Same-Sex Marriage is Not Today’s Replay of Interracial Marriage

By Tom Gilson Published on June 19, 2017

June 12 was the 50th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that made interracial marriage legal across the United States. So someone was bound to publish an article, claiming that arguments made against same-sex marriage today are just like arguments made against interracial marriage fifty years ago. Therefore (so it goes) people who oppose same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, just like those who once opposed marriage between races.

I’ll be glad to agree with them. Sure, the arguments are the same. There’s no difference at all! Just like there’s no difference between a man and a mouse.

Take Dave Singleton’s article at Salon.com. For the most part it’s a story — a moving and very personal one, at that. He tells what it was like when he found out it was his godfather and uncle, Robert McIlwaine, who had argued the state’s position against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court in the Loving case.

It’s a great read, except for the errors he makes here:

The similarity in language used by lawyers arguing on both sides of interracial and gay marriage is undeniable. I’ve heard the same faulty logic used in Loving v. Virginia applied to gays and lesbians: Gay marriage is a sacrilege that will topple society, and heterosexual marriages will suffer. One state shouldn’t have to accept what another state legitimizes. And what about the kids Adam and Steve aren’t fit to raise? Unless reared by Adam and Eve, they will be messed up, scorned by society and miserable.

Yes, there’s “similarity” there. Humans and mice have a lot in common, too. Mice and men both have four limbs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth and hair. Therefore what’s true for men is true for mice, right? Sure — if you ignore all the differences. That’s what Singleton did here.

Same-sex marriage could never have been anything but an exception — if anyone even thought about it, that is.

Those differences are plenty. I’ll focus on just four of them.

1. Common Beliefs Across All of Humanity

Unlike the situation with same-sex marriage, people in general have never taken it as given that there’s something wrong with marriage between races. As Francis Beckwith wrote in a very helpful 2010 Public Discourse article, common law never put forth any ban on marriage between races. That means that “interracial marriage was a common-law liberty,” of a sort that could only be turned back by laws specially written to have that effect. Some states wrote those laws to that end, but they were the exception, not the rule.

Same-sex marriage, in contrast, could never have been anything but an exception — if anyone even thought about it, that is, which never happened until just a few years ago.

2. Interracial Marriage was “Wrong,” Same-Sex Marriage Didn’t Exist

Some states made interracial marriages illegal — but just as an illegal left turn is still a left turn, those illegal marriages were still marriages. Those states might have considered them harmful marriages, the wrong sort of marriages, and ultimately illegal marriages, but they still considered them marriages. Beckwith reminds us (quite sensibly) that it would have made no sense to write laws against people of different races getting married, unless it was in some real sense possible for them to marry.

All this is completely different when it comes to same-sex marriage. It wasn’t the case (as it had been with interracial marriage) that same-sex couples were getting married, and lawmakers decided to call it off because they thought it was wrong or harmful. There was nothing there to call off. Same-sex marriage didn’t even exist. The Supreme Court in 2015 didn’t just declare it legal, as they had in the Loving case; the Court actually created a new thing that had never existed before, except in those few states that had already done the same thing before then.

In fact, as Beckwith points out, same-sex marriage has a lot in common with these former laws against marriage between races. Both of them rely on state coercion to define marriage in terms of something other than the natural, historic understanding of male and female uniting as a couple and to build a family.

3. Interracial Marriage was Banned, Same-Sex Marriage Wasn’t

The matter of how marriage is defined has always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage.

Look at it this way: Same-sex marriage was never banned. It was never even “against the law.” While some states banned marriage between races, no state ever did that with same-sex marriage. Instead states took it to be non-existent simply by the way marriage was defined.

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision two years ago was very different from Loving, for it reversed no ban. Instead it created a new definition for marriage. Rather than letting marriage be defined as it always has been: the lifelong committed union between a man and a woman, whose natural expectation is (for the great majority) the building of a family, the court made it something else entirely, the law. It became, for the first time, the committed union of any two adults who get along together, and probably have a romantic attraction to each other.

4. How Marriage is Defined

And that matter of how marriage is defined has always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage. The single most influential work against same-sex marriage was a paper by three scholars for the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, followed by a book on the same topic by the same authors. Both works centered on the definition of marriage. There is something that marriage is, they say; there is something that makes marriage marriage, and that something necessarily includes the male-female aspect. Their reasons for that go far beyond the social effects Singleton lists in his article (and beyond what I have room to discuss here).

That’s not to say no one has ever put forth other arguments besides these. Singleton names a few of them (with a dismissive sneer). But those arguments are like ears, nose and hair: they tell part of the story, but they don’t omit some of the knowledge that counts the most.

Summary: A Man or a Mouse?

Let me summarize before I close.

Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are just too different to be called the same sort of thing.

Some states made decisions contrary to the rest of the country and against most of history. They decided marriage between races was a bad idea, so it should be banned.

In contrast to that, no state has ever banned same-sex marriage. Until an eye blink of history ago, no state ever took action against it because it was a bad idea. Instead, marriage was always, by definition a relationship for opposite-sex couples. There are good reasons it was defined that way. That definition and its reasons have always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage.

I’m sure Dave Singleton can tell a man from a mouse. I’m sure he knows differences matter, even where similarities may also exist. In the matter of marriage, though, he ignores real differences that really exist. Either that, or else he hides them.

Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are just too different to be called the same sort of thing.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    I believe interracial marriage is bad, and I should be free to reject those who engage in it, but I don’t believe it should be illegal. If a man, of any race, marries a woman of any race, it is still a marriage, provided they meet the other qualifications. Every marriage must have both a husband and a wife. That is only possible if a man marries a woman. That is one reason “same-sex marriage” is not marriage and never can be. There is no husband, or wife in a “same-sex marriage”, and without both, there can be no marriage.

    • Charles Burge

      Curious… why do you think interracial marriage is bad? Skin color is just one genetic trait among many. Would it be bad for a man with brown eyes to marry a woman with blue eyes? What about a marriage between a right-hander and a left-hander?

      Did you know that Moses had an Ethiopian wife? At no place does scripture condemn him for that (though it does note he had domestic tension stemming from other, unrelated factors).

      • Gary

        It is obvious, at least to me, that God made differences of race in people. I don’t know why God did that, but He did. Its a difference that I don’t feel qualified to tamper with by producing mixed race children. If there are no children involved, then that eliminates one problem I see with it.

        • Charles Burge

          Sorry but I think you haven’t been reading the Bible correctly. 🙂
          What it does say is that all humans are “one blood”. We’re all descended from Adam, so really there’s only one race – the human race. Like I said above, skin color is just as superficial as hair color or eye color. And if you’re going to start drawing arbitrary lines, where do you draw them? Should a Finn not marry an Italian? Should a Japanese not marry a Maori? If you pursue that line of thought, I think it begins to get rather silly.

          • Gary

            We disagree. Are you in a mixed race marriage, or have friends or relatives who are?

          • Charles Burge

            Yes, though my opinion would be the same even if the answer were different.

          • Gary

            Maybe.

          • Jim Walker

            Many people have mixed race in the US.
            I have a friend who has a Chinese surname but she is black, another whose half Japanese and many more mixed, some with 4 races.
            For all you know, you maybe 1/10 Chinese.
            Therefore, please remove the filters from your eyes and look at everyone with God’s eyes.

          • Gary

            I have some Cherokee in my ancestry. That does not mean I would marry a Cherokee, or want my children to. And it does not mean I am hostile to Cherokees. It just means I oppose interracial marriage.

          • Jim Walker

            Why do you oppose to interracial marriage?

          • Gary

            See my reasons in my other comments here.

    • GPS Daddy

      I know Christian couples who are in ‘mixed’ marriages. I know their children. Awesome God fearing children who passionitly love Jesus. One couple in particular puts both my wife and I to shame in the strength of their faith.

      • Gary

        OK.

        • GPS Daddy

          So let’s put two and two together. These couples are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Clearly Jesus is the author of their marriages. While you have the “legal” right of association you do not have the spiritual freedom to separate yourself from these people if you were to find yourself in their presence. Doing so would be a sin.

          • Gary

            It is not necessarily a given that Jesus is the “author of their marriages”. And we all choose who our friends are. There are many people who claim to be Christians who I choose to stay away from.

          • Andrew Mason

            Thanks for the responses you gave above. I find it an interesting albeit very unusual perspective so I’m trying to get my head around it. Note I have very close friends in mixed-race God fearing relationships so obviously see things differently to you.

