Arguments against gay marriage echo those heard against racial intermarriage

Jan 6, 2013 Full story: www.courier-journal.com 138

When Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Pike County, Ky., voted last year to bar interracial couples as members, the condemnation was swift and universal: The head of the county ministers association said, "This is not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form."

Full Story

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#21 Jan 7, 2013
Hillbilly Ninja wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an avid participant in auto-eroticism. Am I too going to hell?
Only if your palms are hairy.

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#22 Jan 7, 2013
Of course, these people are nuts, but one way they can rationalize the distinction is the fact that the Bible (not the Hebrew or Koine but their beloved Queen James version), if it says anything at all about interracial marriages, is not very clear about them.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#23 Jan 7, 2013
Here is a chart that compares the arguments against inter-racial marriage to the arguments against gay marriage equality. As this article and the other links supplied demonstrate, they are essentially the same arguments.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#24 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Here is a chart that compares the arguments against inter-racial marriage to the arguments against gay marriage equality. As this article and the other links supplied demonstrate, they are essentially the same arguments.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...
where's the column for polygamy as many of the arguments are also the same...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#25 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Here is a chart that compares the arguments against inter-racial marriage to the arguments against gay marriage equality. As this article and the other links supplied demonstrate, they are essentially the same arguments.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...
funny how many have to do with the kids...
even though you deny that was ever a consideration...

say, can interracial couples have kids TOGETHER?
can gays?

Do interracial couples provide both a MOM and DAD?

So the arguments against gay marriage are not really the same are they?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#26 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
where's the column for polygamy as many of the arguments are also the same...
If you check the chart, you will see polygamy was offered as an excuse to deny interracial marriage, just as it is offered as an excuse to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect. The unsupportable argument offered was that if it is allowed then polygamy will have to be allowed.

Of course it is an irrational argument because polygamy requires changing the property and custody laws while interracial marriage and same sex marriage require no changes to the laws that affect "what" a marriage is legally. All that is changed is who can participate. No change in the numbers, age, or informed consent requirements are needed.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#27 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you check the chart, you will see polygamy was offered as an excuse to deny interracial marriage, just as it is offered as an excuse to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect. The unsupportable argument offered was that if it is allowed then polygamy will have to be allowed.
Of course it is an irrational argument because polygamy requires changing the property and custody laws while interracial marriage and same sex marriage require no changes to the laws that affect "what" a marriage is legally. All that is changed is who can participate. No change in the numbers, age, or informed consent requirements are needed.
where are the arguments against polygamy compared?

If it was included (and why ISNT a marriage right included here?? I know why) you would see lots of the same arguments currently used to properly deny polygamy...

And again, where is the mother and father argument?

where is the procreation argument?

All you chart shows is that we are focused on kids when we discuss marriage ALL THE TIME...not just for gays...
something you often deny by sticking your head in the sand...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#28 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Of course it is an irrational argument because polygamy requires changing the property and custody laws while interracial marriage and same sex marriage require no changes to the laws that affect "what" a marriage is legally.
see how the sperm donors to lesbians are getting rung up as a daddy by the law?

proof you guys don't fit with our current system..
so is that a proper reason to deny rights or not?

consistency is not your virtue...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#29 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how many have to do with the kids...
even though you deny that was ever a consideration...
say, can interracial couples have kids TOGETHER?
can gays?
Do interracial couples provide both a MOM and DAD?
So the arguments against gay marriage are not really the same are they?
Justice Scalia denies procreation was ever a requirement for marriage.

Some interracial couples can have kids together, but some are too old or otherwise infertile. Yet ability to procreate is not and has never been a requirement for marriage.

Yet many gay couples do have children, just like many straight couples do with the help of assisted reproduction, while others adopt together.

