More From the Mental Dark Ages: Interracial vs Gay Marriage

brainremoval

Over at Mediaite.com there’s a post [link] that attempts to cast gay marriage opponents in a ridiculous light by equating them with people who opposed interracial marriage in the past. The idea is that since people said things objecting to interracial marriage that are obviously wrong, and people make the same sounding arguments against gay marriage, they too must be wrong.

The problem with their argument is, as usual, logic:

  • Frank makes argument X about subject A
  • It turns out argument X doesn’t hold up when applied A
  • Later Bob makes argument X about Subject B
  • Whether or not the argument, X, holds up in this case doesn’t depend on X…it depends on whether A and B are the same.

The post over at Mediaite fixates on how the arguments are similar but ignores the obvious:  Sex and Race are two different things. Sex implies desire, behavior, and natural function. Race is all physical appearance.

Therefore, just because the arguments sound the same, or even are the same is irrelevant. The question is do they apply in this particular case? The writer never comes close to rationality, but ends with an appeal to fear:

Don’t deny it. For every single one of these quotes you could easily switch out intermarriage for same-sex marriage, and vice versa. Just as how most people no longer regard interracial marriage as unseemly and revolting, most will eventually cease viewing homosexual relationships in such a negative light. The times are a-changin’, and the likes of the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, American Family Association, and Fox’s Todd Starnes’ views on homosexual relationships will meet up with anti-miscegenation beliefs on the dust-bin of history.

Essentially the writer’s argument boils down to: “Agree with me or you’ll look stupid when history is written!” Or to be more precise: “When the progressives write history they’ll make you look stupid!”

And unfortunately, this is what passes for “enlightenment” for leftists.

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

About Keith

Christian, Conservative, Husband, Father, Writer.

4 responses to “More From the Mental Dark Ages: Interracial vs Gay Marriage”

  1. NotAScientist says :

    That’s one reason to change your opinion.

    I’d prefer you changed your opinion because it’s morally correct to allow two adult citizens who love each other to get married, legally, just like my wife and I did. Even if they are of the same gender.

    But if you only change your mind because you’re afraid of being embarrassed, I pragmatically support you.

    • Keith says :

      I agree it’s morally right to allow two citizens to get married, though if “love” is the only criteria, and the state regulates “love” – then it would have to verify the people love each other, which is impossible.

      The state recognizes marriage between opposite sexes because that’s the most reducible unit of society that self-perpetuates. Marriage is a specific thing (the union of 2 sexes) that anyone can participate in, regardless of sex or race. Two citizens who wish to participate in the marriage relationship are welcome to do so. They don’t even have to qualify with “love.” Whether or not they love each other is irrelevant (to the state that is, I would hope they love each other or vacations aren’t going to be much fun.)

      If a same sex couple wants to move in and set up house a live their lives, fine. They’re welcome to do that as well. But they’re not participating in marriage, because as I said before, marriage is something specific at the roots of society

      • NotAScientist says :

        “though if “love” is the only criteria”

        It’s not a criteria. It’s a reason to do it.

        “because as I said before, marriage is something specific at the roots of society”

        I disagree, and so does the government. Have fun with that definition, though, while the gays and the liberals and the atheists get legally married.

      • Keith says :

        Of course it’s a personal reason, but the gov’t should not care whether you love or not. Fundamental definitions about society and sexuality are not created by governments. If they are, then the anti-interracial marriage crowd was right and those who supported it were wrong.

        Your inclusion of atheists is a straw man…and a non-sequitor since I never mentioned anything about them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: