Why is interracial marriage legal but same sex marriage is not?

People are people, right? I mean, some people do use God and the bible to explain why interracial mixing (especially with blacks) is a sin and disgusting (aside from personal preferences).

Then there are those who say that certain races (*coughblackscough*) are genetically inferior and should therefore not be *allowed* to procreate with the master race

How come gay people aren't given the right to marriage? The divorce rate is like over 50% so it's not as though straights have the answers to long lasting marriages nor do straights believe in the sanctity of marriage anymore than anyone else

Updates:

0|0
2|17

Most Helpful Guy

  • people who argue against either being legal are full of sh*t. consenting people should be allowed to wed whomever they like with no interference.

    4|4
    0|0

What Guys Said 16

  • It's not correct obviously but people seem to accept homophobia more than racism... there's no talking to people, their god is all loving (except when; you have a different faith, are gay, have different colored skin are rich and don't give all your wealth to the church...etc)

    2|4
    0|0
  • 1. The land that is now the US was originally settled by Puritans, and for the next several hundred years, a large percentage of the immigrants were those seeking religious freedom, many of whom were very devout and sometimes even radicalized. We've been dealing with the influence of devout religious beliefs ever since, though they've been SLOWLY fading over the last 60 years. We still freak out if there's a boob shown on regular TV, though, as if seeing a breast is going to somehow destroy people's minds, yet we cheerfully embrace violence. That's the echo of religious influence that actively fought all forms of sexuality in the media for so long.

    2. There's a big financial impact to allowing gays to marry, which concerns a lot of people, including many in government. In many cases, a married spouse is automatically qualified to receive money (pensions, social security, etc.) if their spouse dies, and the funding for these programs is based on heterosexual marriages only. Even though homosexuals are only about 5-6% of the population, that's potentially enough for some problems for many government-backed programs financially. Many are already underfunded.

    3. There's also the issue of divorce, child custody, and so on. Allowing gays to marry means that they'll have legal standing in all of these issues, and many states would need to then change a lot of other laws to deal with that, which takes time. Example: there are (were?) states where gays can marry, but can't legally divorce (yet).

    Like any other social change, it doesn't happen overnight; it's a TRANSITION. Remember that many of the older, wealthy and powerful people who run things were around in the 60s, when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and many still have that mentality. Folks of my generation didn't have that, and so they have less baggage over the issue, and as the Boomers lose influence and Gen Y gains influence, this issue will be resolved. It's inevitable.

    0|5
    0|0
    • This is a fantastic answer I couldn't say it any better myself.. Once all the old guys lose control and pass the torch we'll see lots of social reform.

  • How about interracial same sex marriage. A huge black Terry Crews guy with a cute white Justin Bieber guy getting hitched.

    See people won't confront the black guy because they are scared he'll power drive them into the ground and all the girls are crying because they can't believe the other guy is gay ( Ricky Martin anyone? ).

    This is just present tense, looking into the future we will have different issues like legalizing human alien marriage.

    Sighs.

    So you while you may think my interpretation of same sex marriage is a bit unusual and insane, would you go up to the guys that are getting married that it is not right or would you congratulate them and wish them a happy long relationship?

    Also, it would be very funny if in the future the statistics are in and deem same sex marriage as the most successful form of marriage on the planet, which would conclude that these guys and women are doing something right which heterosexual couples aren't and that's actually coming to terms with one another.

    I also think that interracial marriages are also quite very successful and they get very strong and good looking kids.

    0|3
    0|0
  • Part 2: Inter-"racial" marriage? The mere term implies two different species joining in a sexual union. Which would be bestiality. However, modern taxonomy ironically makes even more assumptions about origins biology than does baraminology. So Occam's Razor accounted for, we'll examine baraminology. "Each according to their kind."

