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

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: 50
Submitted By: Aspergus
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
#1396907
JSS

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

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


The fallacy here is you think you're asking the same question rephrased but you are asking two different questions. Homosexuality is not synonymous with promiscuity or dangerous sexual activity. Want to see a group of same-sex attracted individuals that believe in morality? Google 'g0ys' for a start.

In addition, and probably more importantly, 'traditional sexual morality' is a vague term that really holds no water. Your latter question could just as well be used to justify the use of chastity belts. Also, I like to point out how you ever so conveniently forget to mention women having sex with women.

Oh, and stamping terms like 'intuitively obvious' on your opinion doesn't make it anymore correct.

4/26/2012 5:17:23 PM

#1396911
Punch

And yet, you still don't say how it would hurt society. If it's so easy why do you seem to be skirting around it and not saying?

4/26/2012 5:38:28 PM

#1397296
Anonymous #42

I dare you to prove it!

But I doubt you will, if you could you already would have....

4/27/2012 11:44:39 PM

#1400695
Martine R

No, equal marriage would NOT harm society.

NEXT!

5/9/2012 7:13:19 AM

#1411476
LogicalAgnostic

Translation: "I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION SO I AM GOING TO PARAPHRASE IT AND CHANGE IT SINCE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER IT AND THEN PUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY THAT I CAN SEMI UNDERSTAND AND STILL NOT ANSWER IT SO I CAN POSE A QUESTION TO YOU AND MAKE YOU ANSWER IT! I HAVE NO ARGUMENT OR VALID ANSWER!"

Isn't that right bman? XP HAHAHAHA wow...

And just so you know there is no such thing as "moral sexuality" ALL sex is dirty kinky fun and feels good. That's why humans reproduce in the first place. The pleasure is to entice the act of mating so we as a species still continue to thrive on this earth. Lights out missionary only to make a baby is not MORAL it's just BORING. God must have given us pleasure in sex for a reason seeing as he created our bodies and how they work yes? That's why we have a clit and why men have a little sensitive tip of their own. ;) ;) ;)

6/9/2012 1:22:27 PM
1 2 3