Question by .: How is interracial marriage and same sex marriage the same?
Marrying a member of the same gender is not the same as marrying a person of a different race because race and gender are not parallel, they’re not the same and here’s why. There is no difference between a white human and a black human’s psyche, but there are immense differences between a man and a woman’s psyche. Men and women are equal but not the same. If you are attracted to men and not women (regardless of your gender) you notice that men and women are not the same too, if you are attracted to women and not men (regardless of your gender) you notice that men and women are not the same also.
A lot of these traditional marriage beliefs also have to do with children. People who are against same-sex marriage, believe children should think when they grow up they will get married, they should not have to think, am I going to marry a boy or a girl? Children today face enough sexual confusion without adding that.
When it comes to raising children, most people who are pro traditional marriage believe that two men can not replace 1 good mother’s role in a (boy or girl) child’s development, and believe two women can not replace 1 good father’s role in a (boy or girl) child’s development. I don’t think two men could replace my mother and give me the things my mother gave me, and I don’t think two women could replace my father and give me the things my father gave me, and that’s how most of the people who are against gay marriage feel. Thinking men and women both have different, but equally important qualities, is legit.
The argument is some homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, since gays are discriminated against they feel we should redefine marriage, because they feel it is their civil right to have their relationships honored in the law, they use Loving vs. Virginia (the 1967 supreme court case where interracial marriage was legalized) as a point of reference, and they feel not giving it to them is a violation of their civil rights, but the same argument could be said for Muslims and polygamy.
Some Muslims believe in polygamy, since Muslims are discriminated against should we redefine marriage to where polygamy is legal for consenting adults, because they feel it is their civil right to have their relationships honored in the law, they use Loving vs. Virginia as a point of reference, and they feel not giving it to them is a violation of their civil rights? When people use the separate but equal Loving vs. Virgina case, as an argument to pervert the definition of marriage of man and wife, to man and man or woman and woman, what’s to stop people from using the same argument to deviate further to man, woman and woman or woman, man and man?
The legitimacy of the arguments heterosexuals and homosexuals, have against polygamy in consenting adults, are equivalent to the legitimacy of arguments heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage have. Heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage can be labeled hateful bigots, and as having an irrational fear of homosexuals (homophobic) and by the same logic, the same way, homosexuals and heterosexuals who do not support polygamy can be labeled hateful bigots, and as having an irrational fear of polygamists, the labels in both cases are equivalent in their validity or lack thereof.
There was a church in California covered on CNN that gay protesters were going after because they would not marry 2 homosexuals, a couple months before prop 8 passed. People that are against same sex marriage recognize that if gay marriage is legalized in the United States nationwide, Church’s will be legally required to marry gay couples or they can be sued, loose their licenses and loose their tax exempt status. Teacher’s who teach Human development will be legally required to include gay sex in their curriculum, even if they don’t believe in it, or they’ll loose their job, both instances would be reprehensible. People say same sex marriage is none of straight people’s business, but both of those cases are very much the business of heterosexuals.
For those of you who want to just resort to name calling and personal insults, (because I present a respectful, civil, and legitimate argument) without articulating a response, just leave your stupid comment and move on.
This is adressing a slanted opinion Judith D, if you read the whole thing you would realize this has to do with the future of everyone
No church has been forced to marry homosexuals. You can get a license in court. The issue was that they denied business for a commitment ceremony, not a marriage.
because It hasn’t been legalized nationwide yet
If you bring up the argument of children… you are might as well ban having children outside of marriage, because you’re saying the exact same thing.
I never suggested banning having children outside of marriage, you did
You’re against the relationship itself, that’s your problem and why you are a bigot.
You might as well make being gay illegal… which you can’t do, since sex of any type between two consenting adults is their own business.
Your putting words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head
“If you’re neighbors were gay, how would it make any difference to you if they were married or not.”
Once again I did not suggest that you did
I mentioned marriage not the unmarried
“People use the same arguments against interracial marriage that were used 50 years ago. (God didn’t intend the races to mix… to be short… the argument was)”
and you are using the same argument muslims who believe in poligamy can use, I notice you ignore most of the post that refutes your Loving vs. Virginia argument
“A lot of your points are simply unsupported”
by homosexuals
“In my view, marriage should be between two consenting adults, preferably those who actually love each other. Take all the religious aspects out of gay marriage and make it a union.”
