Why do liberals and gay rights activists say that gay marriage is similar to interracial marriage?

[Political Onlooker]

Subject title should read like this:- "Why do liberals and gay rights activists say that gay marriage is similar to interracial marriage, when they are clearly not the same?"

Black people are not the same as gay people, who are not the same as disabled people and other minorities. Because two people are classed as minorities - or so-called "protected categories" under European law - doesn't mean that they are "equal" or the same.

Minorities are different and not the same. The only thing they have in common is the fact that all minorities are politically disenfranchised in a different sense to one another. But the difference is far more important than any similarities between them.

Those who are party to gay marriage or interracial marriage have been depicted as "minorities" in their own right; because each group will detract from the social norm of straight marriage between people of the same ethnicity.

However, it would do no justice at all to assume that "gay marriage and interracial marriage are fundamentally the same" since they are clearly not the same.

More importantly, one could say that they are not the same in a fundamental sense because interracial marriage is more acceptable to society than gay marriage. Whereas, a man and woman can always procreate via a natural process, gay people can only do so via deviant methods, such as artificial insemination or surrogacy (although straight couples who are unable to have children will use the same methods to procreate such people are in a small minority, and it doesn't detract from the fact such methods are still considered to be deviant or unnatural by society as a whole).

Not only is interracial marriage more acceptable to society than gay marriage, but same sex marriage is clearly inferior to heterosexual marriage, even between partners of different ethnic origin. Because minorities are different and not the same. Which implies that each minority group will occupy a different space in the social pecking order or social hierarchy; because Hispanic people are not the same as Black people, who're not the same as people of Asian descent.

Since minorities are different and not the same, it means that black people are obviously not the same as gay people, who're not the same as disabled people and other minorities.

Therefore, gay marriage is obviously inferior to straight marriage between men and women no matter what their ethnic background; because different minorities will occupy different space in the social pecking order, but it would do no justice to pretend that such difference do not exist.

________________________________________________________________________

Please discuss this article based on your knowledge of the Bible and/or U.S. and European politics.

 

[McBell]

Why not discuss it based upon the arguments used against same sex marriage and agianst inter-racial marriage and see how they are alike or differ?

 

[Political Onlooker]

But to do this I would have to research the arguments in each case.

Perhaps you could give a few examples?

 

[McBell]

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you flat out admit you have done no research on the matter...

 

[Political Onlooker]

No, I didn't say that. I only said they are not the same, because the difference is fundamentally more important than similarities between them.

Although I seem to remember one such argument being that society would frown upon gay marriage and interracial marriage because there is prejudice in each case. But I say that there is more prejudice directed at gay people than straight people who happen to be different in terms of ethnic origin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

interracial marriage is more acceptable to society than gay marriage.

But I say that there is more prejudice directed at gay people than straight people who happen to be different in terms of ethnic origin.

Debatable. There's many people who do not approve of or, at least, are very uncomfortable with interracial marriage.

 

[columbus]

Since minorities are different and not the same, it means that black people are obviously not the same as gay people, who're not the same as disabled people and other minorities.

Therefore, gay marriage is obviously inferior to straight marriage between men and women no matter what their ethnic background; because different minorities will occupy different space in the social pecking order, but it would do no justice to pretend that such difference do not exist.

They are similar in that Christians oppose both.
They base this opposition on their interpretation of the Bible.

Also, they are similar in that other Christians are embarrassed by those teachings. How many will depend on what decade we're talking about.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

Why do liberals and gay rights activists say that gay marriage is similar to interracial marriage?

Didn't know they did. Got some examples?

 

[Political Onlooker]

Debatable. There's many people who do not approve of or, at least, are very uncomfortable with interracial marriage.

It's "debatable" because we don't know if there are any studies on the public opinion of either one. You would have to compare both of them to see if it's true or not. But in recent years, according to the Pew Research Centre in Washington DC the percentage of people who oppose interracial marriage is only 15% as a national average. It's a relatively small minority of people who still oppose interracial marriage; and the figure is probably less than the percentage of those who oppose gay marriage.

 

[Political Onlooker]

Didn't know they did. Got some examples?

Examples are mostly respondents on Y/A.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's "debatable" because we don't know if there are any studies on the public opinion of either one. You would have to compare both of them to see if it's true or not. But in recent years, according to the Pew Research Centre in Washington DC the percentage of people who oppose interracial marriage is only 15% as a national average. It's a relatively small minority of people who still oppose interracial marriage; and the figure is probably less than the percentage of those who oppose gay marriage.

I don't really trust polls when it comes to those sorts of questions. A lot of people will lie and conceal their true feelings about such a subject because they wouldn't want to be seen as racist. It also depends on how you word the question, as well.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They are similar in that Christians oppose both.
They base this opposition on their interpretation of the Bible.

Also, they are similar in that other Christians are embarrassed by those teachings. How many will depend on what decade we're talking about.
Tom

Anti-interracial marriage is not a Christian doctrine. A minority of groups have held those views in the past, but never the majority. Also, there's people all over the world of any religion or lack of religion that hold negative opinions of it.

 

[Skwim]

Examples are mostly respondents on Y/A.

What is Y/A?

 

[Nietzsche]

Subject title should read like this:- "Why do liberals and gay rights activists say that gay marriage is similar to interracial marriage, when they are clearly not the same?"

Black people are not the same as gay people, who are not the same as disabled people and other minorities. Because two people are classed as minorities - or so-called "protected categories" under European law - doesn't mean that they are "equal" or the same.

Minorities are different and not the same. The only thing they have in common is the fact that all minorities are politically disenfranchised in a different sense to one another. But the difference is far more important than any similarities between them.

Those who are party to gay marriage or interracial marriage have been depicted as "minorities" in their own right; because each group will detract from the social norm of straight marriage between people of the same ethnicity.

