Interesting Quotes From Gay Marriage Supporters

[Stephen168]

There is no black gene

Skin color is genetic, homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is behavior and we regulate behavior.

like international couples are “just friends”

Define marriage

 

[Stephen168]

A) Marriage was redefined.

Define marriage

 

[pete_29]

Can you give me an example of an argument used against same gendered marriage that was not used to justify laws against interracial marriage?

Let me save you some time:
The bible and Christian belief was heavily used to justify laws against interracial marriage

The slippery slope: Rick Santorum used this idea to make his infamous "man on dog” case against gay marriage along with the claim that same sex marriage leads to polygamy and incestuous marriages. But the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia’s assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws.

‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ was heavily used in arguments against interracial marriage.

Gay couples can’t procreate: a subset of the ‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ argument. It would be valid except infertile heterosexuals are not barred from marriage.

Gays can already marry someone of the opposite gender…therefor it’s not discrimination. Is equal to Blacks can already marry someone of the correct skin color…therefor it’s not discrimination

If the reason for the heterosexual couples infertility could be fixed, this couple could procreate. There is absolutely no way that homosexual couple can procreate.

 

[Allegra]

Can you give me an example of an argument used against same gendered marriage that was not used to justify laws against interracial marriage?

Let me save you some time:
The bible and Christian belief was heavily used to justify laws against interracial marriage

The slippery slope: Rick Santorum used this idea to make his infamous "man on dog” case against gay marriage along with the claim that same sex marriage leads to polygamy and incestuous marriages. But the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia’s assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws.

‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ was heavily used in arguments against interracial marriage.

Gay couples can’t procreate: a subset of the ‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ argument. It would be valid except infertile heterosexuals are not barred from marriage.

Gays can already marry someone of the opposite gender…therefor it’s not discrimination. Is equal to Blacks can already marry someone of the correct skin color…therefor it’s not discrimination

The Bible was far more effectively used in favor of civil rights than it was against it. Scripture can be effectively used to convince the people of a truth, but one better have more than that if they are going to court. Keep in mind that scripture can be interpretated by experts and made to support almost any cause. Christian beliefs also differ greatly from person to person, so they aren’t really an argument.

The only way one can call a homosexual relationship a marriage is by redefining it as loosely as friendship+sex+consent= marriage. Using that equation, Santorum is correct that any other consenting relationship can be considered a marriage as well. Can you explain why a man and a man is a marriage but a man and a man and a woman isn’t a marriage? Who are you to say that two people can love each other but not three people? I think the slippery slope argument has merit to it in this case, but it isn’t inherently a good argument against something. I’d be interested in reading what the assistant attorney general actually said. Do you have a direct quote. There are valid slippery slope arguments and there are invalid slippery slope arguments. The proof is in the conclusion of the argument. (If “a” happens, then “b” will happen.) If the statement is true then it is something to consider. Without knowing what argument was used in the civil rights case, it is impossible to say that it was the same argument just because it was a slippery slope argument. Not all slipperly slope arguments are created equal.

Concern for children’s well-being is another catagory of argument, not a specific argument. The specific concern in these two cases are quite different. That should be fairly obvious. Children of mixed race had a difficult time of it at the time (some still do). They often weren’t accepted well into either of their families. Children being raised by homosexual couples have to be obtained from outside of the “union”. They do not have the benefit of a male and female role model. They are also being systematically trained in immoral sex as they grow up. Whether you agree with these arguments are not, they are unmistakably distinct from the concerns of the life of a biracial person prior to and during the civil rights movement. One can not logically say they are the “same arguement”.

The arguement against gay marriage that is most distinct is that society recieves a benefit from recognizing a traditional marriage that it does not recieve from recognizing a homosexual union. A traditional marriage offers society the benefit of producing and raising the future generation in an ideal, two parent household. The benefits given to married couples are designed to assist toward that end, not to celebrate their love for each other. Homosexual unions do not produce children. Their purpose is the mutual affection and sexual pleasure of the two adults. There is no benefit to society for recognizing this union.

 

[CopticChristian]

Can you give me an example of an argument used against same gendered marriage that was not used to justify laws against interracial marriage?

Let me save you some time:
The bible and Christian belief was heavily used to justify laws against interracial marriage

The slippery slope: Rick Santorum used this idea to make his infamous "man on dog” case against gay marriage along with the claim that same sex marriage leads to polygamy and incestuous marriages. But the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia’s assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws.
‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ was heavily used in arguments against interracial marriage.