            From what I understand your position is that the obvious differences between the races is proof that God means for the races to be kept separate, but that the Bible doesn’t explicitly prohibit interracial marriage. And if I’m understanding your argument, children of mixed race ancestry need to select their race – in your case White (I assume) rather than Cherokee (is that a race?), and marry within it. Is this correct?

            How then are you defining race? I presume you’d be opposed to a Black and an Asian marrying, but what of those Blacks who naturally possess Asiatic features – the Khoisan perhaps? And what of northern Asians who despite possessing standard Oriental features, possess skin as white, or whiter, than your own? Do you consider race a matter of skin “colour” or features? What of the union of a member of the red haired green eyed Irish race and the blond haired blue eyed Germanic race? Have you ever considered that the concept of race is a modern construct and a dangerous one at that, and best replaced by the Biblical kinds? Please don’t think I’m trying to pick on you, I’m genuinely curious about what is, to me, a novel perspective. Oh as a final question, assuming you’re willing to put up with my questions, and assuming you do indeed reject all the above, would you consider a brown haired brown eyed White man marrying a brown haired brown eyed White woman a valid marriage if only one of the two is Christian, or would you consider it unBiblical irrespective of what the law says?

          • Gary

            The Bible prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. I’m not trying to tell others what to do about interracial marriage. I am Scots-Irish, but I would not refuse to marry someone who was English, German, French, etc. as long as I was satisfied with their ancestry.

          • Jim Walker

            Now I know, you just can’t accept people with yellow, brown and black skin tones especially people with slitty eyes ?
            Maybe you should mix around with these people more, they are nice people, much better than those white Christians you choose to stay away from.

          • Gary

            I’m sure some of them are nice. That does not mean I would want them as family members.

          • Do you consider yourself a white supremacist, Gary?

          • Gary

            What is a “white supremacist”?

          • Andrew Mason

            Oh we don’t think you’re trying to tell anyone what to do, it’s just some of us are confused about exactly what your position is. You’ve not defined race, though have suggested Scots, Irish, English, German, and French are sufficiently similar to be acceptable, that Cherokee is something else, and that yellow, brown, and black skinned people, especially those with slitty eyes, are unacceptably different. It almost sounds to me as if you’re conforming to some sort of evolutionary concept of distinct Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid races. That being said such a breakdown does exclude some white skinned folk and includes the likes of Arabs and Indians whereas I’m guessing you’d exclude both.

            By the by, I agree with you that Christians are told not to be unequally yoked.

        • Andrew Mason

          Given Jesus’ ancestry includes interracial marriage would you mind explaining why you think such marriages are bad? Is it a cultural incompatibility thing or something?

          • Gary

            See my replies above.

          • Jim Walker

            With all due respect Gary, this is the side that we all never knew.
            You give me the impression you are a lighter version of the KKK.

    • Jim Walker

      “I believe interracial marriage is bad, and I should be free to reject those who engage in it”.
      This is a rather racist remark… So you will object to your child marrying someone of different race or color ? What if the person is a Christian ? I can’t pick and choose my kids’ spouse but I guide them to make the right choices and 1st in my rule book is to be of equally yoke.

    • porcupineman1454

      Gary, I have to disagree and wonder what Biblical evidence you have to support your opinion that “interracial marriage is bad.” I do have a personal bias around this, having been happily married almost 21 years to my half Chinese, half Columbian wife. We have four children, and we’re all God-fearing Christians who obey the Word and meditate on it often. I see nothing wrong with our family stucture as illuminated by the advice and commands in the Bible, but hey, perhaps you can lead me to an epiphany I’ve been missing all these years.

      • GPS Daddy

        Very good question. I can’t think of a single passage in the Bible that could even be twisted to support the idea that “interracial marriage is bad.”

      • GPS Daddy

        If Gary is going to discriminate based on skin color then how about skin tones? Can a very black persons marry a lighter black persons? If body features are a big deal to God then what about the differences between Asians? Japanese verses Chineses verses Korean? Certinally Gary’s theological views has to address these!

        • porcupineman1454

          I would go one step further. To prevent “miscegenation”, no one should marry anyone who isn’t A) the same race, and B) their first cousin. Problem solved!

          • GPS Daddy

            From Gary’s irrational presupposition a whole pharasitcal system of rules can be made to be sure we did not offend the one who made us all.

      • Gary

        I don’t know of any Biblical evidence that prohibits interracial marriage. But, to me, its logical because of the very obvious differences God made in people. If God wanted everyone to look alike, people would not look different. When people of different races have children, they are blurring the lines that God obviously made.

        • Jim Walker

          Oh I see, so do you consider yourself a “blur” race ?
          You are part Cherokee.
          By your logic, if everyone thinks like you, and since you are not a “pure” race, no one will marry you because you are a “blur”.

          • Gary

            Most people don’t think like me. No one would know I have any Cherokee ancestry by looking at me. I can’t help the mistakes my ancestors made. I try to learn from the mistakes of others and try not to repeat them.

          • I don’t understand, Gary. You make it sound as though various races appeared in different places completely independent of each other. Doesn’t tradition say they all go back to Adam & Eve?

          • Gary

            The Bible says the first two people were Adam and Eve.

          • So that makes us all interrelated, right?

          • Gary

            We all descended from Adam and Eve.

          • So isn’t that the same thing?

          • Gary

            We are all people, but there are many differences between us, including race, that make intermarriage a bad idea.

          • Jim Walker

            I guess your wife isn’t as picky as you.

        • porcupineman1454

          There is no evidence in the Bible to support what you have said, and you even admit it. I admire your honesty when you admit that nothing you said is Biblically based and you’re going off your own feelings and biases, but that doesn’t mean I can remotely respect your opinion.

          Moses and Ruth are two Biblical people who were interracially married. Numbers 12:1 reads. “Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.” For their criticism, “The anger of the LORD burned against them, and he left them.”

          I don’t see any Biblical, scientific or rational evidence that suggests different races should keep to themselves. Neither do you, but at least you admit it.

          • Gary

            Then you can mix with other races all you want. And I can avoid you all I want.

          • porcupineman1454

            You go so far as to AVOID people other races? That is not Biblical, and you may recieve judgment in heaven for your arrogance. Your actions are not Biblically based whatsoever. They are the opposite. I respected many of your opinions previously, Gary, but now I have lost much respect for you. I’m glad you’ll be avoiding me, though I’m sure we never would have met anyway. I’ll do the same.

  • While it’s true that the Constitution doesn’t define “marriage,” the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

    Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.

    Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

    This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.

    The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.

    • Gary

      You won’t mind if I don’t accept ssm as being real marriage, will you?

      • Of course I don’t mind. It’s no skin off my back. You don’t have to go to any Gay weddings. You don’t have to have any Gay friends. And you can preach hellfire and damnation against Gay people until the cows come home. Have at it.

        But there are three reasons why marriage equality for Gay couples is becoming a non-issue, even among conservatives:

        1: The LGBT community has simply done a much more articulate job of stating our case for marriage equality than the anti-Gay side has in stating their case against it. While they have spoken in abstractions, we have personalized the issue.

        2: Unlike 30 years ago, most people today are AWARE of friends & family members who are Gay, and with that awareness has come vastly increased acceptance and support.

        3: People know that getting married is preferable to simply shacking up together. And the friends and family members that the couple makes that solemn commitment before will act as a social support system within which the couple can better honor their vows. It doesn’t matter whether the couple in question is Straight or Gay.

        • Gary

          Why is getting married preferable to shacking up?

          • You don’t think so? Marriage provides a legal and social incentive for a couple to honor their commitment to one another.

          • Gary

            Marriage is better than shacking up because sex outside of marriage is a sin. If that were not the case, there would be no reason for marriage. People can commit to each other without marriage. But, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage can NEVER be the union of two men, or two women.

          • “Marriage can NEVER be the union of two men, or two women.”

            You are free to believe that, despite what the law says.

          • Gary

            It is a fact. The law is wrong. A marriage MUST have both a husband and a wife. A “ssm” has neither so it can’t be a marriage.

          • Fine, Gary. Live your life.

          • Jackie

            Can I point out how much same sex ‘marriages’ harm the children that have to grow up in these situations? They are old enough to speak out against them now, and do, despite loving their ‘parents’ they know for a fact how it distorts and impairs even normal social interaction among peers.

          • Jim Walker

            You obviously don’t even understand the real meaning of a marriage.

          • According to YOU, Jim? Or the meaning of civil marriage under the law?

          • Jim Walker

            The Bible.

