Is this be an effective argument against anti-gay fundies?

[Zero]

When fundies claim that homosexuality is a choice, I often explain that this can't be so, simply because if it were a choice, I'd have made it already. I've had too many relationships with psychobitches to actually stick with women above men except by necessity. At least that's what I say.

Has anyone ever claimed anything similar, and if they have, how has it gone for them? When I try this, they mostly try to ignore it, but they have to backpeddle a bit.

[Gandalf]

The most likely response:

"You may not choose the sinful feelings, but you do choose to act upon them."

[SirNitram]

When fundies claim that homosexuality is a choice, I often explain that this can't be so, simply because if it were a choice, I'd have made it already. I've had too many relationships with psychobitches to actually stick with women above men except by necessity. At least that's what I say.

Has anyone ever claimed anything similar, and if they have, how has it gone for them? When I try this, they mostly try to ignore it, but they have to backpeddle a bit.

If by 'effective', you mean briefly shut them up, then yes. They always revolve back to the 'YOU'RE EVIL AND THEREFORE WANT IT ALL TO GO AGAINST YOU BECAUSE YOU HATE GOD!', though.

[Phillip Hone]

Even if we assume that it is a choice, how does that change anything? I've never heard a fundie acutally explain why the hell that acutally matters. It would matter if you ad already proven that it was immoral, but you haven't, ass hole. Watching a movie is a choice too, I guess that's enough to make some people think that's evil too.

SirNitram


The ones I've talked to are slightly more subtle then that. They usually say something about how gays are destroying the family. Then they talk about how great the 50's were, while insisting that you stay perfectly silent during their monologue.

Fundies aren't good at not getting pushed into a corner, so they have to be really good at defending themselves after they've been backed into one.

[Pick]

Yes, the fundies seem absolutely obsessed with the 50's.

Other than the interracial marriage problem, what are some of the other good, concise reasons that the 50's weren't that great? I know a good list, but what do others think would be most effective in battling this strangely common conception?

[Admiral Johnason]

MacCarthism and the constant fear that the end of the world was coming along with the repression of science and indepentent thought and freedom in general which lead to the upheval of the 60's

[Darth Wong]

My favourite rebuttal to the "it's a lifestyle choice" people is to point out that religion is a lifestyle choice too, so by their logic, it must be OK to discriminate against fundies for being religious fanatics.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Even if we assume that it is a choice, how does that change anything? I've never heard a fundie acutally explain why the hell that acutally matters. It would matter if you ad already proven that it was immoral, but you haven't, ass hole. Watching a movie is a choice too, I guess that's enough to make some people think that's evil too.

The stock reply is "because its against God's will." Its at that point that further conversation is rendered impossible.

[Covenant]

The 50's are the Golden Age of the American nuclear family (get it? nuclear! so clever!) and a lot of them harken back to it the same way any idiot looks back to the good ol' days. Yeah. 50's were super awesome, I suppose, unless you were, like, black or a woman who didn't want to have kids or--worse--a black woman. They'll admit, generally, that there was a lot of really awful discrimination and that it's good we're not that way, but say that the family structure was better.

What you need to do, really, is not to fight them on all of those issues at once. I actually had the chance to spend a lot of time with a girl like this, who desperately wanted to get married, stay home, and have kids instead of pursuing a career. She talked at length about how voting rights are crap compared to a nice home life. Baffling. If you can get them to discuss the 50's, then you're in business.

Afterall, what did the 50's give women or men or families that they don't have today? Nothing really. Women do not HAVE to go to school, get a career, and ignore their children. They can stay home and raise them if they so choose. Same for men. And same, as we know, for gays. Gays have been around since forever, back when we called them Greeks. Achilles was one of the gayest men alive. They seemed to have created a system that not only worked, but formed the basis of our American democracy. Maybe that's why they liked pillars so much?

Furthermore, the 50's didn't have perfect families. And "traditional family values" weren't. Point them toward's Franklin's tretise on the merits of seducing older women, or Jefferson's affairs, or the fact Martha and George never had kids together. They can dismiss this, and you can encourage them to, since it's not the issue. Family Values have always been an ideal, not a reality.

