Interracial and SSM

[Midwest88]

Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins
It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference

Same Love by Macklemore, right? Every time that comes on the radio I change the station. I find that song frustrating - it’s a political song without any intellectual argument that easily impresses my generation - it’s just emotions and the same old liberal trope.

If I say that I’m against SSM, then I’m told I’m a hypocrite because I married outside of my race. I don’t see how that statement is even logical.

Because it’s not logical. One have stance that is logically sound, yet it still can be false. The above is neither logically sound nor true. Those that call you a hypocrite either have never taken a logic course or they’re just blinded by their ideology.

 

[Midwest88]

I think what people need to realize is that the institution of marriage as we know it has become so debased by heterosexuals in the West that it would be logically consistent to allow gay marriage which I suppose goes to show just how far gone the secular institution of marriage is. Marriage in the West has become so divorced from children through contraception, sterilization and abortion that arguing “they can’t have children” is kind of irrelevant. Either we work to restore marriage and make it about children again or we come across as contemptibly insincere.

No, it wouldn’t be logically consistent. The reasoning because heterosexuals have royally messed up the sacrament of marriage by being nominal/culture Christians, or cafeteria Catholics, or non-religious yet still getting married and taking vows – in a church, or what you, and approving of all those positions you’ve listed, does not logically allow homosexuals to marry each other. What it does it taints marriage itself and creates indifference, hostility towards marriage and making broken families the norm. No where does it say “Hey, if heteros mess up, then the homosexuals marry each other.” It’s just not sound. You don’t widen the net.

And those who think people who uphold marriage are insincere don’t understand the what marriage stands for. The faults of heterosexuals does not give the go to SSM if they’re intellectually honest about the issue.

 

[SMGS127]

Same Love by Macklemore, right? Every time that comes on the radio I change the station. I find that song frustrating - it’s a political song without any intellectual argument that easily impresses my generation - it’s just emotions and the same old liberal trope.

Not to derail the thread, but I actually greatly enjoy the song. Very little of the song (except a line or two about papers) deals with same-sex “marriage;” most of it deals with stopping the hatred spewed towards gays day-to-day by right-wing stations and everyday bigotry on the streets. I was an out lesbian for several years before converting to the Church, and you would be surprised at some of the stuff I saw, even in liberal states! Many friends completely shun and isolate you once they find out that you’re attracted to people of the same sex, I’ve been called a d**e and sprayed with mud by guys in a passing Jeep, my friend had a similar drive-by incident at his house. And again, this was in a LIBERAL state (albeit my friend’s incident was in a rural pocket, though mine was in a very liberal college town).

To the OP: many gay people consider it similar since homosexuality likely has some unchangeable biological component (although it may not fully explain the issue), and thus, since they see nothing wrong with SS relationships themselves, they equate their innate attraction to members of the same sex with the innate race everyone has. They don’t mean it to be offensive; they mean it to equate many issues that the two groups do share. Gays have been and continue to be victims of genocides across the world, used to be major targets of lynchings in the US (and continue to be, albeit much less often), used to be targets of police brutality in the US (read up on Stonewall), etc. etc. And they continue to be shunned by people and treated like complete outcasts; many people consider it completely okay to fire them for their sexual orientation, regardless of their job title. Evictions happen all the time over sexual orientation as well.

So yes, I understand your frustration that a behavior (acting on their innate impulses) is being equated with an innate trait (your race), but to them, their innate attractions are what make them happy, and the only voices they’ve heard their whole life telling them that they shouldn’t be acting on them are usually filled with hatred and abuse (as they are the loudest and everywhere). Please consider why they equate it; they don’t mean to be offensive in doing so.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Good points made.

I’d also suggest that SSM is compared with interracial marriage because both conditions (namely, homosexual attraction and…well, being black!) are considered to be conditions one is born with by the proponents of this argument.

Even if this is true, the comparison is spurious.

Someone’s skin colour is a physical characteristic and has nothing to do with one’s actions, moral character or being in life. SSM, however, or more broadly, homosexual activity (not the attraction, however), is a result of deliberate acts of the will and consequently do have a moral dimension.

The better comparison would be between homosexual activity and alcoholism. While there may be genetic dispositions to both, the person who decides to have sex with a member of the same sex and the person who decides to drink till the cows come home, still makes a conscious decision to do so.

However, alcoholism is seen as a mental disorder, and nobody wants to see homosexual activity in that same light these days, so it’s conveniently ignored.

 

[Rin]

alcoholism is seen as a mental disorder

(Perhaps OT, but just out of interest: )

By whom? I’ve always seen it described as a physical addiction and hence somatic, and often with a genetic predisposition. A mental disorder can trigger alcohol abuse, of course, which again leads to alcoholism, but I’ve never seen alcoholism as such described as a mental disorder by any health professional.