Gay couples can’t procreate: a subset of the ‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ argument. It would be valid except infertile heterosexuals are not barred from marriage.

Gays can already marry someone of the opposite gender…therefor it’s not discrimination. Is equal to Blacks can already marry someone of the correct skin color…therefor it’s not discrimination

Tracer,

You are wrong. The word “AND” is key to understanding Loving vs Virginia. You are correct that Loving vs Virginia overturned denial of the right to marry based on race as seen here. Note that it is said that there is a right to marry…based on Oklahoma vs Skinner…

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Oklahoma vs Skinner concerned sterilization of criminals before discharge because if they got married there was fear that they would transmit their criminal genes. The right to marry is stated not as a right to marry alone…

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541

**We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and **procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.

So while you are correct about Loving vs Virginia to believe that it has to do with homosexuals getting married, they don’t qualify since the right includes the right ot marry…now get this…**AND **procreate.

Loving vs Virginia is not supportive of same sex marriage by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[TracerBullet]

a) Marriage was NOT redefined.

Marriage is only between people of the same color….marriage is now color blind. Yeah that is redefining it

In the case of mixed-race marriages, it was whether a marriage would be **legally **allowed. There was no question whether such a union was a marrige in the locations where it WAS allowed. (only 30 states ever had laws regulating mixed-race marriages and most of those did not have such laws until the 1900’s). Mixed-race marriage was NEVER nationally restricted.

Same gendered marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and the district of Columbia.
It appears that Washington and Marilyn will pass marriage equality will also this fall.
Marriage equality was passed by the New Jersey Legislature but was sadly vetoes by the governor.
And California’s proposition 8 has already been declared unconstitutional by two separate courts.

The only states to not have an anti-miscegenation laws at some point in their history were: Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.

b) the pro-same-sex marriage crowd uses the same arguments because they are desparate to paint this as a civil rights issue.

Why desperate? It is a civil rights issue

The pro-traditional marriage proponents use some of the same arguments but that’s not the main one.

No it’s the same arguments used to justify laws against interracial marriage

The main argument, is that always and everywhere in the US, marriage has been an instituation that involved one man and one woman. A complete redefinition of marriage is needed to justify same-sex marriage.

That’s an appeal to tradition. And it was happily used to justify laws against interracial marriage

 

[TracerBullet]

Skin color is genetic, homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is behavior and we regulate behavior.

There remains no black gene.

There is also no published evidence that sexual orientation is a behavior and not inborn. If you have knowledge of such evidence why don’t you share it with us all?

 

[TracerBullet]

If the reason for the heterosexual couples infertility could be fixed, this couple could procreate. There is absolutely no way that homosexual couple can procreate.

I have a very good friend who developed cervical cancer when she was engaged to be married. The treatment included a complete hysterectomy. She can’t be “fixed” and had exactly zero percent chance of becoming pregnant. So there is absolutely no way she and her husband can procreate.

Logically, this means that they should not have been allowed to get married

 

[CopticChristian]

There remains no black gene.

There is also no published evidence that sexual orientation is a behavior and not inborn. If you have knowledge of such evidence why don’t you share it with us all?

Tracer,

You are convinced that sexual orientation and behavior is inborn as evidenced here and from prior postings here…

Discrimination in the legal sense is the act of denying rights, benefits, justice, equitable treatment, or access to facilities available to all others, to an individual or group of people because of their race, age, gender, handicap or other defining characteristic.

This definition includes homosexuals because sexual orientation is an innate and defining characteristic.

There is no black gene

There is no left handed gene

There is no blue eye gene

Yet like homosexuality all of these are inborn

You say there is no evidence to the contrary of what you propose and scoff yet there is no evidence to support what you propose. My concern is why you staunchly believe and promote the notion that homosexuality is innate and inborn? Where do you get these ideas?

 

[TracerBullet]

The Bible was far more effectively used in favor of civil rights than it was against it. Scripture can be effectively used to convince the people of a truth, but one better have more than that if they are going to court. Keep in mind that scripture can be interpretated by experts and made to support almost any cause. Christian beliefs also differ greatly from person to person, so they aren’t really an argument.

Yet such personal interpretations are a common justification against same gendered marriage just as it was a justification against interracial marriage.