          • Oh, of course. Well, neither the Bible nor Christianity are mentioned in the Constitution. It’s not the job of our government to uphold The Bible, but rather to uphold the Constitution. And there was never an constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

          • Gary

            The US Constitution does not have rules for marriage. It does not prohibit heterosexual only marriage. It does not require ssm to be legal. The Constitution cannot be used to support ssm.

          • Jim Walker

            You go on with your life.

          • Andrew Mason

            Just to throw a curveball into this particular debate, what about those folk given an ecclesiastical marriage, but who are simply shacked up as far as the government is concerned? There are churches that arehave considered adopting this model. If the government insists on perverting marriage why should the churches support the government in their efforts? A church marriage licence + a name change and you’re Mr & Mrs.

          • It raises the question of what differentiates a “civil marriage” from a “sacramental marriage.”

            As long as they aren’t benefiting from tax dollars, churches and mosques and synagogues have always been free to conduct their own affairs as they see fit. If an Atheist couple wanted to have their wedding ceremony inside a church simply because they found the environment aesthetically pleasing, the church wouldn’t be obliged to open its doors to them (although a big donation from the couple might help matters.

            In any case, couples do not need church approval to obtain a civil marriage license. And none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church.

          • Andrew Mason

            Er any marriage benefits are jurisdiction specific and those advocating for homosexual marriage whilst proclaiming inequality, oddly reticent about what those inequalities might be. The big one I’ve seen is that foreign jurisdictions don’t recognise unions other than marriage, to which I say good luck convincing the Saudi Arabian authorities that the bloke you’re in bed with is your legal spouse!!!

          • Visiting Saudi Arabia is no on my bucket list. And I DO grieve for all the Gay people in the world who are persecuted and killed. I wish there was more I could do about it. I do contribute financial support to OutRight Action International, formerly known as the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

          • Charles Burge

            That was actually the case for my ancestors, who were Swiss Mennonites. They had their own clergy (apart from the Catholic clergy recognized by the state), who officiated weddings. Since the state did not recognize their marriages, their children were considered illegitimate and therefore could not inherit property. This was, of course, an intolerable situation for them, and prompted them to eventually move to America. Granted, those were different times and inheritance laws are different now. Still, I think that’s an interesting part of my family history.

          • Fishcicle

            You’re entitled to your opinion about marriage. What I think is wrong is what used to happen to gay people: they would lose their jobs because of their orientation, be assaulted, maimed, or even killed. That’s what is wrong. That’s what I don’t want to see come back.

          • Gary

            They can work for someone who wants to hire them. Lots of people now accept homosexuals. You have to be careful where and when you assault someone now. The legal penalties are much greater than they used to be. That’s a bad thing in my opinion.

          • Fishcicle

            So you wouldn’t care if anyone assaulted you?

        • JP

          There has never been any real debate on homosexual “marriage” in society. There is no case to be made for homosexual “marriage” which is why it was done by courts and not by legislation of our lawmakers. The idea of a homosexual “marriage” is an impossibility. A marriage must have a husband and wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. In homosexual “marriages” you don’t have that. Thus, no marriage.

          • Believe that if you like. The law says otherwise.

          • JP

            The law is corrupt. Not all laws are just and right. We see this with abortion. Abortion is legalized murder.

    • Jim Walker

      By your logic, any form of union is possible, a man and his pig, a woman and her dog, a pedophile and his littleness girlfriend etc up to your vivid imagination.
      The problem is these people want to force it down your throats to accept everything they do.

      • Right, Jim. And if you allow a man to marry a woman, you have to let him marry his daughter …. or his mother …. or as many women as he wants. I mean, it’s just LOGICAL, isn’t it?

        • Jim Walker

          By your logic yes. Not mine.

          • That’s not exactly what I meant, but whatever. Enlighten me: Why is it that allowing a Straight couple to marry does not logically lead to polygamy, but allowing Gay couples means that you have allow a woman to marry her dog?

          • Andrew Mason

            It depends on the legal system. In the West marriage is (or was) 1 eligible man + 1 eligible woman. It is (was) a rigid system that iswas therefore unable to accept or lead to polygamy. By instead defining marriage as whatever union a government arbitrarily deems to be marriage the concept is no longer fixed. If a government now decides a man and his daughter can marry, well that’s government marriage too.

          • Jim Walker

            Thanks Andrew Mason for your great explanation.

          • Natural marriage is marriage that’s oriented toward the building of families, and its limits are defined according to what is consistent with that purpose. That’s why its logic doesn’t lead to the strange places you propose, Chuck.

          • Paul Duca

            Spoken as only someone without a marriage or building a family can…

    • Chuck, that term you used — “marriage equality” — is a favorite in this debate. It’s also a red herring. Better, it’s a meaningless term, because it’s so context-dependent. No one believes in marriage equality; everyone believes in marriage equality, depending on the context.

      It’s a meaningless term, a red herring at best, yet SSM supporters like you continue to use it for its rhetorical effectiveness. It has emotional pull, even if it doesn’t mean a thing. Rhetoric is often misleading that way.

      Scroll to the search field at the top of the page here and search “pretending about marriage equality” for my article on that.

      • You’re wrong, meanwhile, to say nothing is happening to traditional marriage. Marriage culture has been growing weaker year by year for several decades. Gay marriage is a symptom, not a chief cause of that — until now, when the effect of gay marriage is to stamp this weakening marriage culture with approval, as if it were a good thing.

        • The idea that Gay couples getting married is going to weaken the institution of marriage is counterintuitive. If anything, it’s an ENDORSEMENT of marriage.

          • Gary

            Ssm is the perversion of marriage. It is illegitimately called marriage.

          • Az1seeit

            No, it’s not even marriage, since one needs a male and female for that. In your piece, you brought up the civil aspects of marriage. Therefore, don’t call it marriage, call it a civil union and we’re golden.

          • All the usual “family values” groups fought just as viciously against “civil unions” for Gay couples. And such “civil unions” were not recognized by the federal government.

          • Az1seeit

            And, they probably thought through it more than I have. Doesn’t change the fact that we now have unreality codified in our legal system.

          • It’s an endorsement of a seriously weakened form of marriage: marriage that exists almost exclusively for the satisfaction of the couple. This is the kind of marriage that’s been increasing among us for a few decades now, and the result of it has been to play badly into the overall breakdown of the family.

        • Jeremy L

          Being offered marriage would encourage gay people to be monogamous. If gay people really were all exclusively devoted to and aligned with a culture of promiscuity, why would they have fought so hard for marriage? Chuck is absolutely right. Gay marriage has done nothing but decrease the amount of promiscuity in the world. It is indeed counterintuitive to insist it somehow is increasing promiscuity.

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Hey Chuck, I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments. If I may, I would like to offer a few counterpoints. In your first paragraph, you correctly point out that the government has, historically, taken a vested interest in marriage by “scewing” various laws favor of traditional marriage. There’s a practical reason for that. The gov’t realizes that a couple can produce something that can be very dangerous to society – a child. The gov’t does not want that child to become reliant on welfare or mixed up in the criminal justice system, and therefore the gov’t wisely adopts rules and regs that favor and ease the rearing of that child by a mom and a dad.

      Your statement that this is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law is odd, because this is not a matter of discrimination and it never was. A “gay” man had as much to right to marry any woman he wanted to, same as me! No discrimination. The fact that they do not WANT to, or do not like that restriction does not mean they are not being treated equally. The SC fell into the logical trap of conflating discrimination with preference. One is constitutionally protected, the other is most decidedly not. The reason it is not is because that logic knows no bounds. Here’s an example. I don’t like being in the 40% tax bracket. Is it not discrimination that someone else can pay 30%, 20% 0% taxes? I do not get anything “extra” from the gov’t than someone else in a lower tax bracket. Using the same logic, since it is not my preference to pay 40% in taxes, I should be able to sue the gov’t as being discriminatory to my desires.

      Part 1 of 2

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Religious beliefs are very relevant to this discussion. The very concept of marriage is religious, and has been for as long as mankind has been around. See Genesis 1. The US is not a theocracy, but our nation was founded on religious principles (“we hold these truths to be self evident…”).

      Procreation and parenting are of utmost importance! See my discussion above regarding the gov’t view of parenting and children and why the gov’t promotes these things with favorable laws. You are correct that procreation is not a condition precedent to marriage. Procreation, however, can only come about between a man and a woman, and study after study clearly shows that a child raised by a mom and a dad in a stable marriage have a FAR FAR greater chance of becoming responsible and loving adult. Same sex unions cannot and do not offer that, and they never will.
      Part 2 of 2

      • Even couples who are utterly incapable of “consummating” their marriage are still able to marry. Couples do not even have to share the same home in order to be married. You just have to be two unrelated adults. Beyond that, the government doesn’t ask too many questions.