That is your view
“3. Gays cannot propagate: First off, we are decreasing in fertility rates as determined by the availability of resources. People will mate with a lot of resources and won’t when resources are limited. By 2050, the population is expected to reach about 9 to 11 billion people. “
“We need less people to mate.“
What you’re suggesting is counterproductive to the human race
“Furthermore, should all other heterosexuals who can’t mate such as steril individuals or people with deleterious genes (such as Huntingtons) be prohibited from marriage? We allow those people to freely marry even if there would be a problem with their genes.”
I never suggested all heterosexuals who can’t mate such as steril individuals or
people with deleterious genes (such as Huntingtons) be prohibited from marriage, you did
“3. Gays cannot be an ideal family: The divorce rates in this country are up to 50 percent. Until we make marriage permanent, then citing anything that gays cannot make as good of a family as a straight family is ridiculous.”
Ridiculous to you, and people who share your skewed views and demands
“4. Gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage: What about Anna Nicole, Britney Spears, Bristol Palin…what are the legitimacies of their marriages or near marriages? And for that fact, how will someone elses marriage “
When the definition of marriage is changed it is not just the gay definition, it’s the definition for everyone in the united states
“ruin your marriage?”
There was no mention of “ruin” in my post
Ultimately, gays just want to be recognized and receive all the benefits that heterosexual couples receive. They don’t want to ruin your marriage.
Fine, call it civil unions and not marriage, my marriage is between a man and a woman, and they are trying to pervert that
“They don’t want to make laws making people marry animals.”
How is polygamy between consenting human adults, related to animals? And when did I mention animals?
“You were talking about a commitment ceremony, which all they wanted to do was lease the land their church owned, which they do to hetero couples as well, the problem was they broke a law by denying them because they were gay. A Catholic church can refuse to marry someone of a different belief, no one is forcing ANY church to marry anyone.”
That should still be a violation of the freedom of religion
“You can’t tell me it’s okay for people to be gay and you simply don’t want them to be married. You’d be lying if you don’t approve of their relationship.”
(Once again I did not suggest that you did)
And you could actually share what you think there instead of saying that’s not what you suggested, though whether two people are married or not doesn’t change how you live your life.”
So since you don’t believe in polygamy in consenting adults, does that make you bigoted against Muslims who believe in polygamy?
“Loving v. Virginia was deemed unconstitutional due to restriction on race. My point is that your religion does not make the laws of a secular nation. Just because your god doesn’t approve of something, doesn’t mean you’re going to impede on the rights of others. That’s exactly why slavery existed. It was okay, because we never gave them rights in the first place.
Our God never approved of enslaving another race, our God never disapproved of interracial marriage, people did.
”The rights of a minority should never be voted on by the majority.”
Christians are not considered minorities but Muslims are considered minorities, And once again you ignore how I pointed out that race and gender are not the same
Separate is not equal, we already know that. The real problem is that we are a secular nation, not a theocracy. Your religion doesn’t make our laws. That’s what you’re talking about when you say perversion.
So are boy scouts and girls scouts separate but equal as well? When I say pervert, I mean the dictionary definition of “to lead astray”
“Maybe you just don’t want to drink from the same water fountain as gays, so you rather give them a separate water fountain.”
That’s laughable, considering I never said that, and what would you know about drinking from a separate fountain?
“Race and gender are not the same, but sexism and racism are both bigotry. Christians are the majority by numbers, but as I said, the majority doesn’t get to make whatever laws they please to enforce on everyone else.”
I made a point by saying I think men and women both have different, but equally important qualities, you are trying to say that either man or woman is not important, so by your logic, it is you were are sexist and by the same logic, in all fairness, you must believe Muslims who believe in polygamy should be able have polygamy legalized in the untied states, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
So suddenly your marriage is not special to you anymore because gays can marry too? And no, boy scouts and girl scouts are not equal, boy scouts don’t allow gays and atheists into their organization.
Gay’s can not nationally marry yet, and so your saying any type of club just for men, where there is the same type of club for just for women is separate but not equal?
”Just seems to me you think if you’re sharing something with people who you deem as less than yourself somehow ruins it for you.”
Well it seems to me that you don’t know your @ss from you elbow, especially when you bring up drinking from a “gays” only fountain, or being made to sit in the front or the back of the bus for that matter.
I still bet you can’t honestly say it’s okay for someone to be gay, just not okay for them to marry.
Being gay is your choice, it’s your right, gay’s don’t “marry” because under the definition it is marriage is still a union between a man and a woman
It took you and hour and a half to come up with that crap?
I still bet you can’t honestly say it’s okay for Muslims to practice polygamy legally in the United States
I’m willing to share marriage as it is defined, so if you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, i’m all for it
Best answer:
Answer by Lam Son 666
There not the same they use interracial marriage, because they have no other argument.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