The only way one can call a homosexual relationship a marriage is by redefining it as loosely as friendship+sex+consent= marriage. Using that equation, Santorum is correct that any other consenting relationship can be considered a marriage as well. Can you explain why a man and a man is a marriage but a man and a man and a woman isn’t a marriage? Who are you to say that two people can love each other but not three people? I think the slippery slope argument has merit to it in this case, but it isn’t inherently a good argument against something.

And the slippery slope arguments were used to justify laws against interracial marriage

I’d be interested in reading what the assistant attorney general actually said. Do you have a direct quote.

all you had to do was go looking for it.
“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage stands on the same Footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

There are valid slippery slope arguments and there are invalid slippery slope arguments. The proof is in the conclusion of the argument. (If “a” happens, then “b” will happen.) If the statement is true then it is something to consider. Without knowing what argument was used in the civil rights case, it is impossible to say that it was the same argument just because it was a slippery slope argument. Not all slipperly slope arguments are created equal.

same arguments

Concern for children’s well-being is another catagory of argument, not a specific argument. The specific concern in these two cases are quite different. That should be fairly obvious. Children of mixed race had a difficult time of it at the time (some still do). They often weren’t accepted well into either of their families.

Is that a problem of interracial marriage or a problem of prejudice and discrimination by people outside of that marriage?

Children being raised by homosexual couples have to be obtained from outside of the “union”.

Just like infertile heterosexuals. What’s your point?

They do not have the benefit of a male and female role model.

Because same gendered couples live in remote caves and have no contact with other people?

You can use your logic here to denounce military personnel from having children. What if that service man/woman is killed in action? Their surviving child will be denied the benefit of a male/female role model.

They are also being systematically trained in immoral sex as they grow up.

got any evidnece to actually back this one up?

Whether you agree with these arguments are not, they are unmistakably distinct from the concerns of the life of a biracial person prior to and during the civil rights movement. One can not logically say they are the “same arguement”.

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
Perez v. Lippold,
Same argument

The arguement against gay marriage that is most distinct is that society recieves a benefit from recognizing a traditional marriage that it does not recieve from recognizing a homosexual union. A traditional marriage offers society the benefit of producing and raising the future generation in an ideal, two parent household. The benefits given to married couples are designed to assist toward that end, not to celebrate their love for each other. Homosexual unions do not produce children. Their purpose is the mutual affection and sexual pleasure of the two adults. There is no benefit to society for recognizing this union.

Neither do marriages between infertile heterosexual couples. Their purpose is the mutual affection and sexual pleasure of the two adults. There is no benefit to society for recognizing this union.

 

[TracerBullet]

Tracer,

You are convinced that sexual orientation and behavior is inborn as evidenced here and from prior postings here…

You say there is no evidence to the contrary of what you propose and scoff yet there is no evidence to support what you propose. My concern is why you staunchly believe and promote the notion that homosexuality is innate and inborn? Where do you get these ideas?

It’s called science

And there is a heck of a lot of evidence that sexual orientation is inborn. There is however no equivalent evidence that sexual orientation is leaned or chosen.

The evidence that sexual orientation is inborn isn’t hard to find…try looking for it

 

[PRmerger]

Neither do marriages between infertile heterosexual couples. Their purpose is the mutual affection and sexual pleasure of the two adults. There is no benefit to society for recognizing this union.

The marital act enjoyed by infertile heterosexual couples, while subjectively infertile, still remains objectively procreative, and thus their marital embrace is indeed unitive and procreative.

Homosexual sexual acts are neither unitive nor procreative.

 

[Corki]

Marriage is only between people of the same color….marriage is now color blind. Yeah that is redefining it

No, that’s not what happened. Marriage was between a man and a woman. In some states, the marriage between a man and a woman of two races was not permitted, but it was still a marriage. Even in the Loving case, which you seem partial too, the penalty at the time was imprisonment; the penalty did not involve a revokation of the marriage.

In Catholic terms, in those states with laws against same sex marriage, the marriage was valid but illicit.

Same gendered marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and the district of Columbia.
It appears that Washington and Marilyn will pass marriage equality will also this fall.
Marriage equality was passed by the New Jersey Legislature but was sadly vetoes by the governor.
And California’s proposition 8 has already been declared unconstitutional by two separate courts.

So?

Why desperate? It is a civil rights issue

No it isn’t.

No it’s the same arguments used to justify laws against interracial marriage

There are *some *of the same points being made but the arguments against same-sex marriage are broader. I could use *some * of the same arguments that were used in the interracial marriage arguments to argue that schools allow prayer. That doesn’t make it a related issue.

