Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

If you don't get that, either you're a flicking idiot, or you have not sufficiently studied history. Or both.

 

It's an appeal to tradition. It was the exact same argument against interracial marriage.

Articulate a logical reason. Just because it has always been this way isn't a logical reason.

Basically your argument is that it isn't usual.

Since the title of this thread is your claim that they aren't the same, please explain the differences.

 

thats the difference.

 

I agree, but the difference is semantics. The similarities are the core.

Bans on same sex marriage are based solely on prejudice.

You are saying that homosexual couples can't marry because they are the same sex. You are discriminating against sex.

You are saying it should be exclusive to opposite sex couples. You haven't given any logical reason.

Other than interracial marriages being about race and not sex there isn't any difference. Each one was founded on nonsense and argued for by appealing to customs.

 

Was there ever a custom banning interracial marriage? From what I know about this subject, for centuries (up until the american racism of the 18 and 1900s) interracial marriage was allowed.

 

From an old post-

Are these quotes from opponents of GAY MARRIAGE....or opponents of INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE-


1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage."

2. "This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. "State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America."

4. "“It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. "This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. "This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. "This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. ""I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

 

Of course that was the custom. The United States created marriages licenses to prevent interracial marriage in the first place. The entire history of the marriage license is rooted in discrimination, and it is still being corrected.

 

You might ask Sam why Thomas Jeffreson didn't marry Sally Hemmings?

 

I am not really interested I this distraction.

Your argument is still the same. "they shouldn't be allowed to marry because some people don't like it."

Semantics are different, one discriminates against race, the other against sex.

 

I suggest you do some actual research on your comment . .you might even learn something.

 

Try popping over to the Abortion section and you will see he does it there as well.

 

You might want to check your history of marriage licenses in the US. The marriage license predates the US by at least a century. I wouldn't go so far to say that marriage licenses were created solely to prevent interracial marriage, but the use of them by various states certainly made it a lot easier to ban interracial marriages.

 

Comparing men marrying women to men marrying men is NOT the same thing. So people using that argument are comparing two dissimilar things. It is one of the weaker argument put forth and frankly I wish they would just toss it aside in favor of more substantive arguments.

That being said there is no valid argument against denying anyone the ability to marry whom they choose so long as they are not hurting anyone else. Gay people getting married hurts absolutely no one.

 

I think he means prior to the US system of institutionalized racism. The fact is that interracial marriage was not illegal throughout the vast majority of human history. The one and probably only advantage to being a slave in one of the Spanish colonies was that they didn't have any issues with intermixing of races. While skin color did have an impact on your social status it wasn't as binary as it was in the US.

Case in point one only has to look at the number of war brides taken by various empires throught history, especially among the most dominant empires like the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Vikings etc. None of them had hangups about mixing it up with outsiders.

 

The similarities are that people can't get married based on what they are. How they are born.

 

The argument is about as valid as saying black being banned from infantry is the same as women being banned from infantry. It is also insulting because there is no threat of death if two gay people run off and get married secretly. There was threat of violence and death of two people were caught in an interracial relationship much less marriage. It demeans the plight of peole that actually went through those times. Its almost as insuling as when gay rights activists compare their history to that of the Civil Rights movement.

The historical reason for marriage being given special status was precisely for raising children. However, marriage is no longer about raising children as many married couples opt out of having kids and in fact the fastest growing segment giving birth are single moms. Marriage also needs to be removed from the realm of Federal government. Marriage is a contract, nothing more and nothing less between adults. As I said there is no valid argument for not allowing two gay people to marry anymore.

 

Incorrect. It's like saying a black man being banned from serving the infantry is similar to a homosexual man being banned from infantry.

In your city maybe. It shouldn't be insulting.

There are threats of church sanctioned abuse, violence, hatred just for the very statement.

What do you think "civil right" means? Homosexuals are fighting for civil rights. We(*)may not have to fight for the right to vote, but I was only talking about marriage. Perhaps it's only insulting to you because you feel that homosexuals have less right to fight for their civil rights.



[QUOTE ]The historical reason for marriage being given special status was precisely for raising children.[/QUOTE]Gay people raise children. I and my husband are gay, and we are raising a child.

That wouldn't matter in the least because as you said marriage is/was about raising children. Gay people can and do raise children.

I agree it should be left to the people, but the states insist on butting in, thus the Fed will have to get involved.

I dont believe there was ever a valid argument to be opposed to same sex marriages.

 

"These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas"

As are the bans on same-sex marriages.

 

How do you know it has? Answer: You don't. You're the one with the weak argument. You couldn't even address FreshAir's arguments, taking refuge instead in being dismissive and repeating your man/woman marriage mantra. Laughable.

 

Exactly

 

Whether or not there was or wasn't is irrelevant to the question of whether same-sex couples' marriages should be legally recognized. It's the usual bait and switch - pretend to be discussing whether or not same-sex couples' marriages should be recognized by discussing absolutely anything else to avoid dealing with those marriages on their own merits.

 

Gay people raise children. I and my husband are gay, and we are raising a child. That wouldn't matter in the least because as you said marriage is/was about raising children. Gay people can and do raise children. I agree it should be left to the people, but the states insist on butting in, thus the Fed will have to get involved.

I dont believe there was ever a valid argument to be opposed to same sex marriages.[/QUOTE]

Its insulting because I constantly hear the comparisons of the gay marriage struggle as being the same as the civil rights movement. There couldn't be a bigger difference in which group went through more. Gays were not brought over as slaves nor were they treated as second class citizens with segregation for 100 years after the Civil War. Gays have experienced nothing compared to blacks, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians and multitudes of other groups around the world and it is obnoxious when they claim they have suffered like them. It is a unique struggle but it is NOWHERE near as bad as other groups have had to deal with. People that say that gays have suffered like blacks or Jews are ignorant with no historical perspective. They didn't even go through half the crap that woman's suffrage did.

The Fed is shooting down unconstitutional laws which is fine because that is under the purview of SCOTUS.

The only way I would support special privileges for married people is if somehow the world lost 99% of its population from a zombie apocalypse and we had to repopulate or risk extinction by an alien armada that discovered will arrive in 50 years. In that case I am all for giving tax breaks and ........hell free housing to couples with multiple kids. Even then there is no reason to deny two gay people the right to marry I just wouldnt' give them any of the resources or incentives since they aren't going to help much with building an army. But yes there is no reason to deny it to other people.

I was talking about why historically marriages were treated differently. I view marriage as a contract and that is all. Two people (or more, I don't even care about polygamy) agree to terms and if they don't fulfill them they void the contract.

 

Nobody ever said gay people went through these struggles. I said there are similarities between same sex marriage and interracial marriage. I was not at all taking about black people, Jews, Chinese and so forth. I was talking about couples that are not accepted.
Couples that often involve a white person.

QUOTE]I agree, government shouldn't really be involved with it much. But right now some states are fighting tooth and nail to be involved. They want to be involved.

 

When I first posted my "Is this quote about gay marriage ...or inter-racial marriage" OP......Sam missed several he thought were about gay marriage, but were about inter-racial marriage.

 

It is you who is misinformed. Marriage licenses were created largely with the purpose to regulate marriage in order to prevent miscegenation.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html

You also mistake common law marriages for the apparatus we have today. "The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The history of the marriage license is rooted in discrimination. That is an indisputable fact.