Posted on 04/24/2014 7:28:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lots of people compare the opposition to gay marriage and the resistance to interracial relationships. It’s a flawed analogy. Here’s why.
I seem to have made an unexpected midlife career move, and no, it isn’t lucrative. After almost 20 years of standing on a soapbox for gay marriage, I am standing on another soapbox making the case for tolerating people who oppose same-sex marriage.
The other day, I joined 57 other supporters of gay marriage in a public statement called “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both.” You can read it here. You can even sign it here. I won’t repeat that argument. But I want to add something to it—something about race.
One objection to socially tolerating opposition to gay marriage comes up again and again. For many people, it seems to be the only way they can think about the issue. It’s this:
"Isn’t opposition to gay marriage just like opposition to interracial marriage? We don’t tolerate racism. So we shouldn’t tolerate this."
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Well, that’s so nice to know. Guess I just need to ‘evolve’. /heavy sarcasm
Gay isn’t another race?
Gee, John, that’s mighty big of you.
Well, the liberals have decided that opposing homosexual marriage is the same as opposing interracial marriage. And the liberals, through the media and the popular culture, have shoved this down our throats.
And now the door is wide open, due to court decisions which almost always go in favor of homosexual marriage.
The next time the Supreme Court rules on homosexual marriage, it will be from recent federal court cases, in which every single lower court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. It will be a tall order to expect the Supreme Court to overturn all of these. Especially considering that last year’s cases on the subject revealed a 5-4 split in favor of homosexual marriage.
See this see #5 here
A majority of the U.S. believes that.
Neither one are natural. Though a white man marrying a black woman doesn’t mean they are going to hell like a pair of faggots.
It’s not the same because in an “interracial” marriage, you can have a husband and a wife. Two people of the same sex, of any race, cannot be husband and wife, and therefore, can’t be married. Two men cannot be husband and wife, nor can two women be husband and wife. It’s called reality - the left calls it “hate.”
Shades of melanin is the only difference. By your logic, people of only similar hair and eye color should be permitted to marry.
One race. Different ethnicities. Words mean things. Marriage means man and woman, husband and wife. Gays can marry. As long as one is a man and the other a woman.
It is that simple.
Liberals are told what group identity associations to make, and they obey their instructions so as to not be thrown out of the group.
It has nothing to do with politics, beliefs, morality or even thinking - only obedience.
If they were told tommorow that french bread was racist, they'd stop buying it and throw what they had away. If they were told the following day that it was supportive of gay rights they'd rush out and buy as much as they could. The fact that they'd do that is NOT what makes a liberal - what makes a liberal is that they would see zero hypocisy in it, and have no problem whatsoever changing on a dime, as long as they knew they were following intsructions properly.
Anyone who thinks liberals are political is truly clueless. They do not give a damn about politics - only obedience. And that's why when you talk politics to them, you bore them and anger them, because what you don't get is that politics is not about politics, and your damn opinion is irrelevant, just like the damn Constitution you keep quoting. What's relevant is obedience alone, and they are sick of all the damn stupid conervatives who don't get that by now.
Please note the lack of any sarcasm tag here.
What isn't "natural" about an interracial marriage? Rauch's first point is his best one, IMO, and he quite righly points out that interracial marriage has been going on for a long, long time (implying that anti-miscegenation laws were little more than a relatively recent blip in world history). Everyone agreed in principle that a marriage could exist between, say, a black man and a white woman, it's just that the racists—being racists—wanted that kind of marriage to not happen.
Skin colour or point of origin are morally trivial with respect to marriage. The sex of the marriage partners is not morally trivial, because marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Less than 20 years ago, no one would have seriously questioned that definition, because it was pretty much univerally recognized that heterosexual couples, as a group, as a rule and by nature, fulfilled the primary function of a marriage by producing the next generation.
If this were not true, we would not have hyphenated peoples: Scots-Irish, Anglo-Saxons, or pret' near the whole population of East Tennessee, British Isles well-tinctured with Cherokee.
Marriage is between a man and woman. Nature can’t be redefined by liberals, no more than the laws of physics can be repealed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.