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
Fundies Make Me Sick

It really doesn't matter whether anyone notable argued for same-sex marriage in the distant past or not. It's still a matter of equality and it's still a dickish thing to try and deny rights to a group of people based on something they can't control.

11/29/2012 12:02:34 AM



using Muhhammad to support a sanctity of marriage argument? don't you guys go berserk over his CHILD WIFE?

11/29/2012 12:36:31 AM

Frostythesnowman

The Emperor Nero, who married at least 2 men, would like a word with you.

11/29/2012 2:45:00 AM

Paler_Face

[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?

Let's tackle one social change after another, and not all at once, shall we?

11/29/2012 2:55:48 AM

The Knight of Piñata

I think if someone tells this gay the Greeks were crazy for teh ghey ass, he'll either have a seizure or pray for Jesus to smite thy blaspheming ass.

11/29/2012 5:13:44 AM

The Knight of Piñata

I meant *guy, but the typo was somewhat funny.

11/29/2012 5:14:22 AM

farpadokly

This is a sort of argument from tradition: It is quite possible that the entire history of thought is wrong on this issue, and even all issues.
Whole societies and cultures are capable of believing, for centuries, ideas that strike us as idiotic.
That's why you have to think for yourself.
As for homosexual partnership, please see ancient Greece.
Please also Google, or otherwise research: Slavery in the Bible. Racism in the Bible.

11/29/2012 5:24:08 AM

David B.

Wow, "argument from lack of authorities"?! That's a new one!

11/29/2012 5:25:13 AM

Leighton Buzzard

The pro-slavery movement was based on the Bible, too. Did you have a point, at all?

11/29/2012 6:30:34 AM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

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

Maybe on your planet. Here on Earth, Southern fundies used the Bible to justify slavery and, later, their opposition to civil rights for the descendants of slaves.

But carry on. I'm sure that when same-sex marriage becomes legal in more states — as it invariably will — the fundies will claim they've supported it all along.

11/29/2012 6:31:10 AM



Dear Dennis Prager, different skin colours have existed for all the time that those religions existed and during the lifetime of all the thinkers, so racial discrimination was always a potential problem. Marriage for all those religions and all those thinkers was a union between two (or more) families involving mutual obligations and exchange of goods. The idea that people get married simply because they love each other is relatively new and, until recently, confined to the West.

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

The wish of gay people to be together goes way back before this generation. But they were attacked, ostracized, imprisoned, killed for what they did. Now that this persecution no longer exists in most civilized places, and are allowed to be together just like heterosexual couples, it follows naturally that they should wish to mark their relationship in the same way heterosexual couples do. Perhaps we should chide the moral hubris of the generation which first approved the new moral ideal of heterosexual couples marrying for love. As you mention slavery, we might also look at the moral conceit of the first generation that supported the new moral ideal of not treating wives as the chattels of their husbands.

And as a historian I can't think of any generation that lacked self-esteem.

11/29/2012 6:56:27 AM

Seeker Lancer

Because throughout much of history nobody really put much thought into being gay, especially in regards to marriage. Having sexual relations with the opposite gender was just something that was there. Gay men would marry women but still have a man as a lover.

Marrying for love is kind of a modern thing.

11/29/2012 8:23:56 AM



Uh. Ever heard of Greece? Or Rome? Homosexuality was fairly common. You know, the societies that produced ALL THE GREAT THINKERS.

11/29/2012 9:41:16 AM

Ludd

Yes, of course. Remember how all those Greek philosophers came out against homosexuality? Oh wait.......

SO MUCH FAIL.

11/29/2012 11:28:57 AM

werewolf

Be-e-e-end and str-e-e-e-e-e-etch that argument, DP. Maybe, someone with an above room temperature IQ will buy it.

11/29/2012 12:07:33 PM

Ebon

This is just gibberish.

11/29/2012 3:56:31 PM



"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."

Like every religion and social movement was immoral before women were given the right to vote? Or before mixed race marriages were allowed? Or before slavery was ended? (mostly, anyway) Or before Torture was outlawed? Or...

Should I carry on, or do you get the point?

"Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking."

Yet we have prior moral thinking about marriage equality... if we didn't, there'd be no fucking social movement!!

You, are a fucking moron.

11/30/2012 10:15:23 AM

dynaboyj

The problem is that the definition of racism changes and is often different within cultures. There was no racism against blacks in Moses's time.

12/2/2012 2:36:07 PM

Dr.Shrinker

So...your argument against same-sex marriage is that no one had thought about it until recently. That's it? That's your argument?

Your side is really grasping at straws, isn't it?

12/2/2012 2:52:02 PM

Amadaun

Dennis...all the rest of the nonsense aside, Judaism originated as the faith of a particular small ethnic group that went to great lengths to cast all outsiders as probable enemies and decried intermixing as it might lead one toward the gods of the outsiders. Judaism in its initial form is violently xenophobic and promotes world conquest by the Hebrew people under their mighty patron deity.

It's gone through a lot of evolution over the millenia, of course, but the nice thing about scriptures is they preserve the imprint of the people when the faith was young. If Judaism didn't roundly promote wariness of the 'other,' they would long since have vanished from the world, like most other distinct ethnic groups deprived of their major institutions.

Uhm...if you need someone who's showing the mad self-esteem to hold himself superior to all those who preceded him, may I propose the original late great Martin Luther? He of the Reformation?

12/2/2012 8:55:11 PM

Blarghonius

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

What's this about "Slaves, obey your masters", then?

12/2/2012 9:34:30 PM
1 2