How Loaded Can A Question Get?

When I was checking out the keywords that people used to find this blog in 2011 for the previous post, I came across a very curious keyword that deserves its own post.

I couldn’t help laugh — it was probably the most loaded question I’ve ever seen, and absolutely ridiculous. What a lucky find! I have no idea how this led to my blog since it does not come up on a Google search for the above phrase. What does come up is a very interesting religious studies quiz on Brainmass.com. The site seems to sell academic answers for all subjects so it’s not a Christian site per se — but the 3 question quiz on marriage, love and human society is a gem. Here are the 3 questions with a few comments.

1. Jack, 21, and Barb, 20, have decided to live together for sexual pleasure and also because they enjoy each others company. Barb has decided to take birth control pills, and they have agreed to share the expenses. They have both agreed that if either one wants to break off the relationship, they will part amiably. Do you think what they are doing is moral? In your opinion, what problems could arise from this arrangement? Justify your answers with reason.

Obviously this question is worded so that the “correct” Christian-studies answer would be no. The construction of the question to give this answer is obvious. Note that sexual pleasure is given as the main reason for the two living together and enjoying company is an afterthought. I also love the bit about sharing expenses — either the egalitarianism is meant to count as a negative or the garden path you’re being put on is that even though the couple thinks they’re nice and egalitarian they’re still doing A Great Wrong^TM.

Finally the bit about planning to part amiably if there’s a breakup is clearly meant to suggest that things are likely to end in tears even though they didn’t anticipate this. Because the average breakup must be THOUSANDS of times more emotionally traumatic than the average divorce. Right? Right? The whole thing is one of the loopiest caricatures of de facto couples living together that I’ve ever seen. And yet it’s all done by stealth.

2. Victor works with Jeremy, whom he always considers to be smart, witty and athletic. One night Jermey invites him to his apartment that he shares with Russ. Victor is shocked to learn that the two are lovers. They do not appear effeminate. They are not child molesters either, nor do they march in gay parades. They only have a quiet relationship. Is what they are doing moral? Why or why not? What if they did march in gay parades?

This one is just as obscene. It’s obviously set up to get the student to say that despite all the “mitigating” factors, the couple is still doing A Great Wrong^TM. In which case it’s very telling that it’s supposed to be “mitigating” that the men are not effeminate. Especially since other than the prohibition of cross-dressing, there’s not much in the Bible about generally “effeminate” behaviour. There are of course strict gender roles from the society it was written in. But I think the question is talking about mannerisms — a different beast entirely. Which just goes to show yet again that anti-gay prejudice goes way beyond what may be biblically defended.

Finally there’s the gold of matter-of-factly mentioning child molestation and marching in gay pride parades in the same sentence. And of course the fact that the couple aren’t child molesters has to be specified as extra information! It’s good when the veneer of niceness is so transparent that you can’t be fooled about the ugliness beneath.

3. A small city has one street that has several stores selling pornorgraphic films, books, and devices. The managers at the stores do check IDs, to make sure that no one underage comes in. However, certain religious groups want to have the license of these stores revoked because they are of the opinion that such stores ae a bad influence on the community. Should the licenses of these stores be revoked because what they are doing is immoral? Why or why not?

For this one I’m not completely sure what the answer is meant to be. But there’s a reason why. The question is framed specifically as religious groups trying to impose their morality on others — and I don’t think most religious groups who do this actually see it this way. Then again, it’s probably just hard to empathise with such a mindset when it’s so different to your own. I still think the answer is probably “yes because these stores are encouraging lust”.