 

[Lokadottir]

I hope this is in the right place. I couldn’t figure where exactly this should go.

Why is it that SSM is compared to interracial marriage? It infuriates me when my marriage is compared to something that is unnatural. Here is an excerpt from a song and many people, especially young adults feel this way:
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins
It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference

If I say that I’m against SSM, then I’m told I’m a hypocrite because I married outside of my race. I don’t see how that statement is even logical.

Thats why its compared. People who view same sex marriage as fine (such as myself) point out interracial marriage as something else that is totally good and natural but once considered evil. The comparison is good because its an example of a time when conservatives were SURE they had it right and eventually ended the butt of the joke of history.
People call you a hypocrite (which by the way IS a bit rude of them but I’m sure they’re frustrated by that point) because you have been the beneficiary of an expansion in the right to marry but you are withholding it from others. They aren’t calling either unnatural. You think one is so you find it insulting.

 

[Lokadottir]

My guess is they’re trying to perpetuate the false idea that homosexuals are born this way.

You know that is a horrible thing to say when there are kids who as they hit puberty with everyone else but were interested in the “wrong” gender. For people like me who had a beautiful girl/guy walk into the room and fell HARD. People are BORN gay, bi, pan, asexual, and the rest. The same way you did not CHOOSE to be straight but were BORN that way! Do NOT presume you know a person’s life, mind, and heart.

 

[balto]

Thats why its compared. People who view same sex marriage as fine (such as myself) point out interracial marriage as something else that is totally good and natural but once considered evil. The comparison is good because its an example of a time when conservatives were SURE they had it right and eventually ended the butt of the joke of history.

The fact that interracial marriage was once taboo is completely irrelevant to the gay “marriage” debate. Two people of opposite sexes and different races have the same potential for fertility and child-bearing as two people of opposite sex and a different race. Two “married” homosexuals are not fertile and have no potential for being fertile. There’s no such thing as a “gay marriage” because two homosexuals cannot fulfill the form of marriage. A human court or legislative body has no more right to declare that homosexuals can be married than it has the right to declare that, in the interest of fairness, obtuse triangles will now be considered candidates for the Pythagorean theorem. A society that doesn’t recognize this basic fact is in trouble.

 

[balto]

I think what people need to realize is that the institution of marriage as we know it has become so debased by heterosexuals in the West that it would be logically consistent to allow gay marriage which I suppose goes to show just how far gone the secular institution of marriage is. Marriage in the West has become so divorced from children through contraception, sterilization and abortion that arguing “they can’t have children” is kind of irrelevant. Either we work to restore marriage and make it about children again or we come across as contemptibly insincere.

Exactly. Your post is right on the money. We need to start accepting that children and procreation is the major driving force for marriage.

 

[Lokadottir]

Exactly. Your post is right on the money. We need to start accepting that children and procreation is the major driving force for marriage.

the average number of kids in a family for the USA is 2.06 and 2.45 worldwide. (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html)

the birthrate is STABLE why do you insist on breeding like rabbits?

 

[balto]

the average number of kids in a family for the USA is 2.06 and 2.45 worldwide. (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html)

the birthrate is STABLE why do you insist on breeding like rabbits?

I don’t remember making the claim that people should “breed like rabbits.” Are we going down the overpopulation rabbit hole again?

 

[Lokadottir]

I don’t remember making the claim that people should “breed like rabbits.” Are we going down the overpopulation rabbit hole again?

Well the argument that marriage must produce babies is great when you have a need for babies. But when you don’t need tons and tons of babies so some could survive why does it matter so much.

 

[balto]

Well the argument that marriage must produce babies is great when you have a need for babies. But when you don’t need tons and tons of babies so some could survive why does it matter so much.

People are not obligated to get married. If you get married and engage in the sexual act then you need to accept the natural consequences of your actions. Marriage is not some kind of assembly line that produces babies according to how many baby orders society places.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No, it wouldn’t be logically consistent. The reasoning because heterosexuals have royally messed up the sacrament of marriage by being nominal/culture Christians, or cafeteria Catholics, or non-religious yet still getting married and taking vows – in a church, or what you, and approving of all those positions you’ve listed, does not logically allow homosexuals to marry each other. What it does it taints marriage itself and creates indifference, hostility towards marriage and making broken families the norm. No where does it say “Hey, if heteros mess up, then the homosexuals marry each other.” It’s just not sound. You don’t widen the net.

And those who think people who uphold marriage are insincere don’t understand the what marriage stands for. The faults of heterosexuals does not give the go to SSM if they’re intellectually honest about the issue.

I’m not talking about the sacrament of marriage, I’m talking about civil marriage.

Not to derail the thread, but I actually greatly enjoy the song. Very little of the song (except a line or two about papers) deals with same-sex “marriage;” most of it deals with stopping the hatred spewed towards gays day-to-day by right-wing stations and everyday bigotry on the streets. I was an out lesbian for several years before converting to the Church, and you would be surprised at some of the stuff I saw, even in liberal states! Many friends completely shun and isolate you once they find out that you’re attracted to people of the same sex, I’ve been called a d**e and sprayed with mud by guys in a passing Jeep, my friend had a similar drive-by incident at his house. And again, this was in a LIBERAL state (albeit my friend’s incident was in a rural pocket, though mine was in a very liberal college town).

To the OP: many gay people consider it similar since homosexuality likely has some unchangeable biological component (although it may not fully explain the issue), and thus, since they see nothing wrong with SS relationships themselves, they equate their innate attraction to members of the same sex with the innate race everyone has. They don’t mean it to be offensive; they mean it to equate many issues that the two groups do share. Gays have been and continue to be victims of genocides across the world, used to be major targets of lynchings in the US (and continue to be, albeit much less often), used to be targets of police brutality in the US (read up on Stonewall), etc. etc. And they continue to be shunned by people and treated like complete outcasts; many people consider it completely okay to fire them for their sexual orientation, regardless of their job title. Evictions happen all the time over sexual orientation as well.

So yes, I understand your frustration that a behavior (acting on their innate impulses) is being equated with an innate trait (your race), but to them, their innate attractions are what make them happy, and the only voices they’ve heard their whole life telling them that they shouldn’t be acting on them are usually filled with hatred and abuse (as they are the loudest and everywhere). Please consider why they equate it; they don’t mean to be offensive in doing so.

A song I prefer (although it may have to do with previously suffering racial violence)
People are People by Depeche Mode:

People are people
So why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

So we’re different colours
And we’re different creeds
And different people have different needs
It’s obvious you hate me
Though I’ve done nothing wrong
I’ve never even met you so what could I have done

I can’t understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand

Help me understand

Now you’re punching
And you’re kicking
And you’re shouting at me
I’m relying on your common decency
So far it hasn’t surfaced
But I’m sure it exists
It just takes a while to travel
From your head to your fists

I kind of know the feeling of getting harassed by cowards in a car, I was splashed with red dye and called f****t, in a liberal part of California no less.

It’s not really just about sex is it? Is it not as much or more about finding someone to love and be loved by?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Good points made.

I’d also suggest that SSM is compared with interracial marriage because both conditions (namely, homosexual attraction and…well, being black!) are considered to be conditions one is born with by the proponents of this argument.

Even if this is true, the comparison is spurious.

Someone’s skin colour is a physical characteristic and has nothing to do with one’s actions, moral character or being in life. SSM, however, or more broadly, homosexual activity (not the attraction, however), is a result of deliberate acts of the will and consequently do have a moral dimension.
**
The better comparison would be between homosexual activity and alcoholism. While there may be genetic dispositions to both, the person who decides to have sex with a member of the same sex and the person who decides to drink till the cows come home, still makes a conscious decision to do so.**

However, alcoholism is seen as a mental disorder, and nobody wants to see homosexual activity in that same light these days, so it’s conveniently ignored.

There is a genetic vulnerability to addiction in some people which appears most strongly expressed as alcoholism; it doesn’t necessarily prevent someone from enjoying alcohol without becoming an alcoholic.

A key difference between a predisposition to alcoholism and homosexuality is that with the former the person wont even have the faintest clue about it if they’ve never been exposed to alcohol whereas in the latter they will have have an inclination towards gay sex even if they have never even seen or heard of it.

(Perhaps OT, but just out of interest: )

By whom? I’ve always seen it described as a physical addiction and hence somatic, and often with a genetic predisposition. A mental disorder can trigger alcohol abuse, of course, which again leads to alcoholism, but I’ve never seen alcoholism as such described as a mental disorder by any health professional.

I’ve personally always seen it as a maladaptive coping mechanism

The fact that interracial marriage was once taboo is completely irrelevant to the gay “marriage” debate. Two people of opposite sexes and different races have the same potential for fertility and child-bearing as two people of opposite sex and a different race. Two “married” homosexuals are not fertile and have no potential for being fertile. There’s no such thing as a “gay marriage” because two homosexuals cannot fulfill the form of marriage. A human court or legislative body has no more right to declare that homosexuals can be married than it has the right to declare that, in the interest of fairness, obtuse triangles will now be considered candidates for the Pythagorean theorem. A society that doesn’t recognize this basic fact is in trouble.