Just like the irrational excuses detailed in the article, chart, and other link cited, you provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#30 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia denies procreation was ever a requirement for marriage.
love, commitment, a desire to be family, NONE OF THEM are REQUIRED....
are they RELATED?

yet you guys talk about love between gays and all that jazz all the time...

as i say, consistency is not your virtue.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#31 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how many have to do with the kids...
even though you deny that was ever a consideration...
say, can interracial couples have kids TOGETHER?
can gays?
Do interracial couples provide both a MOM and DAD?
So the arguments against gay marriage are not really the same are they?
Questions about kids do not appear on marriage license applications or drivers license applications

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#32 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
see how the sperm donors to lesbians are getting rung up as a daddy by the law?
proof you guys don't fit with our current system..
so is that a proper reason to deny rights or not?
consistency is not your virtue...
That is just anti-gay Sam Brownback and Kansas trying to punish gay people by treating them differently from straight people.

As most laws intended to punish gay people in the past have resulted in movement toward equal treatment, this one will eventually do the same. There is no reason to treat same sex couples any differently from opposite sex couples who use assistance or adoption.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#33 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
where's the column for polygamy as many of the arguments are also the same...
Polygamy is offered as an irrational excuse for denial of equality. It is only one of the same irrational arguments used to deny both inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage equality.

But there is no column for polygamy, as it is a very different arrangement. The arguments against polygamy are not the same as the arguments against marriage equality for gay people. Again, polygamy requires changing the property and custody rules as well as the social dynamics for straight people while treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect requires no such changes.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#34 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
love, commitment, a desire to be family, NONE OF THEM are REQUIRED....
are they RELATED?
yet you guys talk about love between gays and all that jazz all the time...
as i say, consistency is not your virtue.
There are many reasons people choose to get married. Many of those reasons are the same reasons that motivate straight people. Yet those personal choices are not regulated by the government.

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#35 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

But there is no column for polygamy, as it is a very different arrangement.
so is a man and man and man and woman!

there is no column because it totally deflates your argument...
so does this standing scotus law:

" But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#36 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):
I love how you cite a procreation case as if it spoke about marriage...
without grasping that this is yet another case where the two are intertwined...
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#37 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so is a man and man and man and woman!
there is no column because it totally deflates your argument...
so does this standing scotus law:
" But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Gay guys are born with the same sexual orientation your 'mother' was born with; attracted to men
.
If you mother's marriage had been restricted; you would be illegitimate

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so is a man and man and man and woman!
there is no column because it totally deflates your argument...
so does this standing scotus law:
" But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Again, polygamy requires changing the property and custody rules as well as the social dynamics for straight people while treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect requires no such changes.

You fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#39 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how you cite a procreation case as if it spoke about marriage...
without grasping that this is yet another case where the two are intertwined...
This case is one of those that demonstrate procreation is not required to qualify for marriage. Marriage remains a fundamental right without procreational ability, intent, or desire.

Procreation is an individual choice, not the choice of the government.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#40 Jan 7, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay guys are born with the same sexual orientation your 'mother' was born with; attracted to men
.
If you mother's marriage had been restricted; you would be illegitimate
and we consider that normal.
now if it was my dad who was attracted to men, I wouldn't be here at all!

see how that works?

and BTW, "illegitimate"?

do you mean the nexus between marriage and procreation?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Louisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grade lane hit and run (Travis Christy)This is ... (Nov '12) 15 min Lisa 129
wiliam brewer aka disco 8 hr sarah 2
Mitch McConnell Alison Grimes 12 hr rick 18
Nude female models... (Jan '13) 23 hr Sparky 15
any takers Mon deserve to knoe 1
Ben Kemble Mon Lars 3
Will You Be Voting Republican? Mon joe 60
Carla Rushing Aka The pornstar Cody lane Living... (Nov '11) Nov 17 Vinohutch20 259
Louisville Dating
Find my Match

Louisville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Louisville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Louisville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:24 pm PST

NBC Sports12:24PM
Dolphins bring back cornerback R.J. Stanford
Bleacher Report12:46 PM
5 Bold Predictions for Washington Redskins' Week 13 Matchup
NBC Sports12:49 PM
Bengals kicker Nugent perfect since overtime miss - NBC Sports
ESPN12:58 PM
Bengals' Smith (torn triceps) goes on IR
ESPN 8:25 PM
Source: Redskins to start McCoy over RG III