And in the 50's it was no different. Rock and Roll hit, and people declared that it was devil music poised to destroy American values, the sexually suggestive nature of Elivs' hips surely the doom of many a young girl's innocence. Thing is though, they weren't innocent at all, and they were all screaming for him because they wanted to get de-innocented by him as fast as humanly possible. The capacity to disrupt 'family values' lies not in society, but in individuals. Otherwise these perfect 1940's and 1950's households would not have spawned hippies, commies, free love,
or Elvis fans. Some other fun people were Ms. Monroe, who certainly wasn't family values, Johnny Cash, Liberace and Senator McCarthy.

So where does this idealized nation come from?

If you didn't know, the Evangelical movement really took off in the 1950's, and there was a massive outpouring of reactionary religion that we're still wading through today. The 50's, in a word, were just as dirty and grimey or worse than today. Racism, sexism, segregation, repression of civil liberties. Not only was this bad, but this was actually better than it had been. Here's the beginning of an article, and the beginning has a nice spin to it.

As the century comes to an end, many observers fear for the future of America's families. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significantly higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in their native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its applicants can write a proper sentence. There's an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among men. Many streets in urban neighborhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin "happy dust". Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs, and drug abuse by middle class wives is skyrocketing. Police see 16-year-old killers, 12-year-old prostitutes, and gang members as young as 11. America at the end of the 1990s? No, America at the end of the 1890s.

It goes on to attack things, and it's sad I only found it now. A nice, solid figure that cuts to the chase is this:

In the 1920s, for the first time a bare majority of American children grew up in families where the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of work. During the 1950s, almost two thirds of children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm, a trend not likely to be reversed in the next century

The 1920's were the ROARING 20's. Debauchery, violence, crime and sin on tap--though alcohol was off. How is this possible? Because the 1950's were a tenuous illusion. Spousal abuse numbers from those days are low in comparison to today not because it was rare but because it was so common it was normal. Child abuse was rampant. It wasn't until the 1960's that child abuse was 'discovered' to have actual deviant roots, and that it wasn't normal to beat your child with a belt to discipline them. Substance abuse, particularly alcoholism and barbituate use, was at an all-time high.

Where is the great society now? Where's the golden yesteryear? And more importantly, why do we ALL need to return to that. This is the crux of their arguement--that is not only improper for them to behave in these ways they deem hedonistic, but that it's not okay for me or anyone else to either. What they are asking for is the obliteration of freedoms that this country was founded on. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest weren't evangelicals. Most of them, as we know, were Deists or Unitarians. Jefferson wrote two things they should all read at least once--The Declaration of Independance and his Jeffersonian Bible. Not that I need to convince them he's right about divinity, but because I want them to realize the chief architects of this nation were not Christian men. They were men, some of whom were Christians, and all of whom wanted freedom for all people more than they wanted family values, national security, or the protection of the institution of marriage.

If they've survived that up there, then they've probably got their head buried in the sand somewhere. They call gays hedonists--why? Is it a lot of fun to be gay? How does someone else being gay destroy their marriage? It can't, of course. If they want to say it's a choice, you can say you disagree, but even so, why is this more an affront than divorce, or adultery, or priests molesting children? That's another big winner from the 1950's. If they say those are all problems, ask if they'd like to outlaw 'em all at once. Marriage is for life, women have no power since they have no income, a little 'stern encouragement' is okay to get her to put out when the man feels like procreating, and we'll throw gays, transsexuals, bisexuals and retards out. If you can't breed, God hates you!

So, now, where are we with the rest? Public discrimination is okay, since if God hates you through the US Lawbooks then we might as well call it the US hating you. We can't let them stay gay so we'll send them to reeducation areas to become good, honest, men-in-gray-suit heterosexual cogs in the great American machine. We'll even give them a house that looks like everyone else's. We'll have a strong foreign policy where we try our very best to spread our truth to the world, save them from themselves, and give our swollen nation a little more breathing room. Since we'll have enemies, we'll cull back some freedoms you weren't really using anyway, and if you aren't doing anything bad it shouldn't matter. Now wher are we? Oh, right. We're goddamn Nazi's now.