That’s an appeal to tradition. And it was happily used to justify laws against interracial marriag

So? An appeal to tradition is only a logical fallacy if the conclusion is also wrong. In this case, the conclusion, that the definition of marriage would be changed, is not wrong. Everytime someone brings up interracial marriage, slavery, or the American Revolution, it’s an appeal to tradition.

Even in the case of interracial marriage, the conclusions weren’t ALL wrong. For example, the question about the children has turned out to be correct, or at least very slow to reverse. I know that some adoption agencies, for example, have not allowed a black child to be adopted into a white or mixed race home under the idea that the child’s heritage will not be sufficiently transmitted. They argued that mixed marriages would be bad for the children and in many cases, they were. Just because we, as a nation, have decided to accept mixed marriages (a good and true decision) doesn’t mean that all the arguments used were false.

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct. There are better ways to drive the debate about marriage equality. But I have to say that comparing gays and lesbians to convicted felons is probably not the way to go improving the debate.
I would think that you would want to compare gays and lesbians to other similar minority groups

The Black caucus does not appear to agree with you, Tracer. They have taken offense at this comparison.

 

[Corki]

Neither do marriages between infertile heterosexual couples. Their purpose is the mutual affection and sexual pleasure of the two adults. There is no benefit to society for recognizing this union.

That’s not true. Marriages are a societal stabilizer. This is especially true when children are involved but still true without children.

An infertile heterosexual couple can adopt children and still give them the benefit of a home with a loving mother AND father. This is a societal benefit that cannot be said of single parent homes or same-sex couples. Repeatedly, research on teen problems ranging from delinquency to drug use to teen pregnancy has been correlated to the absence of both a mother and a father – especially father-less homes.

 

[TracerBullet]

The marital act enjoyed by infertile heterosexual couples, while subjectively infertile, still remains objectively procreative, and thus their marital embrace is indeed unitive and procreative.

Homosexual sexual acts are neither unitive nor procreative.

Special pleading. On the one hand you want to use an illogical justification to validate discrimination but on the other you only want that justification to apply to a minority not to everyone

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s called science

And there is a heck of a lot of evidence that sexual orientation is inborn. There is however no equivalent evidence that sexual orientation is leaned or chosen.

The evidence that sexual orientation is inborn isn’t hard to find…try looking for it

Tracer,

I have a Bachelor in Science and an MD and as a Physician I am always open to having someone teach me somthing. I have looked. Point me in the direction that you found.

 

[TracerBullet]

That’s not true. Marriages are a societal stabilizer. This is especially true when children are involved but still true without children.

In case you missed it what you are responding to is a direct quote from Allegra

Anyway…
You just substantiated my point. Thank you

Marriages same gendered or opposite gendered are a societal stabilizer. This is especially true when children are involved but still true without children

An infertile heterosexual couple can adopt children

Just like same gendered couples

and still give them the benefit of a home with a loving mother AND father. This is a societal benefit that cannot be said of single parent homes or same-sex couples. Repeatedly, research on teen problems ranging from delinquency to drug use to teen pregnancy has been correlated to the absence of both a mother and a father – especially father-less homes.

If you actually read these studies you find that when socio-economic differences are controlled for the difference between children raised in a two parent home and those raised by a single parent disappears. It’s resources and access to resources that are key. Not number of or differing genders among parents

 

[Rhuarc]

Marriage as defined by the law does not entail that you love a certain person. In the olden days getting married rarely had to do with actual love. A gay man has every right as I do to marry a woman no problem. Just because I have the reason to marry her for love does not mean anything. As long as you get the government benefits from the marriage it is equal and there is no discrimination.

People will argue that this is schewed logic in light of the reality of it, however the truth of the matter is that it is the reality, a gay man still and will always be able to marry a woman. I cannot marry another man and neither can he it is EQUAL!

By the real issue here is the government, the government has no authority to define marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution plain and simple. The only thing the government should be able to do is to recognize unions between two people. I can see the benefit of such things because if for example me and a friend are living together in a house for an extended period benefits of being a union would be a great help.

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence that sexual orientation is inborn isn’t hard to find…try looking for it

Please cite your evidence, Tracer.

As you are new here on the CAFs, you may be unfamiliar with the culture here, so we will cut you some slack.

But you will not be permitted to make statements such as “Science says [insert your issue du jour]” without citing your source.

If you truly believe this to be so, then it shouldn’t be hard to proffer the studies that support your evidence for homosexuality to be “inborn”.