How to answer fundies.

[kengr]

griffen got me thinking. And this occurred to me:

"Ok, you say that homosexuality is immoral and therefore there ought to be laws against it? Fine. Coffee and other caffinated beverages are immoral. Ask the Mormons. Blood transfusions are immoral. Ask the Jehovah's Witnesses."

"What, you say they are just religious nutcases? Sorry, but their religions are *just* as valid as yours. The First Amendment says so. So unless you want to let them make *their* morals the law of the land, you can't make yours the law either."

Comments

[mistresscayenne.livejournal.com]

VERY valid point.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I can tell you right now what answer you'll get. "But that's DIFFERENT!"

They won't be able to explain HOW it's different, but they still just know it is.

(Have used similar arguments on homophobes before, this is how I know.)

[kengr]

Oh I know a lot will do that. But when they do, it makes them look like exactly what they are to *other* people.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[kengr]

Oh yeah, the local anti-gay folks got rather upset when someone submoitted an argument "for" one of their anti-gay ballot initiatives that brought up all the other stuff from Leviticus and the Secretary of State dutifully published it in the Voter's Pamphlet.

After the second time it happened, they tried to sue. And the courts sided with the Secretary of State. It isn't his job to decide if something is "really" a for or against argument.

They tried doing something similar with an "against" argument the next election but couldn't really make it work.