Where does this leave gays? Still in America. Truth of the matter is, there's always been gays. You can either tell them to lie about it to avoid persecution from small minded people, or you can deal with it and whine about it at church. And since your church doesn't run my life, I don't need to care. If they want further proof, TJ has a quote for us.

Section 1

The imposition of anything on a human mind, which God made to be free, is hypocritical and mean.
"Almighty God" never coerced anyone to follow him, and the imposition of a religion by government officials is impious.
The coercion of a person to make contributions -- especially monetary -- to a religion he doesn't support is tyrannical and creates favoritism among ministers.
Government involvement in religious matters tends to end in the restraint of religion.
Civil rights do not depend on religious beliefs, and what a person thinks is no business of the government's.

Section 2 (which remains part of Virginia law, in Article 1, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia) declares that:

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. The 793-word statute is divided into three sections. It was put into national practice as the Establishment Clause, known as the Seperation of Church and state. It doesn't say in there you're free to belogn to whatever church you want. It says you are not allowed, by law, to coerce me into believing a single goddamn thing related to religion. It was not just the seperation of Church and State onto the same parts of the podium. It's a bouncer telling Church to wait outside. They can hate gays all they want. I don't care. I don't go to their church. They can protest, they can enflame national debate, they can call me or you or anyone anything they want because we are Americans and that's what it means to be American. But it also means that we are governed by the principle that all men are free, and all free men are equal. End of sentence.

So the real question you need to pose to them is, "Why do you hate America?" Those gays, commies and ethnic minorities are living the American dream--ignoring fuckwads who want to tell them how to live. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

+http://stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article10.htm
--some quote material

[Broomstick]

... the fact Martha and George never had kids together.

[nitpick] Ol' George never had kids of his own because he was, apparently, sterile. Marrying a widow-woman who already had kids is something the fundies would probably support in that case, so maybe that isn't the best example for your arugment [/nitpick]

Otherwise... carry on!

[Covenant]

... the fact Martha and George never had kids together.

[nitpick] Ol' George never had kids of his own because he was, apparently, sterile. Marrying a widow-woman who already had kids is something the fundies would probably support in that case, so maybe that isn't the best example for your arugment [/nitpick]

Otherwise... carry on!

Ehh, they're okay on adoption, but it's about dissecting their hypocrisy. Cohabitation they say is bad, gay marriage is bad, and some folks aren't much in favor of condoms either. It's about having children. If you watch the movie, I forget, "Guess who's coming to dinner," I believe it was, about interracial marriage they make a similar point to the gay marriage issue.

+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who' ... _to_Dinner

Though the girl's parents are fairly liberal, this is a shock to them nonetheless, and her father gets very steamed. Eventually things settle and the movie moves into discussions, and he asks the suitor (well played by Sidney Poitier) if they intend to have kids, and the lines are something like:

Tracy: Have you given any thought to the probIems your chlldren wlll have?

Poitier: Yes, and they'll have some.
And we'll have the chlldren.
Otherwise, you couIdn't call it a marriage.

The reason they harp on gays for being 'hedonists' isn't because they have some secret, intimate knowledge of sweaty gay man sex that I don't that somehow makes them believe it's just too much fun to be legal, but that you can't produce children. They view child-rearing as the point of a marriage. So I was sayin', George and Martha--despite her two previous children--were basically married with no intention of ever having kids. Essentially like a Victorian cohabitation of sorts. I'm glad you read it though, and found something in there to bring up. You see what my insinuation was? George married despite his inability to have kids. Unless we assume he was chaste as a saint, his relationship with her would be by their definition hedonism.

[Covenant]

-edit?- Sorry for the typos, I grabbed it from a transcript. Apparently the person who was writing it doesn't speak good English, or know the difference between an L and an I. Not a slam, I sincerely think they do not.

[Zero]

I guess a more proper reason of why their "family values" position is bullshit could be that study that explains that greater strength of religion in a country actually seemed to come with a greater incidence of social ills, instead of a lesser incidence of them.