However, it would do no justice at all to assume that "gay marriage and interracial marriage are fundamentally the same" since they are clearly not the same.

How is any of that remotely relevant? This is about equal rights to happiness amongst people regardless of background or preference so long as it does no harm to greater society. For instance, I'm not particularly thrilled about sharing civilization with those opposed to fundamental human-rights for others because their book says it's bad.

More importantly, one could say that they are not the same in a fundamental sense because interracial marriage is more acceptable to society than gay marriage. Whereas, a man and woman can always procreate via a natural process, gay people can only do so via deviant methods, such as artificial insemination or surrogacy (although straight couples who are unable to have children will use the same methods to procreate such people are in a small minority, and it doesn't detract from the fact such methods are still considered to be deviant or unnatural by society as a whole).

Not only is interracial marriage more acceptable to society than gay marriage, but same sex marriage is clearly inferior to heterosexual marriage, even between partners of different ethnic origin. Because minorities are different and not the same. Which implies that each minority group will occupy a different space in the social pecking order or social hierarchy; because Hispanic people are not the same as Black people, who're not the same as people of Asian descent.

Since minorities are different and not the same, it means that black people are obviously not the same as gay people, who're not the same as disabled people and other minorities.

Therefore, gay marriage is obviously inferior to straight marriage between men and women no matter what their ethnic background; because different minorities will occupy different space in the social pecking order, but it would do no justice to pretend that such difference do not exist.

You're making a lot of false assumptions about marriage. Marriage is a fluid social concept that is not unique to Western society or Abrahamic religions. It was originally(and in many places still is) about property & inheritance. The notion it was about two people who care for each other only really gained traction & viability in the mid-late 1800s. Production of children is also not the purpose of marriage. Marriage is whatever we say it is because it has been everything we have said it to be. It's fluid & changing, and no single authority exists to define it for everyone. Marriage existed long before the New Testament. It existed long before Bronze-age Israelites.

 

[columbus]

Anti-interracial marriage is not a Christian doctrine. A minority of groups have held those views in the past, but never the majority. Also, there's people all over the world of any religion or lack of religion that hold negative opinions of it.

I didn't say it was Christian doctrine. I said Christians opposed it.
Christians believe a lot of things that aren't Christian doctrine. So much so that it's nearly impossible to tell what Christian doctrine really means.
Tom

 

[psychoslice]

I think ignorant people have always tried to put gays into a little box so they can handle it, marriage simply means, to join together, you don't need a penis and a Virgina for that, you only need to people who love each other, marriage isn't the property of the so called straits, it belongs to no one, but to everyone.

 

[McBell]

No, I didn't say that. I only said they are not the same,

I agree.
The are not the same.
Which is why using the same "arguments" for both is nothing more than a sign of desperation.

because the difference is fundamentally more important than similarities between them.

Why are the same "arguments" being used if they are so different?

Although I seem to remember one such argument being that society would frown upon gay marriage and interracial marriage because there is prejudice in each case. But I say that there is more prejudice directed at gay people than straight people who happen to be different in terms of ethnic origin.

Now.
But the same prejudice against same sex couples getting married now is the same prejudice as inter-racial marriage back then.
They are even using the same "arguments"....

 

[Revoltingest]

Subject title should read like this:- "Why do liberals and gay rights activists say that gay marriage is similar to interracial marriage, when they are clearly not the same?"

Implicit in a question so phrased is the assumption that we ignore the difference of same sexes & different races.
So....what are we left with?
We may also assume....
- Both marry for the same reasons, eg, love, family structure, legal entitlements & obligations
- Both intend long term commitment.
- Both do icky things in private.
There's no real difference other than the reactions of people who might object to one or the other.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They are both oppressed targets for much of the same reasons, which frequently includes various Biblical interpretation. Both are beaten, both are harassed. Homosexuals can better blend in with privileged society, but it's also very easy to become an outsider to that society. In the end they are both groups who are/were unfairly denied rights and systematically discriminated against.

 

[SomeRandom]

Lol first thing I thought of.

More importantly, one could say that they are not the same in a fundamental sense because interracial marriage is more acceptable to society than gay marriage. Whereas, a man and woman can always procreate via a natural process, gay people can only do so via deviant methods, such as artificial insemination or surrogacy (although straight couples who are unable to have children will use the same methods to procreate such people are in a small minority, and it doesn't detract from the fact such methods are still considered to be deviant or unnatural by society as a whole).

Not to racists it wasn't/isn't. A lot of racists contend that the races are separate subspecies rather than......well the races. Thus progeny born of two different races is considered abhorrent and deviant by their standards. The offspring represents to racists a betrayal of race on the part of at least one parent.

With better understanding of homo sapiens sapiens we've come to realize that race models are outdated and unscientific. This combined with society realizing that it is wrong to with hold happiness to people based on simplistic ideas of what it means to be human, the idea of inter race couples has steadily gained favor over the last few decades or so. But before that, it was thought that one race was above another or every other race in existence. Therefore the mixing of blood between two different races (didn't matter which ones) was often considered obscene.

Interestingly (or horribly depending on your view) in Australia it was found that Aboriginal people "lost" their blackness over the generations of white mixing and future generations never got back their "impure" skin tone unlike African Americans. So a project was put in place to "purify" the Aboriginals through multiple generations of "skin cleansing" so to speak. Also known commonly here as the "Stolen Generation." *shudders*
That didn't mean that inter racial couples were accepted, though. As the "white man" was still considered the peak of human evolution. Or top of the human food chain, whichever.
So "mullatos"were often used as slaves or treated as little more than objects. Subject to rape, beatings and other abuses. Because even if they got whiter and whiter, they were still born of an "inferior" race and therefore not "real" white fellas.