    Only one "mankind" is accounted for, in either baraminology or the Bible. Start with middle brown, have a descendant of a literal Adam and Eve who has paler-than normal skin (Japeth,) another with some lost genetic variety who is still middle brown (Shem,) and another who is darker than normal but has also lost some genetic variety (Ham,) then you have the three basic building blocks of all genetic diversity seen on the planet today. Account for Postdiluvian exponential increase in the rate of neutral and harmful mutations, and all the missing details start to take form. All mankind is one blood. One race.

    All Caucasians alive today are descended from one common ancestor of a mere 1,000 years ago. The Bubonic Plague and various wars have killed off the others.

    In part 3, I'll discuss "miscegenation," inter-religious marriage, and inter-cultural marriage.

    0|0
    1|0
  • The government should have no involvement in who chooses to get married. In the USA, interracial marriage was illegal in most of the South until 1967. Marriage is just a thinly-disguised way for the government to exert control over the people. (Have a look at your tax forms for the most obvious example of that.) For most of Western history (until the 16th century), marriage was simply a private contract between two families; government didn't get involved at all.

    Bottom line, take away the government's control over marriage, and you take away the controversy.

    1|2
    0|0
  • Let's start with the definition of marriage, and work our way from there.

    The core-essential definition of marriage is that a man (the husband) and the woman (the wife) are legally permitted to exclusively put penis to vagina. Also, this union was instituted so that the couple could leave their parents and be united to each other, for the benefit of society, to aid each others' worship life if religious by keeping each other from promiscuous distractions, and to provide the best over-all environment for children.

    That couples marry for the wrong reasons (which is a sin against the covenant,) or divorce easily (also condemned) cannot make another affront undermining the institution okay. Two wrongs or five million wrongs, do not make a right.

    Those caught up in homosexuality are trying to combine parts that were not meant to be combined. Therefore, even if the essential spiritual components were possible, the essential biological and physical parts to make it a marriage aren't there.

    However, "civil unions" are recognized in virtually all of the western world. Such unions take care of the insurance benefits of those seeking such unions to their spiritual peril.

    Therefore, those who insist on attacking marriage itself as the church defines it are using the issue as a political battering ram to destroy religious opposition to an agenda much higher than just the pushing of homosexuality.

    That agenda is blatantly a Marxist one, since defining marriage out of existence was also essential to Lenin and Stalin's plans for Russia.

    Summarizing their words: "If there is no such thing as legitimate, then there is no such thing as illegitimate. Just children who belong to the state." Stalin also made no secret of his belief that eradication of religious opposition had to be at the forefront of the state seeking total control.

    When the 60s radicals raided American academia, they openly promoted licentious living at every turn, stating that the very reason they needed to indoctrinate the public in favor of it was to undermine instinctual religious resistance to their schemes.

    The KGB also stated that the first step to destroying any free society was to demoralize it - by any means necessary.

    0|0
    1|3
    • plenty of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc have their marriages equally recognized under law, aren't they sinning too? ...as long as marriage is recognized by law it is a state institution not just a spiritual one so no one religion gets to exercise spiritual veto on it.

    • Show All
    • Last I checked, the obvious problems with trying to jerry-rig human biology and sociology to conform to something it is simply not designed to do is not a matter of religion, but of plain reason.

      Religion is saying that Hell awaits them. That, I cannot defend by merely pointing to a diagram.

      You and I both live in a universe that was created, with information the third entity alongside matter and energy.

      You choose to live in a perv-ocracy where any dissent of paraphilia is forbidden.

    • If I am arguing history, science, etc., and you're automatically saying that one particular religion is off the table, then you're the one being theocratic, Kereru.

      The only difference is that you've made homosexual hedonism into a god that must not be blasphemed, not even by the realities of medicine.

  • I have no idea.. The issue drives me crazy though.. People use religious arguments over the definition of marriage as if everyone should follow their rules. Last time I checked in the constitution it says "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prevent the free exercise thereof". Every way you look at it DOMA is religiously motivated and Bill Clinton hates that he signed it into law during his presidency.