[Darth Wong]

It's also noteworthy that none of these fundie groups rose up in outrage when pre-nuptial agreements started becoming popular, nor did they protest when yuppies started getting married with no intention of ever having kids, nor did they rise up in outrage when elderly couples started marrying even though they couldn't possibly have children. All three of these marriage types are just as much of an "assault" upon traditional breeder-marriage arrangements as gay marriage is.

[Lusankya]

I've never actually met an anti-gay fundie because I've led a sheltered life in some respects, but if/when I meet one, I'd like to ask them what they think of observations of homosexuality in animals.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Darth Raptor]

As far as I know, the research is still fairly inconclusive as to whether or not sexual deviancy is hereditary. Saying it's the result of a conscious decision (like a religion) is absurd, but there has to be some environmental psychological factors somewhere. If it were totally genetic, it would have to be a frequently occuring mutation or it would breed itself out of existence- even if it were recessive. A "gay gene" is not conducive to reproducing itself.

So, because I honestly don't know I generally grant them that homosexuality is a choice. Because whether or not it's a choice is totally irrelevant.

[Anguirus]

I thought the research indicated that it's a developmental phenomenon, not an evolutionary one.

[General Zod]

I've never actually met an anti-gay fundie because I've led a sheltered life in some respects, but if/when I meet one, I'd like to ask them what they think of observations of homosexuality in animals.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

I've brought that point up before. Most of the time the typical response I get is "But, but, they're animals! They're just acting out on their beastial instincts and can't control themselves! People have a choice!111!1!!!".

[CaptJodan]

I thought the research indicated that it's a developmental phenomenon, not an evolutionary one.

Last time I checked with twin studies and such the split was something along the lines of 50/20, where 50% seemed to suggest a biological factor of some kind (not necessarily to suggest DNA as the culprit, but it's a born trait) and 20 or so percent being an enviornmental factor, the other 30 being statistical varience or error.

Basically the way it was taught to me was that the current theory is something along the lines of you have a certain disposition when you're born. Much like if your family has a history of cancer or heart disease, you MAY get it too depending on your life choices. The theory I heard suggests that homosexuals may have a disposition to be gay if a certain criteria of enviornmental factors trigger that area of the brain during development.

[CaptJodan]

The 60 minutes story I keep bringing up round here. Take it how you will, but just a follow up to "it's all enviornmental".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/ ... 5230.shtml

[Aaron]

I've never actually met an anti-gay fundie because I've led a sheltered life in some respects, but if/when I meet one, I'd like to ask them what they think of observations of homosexuality in animals.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

I've brought it up before to fundies and they basically say that their animals and they can't control their urges. Even though animals like chimps and dolphins have been shown to have the intelligence of five year old children IIRC.

[Phillip Hone]

Some thing that I find rather annoying is the population growth argument. When I remind them that celibate people must also be immoral by this logic, they reply with "but there aren't enough of them to actually slow down the growth rate". And they don't even seem to realize that the same thing applies to homosexuals.

And I love how they say "it just feels wrong, so we're going to try to pass laws that make your life as difficult as possible"

[Turin]

The 60 minutes story I keep bringing up round here. Take it how you will, but just a follow up to "it's all enviornmental".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/ ... 5230.shtml

There's some really surprising/odd things in that story, like the statistical correlation between having older brothers and right-handed males growing up to be gay... I'd like to see the numbers of the study before I buy that, though. But fuck-me it was annoying to read:

"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay," says Bailey.

Asked if that's true, Bailey says, "That is absolutely true."

What was the point of that line? The whole damn article is filled with that kind of writing. It's like they couldn't decide whether it was an interview transcript or a report.

[Darth Wong]

Some thing that I find rather annoying is the population growth argument.

The population growth argument is so incredibly retarded; do they think that if they don't let gays marry they'll suddenly start popping out kids? They won't make gays breed by not letting them get married.

[NecronLord]

"Gays have been around since forever, back when we called them Greeks."

Hilarious.