Tag Archives: interracial

More on homosexual marriage.

I ran across a image post on Facebook recently which stated:

A reminder of what happens when we make love a crime.

In reference to the following picture:

My initial reaction was the simple comment that: Interracial marriage and same sex marriage aren’t even close to being the same thing.

After a little bit of flack for daring to bring up the apprently taboo position that same-sex unions are not the same as interracial unions I recieved the following comment:

I think we’re a little mixed up. You said that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are not the same thing. I agree; that’s obvious.

Unfortunately, you’re completely wrong when you say that “it is the favorite refrain from the GLBT community.” I’ve never heard anyone say that, and I’ve been looking at the GLBT community for years.

What we might have said is that bigotry against the two are very, very similar. The point of this statement is that every negative statement about interracial marriage in that clipping is also stated, word for word, about same-sex marriage now.

To which I replied:

And that, Chrisopher, is the basis for my response. The two are simply not the same thing. One does not oppose same sex marriage for the same reasons that interracial marriages were opposed.

One was based on the premise that some races of humans are inferior to others (as mentioned in the article) whereas the other is not (no one is claiming that homosexuals who choose to lead a lifestyle opposed to biological design are subhuman).

Additionally, the article makes clear that the moral basis for supporting interracial marriage (indeed, the very notion that all humans are created equally) is only supported from within a Biblical moral construct.

In fact, the article’s very notion that the two were able to conceive a child gives credibility to the naturalness of their union (ie. that racial differences are merely an arbitrary preferential prejudice and not one based on hard biological facts). Ironically, it is exactly the thing that this article condemns (the creation of a “mixed” child that gives rise to the strongest (imo anyway) line of argumentation against same-sex unions. Namely, that the very concept of a same-sex union is contrary to our natural biological design.

Reply to me:

It just looks like you’re trying to start a fight instead of join us in contemplating how far we’ve come in protecting people’s freedom to love each other.


Nope, just pointing out that the horse you are trying to ride to sexual liberation will not take you very far. The facts are that “free love” is not free even if the participants freely consent.

What we should be asking is where we ought to draw the line when it comes to sexual activity. I imagine few (if any) would want to take up that challenge.

Reply to me:

Well, if you want to come join me in my bedroom and make sure I’m doing it right, you’re welcome any time. ūüėČ


Sorry, but an appeal to privacy doesn’t work here either. There are a lot of things we don’t allow people to do even if it is done in private. Like murdering people or abusing their own (often consenting) children.

Reply to me:

Um, what are you talking about? People talk about “where we ought to draw the line when it comes to sexual activity” all the time. Most people don’t apply strict logic and critical thinking to it, as you’re demonstrating so clearly, but …

You are the one who insisted on reminding everyone how wrong we all are to think that queer folks shouldhave rights. Sorry, but we’re all pretty much just going to make fun of you until you give us a decent reason for that nonsense (and no, “straight folks can make babies” isn’t a good argument at all).


Queer folks don’t have rights? That’s news to me.

And yes, the fact that homosexuals are incapable of procreating is quite a very good argument against same-sex marriage considering one of the major purposes of marriage is the attachment of children with parents (and each other). Same sex unions are built on the fundamental redefinition of a naturally occurring biological entity (the family) so the onus is actually on proponents of same-sex unions to show why we (as a society) should prefer to walk down the road of redefining marriage and family to be something that the state declares rather than something the state merely recognizes.

Reply to me:

1. Your literal position here is that queer folks should not have rights that heterosexual folks do have.

2. Your argument is unambiguously wrong: Firstly, homosexual and bisexual people are absolutely capable of procreating. How the hell have you concluded that they aren’t? Secondly, many heterosexual couples are incapable of procreating and/or don’t intend to do so. My own mother has had the tubes tied, and my father has gotten the bits snipped. I take it you conclude that their marriage should be dissolved, due to their complete inability to procreate?

3. “The family” as you define it isn’t a biological entity. Human beings are, at least occasionally, biologically poly-amorous, as are many, many other mammals closely related to us. I take it, then, that you support polygamy?

4. The state already does “declare” a type of marriage to be legitimate, and other types to not be legitimate. Are you saying that the state and federal governments should cease this discrimination?


1. No, my literal position here is that queer folks DO have the same rights that everyone else has (heterosexuals included). My position is actually in opposition to giving them special rights that no one else has or could have (unless they chose to live in a homosexual lifestyle).

2. Biology my dear friend. Homosexuals simply do not posses the¬†parts necessary to procreate. Your parent’s present condition is actually an argument in favor of the traditional definition of marriage based on biology. You see, your parents had to go to such great lengths to prevent something that occurred naturally whereas a homosexual couple has to go outside of their union to artificially produce something that they could never produce between themselves. And even if they do have a child the child’s biological parents are not the homosexual couple. This brings us back to the state’s role in determining parentage vs. it’s role in simply acknowledging parentage.

