Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you suggesting that, had bans on interracial marriage existed "since the dawn of man", you would oppose its legalization?
No, you aren't. Because you're making the classic tactical ploy of creating an entirely irrelevant distinction between gay marriage and interracial marriage that has no actual relevance to the debate. So yeah, interracial marriage is different because <insert legalities>. But we all agree that banning interracial marriage is unethical because of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not it was a federal or state law.
Big blunder on your part. Slavery had been around since the dawn of man.
You need to read up on your history. Polygamy has been more common than monogamy. Additionally, most marriages before very recent times were arranged between a 40 year old man and a 14 year old girl. Would you have opposed reform of this injustice had you lived during that time? By your very logic, you would have.
Banning interracial marriage has nothing to do with ethics. At its core it deprived people of certain states the ability to marry members of another race. It was a law based rooted in customs of the day but had no fundamental basis in the global traditions of marriage. It did not violate the expressed purpose of marriage of binding men and women into societal contracts where children born of such unions would be declared the children if the husband and entitled to inheritance.
Gays marrying is abomination not only to God but to the laws of man and Nature.
Nope it did not. It changed the laws based on custom in the South. In fact there was no ban on interracial marriage in Colonial Virginia until much later. There HAS ALWAYS been a ban on two men marrying so much so that it wasn't even contemplated. That's how other worldly gay marriage is to the human condition.
There was no ban on SSM in most states until the 1990s. Before that there were few states that actually had bans, or laws against SSM.
Nope it did not. It changed the laws based on custom in the South. In fact there was no ban on interracial marriage in Colonial Virginia until much later. There HAS ALWAYS been a ban on two men marrying so much so that it wasn't even contemplated. That's how other worldly gay marriage is to the human condition.
If by "much later" you mean 1691, or less than 100 years after Jamestown was settled, then yes.
Banning interracial marriage has nothing to do with ethics. At its core it deprived people of certain states the ability to marry members of another race. It was a law based rooted in customs of the day but had no fundamental basis in the global traditions of marriage.
So let me posit to you a hypothetical: if interracial marriage had indeed been universally banned across all societies up until the point in which its legalization gained momentum, would you have opposed it on the grounds of a blatant logical fallacy (appeal to tradition)?
Quote:
It did not violate the expressed purpose of marriage of binding men and women into societal contracts where children born of such unions would be declared the children if the husband and entitled to inheritance.
So what about sterile straight couples? What about 60 year old couples marrying?
Quote:
Gays marrying is abomination not only to God but to the laws of man and Nature.
No logical argument here: just vague handwaving about gay marriage being opposed to the "laws of man and Nature", whatever that means. You can't actually come up with an empirical, objective negative effect of gays marrying, and so you just insert circular reasoning ("marriage must be between a man and a woman because that's its definition") and appeals to tradition that could have just as easily been used to support slavery.
----
PS. You need to get your facts straight. Gay marriage has indeed existed in isolated pockets throughout history.
PPS. You know what had been legal throughout all history until very recently in the course of human events? Slavery. I could copy-paste your argument, alter a few words and give you an old southern dialect, and your soliloquy could be published in a southern confederate newspaper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
