Why are the arguments used against gay marriage the same that were used back in the day against interracial?

Question

marriage?Does that say anything about the validity and morality of those arguments?

Answer 1

It says quite a lot about them. I remember sitting in front of the TV as a little girl watching the Southern Baptists march against desegregation. They had Bible scripture on their placards right next to racial epithets. They thought God was on their side then too. Because they didn't get their way a good many of them left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Now they again use their Bibles to claim God is a bigot. They are about as moral as my cat.

Answer 2

The problem lies with the way the civil rights legislation came to be, using Supreme Court decisions. I think that the Court could have decided the decisions the same way without resorting to the 1st amendment.

When the Court used the 1st amendment for this "populace oriented" legislation, the Court left open forever, the 1st amendment to popular winds of change, and that goes against "stare decisis" or the rule of law as interpreted by prior law.

Ordinary public policy analysis could have reached the same results. The federal government has no right in certain arenas. One of those arenas is the Church. Another is the State.

Yes, certain states had "jim crow laws," and yes, those were a violation of 1st amendment rights, among others. But the court could have handled it differently, without leaving the first amendment so vague and open to continually creating new classes of people. The Federal government could have refused to provide funding to those states, similarly to what the federal government did in the 1980's with the refusal of highway funds to states with drinking ages under 21.

Homosexual marriage is creating a new thing. Using ordinary public policy analysis, it falls, because the only reason the state ever had the right to regulate marriage was its compelling interest in controlling offspring (offspring of siblings, for example).

So, the arguments are the same, because the logic is the same. The federal government must stay out of rights reserved to the states.

Answer 3

Perhaps we will eat gays when the fundamentals decide that gays are less human and therefore will better serve humanity as food. I hope it doesn't happen, but that's just an extreme opinion since the first opinion is also extreme. Who really marries cows? Although, I have read about a man who was forced to marry a goat because he raped it. I don't remember what country it was in though. By the way, humans are technically animals and I think you mean baby?

Answer 4

I think the same arguments are used, because the same type of people are making those arguments.

Answer 5

Give me a break. The reason I object to two men (women) playing house and trying to pretend it is a marriage is because in a traditional marriage children are the natural result. Marriage is about a lot more than two people wanting to live together. It evolved with society over the years as a way to protect children.

From what I hear most gays don't even want this just a fanatic few who have deluded themselves into believing that they are entitled to anything they want.

Answer 6

Because people can't deal with their anxieties except through means of control.

Answer 7

even if you believe there should be marriage, you cant be serious. obviosuly the arguments are quite different, sense one is an ethnic community and the other is a community that shares sexual orientation.

Answer 8

live and let live heidi thats what i say as long as ppl are'nt hurting each other or anybody else who cares what they do.

Answer 9

Being homosexual is about your DNA not your sexual preferences, until the majority of the American people understand and except this we are fighting a uphill battle

Answer 10

Because society is resistent to change.