        • Jeremy L

          Thank you for “even couples who are utterly incapable of ‘consummating’ their marriage are still able to marry”. I HIGHLY doubt these people would protest, say, a man who is paralyzed from the waist down marrying a woman. They keep repeating, “It isn’t about love, it’s about having kids”, and yet they’ll make an exception for any heterosexual because they don’t mind heterosexuals. “We care about children” is a smokescreen for simply holding irrational animus towards gays for no reason other than they’re different.

  • Gary

    I’m praying that God will remove two more liberals from the US Supreme Court and that they will be replaced by people who will limit themselves to their proper constitutional roles. “Same-sex marriage” was forced on America by five corrupt, immoral judges. If just one of them had been a judge who is willing to abide by the US Constitution, ssm would still be illegal in most states.

  • Gary

    I question why Christians should feel any loyalty for or have any good will toward a government that sanctions homosexuality. The US Government has given God the finger, and by extension, given the finger to Christians.

    • Az1seeit

      Well…part of me wants to agree with you….except that Jesus and the apostles admonish us to respect those authorities. I take your point, however, and when I personally am required to either go along with the government’s foray into the Twilight Zone or suffer the consequences, I trust the Lord to be with me and guide my steps.

      • Gary

        God commands all governments to be moral. When they stop being moral, our obligation to respect them stops.

        • Charles Burge

          I’m pretty sure Paul would disagree with you on that point. When he was writing the book of Romans, Nero was emperor of Rome.

          • Jackie

            The Bible clearly states to follow the laws of man UNLESS those laws break one of the laws of God. Putting homosexuality as your idol is breaking the laws of God; just the same as making money your idol does.

          • Fishcicle

            Assaulting people is against the law. That’s what often used to happen to people for being gay. I would defend you against being assaulted for your orientation, your opinions, or anything else.

          • Gary

            Paul makes it clear that the government is obligated to be moral in its rules and in their enforcement. Legalizing ssm contradicts those obligations. Are you saying that because ssm is legal that we should accept it as being legitimate?

  • Fishcicle

    The way in which same-sex marriage is an exception is in being something says it is NOT okay to persecute people for their sexual orientation. It’s an exception that a lot of people get very upset about, something I don’t really don’t understand. How does consenting adults having sex together affect me or you? It DOESN’T affect me, as far as I can tell. How does it affect YOU? And if it’s prohibited by God, why not allow God to punish it? “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

    • Gary

      Are you suggesting that we accept homosexuals, or just try to ignore them?

      • Fishcicle

        I think either one would be acceptable. What would NOT be would be going back to the days when it was perfectly fine to persecute people for their sexual orientations and nothing else.

        • Gary

          But I like doing that.

          • Of course you do!

          • Fishcicle

            You like persecuting people? Is it also okay for people to persecute you?

    • Az1seeit

      I don’t care what consenting adults want to do in their bedroom: their. choice. I do care when you try to change reality and force everyone to accept it. I’m not a homophobe: I’m a…deceptionphobe. I don’t care what the subject, when you codify unreality, I am AFRAID of a culture/legal system that embraces it.

      • Fishcicle

        Then there’s a lot to be afraid of in our country right now, and I don’t think much of anyone is exempt from blame.

    • Jim Walker

      Fishcicle, anything that doesn’t affect you is OK ? How caring of you.
      We also don’t care what 2 consenting males do in their bedroom but they are now promoting and branding and normalize it in front of your kids (which will affect your kids)and pushing their way to use the toilet of their choice (which will affect your spouse when a fake transgender lurks to assault women in their bathroom), yes we will draw the line to care for all.
      We don’t believe LGBTQ is inborn. Its nurtured and an endocrine disorder.

      • Fishcicle

        I would try to normalize it too if I’d been persecuted (like losing jobs, being maimed or killed) for being homosexual. It’s interesting to me that the modern conservative movement was growing at the same time as the gay liberation movement, and for the same reason. Both groups got their messages out and worked to pass legislation they favored. Both groups felt they were looked down on at the time. That’s the way we’re supposed to solve problems in this country.
        What’s your evidence for saying homosexuality is nurtured and an endocrine disorder? Maybe it is, but I’d like to see the evidence.

        • Shaquille Harvey

          What persecution? How they being persecuted now ?
          What evidence are they born that way ?

          • Have you ever bothered to ask them?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Ask them what ?

          • Fishcicle

            Apparently a lot of people here think same sex marriage is horrible. How would you feel if you weren’t allowed to marry the woman you loved? Evidence they were born that way is anecdotal, so doesn’t close the case, but a lot of people have said they always felt they were different, liked to wear girls clothes at an early age, didn’t like activities (like sports) boys usually like, etc.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. With marriage. Are you fine, with accounts of equal marriage as its called, for poly marriage such as polygamy and incestrous marriage? If not why not?
            2. So the whole of science and politics must Change as well as the general public to account for a small minority. People must celebrate it or else. Something that once was labelled a psychological condition and still is aswell as other conditions must be ignored?
            3. Just because someone is in the LGBT community or is an LGBT activist doesn’t mean it’s true, the question is is it?!

          • Fishcicle

            1. Incest is generally a bad idea, as I’m sure you know. Polygamy was okay in the Old Testament. Why did that change?
            2. We had a war about slavery, a “small” minority of people. Was that unnecessary? As far as I’m concerned, nobody has to celebrate LGBT. Respect would be sufficient, I think. Unless they’ve committed some other crime, why NOT ignore them?
            3. Just because someone is a conservative doesn’t mean their beliefs are true, does it (or liberal, for that matter)? Does that mean they should be persecuted or disrespected?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “1. Incest is generally a bad idea, as I’m sure you know. ”
            Okay, why? Why in your worldview is it wrong ? Or as a whole?

            “Polygamy was okay in the Old Testament. Why did that change? ”
            Please read;
            http://www.tektonics(dot)org/lp/polygamy(dot)php

            Please replace dot with real dot and remove brackets.

            “2. We had a war about slavery,”
            What has slavery got to do with this ?

            ” a “small” minority of people. Was that unnecessary? ”
            A small minority in the places like the US, yes( though greater and larger than the LGBT community as a whole)!
            1. What has race got to do with this or any of it ?
            2. As for “was that unnecessary”or necessary? People who wanted abolish slavery, did so because they based it on there being objective moral standard (natural law). These people also happened to be republicans and Christians.

            “As far as I’m concerned, nobody has to celebrate LGBT. ”
            That’s fine

            “Respect would be sufficient, I think. ”
            “Respect” ? What kind of respect ?
            If its of a general mutual nature, then it should be a two way streak.

            ‘Unless they’ve committed some other crime, why NOT ignore them?”
            As for ignore them . Many people Do as to also try get on with thier lives however when LGBT is being consistently pushed out into the general public and onto many people, people eventually get fed up.
            “3. Just because someone is a conservative doesn’t mean their beliefs are true, does it (or liberal, for that matter)? ”
            No, however it should be approached on wether or not it is absolute truth and if it is.

            “Does that mean they should be persecuted or disrespected?”
            Again what persecution?

          • Fishcicle

            1. As you may or may not have heard, incest often produces disabled children, as well as psychological problems.
            2. We had a war about slavery. Slaves were people who were being persecuted and taken advantage of. The same has been true of LGBT people, and neither group is fully accepted even now. A number of people still resent blacks and feel they’re being “pushed out into the general public”.
            3. What kind of respect do you enjoy? Is there a reason to deny that to LGBT people? Of course it should be a two-way street, but people are imperfect, as I suspect you know. If people hadn’t been respecting you, how would you respond?
            4. Do you know anyone who knows the absolute truth? We’re human beings. Our knowledge is inevitably limited. Have you decided you know the absolute truth?
            5. Again, threats to their well-being based on their orientation. Do you tolerate threats to your well-being based on anything at all?
            6. Your link to the article about polygamy didn’t say anything that greatly condemned polygamy. Muhammed’s caveat in Islam was that men were allowed as many as four wives as long as they could support them. When that’s overlooked, it’s courrpting, I think. Polygamy can be bad in practice, but so can monogamy.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “1. As you may or may not have heard, incest often produces disabled children, as well as psychological problems. ”
            1. Who said incest marriages had to have children?
            2. By what objective moral standard are you basing this on on to say it is objectively wrong?
            3. And by all this do you not think it will be different with all other households compared to traditional family households especially considering a child needs not their real parents to be parents and a child needs both their real moms and dads ? That nothing will replace that ?
            4.Many single parent families have various issues and problems that affects the household compared to married man and women family households. Is this wrong ?
            5.similarly with gay orientative households compared to married man and women family households. Especially when the child needs both their real parents moms and dads.
            6.are you fine then polygamy or poly styled marraiges then ?

