If homosexual marriage is wrong, why not interracial marriage?

Question

How can we justify not allowing homosexual marriage if we were
using the exact same words to disallow interracial marriage 80
years ago? That is - how can the argument be wrong then and
right now?

People keep saying "Apples and Oranges"
but do not say WHY.

"Its different."

"Why?"

"Cause its different."

Not helpful.

Answer 1

You're talking a belief (moral) issue. Some believe that God stated in the bible that homosexualilty is wrong. Never heard of anyone saying that the bible said interracial couples is wrong.

My personal belief. To each his own and let God handle it.
Judge not lest ye be judged.

Answer 2

The argument wasn't wrong *then*, it is wrong *now*. Just as the arguments against the homosexual marriage will be "wrong" and obsolete 20 years from now. There's no "objective" right or wrong, but as the society's moral climate changes, the rules of what acceptable can change as well.

There are "good" arguments for everything; I'm sure, a 100 years ago it was common sense that women just couldn't be trusted to vote, and it would be ridiculous to insist otherwise. And during the Spanish Inquisition, it was perfectly acceptable to burn people at the stake. Many things have changed since then, and they will continue to change.

P.S. You're right, it's not different. What's different is the subject matter, but not the nature of the argument. Discrimination is as old as humanity itself, and in every culture it made perfect sense to discriminate against this or that class of people.

Answer 3

I think eventually, yes they will. Prop 8 with this current court? I'm afraid not. I watched the three hour oral arguments yesterday. The court doesn't seem too pleased with the plaintiff's arguments (and one justice who in May voted to overturn the statutory ban on gay marriage on grounds of equal protection, yesterday was arguing essentially that civil unions are sufficient). The fact that we're in completely uncharted judicial territory here also doesn't help. The CA supreme court is a rather prudent court. The May 2008 ruling that made same-sex marriage legal only passed with the vote of one justice. With Justice Kannard now believing that civil unions grant "all the substantive rights of marriage", I don't think the plaintiffs will have the minimum of 4 justices to overturn proposition 8. She's being rather irrational if you ask me, and I find it telling that she didn't even bother answering Mr. Morocco's hypothetical question of what she would think if California voters ratified an amendment saying that only men can be California Supreme Court justices, and that women, while having "all the same substantive rights" will be called "court counselors". I'm worried about the precedence set by this court if they were to uphold proposition 8. Even the counsel for the detractors (Mr. Ken Starr) explicitly stated that Californians do, and should have the ability to seize the rights of any suspect class, anytime they wish, no matter how crude, barbaric, inhumane, irrational, or irresponsible as long as it's done through a constitutional amendment. I think every Californian should watch the oral arguments and hear this creep for themselves, and this should make all of us Californians pause and think twice about our referendum process. It's so *frivolously* executed that our state, though less than 200 years old, has OVER 500 AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTION while the nation, 231 years old, has only 27! We might as well have our constitution written on a chalk board! PS: The quote you provided is *not* from the US Supreme Court case "Loving V. Virginia". It's from the presiding judge in Loving's *conviction* of miscegenation in "Perry Loving V. State", which along with "The Racial Integrity Act of 1924" was overturn *in* "Loving V. Virginia". I know you love it when I nit-pick :-p

Answer 4

well homosexual marriage is marriage between same sexes. A man and a man. or a woman and a woman, which is totally out of even nature. Have you seen a male dog humping on another male dog? Out of nature.
About Interracial marriage. Well there is no such thing called race. Race is what people come up with in the late 1700 or so to isolate themselves from other people who look different.
Added to that the colonization area made racial conflict to go beyond control.
So if you believe that we all bleed red regardless of our melanin content which might result from environmental factors, then interracial marriage should not have been even a question back in the 60's.
Well as most racist lack brain, they don't to think before they act. But if you think it twice, what is the difference between White and Asian or Black and Arab neglecting what is seen on the outside?
And if you believe the things written in the Bible you notice that people used to marry from different "races" as in Moses the Jew to the Ethiopian. Joseph the Jew to the Egyptian. So interracial marriage has existed from the ancient of times.
Well you might also say what about Sodom and Gomorrah. Sure but that was considered sexual immorality. Nature even tells you that.
if you consider sexual act between two men, they are using the part of their body which is not used for sex. It cause infection. But consider the act between man and woman, the PH of the woman's organ is so balanced to adjust to any acidic/alkaline PH the man's sperm can have. You see how nature even tells us how things should be done.
Can you tell me any thing ,as far as nature is concerned, that prevents an Asian from Marrying a Black person? or any other major different race mix?

Answer 5

I don't buy the argument about the slippery slope with gay "marriage" or partnerships. Heterosexuals have done a great job of wrecking the institution of marriage themselves. Hence, such a high divorce rate.

Besides, marriage is a legal institution first and foremost recognizing two people's relationships. Why should it discriminate one the basis of someones sexual preference?

Answer 6

if u want to know what is rite or wrong,go to the author!! In this case who invented marriage and what was the model? Whoever it is am sure u know that it is supposed be btwn pipo of the opposite sex. It does not spell out what colour, height or size- What should never be compromised is gender-male and female. Anything else is pure madness!! Check out the animals!! Do they have more brains than you? Maybe so!

Answer 7

It's the same kind of people trying to preserve the world as it was then as it is now. They are afraid of what they do not know, and rather then learn to live with something new they would rather shun it. But just as life and death are inevitable, change is inevitable. We cannot revoke the rights of other human beings to do something that inflicts no harm on us forever.

Answer 8

The bible clearly states that one is a sin and the other one is NOT stated as a sin. It says that men who lie with men will NOT inherit God's kingdom, it does not say that white people who lie down with black people or what ever the race may be will NOT inherit God's kingdom.....Catch the point?

Answer 9

i personally don't think either is wrong, but to answer your question on the homosexual marriages,it was explained to me that it is worded by law that a marriage is between husband and wife meaning man and woman. i don't agree with it personally, but the government is so screwed up that they are contradicting theirselves. i think that if you love a person regardless of gender or color or whatever, you should be able to marry. hope this helps :-)

Answer 10

I agree one shouldn't be wrong without the other being wrong hell i say cheers to gay marriage why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to live in hell along with the rest of us married people