's surviving relatives say that if he were still around he'd be fully in support of gay rights?

11/28/2012 3:14:03 PM

Reynardine

Zipporah was a Midianite, and since there aren't any more, we don't know what color she was. We do know that men took permanent male concubines, and that women in large harems had dalliances with each other. Since marriage was mostly an institution for continuing lineages, it wasn't normally contracted by people (including old heterosexuals) who foreseeably wouldn't have children.

11/28/2012 3:20:52 PM

Martha Jones

The concept of sexuality as we know it is a relatively modern assumption, actually. Not that there weren't gay people- cause there were- they just didn't call themselves gay or what have you.

And, um, you do realize that MLK's closest advisor and friend was an openly gay man, right?

11/28/2012 3:22:46 PM

Mister Spak

"why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? "

What invalid assumption did you just make?

"Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker."

What is the next invalid assumption that you just made?

"To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral."

No, it's to argue you know jack shit about moral thinkers.

Also nice job noticing you are like muslims.

11/28/2012 3:28:32 PM

Doubting Thomas

Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery, but on the contrary tell slaves to obey their masters?

11/28/2012 3:41:04 PM

Sheridan




Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived.

Even if this is the case, it still doesn't mean it is immoral. For it to be immoral you would have to prove that it is harmful.

It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation,

Or rather, it might prove that the present generation is not impressed with the previous generation's bigotry and wants nothing to do with it.

As for the rest of your argument, it is just an appeal to authority which suggests that you actually have no legitimate reasons to be opposed to same-sex marriage.

11/28/2012 4:12:09 PM

mattiedef

Ill ignore fallacies in some of the responses since they are entirely tangental to my point.

First antislavery religion was zoroastrianism. Judaism codified its slavery and racism. Christianity in early forms abandoned those both, along with sexism and homophobia, by indoctrination into trying to get romans to like them brought it all back, since Rome considered homosexuality foreign. Acceptably to a degree because of it being greek foreign.

Tangental i am apparently.

Basically, your full of shit and society is just starting to come to terms with homosexuality and marriage. Things change. Stop cringing.

11/28/2012 4:54:28 PM

Giveitaday

[i]f opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage?

I'd be willing to bet that that you draw the line on who is or is not a "great moral thinker" based on that issue, and that those who have supported it now and in the past are discarded as "great moral thinkers" because they disagree with your preconcived notion that same sex relationships are inherently immoral.

Moses, for example, married a black woman

There exists little if any evidence that Moses even existed, much less what the skin color of his wife was.

the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race

Except the jews whom they scapegoated, oppressed, occasionally purged, and forced to convert or die for well over a thousand years. And that is just the tip of a very, very large iceburg.

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral.

That is simply absurd. Many, if not most of those thinkers and religous/social movements never had anything to say on the issue whatsoever. That is unless, as I mentioned above, the only people/movements you consider "great" are the ones that condemned it.

The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible

Really now? What part of the bible? As I recall it was not only not condemned, but openly condoned in both the old and new testaments.

Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived

Once more, that is simply absurd. One example that flies in the face of your claim is the Magna Carta and the idea that rulers were subject to the people as opposed to the divine right of kings. Further more the idea of universal suffrage was once considered inconcievable.

After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you.

I don't simply hold myself morally superior to those that preceded me, I know it to be true with every fiber of my being!!! I reject the idea that one person could own another as property, I reject the idea that any one race or gender is somehow superior to another, I reject the idea that any one person holds a divine right of dominion over the people of any land. Do I consider myself morally superior to those who held those beliefs? You're damn right I do!

11/28/2012 5:13:25 PM

Papabear

Or, perhaps, in centuries past it was because advocating for homosexuals was way more risky than the risky enough act of advocating for mixed-race marriage.

P.S. Morally superior to you, though.

11/28/2012 5:14:56 PM

rageaholic

Oh this asshole. I remembering seeing this shitstain on youtube advertising his POS website. I thought he was just another neocon disguising his republican ideals as practical applications.

My god, the arrogance of this guy is austounding. Fucking appeal to authority, strawmen, and false dichotomies oh my! And he thinks the so called "liberals" are the irrational ones?! A fine example of a real life smug snake

11/28/2012 5:19:50 PM

Dark_Lord_Prime

"tradition" =/= "morality"

That is all.

11/28/2012 5:36:12 PM

rubber chicken

Most of the 'great thinkers' cited never advocated women getting the vote either, or, for that matter, voting.

11/28/2012 6:00:22 PM

Creedence Leonore Gielgud


11/28/2012 6:23:39 PM

Alencon

Probably because (1) they had bigger fish to fry and (2) homosexuality was so little understood.

By the way, where the fuck did you come up with the idea that "The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible?" Geneis 9:25 was the justification for slavery in the South.

11/28/2012 6:32:37 PM

Felix Wilde

Wow. Let's look at the parts of this that are factual:

Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the “Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.,” and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the Scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality.

One sentence out of twelve has basis in reality. ~8% truth. That's a lot of bullshit.

These bits are the most lulzworthy:
"Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker."
Except nearly everyone in the church (and most other faiths), including their "great thinkers," were absolutely racist unbtil very recently.

"the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions."
Denial. No other explanation.

"The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible."
ROFL. Is Intelligent Design "theory" based on Darwin's writings?

"Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived."
Massively untrue. Women's suffrage was used as a reductio ad absurdum by the classically-liberal far left in the past. Now it's pretty much expected. As already mentioned, Magna Carta and other examples also shit on this assertion.

@Mattiedef: I know you're well-versed in history; could you provide some more information or resources on the early Christians not being homophobic, and adopting the bigotry again in order to curry Roman favour? That does not exactly line up with what I've heard before. All I know for sure is that official Roman views on sexuality changed quite frequently, swinging from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative.

11/28/2012 6:42:57 PM
1 2