Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

I was speaking to U.S. history and tradition, not global history.

 

And the most glaring difference is the bans on interracial marriage were replete with references to race, while these so called bans on gay marriage don't as much as even make mention of sexual orientation.

 

Same sex bans specifically target homosexual couples.

 

Let's pretend for a second that you aren't wrong. In this hypothetical world, why should it be illegal for two men to marry? Why not allow it?

 

Still waiting on that whole "debunking" thing that was promised.....

 

No it doesn't make reference to orientation. It is discrimination against sex.

 

No, two heterosexual men would be equally excluded. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation of the parties to the couple. It is their relative genders.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to every court creating gay marriage on the basis of their claim that it is discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

 

Nobody stops them. I saw a guy marry his horse once. We dont encourage men to marry their horse with tax breaks and governmental entitlements because that would serve no legitimate governmental interest. Just as encouraging people of the same sex to marry serves no legitimate governmental interest.
Now lets pretend for a moment I am wrong. Lets see from you, ANY marriage related statute that as much as even mentions sexual orientation. I cant duplicate them all here to show you the absence of even one, but it would be simple and easy for you to copy and paste just one of these statutes with reference to sexual orientation. Show us you are not full of (*)(*)(*)(*) here with your "let's pretend" BS.

 

On my "Quotes Game"....this one?

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid (their marriages)."

Sound familiar? Perhaps from those who talk about "procreation" or "potential for procreation"?


Here's the original source-



State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

 

Yes it has that effect. But the bans were out in place specifically to discriminate against homosexuals

 

Many of the state bans were part of a POLITICAL strategy by GOP operative Karl Rove to get the Base to turn out in 2004.

Ironically, as opposition to gay marriage drops, Rove, just as cynically, would tell Republicans in Purple States to oppose the bans.

 

It does to a extent.

 

Pretending that restricting marriage on the basis of sex isn't an attempt to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation by proxy fools no one but those who wish to fool themselves.

 

It's like the homophobes who try to say "I don't want gays discriminated against in marriage rights....I want a gay man to have the right to marry any WOMAN he wants."

 

Its biology. Men and women becoming husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children. Marriages limitation to men and women predates the founding of our country, AND the invention of sexual orientation. Absurd to claim its an intent to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Matrimony, Latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

I completely understand the tax break issue you present, removing tax credits from marriage and instituting child care credits would solve this, unfortunately no one is calling for this rather they just want gays to remain excluded.

Back to your original point though, what governmental interest is achieved by issuing tax credits to infertile and elderly married couples? Should they receive these benefits simply because they may be heterosexual?

 

Biology predates the human concept of both religious and legal marriage.

False, SSM existed in multiple periods before America was founded. Your appeal to tradition is not only invalid it is inaccurate.

You are not asserting that sexual orientation was made up, are you?

No one is advocating calling men mother in this debate, not seeing your point on this one...

 

Marriage does not exist to serve the government's interest. It exists for the people. We don't encourage bestiality because animals cannot consent to sex. We should allow same sex marriage because a great many people want it and there is no legitimate reason to deny them it.

And the legislation does not need to explicitly mention gay people to be homophobic legislation. What you're doing right now is like saying "Man, I sure hate people with a history of enslavement in the US that were legally kept separate from the population until recently." and pretending that isn't racist because it doesn't directly mention black people.

It's quite obvious that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to justify your homophobia here.

 

Are you joking, or did that actually happen? I thought it was a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

What are some historical examples of gay marriage happening before America was founded? Gay marriage is a recent invention. It didnt exist before the 1600s.

 

Repeatedly refute. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. Matrimony is a religious institution. Marriage is a legal institution, so mentioning it is really stupid.

 

Solve what? I suspect that would lead to 100s of thousands of more children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers because the woman didn't intend to procreate. The idea is to have the marriage in place before they procreate. Frequently when they do, its too late. As well, certainly wouldn't give a woman much security if she has only the hope of a marriage proposal when she gives birth. Is it really worth all of that, ALL to prevent from offending the homosexuals who cant participate with each other.

 

mat·ri·mo·ny noun \ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē\

: the joining together of a man and woman as husband and wife

Full Definition of MATRIMONY

: the state of being married : marriage

Origin of MATRIMONY

Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron — more at mother
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony

 

Yes it does. Both the legal and religious marriage reflect that biology. In ancient Mesopotamia a wife was purchased like a slave. If she didn't produce a child, a refund of the purchase price was due. In BC Rome

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Biology. Has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation or an intent to discriminate against homosexuals. It wasn't based upon sexual orientation then, or now-

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

 

Your statement doesn't contradict mine, so youll need to point to what it is you think is false, invalid or inaccurate. Your silly little proclamations are pretty much meaningless. .

 

Neither the New York times opinion piece, or the e-how article goes into sufficient depth to draw a firm conclusion that marriage licenses were largely created to prevent miscegenation. They certainly were used as a tool to prevent miscegenation, since without a valid marriage license the couple could be arrested for cohabitation or fornication, regardless of the race of the race, though I'm sure mixed-race couples were targeted more often for enforcement of that rule.

A definitive answer probably can be found in Nancy Cott's book "Public Vows, which goes into detail about the history of marriage in the United States. Looks like I've got another book to add to my reading list...