            “2. We had a war about slavery. Slaves were people who were being persecuted and taken advantage of. ”
            I agree. However on the basis of what objective morality or moral standard can you say this or any is wrong is the question, may I ask?
            (Please note slavery in many parts of the world today still thrives)

            “The same has been true of LGBT people,”
            How ?
            Also you do realise many African Americans and many others would deeply take offence of that statement!
            How are the two comparable?

            ” and neither group is fully accepted even now. ”
            How and where ?

            “A number of people still resent blacks and feel they’re being “pushed out into the general public”. ”
            What facts and statistics are you basing this on as a whole ?
            Especially with things such as the civil rights movement already passed and racism taught as something morally wrong.
            However I possibly will agree with you if you are taking about certain issues that are going on in the African American but many of those things have a lot to do with many various social, family economic etc factors that contribute as a whole than possibly something simple as just racism .

            “3. What kind of respect do you enjoy? Is there a reason to deny that to LGBT people? Of course it should be a two-way street, but people are imperfect, as I suspect you know. If people hadn’t been respecting you, how would you respond?”
            Respect ? What do mean here ?
            I’m fine with respect as whole, that’s okay and fine however there’s respect and then there’s certain people demanding that society celebrate and laud over for something which many don’t want or wish too and something with which people might find against thier will and moral consciousness or sinful

            “4. Do you know anyone who knows the absolute truth? We’re human beings. Our knowledge is inevitably limited. Have you decided you know t he absolute truth?”
            Okay !?!
            Then may I ask here is that true ? Is that a statement of truth ? Is anything you said here wether it’s respect, slavery or even the statement above on incest true ? At all ?

            “5. Again, threats to their well-being based on their orientation. Do you tolerate threats to your well-being based on anything at all?”
            What threats to their wellbeing, what would that be ?

            “6. Your link to the article about polygamy didn’t say anything that greatly condemned polygamy. Muhammed’s caveat in Islam was that men were allowed as many as four wives as long as they could support them. When that’s overlooked, it’s courrpting, I think. Polygamy can be bad in practice, but so can monogamy.”
            1.perhaps this will be also of use;

            Or watch this video;

            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?list=PLB651B36E9A90FEF4&v=Lo6E4IjdJJc

            By the way if you have any concerns or comments do respond here to address further and not me!

            jphold@att.net

            I’m sure he will be glad to address them!
            (Please replace dot with real dot and remove brackets)

            2. What has Islam got to do with this and to do with marriage in Christendom? Christians theological view on marraige are that;
            “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,a 8and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.””
            (Mark 10:6-9)
            (Ps there maybe/is some question looking into Islam sources as to wether or not it is true but the point still stands)
            3. If that is true for monogamy then why is it important for anyone to get married? Why is and was it important of same sex marriage? And if the case of monogamy why condemn incestrous marriage?
            4. As for your on polygamy may I ask are you for it ? Are you fine polygamous marraige or poly style marriages?

          • Fishcicle

            That many of them say they always felt different. When I got to puberty I found myself attracted to girls, and had no feeling that I had any choice in the matter. Is your experience different? LGBT people may not be persecuted the way they once were, and I’m sure would like to keep it that way. I would, in their position. Would you feel different it you had once been persecuted?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “That many of them say they always felt different. When I got to puberty I found myself attracted to girls, and had no feeling that I had any choice in the matter. Is your experience different?”
            So ? How does this prove they are “born that way” ?
            If the case, does that mean paedophiles are also “born that way” because they say they “always felt different” ? Do they have a choice in how they feel ?

            ” LGBT people may not be
            persecuted the way they once were, and I’m sure would like to keep it that way. I would, in their position. Would you feel different it you had once been persecuted?”
            “Persecution” ? What do you mean by that ?
            Please note many people are being persecuted right now (beyond the LGBT scope) .
            If you mean by killing, the LGBT, then no I as well as others are not wanting or inclinating for that.

          • Fishcicle

            How caring of you not to want to kill LGBT people. By persecution I mean people threatening you with, and sometimes attacking you with violence, or taking away your ability to make a living. Do you approve of persecution? I don’t.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “How caring of you not to want to kill LGBT people. By persecution I mean people threatening you with, and sometimes attacking you with violence, ”
            When did I state or insinuate violence, of any kind, ?
            When did I ask to threaten?

            “or taking away your ability to make a living.”
            What living ?
            (Also noting how businesses and people are being under certain circumstances where they are being sued or or taken to court for not doing something and being forced to partake in ceremonies that goes against thier conscience, morality and will.)

            “Do you approve of persecution? I don’t.”
            All I asked was what you meant by “persecution “? If you mean by the actual definition, then either again no!
            Please note there are many places right now across the world, where to answer your previous question, where Christians are being killed and facing persecution.

          • Fishcicle

            I’m not accusing you of threatening persecution of anyone. I’m stating that LGBT people have been subject to persecution because of their sexual orientation, just as the Christians you mention are being subjected to it now because of their beliefs.
            What living? How would you feel about someone taking away your job because of your beliefs, sexual orientation, or anything else not related to your job performance? Or did you think LGBT people don’t have to work for a living?
            I think you provided about the same definition of persecution that I did in your comment about Christians being persecuted.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “I’m not accusing you of threatening persecution of anyone. I’m stating that LGBT people have been subject to persecution because of their sexual orientation, just as the Christians you mention are being subjected to it now because of their beliefs. ”
            Okay fine, but where are the LGBT people now, in the western world, being persecuted for their sexual orientation ?

            “What living? How would you feel about someone taking away your job because of your beliefs, sexual orientation, or anything else not related to your job performance?”
            Okay again fine but;
            1. May I ask where are the those who are in LGBT loosing thier jobs or on the line ?
            2. There people here who are or who’s jobs are on the line or in jeopardy for their beliefs.

            ” Or did you think LGBT people don’t have to work for a living?
            I think you provided about the same definition of persecution that I did in your comment about Christians being persecuted.”
            When did I say LGBT people should not work ? I did not. All I stated is Christians and alike should be allowed to freely practice and express thier worldview and beliefs in thier daily lives without disturbance. That does not mean Christians are going to or wanting to ,by definition, persecute those who are LGBT. Nor should they. However nor should Christians and alike be forced to not practice thier religion or worldview freely, nor should they be forced to do or coerce with things, events, ceremonies etc that goes against thier worldview or conscience.
            As for your last statement I was merely asking what it is you ment by persecution.

          • Fishcicle

            LGBT people used to lose jobs because of their orientation. It was a great risk for them to come out and be honest about who they were. If I were LGBT I would want to be sure those days weren’t coming back. Exactly how should Christians be allowed to express their beliefs in daily life? By not serving LGBT people? That’s how many white people treated blacks whom they (more or less sincerely) believed to be inferior. Are those the people you want to use as role models? I think it’s persecution to have one’s job taken away for any reason besides competence. It’s also persecution to be imprisoned unjustly, maimed or killed for reasons that aren’t crimes. It used to be considered a crime to be black, even though that wasn’t expressed explicitly in the law. Same with gay people, except that sometimes it was. I think I’ll follow Jesus’s lead on this one, and disregard the Old Testament. You remember how often he talked about homosexuality.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Part 1
            “LGBT people used to lose jobs because of their orientation. It was a great risk for them to come out and be honest about who they were. ”
            Okay but where are LGBT people loosing their jobs now ? What risk about coming out ?

            “If I were LGBT I would want to be sure those days weren’t coming back. ”
            What days coming back ?

            “Exactly how should Christians be allowed to express their beliefs in daily life? ”
            By allowing Christians to follow thier beliefs and practices

          • Fishcicle

            I don’t know that gay people are currently losing jobs because of their orientation, but there’s enough talk about their sinfulness to make me wonder. Talking about them as sinners sounds to me just a step away from refusing to allow them good jobs if they’re honest about who they are. “Whatsoever you do to these my brothers and sisters, you do to me.” Is that what most Christians practice? There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian proposing to mistreat people who they dislike. The Dominionists, for example, want to take everyone else’s rights away to practice religion as they see fit. This goes along with some people who claim Christians are being persecuted in this country when what they’re REALLY complaining about not getting to tell everyone what to do. It’s not the same as in the Middle East, where being open about being Christian can get you killed.
            To take a longer perspective, racism is a fairly recent thing. In the ancient world ANYONE could be a slave, and it wasn’t associated with any particular color. The same is true of acceptance of homosexuality. Not all cultures shunned it or persecuted people for their orientation. The reason for the prohibition in the Old Testament is probably because some pagan religions incorporated it in their rituals. Personally, I think that, as sins go, there are some that are much worse, like cruelty in general, and persecution of people for not believing what they’re supposed to believe. There are some people who really like to tell others what to do, and some of them call themselves Christians. I think they’re the ones who say that liberals are anti-God, etc, when there are always elements of societies more or less liberal and conservative. Those who like to tell everyone what to do I think are the ones who are unChristian. They might as well be Hitler and Stalin. Their beliefs may be different, but their behaviors are very similar.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “I don’t know that gay people are currently losing jobs because of their orientation, but there’s enough talk about their sinfulness to make me wonder. Talking about them as sinners sounds to me just a step away from refusing to allow them good jobs if they’re honest about who they are. ”
            Where and how, is this happening?

            “”Whatsoever you do to these my brothers and sisters, you do to me.” Is that what most Christians practice? ”
            Yes however there is a difference between being charitable and caring of ones fellow brothers and sisters and allowing and celebrating that of the nature of sin.

            “There are a lot of people who claim to be Christian proposing to mistreat people who they dislike. ”
            I agree there are and they bring disgrace to christs name

            “The Dominionists, for example, want to take everyone else’s rights away to practice religion as they see fit.”
            While I can’t speak much on the dominionists though there are some who do perhaps want Christianity as possibly core basis of the government however most Christians in the country are not interested in establishing a theocracy, which would be hard to do in the US anyways, what most want is a society that is based on law and ethics with the right to practice thier faith. Most Christians especially on the right as in the right in general are interested in less government, which would not aid a theocratic governing body.
            .
            “To take a longer perspective, racism is a fairly recent thing. In the ancient world ANYONE could be a slave, and it wasn’t associated with any particular color. The same is true of acceptance of homosexuality. Not all cultures shunned it or persecuted people for their orientation. The reason for the prohibition in the Old Testament is probably because some pagan religions incorporated it in their rituals. ”
            For racism and slavery there is somewhat truth to this statement however for homosexuality this not quite true. Many ancient cultures, nations, groups etc worked on what’s called a shame and honour basis, in fact many still do today. Something like homosexuality would have been viewed as something dishonourable and anti social so no it would not have acceptable. As for the Old Testament rejecting it because of pagan rituals!? I have no indication of this. Please note it is also seen as a sin in the New Testament as well.

            “Personally, I think that, as sins go, there are some that are much worse, like cruelty in general, and persecution of people for not believing what they’re supposed to believe. ”
            As sins go there is possibly a hierarchy of sins however a sin is still a sin, especially as Christians that sin leads them away from Christ. As for the second statement I’m not sure here?!

            “This goes along with some people who claim Christians are being persecuted in this country when what they’re REALLY complaining about not getting to tell everyone what to do. It’s not the same as in the Middle East, where being open about being Christian can get you killed
            There are some people who really like to tell others what to do, and some of them call themselves Christians. I think they’re the ones who say that liberals are anti-God, etc, when there are always elements of societies more or less liberal and conservative. Those who like to tell everyone what to do I think are the ones who are unChristian. They might as well be Hitler and Stalin. Their beliefs may be different, but their behaviors are very similar”
            as for not telling people what to do and feeling persecuted this quite a false generalisation. Though as I stated there are certain people who do behaviour like this, though it is not Christ like however this is a vague reference especially when considering Christians in the US are coming frequent under being sued, jobs on the line, being told to accept and celebrate certain things they as a faith do not agree with and when many faiths are at many times exempt. You’re right in that Christian persecution is far worse in the Middle East however you have to consider what stops the US from becoming like them, Americas freedom of religion and Americas judaeo-Christian history. However as for telling people what to do this can also be thrown back at liberals especially under a current political system where many who disagree call you intolerant as well as “hate speech “. I agree with your statement on unchristian as well as the hitler and Stalin statement though I will state not on an extreme level.

          • Fishcicle

            Yes, there are people who call liberals intolerant, though I think many of them simply dislike being called out on hate speech. But if you’re a minority, liberals will defend you before conservatives will. Many Christians who dislike blacks and homosexuals do so because they’re minorities who don’t look like them. Southerners objected in the 1950s and 60s because they were asked to provide equal services to black people, which they didn’t believe in doing. They considered them sinful by nature. They didn’t believe in equal protection under the law for blacks or homosexuals, and still don’t. Either group was subject to losing jobs and even their lives if anyone was offended by them.I don’t want to see those days come back, and don’t think that behavior is defensible. You may disagree. Another person in this conversation noted that many of the Old Testament prohibitions were to differentiate the Israelites from pagans. I think homosexuality may have been on that basis too, but that’s the one Christians take personally. I don’t hear any of them denouncing eating pork or shellfish. Maybe some other societies in the ancient world were also against homosexuality. The Greeks and Romans weren’t, and it used to be much more accepted in Europe in the past too. As is fairly often said, if you don’t like homosexuality, don’t practice it. The beams in our own eyes are supposed to outweigh the motes in the eyes of other people.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “Yes, there are people who call liberals intolerant, though I think many of them simply dislike being called out on hate speech.”
            Please note the term “hate speech” has come from and been derived from those only on the left. No other group fully acknowledges this term. Yes the left can be intolerant especially on views that differ from their own.

            “But if you’re a minority, liberals will defend you before conservatives will. ”
            Since when, and what constitutes as a minority especially one that will be defended by the left ?

            “Many Christians who dislike blacks and homosexuals do so because they’re minorities who don’t look like them. ”
            Which “Christians” are those ?

            “Southerners objected in the 1950s and 60s because they were asked to provide equal services to black people, which they didn’t believe in doing.”
            Not quite. Prior to the civil rights act segregation between blacks and whites was the, unfortunate, law especially in the south under Jim Crow. Blacks were regulated to be in certain areas, have certain jobs and be amongst their own people. To state any of this is something that the LGBT community is or has to face especially now when talking about the certain businesses is fallacious. To start there is no law that segregates straights and the LGBT and these said businesses are not turning away or refusing service simply for being gay. In fact many of these said businesses have served gays before and as regular customers, what stopped however was the regard to the certain ceremonies that they now had to cater too that they felt would of jeopardise their religious convictions.

            “They considered them sinful by nature.”
            True some did believe that but by what biblical evidence did they have to back this up ?

            “They didn’t believe in equal protection under the law for blacks or homosexuals, and still don’t. ”
            This is a false Generalisation, while its true racism did and does occur it can happen anywhere and does on the planet. It is also false just because something happened in the past to a group does not mean that the whole group or people or area is still under that idea or same notion. Please note what evidence do you have for this or is it an assertion?

            “Either group was subject to losing jobs and even their lives if anyone was offended by them.”
            Not quite. Again as stated above black and whites were segregated, and yes while its was true that blacks lives suffered especially to groups like the KKK, and abhorrent this was and such as a whole, when it came to jobs blacks under Jim Crow were permitted for certain jobs that was readily available. I disagree with all of this, though it was state mandated at that time period, I must ask when is such as this happening now ?
            (Please especially note that much of this was done and implemented by the Democratic Party)

            “I don’t want to see those days come back, and don’t think that behaviour is defensible. You may disagree. ”
            1. I don’t wish for those days to come back either as they were wrong however it is just as wrong to compare skin colour/ethnicity to something like sexuality especially when taking into account the historicity of both.
            2. Why would I disagree and think their behaviour is defensible ?

            “Another person in this conversation noted that many of the Old Testament prohibitions were to differentiate the Israelites from pagans.”
            This is some what true in a sense but not the whole truth.

            “I think homosexuality may have been on that basis too, but that’s the one Christians take personally. ”
            Really how ? Especially considering that fact homosexuality is condemned and considered a sin in both the old and new testaments.

            “I don’t hear any of them denouncing eating pork or shellfish. ”
            Your conflating the laws of the Old Testament. The laws were differentiated and were under the following law groups. These law groups were the ceremonial, social and moral laws. Some of these laws aren’t necessary needed to be followed by Christians under the New Testament/covenant.
            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI
            (Please replace dot with dot and remove brackets)

            “Maybe some other societies in the ancient world were also against homosexuality. The Greeks and Romans weren’t, ”
            This is not true. Many ancient societies as is still today were based on a shame and honour oriented cultural basis that which also included the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Something like homosexuality would of been seen as something shameful, as it was seen as something antisocial and against the family household unit which was seen as highly honoured and dependent as a whole.

            “and it used to be much more accepted in Europe in the past too. ”
            While again not true but if speaking of certain scenarios then may I ask, what of pedophilia then and ancient temple prostitution/sex ?

            “As is fairly often said, if you don’t like homosexuality, don’t practice it.”
            I don’t understand the gist of this statement especially in light of what is happening in society however this can be thrown back at itself by stating ; if you don’t like Christianity, don’t practice it.

            “The beams in our own eyes are supposed to outweigh the motes in the eyes of other people.”
            I am not sure what you mean here ?

          • Fishcicle

            1, You don’t need to call it hate speech. Conservatives also like to criticize liberals for saying things THEY don’t like. I heard an example a couple of years ago on the Bill O’Reilly show, when he criticized a cartoon in a college paper for portraying Republicans as ISIS. Not very flattering, but neither are the things conservatives often say about liberals.
            2. Bill Russell, the famous basketball player, in a memoir entitled Second Wind, told how he was once involved with a black woman who ran with criminals. They considered him naive, but interesting too, because they had to put up with police abusing them in order to continue their criminal behavior. Her friends found Russell interesting because he wouldn’t allow the police to abuse him. That’s how the gay rights movement started. A bar called Stonewall was raided, the police tried to abuse the patrons, and the patrons resisted. Liberals supported them in believing they shouldn’t, as American citizens, have to tolerate such behavior.
            3. Baptists are one denomination that boycotted Disney World for the unofficial Gay Days that happened there. A number of Christian pastors (I think a minority, thankfully) were happy about the massacre at the gay nightclub in Orlando some years ago.
            4. Ham was considered by some to be the progenitor of black people, and he was supposedly cursed because he observed his father’s nakedness and didn’t cover him, as Shem and Japheth did.
            5.Blacks continue to be over-represented in prisons and to have much less wealth in general than whites. In 2009 in an area in Minnesota 9 teens committed suicide and many more tried after being bullied for being gay. This was in Michele Bachman’s district during her term in Congress.
            6. Christianity didn’t just condemn homosexuality. “It is better to marry than to burn” is hardly a ringing endorsement of sexuality in general. Absolute chastity was an ideal in the early church especially. It could be argued that this made early Christians mean. Promiscuity causes problems, but so does too much abstention.
            7. Paul said it wasn’t necessary to follow every prohibition of the law. I thought you said Jesus disagreed.
            8. We no longer have temple prostitution, so I think that point is moot. Pedophilia is the main form of sexuality I think can’t be tolerated since children are unable to consent. Adults always have more power. Jesus’s injunction against lusting after anyone to whom we’re not married is an example of an impossible commandment in the absence of transformation. Belief isn’t enough in that case.
            9. Ancient Greeks in particular, and ancient Romans too, did accept homosexuality. The city of Thebes put together the Sacred Band, which was an army composed of men with their male lovers. They became the dominant military power in Greece after the Spartan army lost its edge until the army of Philip II and Alexander the Great of Macedonia defeated them. Philip and Alexander were both bisexual. Julius Caesar was said to be “every woman’s husband and every man’s wife”.
            10. A number of people don’t like Christianity these days,, and some of that I think can be blamed on some very vocal Christians being fanatical and intolerant. An example is the problem about bathrooms for transgender people. How is anyone to tell what their original gender was? And how many people claiming to be transgender have actually raped anyone?
            11. We’re supposed to concern ourselves with our own sins first. In the case of homosexuality, I think it’s hard to make a case that homosexuals damage society worse than heterosexuals do.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1.
            Yes but there is a difference between hate speech and critiquing what someone stated and or making wrong caricatures or ad hominem attacks against those who differ from you. When Critiquing, you see if someone’s agreements hold up, that they try to be logical, objective, hold with true ethics, and are in line with the truth as a whole. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy that tries to smear or even create a false image of the person’s opponent rather than logically deal with what they stated. Now as for hate speech, hate speech is a phrase used and derives from the left. It is supposed to be a coined term along with the phrase hate crime. However hate crime is by definition;”a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence ” hate speech tries to follow in league but instead of crimes its speech. That said hate speech is used as a means and way to silence any speech that a person(s) finds offensive or does not like but this term seems to have a certain list that would stated as a speech as is commonly used by a certain group of people. In short looking at hate speech in it’s entirety is very anti first amendment.
            2.
            I’m not sure what you referencing when you talked about Bill Russell.

            As for stonewall, while I don’t agree with violence or abuse. That said however when looking into it stonewall, it looks as if it was not something that was peaceful or a completely gracious cause. When looking at it, it does appear to be a kind of Selma march.
            3. I would need to look into the gay days situation as I am not well acquainted with the issue. As for the gay nightclub attack in Orlando, you state there were some Christians who cheered the attack, well this must of been minor as most I know and read had deep sorrow for the attack. They were praying or sending condolences to the victims and their families or they were helping out or gathered at the scene. However though speaking of the nightclub attack even though many thought this was a tragedy there were people who still pointed the blame or made accountable gun associations, conservatives and Christians, even though this group had nothing to do with the attack.
            4. For this perhaps watch this as it deals into some of the slave and abolitionists arguments
            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=RNT33vjLSxk

            ( replace dot with real dot and remove brackets. Also start watching around part 16 If not all the vids parts)

            5.
            Blacks continue to go to prison in high numbers due to the fact that black Americans are committing more crimes than most groups;
            https://www(dot)bjs(dot)gov/index(dot)cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31
            As for poverty, much like the crime both ha numerous factors contributing to it such as high single mother households, to the welfare state to bad role models etc. Well much of this wrong it is no excuse for doing crimes or blame racism especially if it is questionable.

            As for Michele Bachmann are you accusing bachman of bullying gay teens?
            6. “Christianity didn’t just condemn homosexuality.
            “It is better to marry than to burn” is hardly a ringing endorsement of sexuality in general. ”
            While I’m not 100% sure what you’re getting at but I will say for homosexuality perhaps try; 1 Titus 1:8-11, 1 Corinthians 6:8-11 etc.

            As for 1 Corinthians 7:9 try;

            http://www(dot)tektonics(dot)org/uz/1cor7(dot)php

            “Absolute chastity was an ideal in the early church especially. It could be argued that this made early Christians mean. Promiscuity causes problems, but so does too much abstention. ”
            While chastity was seen as virtue and did occur amongst many Christians then,not everyone had to apply to this rule. It was seen as something honourable and was a vow to which you give up yourself and your sexual life as a commitment to follow the Lord, as well as finding a deeper spiritual path and possibly following in the footsteps of Christ Jesus( please note this is still something that is done today). While it was done I cannot see how it made Christians mean though or how it was bad thing ? I do agree however that promiscuity is something not virtuous.

            “7. Paul said it wasn’t necessary to follow every prohibition of the law. I thought you said Jesus disagreed. ”
            I’m not sure what you are talking about here but perhaps theses videos will help

            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI

            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=M_QACgqKtT8

            8. And 9.
            First I do wish to know and ask what is your sources for this otherwise as I stated before even if this was the full case it would not change the fact that Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were both honour and shame based societies. Something like homosexuality would still be seen as something dishonourable, even if if there were cases, is still would not be treated as the norm. As I also stated, if you want to account of homosexuality then, then you have to also account for the pedophilic and temple prostitution too regardless. Please note things like temple prostitution became moot or outlawed because of the fact that their practices were at odds against Christianity and something as prostitution was seen and still seen as a sin.
            “Jesus’s injunction against lusting after anyone to whom we’re not married is an example of an impossible commandment in the absence of transformation. Belief isn’t enough in that case.”
            Again I am not sure what it is you’re getting at here !?

            10.

            For this here;
            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=rUY5YXjSr20
            As for Christians being fanatical, it’s funny you state this considering that while there are many Christians in the country Christians religious liberty is constantly being encroached upon and undermined , even though Christians have right to freely express their faith as protected by the constitution. Yet the bathroom issue was done specifically to cater to a population that is less than % and in return undermines other people’s liberty. This bill was designed specifically to combat that and give help those who’s convictions undermined, help religious freedom and others have more power and say. Do you know it’s funny for population that is a minority the LGBT has a loud voice that screams ever so loudly and is placed just about any where wether it be the media, government or various other institutions.

            11. “We’re supposed to concern ourselves with our own sins first.”
            That’s true in a sense but we are also supposed to teach the repentance and remisdion of sins

            ” In the case of homosexuality, I think it’s hard to make a case that homosexuals damage society worse than heterosexuals do.”
            If you’re comparing homosexuality to heterosexual you’re comparing apples to oranges here. You’re comparing heterosexual which has a large majority, which would mean a high percentage of whatever the case, to a minority something as homosexuality so figures will be different. Also I do not condone anything immoral that heterosexuals may do. That said however for a small minority homosexuals/homosexuality sure seems to push itself out into the public sector and to the various medias.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “Exactly how should Christians be allowed to express their beliefs in daily life? ”
            By allowing Christians to follow thier beliefs and practices

            “By not serving LGBT people? That’s how many white people treated blacks whom they (more or less sincerely) believed to be inferior. Are those the people you want to use as role models?”
            This is an ignorant statement.
            1. When Christians, and why Christians, are refusing to not provide services in the past recently, had nothing to do just with simply them being gay or refusing to serve them because thier gay. In fact many of these Christian businesses, that refused to provide services, had previously served gay people. Some of them were even regular customers whom the owners had both known for years and known they were gay as well, as well as the gay customers knew as well the faiths of the owners also the fact something of ghis nature i.e. Same sex marriage had never been pushed before onto the business. What stopped however was these Christians businesses refused to provide services rather due to the fact that they were now inclined to provide services for a gay wedding, something which they did not as Christians wish to partake in and they had not been asked or been put into this particular position before .

          • Fishcicle

            How would they feel if they were selling guns and sold one to someone who used it to murder someone? Would they feel responsibility for that?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            P.3
            The differences comes in with the first being that Christians and Christian businesses can provide for anyone including gay people and not feel conviction over they Christian faith and principles. As under Christian theology, even though homosexuality is a sin, providing a service which simply provides something as you would for any other customer and help them but not celebrate the or thier sin is not forbidden. As, under Christian theology, homosexuals like the rest of us are sinners and in need of a saviour. The second however now inclined the Christian to partake and provide in a particular ceremony, of is celebrating and encouraging something with which Christendom calls a sin. This why Christians would refuse to provide for as they would now be encouraging and endorsing a certain ceremony which would go against thier convictions.
            (Also “role models “)

          • Fishcicle

            Just as white people used to consider people sinful just for being black.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            True there was certain white people who did consider that statement however there was also certain white people and black people (both of many of whom were Christians) who argued and counted that argument. Arguing where in bible it stated this etc.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            P-4

            ” I think it’s persecution to have one’s job taken away for any reason besides competence. It’s also persecution to be imprisoned unjustly, maimed or killed for reasons that aren’t crimes. ”
            Okay but where now, especially in the western world is this happening now ?
            “It used to be considered a crime to be black, even though that wasn’t expressed explicitly in the law. Same with gay people, except that sometimes it was.”
            What !?
            This another ignorant statement again. While It is true blacks in the past have faced discrimination however;
            1. Blacks have always had the right to get married before that had never changed.
            2. Many people especially those in the black community would find
            That statement as something offensive. As they would find you are trying to downgrade and derogate the or thier past especially with things that as a group they had to live through also,
            3.You are comparing two different situations in history of which have thier backgrounds of what happened and circumstances. Though I as others will not agree to things that had happened, to conflate them as the same is as you also trying to indistinguish skin colour/ethnicity as the same as sexuality which they not. You are also conflating a history of a group which has a complex and also please note many groups, cultures and nations etc around the world would not find something like homosexuality or alike acceptable even today .

          • Fishcicle

            Black people were discriminated against for reasons that weren’t their fault. I think the situation with gay people is similar, though you have the right to disagree.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “Black people were discriminated against for reasons that weren’t their fault. ”
            That is true and from an objective moral standard perspective it was immoral.

            “I think the situation with gay people is similar, ”
            Again how ? You are comparing ethnicity/skin colour to something as an orientation, which has had different historical situations which also again many people including black people would find offensive.
            To also note many nations around the world back then and to this day would not accept things like homosexuality many of which are predominantly black nations and would deeply disagree, especially when historically speaking things like ethnicity/skin colour were known about throughout where as sexual orientation was not considered nor would it been treated honorary.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            P-5
            ” I think I’ll follow Jesus’s lead on this one, and disregard the Old Testament. ”
            And this is an ignorant approach regarding Christian theology and especially Jesus whom both himself as well as the New Testament authors constantly both regard and quote frequently from the Old Testament , which by the way was not called that but ” the scriptures” or “the Law, the Prophets and the Writings(the TaNaKh in Hebrew).”
            Things like Isaiah, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Daniel etc especially considering Jesus uses them to allude to his teachings and to himself.

  • Az1seeit

    Point 4 ends the discussion: marriage as defined is the union of a man and a woman. That makes the term “same sex marriage” an oxymoron. Just as water requires H2O…any other combination is not water. This is what is known as reality.

    Since we are all one race…human…there’s not even any such thing as “interacial” marriage. But, even if I accept the commonly held social construct of different human races, IRM still involved men and women, did not preclude the definition of marriage and is in no way even a social/cultural equivalent to SSM.

  • Fishcicle

    ARE they very much nurtured? If they are, that’s a very recent thing. Have you heard of Stonewall? That was a gay bar, and became the place where the gay liberation movement started because patrons fought back against repeated police harassment there, harassment that was frequent in the general culture. Have you been repeatedly harassed? How would you feel about it if you were? The family problems you describe apply to a lot of people. Dysfunctional families cause a lot of misery, whether gender confusion or other. Refusal of parents to accept what their children are is also unhelpful, whether it applies to sexual orientation or other problems.

    • Jim Walker

      To me being LGBT is Gender Dysphoria, a mental issue.
      I’m disgusted by the harassment then and now.
      I’m bullied pretty much during my school days because I’ve a mental condition that disallow me to participate in any sports thereby a “weakling”. So does that count?
      Dysfunctional families etc can affect a kid’s orientation not all of them, but some. However, I blame the parents for not taking action to support their children to reinforce their gender. The signs are obvious. Close relationship between parents and kids build their confidence to share their thoughts and intimate issues. My kids share with me and my wife theirs. We made sure to give them a trusting and secure environment. During my time, my friends gave me the worst advice. I’m glad my “orientation” fade away after my hormonal imbalance phase.
      I accepted God before I was married so that helped me with parenting using His ways.
      Hope this answer some of your queries.

      • Fishcicle

        I’m sorry to hear that you were bullied. I don’t think there’s any reason to condone bullying. One of my friends told me about his brother, who was gay. Their father paid for treatment for him that turned out to be ineffective and not much different from torture. My view of God is that he doesn’t want us to persecute each other (bullying included). I know the Old Testament condemns homosexuality, but I think it’s notable that Jesus never said anything about it. I think that’s probably significant.

        • Jim Walker

          Secular Treatment do work in certain degree but homosexuality needs more than just mental/physical treatment. It’s also a bondage and the spiritual forces are behind it once the person becomes orientated; pretty much submission to another sin.
          Secular treatment may remove the symptoms but not the sin. Therefore we must involve God a lot.
          The Bible is not just about what Jesus didn’t say. Do the verses from Paul not hold water? Verses like Romans 1:26-28? Are these not God inspired truths and wisdom?
          Jesus did say he comes to “Fulfill” the Law and not abolish. Pretty much covered all that God forbids. Homosexual sins are sexual sins together with heterosexual ones.
          We can say it’s not a sin.
          Hope your friend’s brother seek help from God and be strong and patient.

          • Fishcicle

            So are you circumcised? Do you eat pork or shellfish? I think you’re also not allowed to wear garments with two kinds of fabric in them. There are probably other prohibitions I don’t know about.

          • Jim Walker

            Fishcicle, Old Testament laws on eating pork, shellfish or wearing clothes with 2 kinds of fabric are under the mosaic laws to forbid Jews from being like the idolators aka gentiles, in other words these laws are to sanctify them, i.e. Set the Jews apart from the gentiles.
            When Jesus died for our sins once and for all, we are sanctified by the blood of Jesus and having the Holy Spirit living in us.
            If you found other laws I’d like to help explain whenever I can.

Inspiration
St. Paul Takes a Knee
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us