3. You are assuming that poly-amorous is the base condition of men. Based on what anthropological evidence? I find it curious that all cultures in human history have held a view of natural marriage as between one man and at least one (sometimes more) woman. However the view of two members of the same sex being involved in an intimate fashion has historically been seen as simply a perversion of natural biological processes.

4. Wrong. The state does not declare anything. The state merely recognizes a natural union between a man and a woman for (among other things) the proactive safety of any children produced by their union. Marriage is also the only institution that does not need to be ratified if a couple decides to move to another country. It is actually a curious fact that even in the most diverse cultures marriages are merely recognized as a pre-existing and pre-governmental union. It’s not really surprising either considering the fact that families (as defined by a marital union) are the building blocks of societies.

Sorry, an assault on marriage is an assault on nature. And just as it is foolish to whine about the naturally occurring law of gravity it is foolish to whine about the naturally occurring laws of biology. Sure, you could change the law to decree that square circles really do exist, but that simply doesn’t make it so.

At this point I took off for a few hours during which the conversation ran off without me (actually, I received quite a few comments) so rather than address them each individually, I decided to simply provide a summary in closing.


Wow, I took off a few hours to play with my kids and miss most of the conversation.

I must admit that it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to address most of what has been brought up at this point but I did want to say, in closing (this will be my last post on this thread, I’ll give yall the last word), that while I appreciate your zeal for righting what you perceive to be a wrong. That is, I know many or most of you firmly believe that homosexuals truly are being denied a “right” and that such a “right” has no bearing on anyone else. I must again reiterate a few key facts:

1. Marriage is a natural state determined by biology and upheld by human society. There are many reasons for this, ONE of which is the rearing of children. Note the singular case among a plural backdrop for those of you who seem to think this argument lends itself to a reducto ad absurnum once reproduction is taken out of the picture. Men cannot father children by themselves (asexually) or with other men and neither can women bear children without the aid of men.

“Wait, I don’t possess the parts necessary to procreate? Then how the hell did I have a son?”

No, you do not posses the full 46 chromosomes necessary for the production of human life. You posses only 23 chromosomes which can not be conjoined with 23 chromosomes from another woman. So in order for you to have had a son you had to have either had intercourse with a man or you had to have received genetic material from one. One thing is certain, however, and that is that both a man and a woman were involved in the production of human life.

2. Marriage consisting of a man and a woman is the ideal institution for rearing children. Studies have conclusively shown that children need both sexes of parents. Ideally, the biological parents who, as I mentioned above, must be male and female anyway. Alternate forms of family such as foster homes, adopted parents, and even single parent households all exist as exceptions to the rule and all require, among other things, heavy government intervention in order to function properly (or at all). This leads me to my third point which is..

3. Marriage is the basic building block of society. Many ask why we have marriage at all if there are many instances where children may not be the result of such a union. However this is rather narrow and short sighted since, as Christopher’s example of his parent’s measures of preventing further conception above clearly demonstrate, heterosexual union is the only type of union that results in the production of new life. So the question is really more along the lines of what we should do about it. We could expect people to just “do the right thing” but that, as history has proven thanks to the sexual revolution, is naive at best and willfully negligent at worst. It also neglects the clear rights of the children to both their parents (which were, again, a male and a female). So marriage exists to proactively answer not only the rights of the child but also the demands of the state since a state with an inordinate amount of broken homes will inevitably spend more on mending the fissures of broken homes (of which homosexual unions are at the outset) than they would otherwise.

Many like to raise the question “what does it matter to heterosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to marry”. Well the answers are many but here are two:

1. Governments, under societies that allow homosexual unions, necessarily step into the role of assigning parentage rather than merely recognizing it. When my children were borne no one asked my wife who we wanted to assign parentage to (for either of our distinct and separate roles), rather they merely recorded what had happened 9 months earlier.

2. Since homosexual marriage is being pushed as tantamount to racism (or, as the initial post implies, opposing interracial marriage) those of us who continue to oppose homosexuality as the perversion of nature it is will necessarily be seen and treated in the same manner as racists are today. Not that I really mind the social stigma (on the contrary, I consider it an honor to be considered backwards and a bigot for my defense of traditional, natural, marriage), but the problem comes in with additional laws that attempt to “weed out” what society has deemed to be “intolerant”. Specifically, being branded a “sexual racist” (a term that is incoherent but which characterizes the GLBT community’s strongest, or only, positive argument) would necessarily place one in legally precarious situations in a whole host of areas Just imagine, if you will, how racists are treated in the workforce, in government, etc. If the argument were “we want the right to have sex with whomever/whatever we want in the privacy of our own bedrooms I may not be as vocally opposed.

However to form a “movement” around it with the express aim of making a sexually deviant practice a socially accepted norm is to draw a line in the sand and declare war. Simply put, there are no neutral sides to this issue. Ideas and movements have very real consequences.

For those of you who are shocked with people like me who vehemently oppose the GLBT agenda I simply want to ask; What did you expect would be the response? Did you honestly expect people like me to simply roll over and accept a wholesale change in societal (moral, religious, etc.) norms?