Marriage was historically about babies and property, now it is just about property. With the new (i.e. less than a century old) definition of marriage it is actually illogical and hypocritical to not allow gay marriage as children are now a nice extra to marriage and by no means necessary instead of being a core and integral part.

Exactly. Your post is right on the money. We need to start accepting that children and procreation is the major driving force for marriage.

I try.

the average number of kids in a family for the USA is 2.06 and 2.45 worldwide. (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html)

the birthrate is STABLE why do you insist on breeding like rabbits?

That birthrate for the US is below replacement rate and is only that high because of immigrant women. Additionally my comment was directed towards the West in general and much of Europe is in a nose dive populationwise.

Well the argument that marriage must produce babies is great when you have a need for babies. But when you don’t need tons and tons of babies so some could survive why does it matter so much.

Miss, I’m not saying it must produce children, merely that having it seen as acceptable to deliberately prevent all children in a marriage severely changes the institution of marriage.

 

[Lokadottir]

I kind of know the feeling of getting harassed by cowards in a car, I was splashed with red dye and called f****t, in a liberal part of California no less.

It’s not really just about sex is it? Is it not as much or more about finding someone to love and be loved by?

:console::hug1:
I’m so sorry you went through that!
It hasn’t just been about sex for a long time in the secular world

 

[Lokadottir]

That birthrate for the US is below replacement rate and is only that high because of immigrant women. Additionally my comment was directed towards the West in general and much of Europe is in a nose dive populationwise.

Miss, I’m not saying it must produce children, merely that having it seen as acceptable to deliberately prevent all children in a marriage severely changes the institution of marriage.

Its a fair point about the birth rate in Europe.
Also you got my gender right!!! YAY
Personally I think love is far more important than babies.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Its a fair point about the birth rate in Europe.
Also you got my gender right!!! YAY
Personally I think love is far more important than babies.

My point was directed at Catholics who blame gay people for destroying the institution of marriage as Catholics know it despite the fact that it was heterosexuals who destroyed it.

Well when you have “dottir” in your name it is pretty obvious to anyone who has spent much time either in Iceland or studying pre-modern Scandinavian history.

I do too, however I find a married couple engaging in sex and deliberately thwarting procreation (which is to say actively trying to prevent it as opposed to simply engaging in coitus during a woman’s infertile period) a bit on the distasteful side.

As perhaps one of the few traditionalist Catholics alive today I am greatly saddened by the modern beliefs that love needs to be expressed through sex and that everyone can and should get married. It is from the disordered belief that marriage is the highest good (heresy) that the belief that we should “cure” gay people often stems from.

A true traditionalist Catholic sees celibacy is both the highest good and that conservatives in addition to liberals have made celibacy very hard to live. The “nuclear family” is just plain unnatural, what is natural is multigenerational families and have families extended by friendship in addition to marriage and blood. In traditional Catholic culture families were also extended by baptism which is to say that the godparents became enmeshed with the family of the baptized child. Eve Tushnet has written a number of good articles on the subject of actual traditional families.

 

[Midwest88]

the average number of kids in a family for the USA is 2.06 and 2.45 worldwide. (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html)

the birthrate is STABLE why do you insist on breeding like rabbits?

Who said to breed like rabbits? Calm. Down. Are you going to call people who have kids breeders?

 

[Lokadottir]

My point was directed at Catholics who blame gay people for destroying the institution of marriage as Catholics know it despite the fact that it was heterosexuals who destroyed it.

Well when you have “dottir” in your name it is pretty obvious to anyone who has spent much time either in Iceland or studying pre-modern Scandinavian history.

I do too, however I find a married couple engaging in sex and deliberately thwarting procreation (which is to say actively trying to prevent it as opposed to simply engaging in coitus during a woman’s infertile period) a bit on the distasteful side.

As perhaps one of the few traditionalist Catholics alive today I am greatly saddened by the modern beliefs that love needs to be expressed through sex and that everyone can and should get married. It is from the disordered belief that marriage is the highest good (heresy) that the belief that we should “cure” gay people often stems from.

A true traditionalist Catholic sees celibacy is both the highest good and that conservatives in addition to liberals have made celibacy very hard to live. The “nuclear family” is just plain unnatural, what is natural is multigenerational families and have families extended by friendship in addition to marriage and blood. In traditional Catholic culture families were also extended by baptism which is to say that the godparents became enmeshed with the family of the baptized child. Eve Tushnet has written a number of good articles on the subject of actual traditional families.

Well I think that the word marriage would be great but they can’t get the legal benefits of marriage. Not tax repeals. Things like having the first decision for your unconscious SO in emergency situations.