    MrOracle hit the nail on the head though that once the old generation either dies out or gets replaced our more socially liberal generation will get in and you'll see a lot more social reform. A growing majority of us see these things as basic rights and that number is only expected to increase as time goes on. You also see more secular movements within the Republican party even though they get so much financial backing from evangelicals.

    Last time I checked the support was around 60% in favor of gay marriage and 50 years ago it was only in the 20s. There's a sea change going on and since something like 80% of America is Christian that includes Christians too. It could very well be regional though.. I'm sure the northeast and the west coast are generally more accepting of it then the midwest and the south.

    Anyway progressive social values always win out in the long run.. Human beings don't like restrictions placed on them.

    0|1
    0|0
  • That's because the opposition to same sex "marriage" is about the definition of the term marriage. As most religious people - including me - view it, marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. And nothing additional comes after that period!

    I see what you're trying to do here with your liberal provocative-smartass rhetoric. You're not impressing me at all, it stopped being cool about 20 years ago by the way. Let's leave it in the 90s as it should be...

    But let me bring my ultimate argument that so far no gay-marriage supporter managed to beat: Same sex marriage is discrimination against children. If you allow each pair of people who want to get married be legally recognized as a married couple you also have to allow them adopting children. And as nature decided a child is obliged to have a father and a mother. The rights of children are more important than the right to have children, hence gay marriage is a crime against children.

    1|0
    1|0
    • I'm not trying to cool and if you think this is smart ass perhaps it's because you're ignorant and think only your view could be the right view

    • Show All
    • Too bad I'm not a liberal lmaand you made a shotty argument

      Considering you're the first to throw attacks, it seems you're the immature one

    • *sh*tty

      Autocorrect

  • One is Biblically condemned, while the other is not. Civil unions should be up to the individuals; however, church weddings seem more than a bit heretical. For some, homosexuality is a mere perversion, but I do feel a burden for the true homophile.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I suppose because gays aren't a race...

    0|2
    0|0
    • Are you willing to legalize polygamy? You can't possibly justify making it illegal if you supportr gay marriage, except by admitting you're just biased against polygamists.

  • Marriage is currently defined in the US as a union between a man and woman, regardless of race / ethnicity. But I agree with you - that definition needs to change to include everyone.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Is this a serious question or are you just ranting?

    1|2
    1|0
  • Honestly I don't know why. I was raised with christianvalues but I was never really big into it. However, this is America. Gay Marriage is considered a sin in my eyes, however, the only way for you to be free, is to let other people be free.

    Our bill of rights protected the minority, and still does today. Just because I strongly disagree with a way of life, doesn't mean I wouldn't prevent it.

    I would feel uncomfortable and not used to it, but it is their right. As long as they don't start hitting on me or doing stupid sh*t involving me, they're fine.

    0|0
    0|0
  • In the more evolved nation of The Netherlands it is perfectly legal.

    0|2
    1|0
  • The bible doesn't say interracial marriage is a sin. It does say that gay marriage is a sin though. That's the reason

    0|0
    0|0
  • Lol just read the perfect answer Oracle said. I have nothing to add except that right wing republicans still make the laws of the land and someday maybe that will change.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 2

  • So long as its between consenting adults, I don't care who gets married to who/what.

    I don't see why anyone else would. The government needs to butt out and worry about the real issues prevalent in society. If my neighbour decides to marry another dude, I don't see how it affects me.

    0|1
    0|0
  • my country just legalized gay marriage, this guy gave an awesome speech about it link go us :)

    0|3
    1|1
    • My state legalized it a few days ago. The bill goes into effect in August. Progress! :D

    • Show All
    • It looks like the Supreme Court is set to overturn DOMA in June but people doubt they will force it on all the states like interracial marriage.. They will probably leave it up to the states. My state legalized it too!

    • In France, it was rammed through without any representation from the masses. That's not "legalizing," that's ramming. And in the wake of an issue like crookedism becoming the launchpad by which the French government should seek to justify its trail towards despotism, millions of protestors are willing to take as much tear gas as they have to.

Loading...